ACLU attorney: Blocking Chick-fil-A over gay marriage 'viewpoint discrimination'

[hack89]

Source: Examiner.com

Although the ACLU strongly supports same-sex marriage, a senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois warned that if Chicago bans Chick-fil-A over the religious views of its management, it