General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt is not defending Chick-fil-a to say that it is a problem when governments use litmus tests to
decide which business can or can't open up in their cities. Imagine if say Nikki Haley had this power for South Carolina, does anyone seriously think she wouldn't use it to ban say pro union businesses, or pro choice owners. Maybe you want to give this power to Sarah Palin or Sam Brownback. See that is what happens when you decide that public official x should have a particular power, public official y also gets that very same power. You can't give Rahm Emmanuel the power to shut down Chick-fil-a without giving Nikki Haley the power to shut down Amazon or KFC or any other business she may not like. The fact is the mayors of Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago were just plain wrong when they stated that because they disagreed with the views and donations of the CEO of a company they were going to ban it from their respective cities. The first amendment is there to protect the vulnerable and the unpopular which gays and lesbians still are in many places in the country. Of all people, we should know better.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FreeState
(10,570 posts)Halfway houses, pharmacies, restaurants, gas stations, churches, adult book stores, dance clubs, coffee houses etc? Those are all regulated with zoning laws here in San Diego. Why would it be against the law to have zoning laws that say no business can operate in the city center that do not have a non-discrimination policy towards gays, or that no business can operate in a zone of the city that donates to organizations that work to take away civil rights of any group?
dsc
(52,155 posts)and frankly cities should have, no business that discriminates being able to have their business but on the second part that is beyond what can reasonably be considered a zoning issue. Again, if you give this power to Chicago you give it to Midland and Oddessa. Somehow I think those cities would be targeting companies that give to planned parenthood.
FreeState
(10,570 posts)One of the basic uses of zoning laws has been to preserve the nature of the neighborhood. It could be possible in my opinion to keep out businesses that don't conform to current standards that make up the neighborhood - depending, of course, on the ability to prove it's a current standard and one the area wishes to keep.
Im sure that the same argument could, and is, used by those wishing to keep abortion clinics or women's health clinics out of certain areas.
Edit to add its also very likely they could work around it by saying the area is for business that offer services 7 days a week
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Lets say an area is very conservative, and they want to pass an ordinance banning gay friendly businesses, and stop a Ben and Jerry's from opening. Would you say that this is their right or would you be pissed off?
I'm fine with an ordinance that says no strip clubs, or even bans a specific type of business, but if zoning allows fast food, than I think any fast food should be allowed. Feel free to boycott the business, and maybe they will go under, but I don't think the government should be deciding what views are acceptable and what views are not.
Like it or not, a business owner has a right to free speech, and the government should not penalize somebody for their speech (Just as a conservative town should not have the right to punish ben and Jerry's for their speech.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)banning businesses that operate outside the laws of a city. Being "Gay-friendly" is not against the law ... yet.
Despite the libertarian argument, this is NOT a "free speech" issue.
A banning could not stand, if it is based on be established based on what a business owner has said; but rather what a business owner does. We have no free speech right to violate the law.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)to punish speech is not something we should take lightly.
The mayors of Chicago and Boston went way overboard with their ill-conceived statements and were forced to backtrack almost immediately. It's bad enough that local officials use the power of regulation, licensing and zoning to benefit their politically-connected cronies.
I had a car rental business for a few years. Are you suggesting that I should have been shut down for closing on Sundays? Or are you simply in favor of selective enforcement?
You wanna try that 7-day requirement in Williamsburg or the Lower East Side?
Igel
(35,296 posts)The first regulates type of business. They're all commonly zoned for or against.
The second is against allowing a business with certain policies. Chik-fil-As are franchises. It's likely that many or most would have no problem with a non-discrimination policy. You confuse the founder with the franchise owners. They really are different people--one's an old man from the South, the others are several thousand men and women of varying ages and ethnicities. Typically, however, you need to have the group be one that's somehow deemed a class. Courts and government tend to define classes.
The last is a matter of free speech. You may not like free speech when it says something you don't like, but it's a question as to what it means to "take away the civil rights of any group." You have to outsource what "civil rights" means to a specific group or government agency, and then say that that definition controls what can and can't be said.
You might quibble that money isn't speech, but look at DU. If Romney has more campaign money than Obama, what's the problem? Money's not speech. Well, we know that Romney might then outspend Obama in advertising. So we call for people to donate. Not because it would be really embarrassing if Obama raised less cash. But because we know that money = campaign financing = speech. (We flip and flop like an alewife in a dinghy when we talk about whether that kind of speech matters. But that's a different topic.)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)governments have no business banning their operations, other than for legitimate reasons like zoning. If Chick-Fil-A is discriminating against GLBT emplohees (or any group of employees, for that matter), they certainly deserve the civil lawsuit that's coming their way. But lots of businesses have been hit with discrimination lawsuits and they're not being foced to move or banned from doing business in certain cities.
I've never eaten at Chick-Fil-A. I was aware that the owners were devout Christians (which is why they're not open on Sundays) but until recently I had no idea about their support of anti-gay organizations. I don't intend to ever set foot in the place -- I'd rather go hungry than give them my money. While a applaud the mayors of Boston and Chicago for taking highly public stands and rebuking Chick-Fil-A's behavior, that's as far as they should go.
Let the "Invisible Hand" of the marketplace (i.e., boycotts and bad publicity) deal with them.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)That is covered by state law. Any company that discriminates in employment, or that refused to provide products or services to people based on their sexual orientation, would be in deep yogurt without a spoon.
...or that no business can operate in a zone of the city that donates to organizations that work to take away civil rights of any group?
That's a completely different issue. Such a policy would violate the freedom of speech of the business owner.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)"no business can operate in a zone of the city that donates to organizations that work to take away civil rights of any group"
That is unconstitutional on its face... almost as clearcut an example of what government cannot do as denying people the vote based on what magazines they subscribe to.
For instance, advocating changes in the law or the Constitution is a fundamental right of all reserved against the government.
If somebody wants to donate to a group seeking to rescind the Constitutional Amendment that gave women the vote, or to establish Christianity as the official religion of the US, then that is what they want to do with their money.
You cannot have a zoning law, or any other sort of law, where the government penalizes a particular political position, religious belief or simple opinion.
The government cannot sanction anyone for donating to the "wrong" political causes. (Unless that donation is against the criminal law as aiding terrorism, racketeering, etc.)
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)big difference.
They can ban all fastfood if they like. But not an individual fast food joint.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)would do it.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Administrate laws and regulation cannot be arbitrary and capricious. There has to be some sensible claim of a legitimate government interest.
It doesn't have to be a compelling interest, but the number of locations nationally has no rational bearing on what the hours should be.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
Blanks
(4,835 posts)While I agree with the premise; I have an old saying: "you get away with what you can in this world".
The elected bodies of these places (whether liberal or conservative) that ban a specific business are wrong. On the other hand; there are all kinds of things that go on that are in violation of zoning laws. Typically those things go on because nobody complains about it. In this instance; if the mayor tells you 'you can't build that here' and he doesn't have the authority to legally stop you; that's what the court system is for.
I would expect that Chick-fil-A would win if they took it to court, but who wants to go into a community where they're not welcome? That's the only real authority that the mayor has as the 'ceremonial head of city' he/she can let a business know that they (the city) will stand in their way if they want to establish there.
People have their constitutional rights trampled on all the time by cities; it's up to the trampled to defend their rights.
So whether the mayor is violating anyone's rights is immaterial; unless they're willing to pay an attorney to challenge it.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)a few bucks to Planned Parenthood can tell their story walking? Put your life savings into opening your little restaurant and some fucks that don't like your politics are killing your dream and your savings so no money to fight city hall? Too bad, so sad?
Most people that would be put in harm's way are not corporate behemoths but "small people" like you and me that are taking a real chance and are trying to create a business.
Seems like non-situational principals and a coherent philosophy seldom lead you astray to me.
Whatever is not clever.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)If you're going to open a franchise and the Mayor says "no Chick-fil-A". To me that means find a different franchise that the leader of the community doesn't find objectionable.
If, however, you're hard headed; you could probably force the community to accept Chick-fil-A through the courts. Doing so may alienate you from the rest of the community. Whether you're a behemoth corporation or a mom and pop shop; going against the leadership of the community may not be your best move.
The OP seems to imply that when we cheer this sort of thing on, and the precedent stands; we are agreeing that it is OK when municipalities bully small businesses.
I think the greater issue here is this: if you've found yourself living in a community that doesn't share your values; do you fight them tooth and nail, move away or bend a little?
Everyone gets to make their own choice. If you don't share the same values as your community; it may be better for you personally to relocate. If you've found yourself in a community that opposes planned parenthood; is it worth jeapordizing your standing in the comminity to support it anyway? That's going to vary case by case; it's still a choice.
If a community punishes you because you defy them; that's something that you might have been able to predict.
Prism
(5,815 posts)But culture war politics tend to do that. I can only watch this Chik-Fil-A business and laugh. All my friends who for years mercilessly mocked every pointless, ridiculous Christian boycott are suddenly running around with this Chik-Fil-A business as if it's The Most Important Thing In The World.
And they look equally ridiculous.
In a month, no one will care.
Thankfully.
People really need hobbies.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)You must have been asleep that day in American Government class at school.
Seriously, blacks don't have to sit at the back of the bus anymore either.
And guess what else, blacks get to sit at the lunch counter and eat just like everyone else, instead of walking clear to the back of the restaurant and eating in the kitchen where the cook eats his lunch!!
This is 2012, not 1952!!
Wake up and smell the burning Chick-Fil-A sandwich, man.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)to a particular class of people, the government can file suit and force it to change its policy. When the owner of that company states an opinion the public can ridicule and refuse to buy his product.
The government didn't shut down the bus company or the lunch counters, they forced them to change their discriminatory policies.
Even in the case of proven discrimination, the government cannot simply shut down a business.
I AM awake, and I smell the stench of burning books in many of the comments on this issue.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The government CAN, most definitely, shut down a business in a case of proven discrimination.
It can do this by fining it out of existence or by pulling its business permit. I've been involved in doing both.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)and imposed onerous fines without due process.
Yippee for you.
Examples, please.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yippee for you!
You might want to read what I wrote ... Here:
It can do this by fining it out of existence or by pulling its business permit. I've been involved in doing both.
There ... See where you've gone off the rails?
No apology necessary ... I appreciate that this often happens where one's argument runs aground.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)What I said was: Even in cases of proven discrimination the government cannot SIMPLY shut down a business.
You can fine them, but there are fine schedules that have to apply to every case. You can sanction them. You can deny them government contracts. You can force them to change their policies or face further sanctions.
Mayor Menino said: "Chick-Fil-A will not get a business permit in Boston." Then he tried to strong-arm the landlord and threatened him with the full force of the city government. No hearing. No evidence of discrimination.
But you seem to be the sort of gov't employee that's perfectly comfortable with this.
A local bureaucrat tried it on me few years ago because I made one of his "favored" contractors submit a bid. Sued the snot out of the town and won.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And once, the government fines them for breaking the law; denying them, for breaking the law; and sanctions them for breaking the law; but they continue the offensive policy/practice ... what do you suppose the next step is ... That's right, pull their permit for operating in the municipality because they refuse to comply with the law.
This is a wholly different argument from what we/I were discussing. I responded to:
And said, Yes government can. You are placing way to much weight on the modifier "Simply", since the operative part of your statement indicates that the discrimination was "Proven"; i.e., hearing, due process.
Yes ... I WAS the type of gov't employee that was fine with shutting down businesses that violated the law. And, now that I am no longer in that field, I continue to be the type of non-gov't worker that is, unapologetically, fine with shutting down businesses that practice discrimination.
Good for you ... But how is that related to the discussion?
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)the local bureaucrat cited me for discrimination under the village's diversity rules. He couldn't shut me down, but he tried to have my job permit yanked on one project. He used high-minded language about shutting down businesses that practice discrimination, but it was all just a front for a bribery/shakedown scheme.
Many, many companies have been found guilty of discrimination and were never threatened with being shut down. Starbuck's has had dozens of judgments against them and many more out-of-court settlements. I haven't heard of a single government official that has threatened to keep Starbuck's out of town.
This began as a discussion about free speech and has degenerated into something that should make EVERY American's skin crawl: Government officials using the power of their office to punish constitutionally-protected speech. In this case, without any evidence of actual discrimination, Mayor Menino threatened the landlord of the proposed restaurant. Are you fine with that?
On this matter, I'll gladly take sides with the ACLU against the avenging angels who want to impose the death penalty for expressing incorrect ideas.
Once again: Examples please.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)first:
Yes, this discussion did get side tracked. But what I, and others, attempted to do was draw a distinction between constitutionally protected speech (e.g., the owners thoughts, statements and opinion) and the unprotected unlawful discrimination (e.g., discriminatory hiring and service decisions).
No ... I am not fine with that because, as I have said, the discrimination was not proven. Had the discrimination been proven, then yes, I would have been fine with that.
dsc
(52,155 posts)then the city should shut them down. But thinking marriage is only for straights and giving money to odious groups isn't employment discrimination. I have directly known gay people who have worked for the company here in NC and they have been treated OK. A city has every right to ban discrimination in hiring, promotion, and service. It doesn't have a right to police the donations of businesses.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)only when standing.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)So that's not a valid comparison.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)But by making them stand, everyone knew where they stood on civil rights. I stood with a friend of mine and ate with him. Never accept injustice even if all they do is send money to people trying to create unjust laws.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)pretty much it's first come first serve.
If they had a gay section and a not-gay section ok, that would be a comparable analogy.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Your comparison is not even in the same fucking city the ballpark is located in.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)a well-known BBQ joint in West Columbia is owned by a Lester Maddox-style segregationist.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It is completely reasonable for the population to be able to decide what businesses they want in their town. It's not about shutting businesses down, but not granting them rights to enter in the first place.
econoclast
(543 posts)Suppose SC banned theaters from showing films featuring Sean Penn because his private political views were at odds with the community? That's fine?
You have to separate on one hand, the individual's speech and the business' policy. If the BUSINESS doesn't discriminate (and I have yet to hear that Chick FA discriminates in hiring or serving ) then the government shouldn't ban it.
Likewise, if individuals want to boycott for any reason they like that is their right.
Have to separate the actions of individuals from those of the biz or the state.
Freedom is easy when everyone freely does what we support and like. But it gets hard when people freely do or say things we dislike and don't support. But that's when it's most important to defend it.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You're mixing zoning in with freedom of speech. They're not the same thing.
econoclast
(543 posts)Blocking a porno theater in the neighborhood is based on the content of the BUSINESS. The Cfa thing isn't ased on the behavior or policies of the BUSINESS but on the private speech of the owner To use your example, it is more like saying that a porno theater owned by a Democrat is ok but a porno theater owned by a hypocritical Republican is beyond the pale.
You are the one comingling zoning and speech. You want to base a zoning decision regarding a business on the private politics of the owner.
As far as I know, Chick fa -as a business - does not discriminate. The Chick fa founder -as a private citizen - does or wants to. Whatever. His speech as a private citizen should not impact the government's decisions about the legitimate business.
Marr
(20,317 posts)The reasons for excluding a business are immaterial. A community might decide to exclude a porno theater or a Wal-Mart or a big polluter, or anything else-- and their reasons need not be submitted for Federal approval.
If the electorate disagrees with their representatives, they are free to replace them with people who are more porno theater/Wal-Mart/polution-friendly.
econoclast
(543 posts)If zoning regulations violate the equal protection clause or freedom of speech (and this seems to do both) then the reasons for exclusion are not immaterial.
Just because the owner of a legitimate business is an idiot/ass does not give the state the authority to deny the legitimate business to operate.
Whether the individuals want to patronize that business is another matter entirely.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)5th and 14th amendments, the states and federal governments have a constitutional duty to shut discriminatory businesses down.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)However, you HAVE to see the difference between discrimination and the founder of the company sharing his personal views. The second he is putting those views into practice.
Sadly your views breaks down more when considers homosexuals are not a protected class.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)discriminated against.
When a business posts a sign indicating they are going to discriminate against you, that is more than enough to take action.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)A company can refuse to serve people without shoes, smokers, fat people, etc because they are not a "protected class." Sadly, homosexuality is lumped in with those as it is not a protected class. I agree with your position, but that does not change the law.
Edited to add list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
dsc
(52,155 posts)the problem here is that Chick-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate in employment or service.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)against LGBT folks in the last two years.
Any discriminatory state law will be struck down when it reaches the federal appeals level. States cannot disregard the 14th amendment.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cite a case since January of 2009 where a businesses right to deny service to a person due to sexual orientation or identity was upheld.
dsc
(52,155 posts)I admit I don't know of any businesses that advertize such discrimination I am positive that such discrimination would be upheld by the courts.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)with regard to anti-gay discrimination http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014181907
Federal courts are applying the 5th and 14th amendments just as I have suggested. Federal courts ARE ABSOLUTELY recognizing being LGBT as a protected class.
dsc
(52,155 posts)which is covered by the 14th. I think that governments likely can't fire gays simply for being gay anymore under those precedents unless the SCOTUS reverses them. But private businesses aren't covered by the 14th Amendment and thus aren't covered under this line of cases.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I would argue that it requires the federal government to intervene if a business is discriminating.
dsc
(52,155 posts)regulate. In absence of the federal civil rights law I wonder what the Warren court would have ruled in a case of a private entity discriminating against blacks. I can see a way to make the 14th amendment work there but in absence of the law it is a bit harder.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Imagine the outrage if this were done in a red state against some company for their pro-gay marriage stance.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Or just note that they wouldn't be welcomed?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if you do not consider a requirement that the business follow duly enacted laws a litmus test.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)duly enacted law Chick-Fil-A does not follow.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and most municipalities have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation (and religion). If Chick-Fil-A is found to discriminate in terms of employment or access to services, it can be banned from operating in a particular municipality.
On a related note, I am aware that Chick-Fil-A is on several State AG's radar for discriminating in hiring and promotions based on the candidate's religion.
And based on the owner's anti-Gay statements, it is not a leap to view sexual orientation as a proxy for religion.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I've not heard of any place actually doing such a thing. Have you? I'm not much into 'what if the mule goes blind' games. If it is not being done, it is not being done.
And it's not being done. I think the hype around 'what if' is just a way to imply that it is wrong to boycott a business that promotes hate and sells a product that is unhealthful in the first place.
That company has and is using full rights. But they do not think others should have the same rights.
If you have a link to a city that is planning on doing this, not just some sputtering statement from a random official, then it is worth talking about. If not, it is a strawman.
Xipe Totec
(43,889 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Or is it, like Mr. Cathy's statements, freedom of speech?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)being enforced at all. I thought the pro Chick Fil A crowd was all about a person's right to say anything without any repercussions? Or is that just for haters like their esteemed Mr Cathy?
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)not be granted a business permit in Boston.
Then, for good measure, he wrote a letter to the landlord of the property warning him that the full wrath of the city government would be brought to bear on him if he rented his property to Chick-Fil-A.
The mayor was then forced almost immediately to issue a statement saying: "Oops. It looks like I don't have the power to do this."
Menino's actions are not free speech, they are government coercion.
Xipe Totec
(43,889 posts)If the ACLU has stepped in (in Chicago), then we're no longer talking hypothetically.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/with-chick-fil-a-fight-progressive-mayors-get-their-ground-zero-mosque-moment/2012/07/31/gJQAEqTiLX_blog.html
JVS
(61,935 posts)meaculpa2011
(918 posts)Finally a sane comment. Have some of us gone nuts?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That means no government is actually doing this at all, some random official mouthed off, corrected at once.
I asked if this was actually being done. The short answer apparently is no, it is not. Why not just say 'no, it is not being done'.
No one has stopped anyone from opening the hateful sandwich shop of their choice, anywhere. Some mook shot his mouth off. That's hardly the end of the world.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Are they the same? Different? I've been pondering this and I maintain that public officials of public corporations making public statements -i.e. using their 'coercive' powers- to encourage exclusiveness instead of inclusiveness goes against the American ideal.
I think I've probably talked this topic to death on another thread so I won't pile on here but I think the above is a good summary of my thinking on the subject.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)otherwise, what they're doing is wrong, evil and unconstitutional.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)I know a lot have made this specific decision. I don't see this as being much different.
cali
(114,904 posts)I live in Vermont where we fought Walmart coming to our state harder than any other state. We were the last state in the country to get a Walmart. With Act 250, we have just about the toughest zoning laws in the country. We have four Walmarts here. They aren't the super walmarts- or whatever they call them.
http://www.americanprofile.com/articles/vermont-was-last-state-in-america-to-get-a-walmart
A proposed Walmart in St. Alban's has been battled for 20 years- and last year the VT SC ruled in Walmart's favor.
ST. ALBANS TOWN, Vt. -
After nearly 20 years of debate, Wal-mart's arrival in St. Albans is delayed again.
Developers planned to break ground on the new store this month. Monday night, they announced said that's not going to happen on-schedule. However, the wait should be a short one.
Just off I-89 and across from the St. Albans' drive-in movie theater sits a cornfield, and the future site of Vermont's soon-to-be biggest Wal-mart. A construction permit is the only visible sign of the 150,000 sq. ft. box store to come.
"It would make it a lot easier to do shopping here in our area instead of having to chase away to Williston," said St. Albans town resident Leslie Wells.
Following nearly two decades of debate and legal wrangling, Vermont's highest court gave the discount store the go ahead last August. A groundbreaking had been promised by the end of May, but at a St. Albans town meeting, developer Jeff Davis said that won't happen.
<snip>
http://www.wcax.com/story/18578281/st-albans-walmart-delayed-again
So I'm calling bullshit on your claim unless you provide the type of evidence for your claims that I provided for mine.
dsc
(52,155 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)All that has happened here is that some mayors, city council members/aldermen have written letters of "unwelcome" to Chick-A-Fil-A. But every one of those local politicians knows full well they cannot arbitrarily deny the right of an otherwise legal business to operate provided they comply with all pertinent laws, ordinances, etc. So in one sense, you could say that all of this is mere political grandstanding. But while it may be grandstanding insofar as these letters of "unwelcome" carry no force of law whatsoever, these local politicians are engaging in a practice that is as American as apple pie: the use of the bully pulpit. They are creating social pressure against a company which promotes abhorrent ideas. That is not a violation of the First Amendment in any way, nor is there anything particularly wrong with doing so.
Think of it this way: if Chick-A-Fil-A were subsidizing, say, the Ku Klux Klan, would we even be having this discussion?
dsc
(52,155 posts)not because cities would ban the business.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Though I don't think it's appropriate to use it for Chick-Fil-A.
zbdent
(35,392 posts)ah, the good old days of the war profiteers and the industries which got gov't contracts ...
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... is now upset when it faces institutional bigotry aimed at showing disgust toward the company's chosen bigotry.
BTW, bigotry is a choice.
And, no, I'm not in agreement with the governments that are acting in this manner toward this doomed company. Let them open more stores, as fast as possible. Debt will ensue, and Chick-fil-a will be dead, as it should be.
Of course, this issue may not be as stark as some might think:
http://supreme-court-georgia.vlex.com/vid/christian-knights-klux-klan-richmond-20398759
dsc
(52,155 posts)it basically says you didn't raise this objection during trial so we won't hear it now. That isn't the same as saying it is OK to use zoning to advance viewpoint discrimination.
It says, "If you're so worried about institutional bigotry, why are you promoting it in the first place?"
Try again.
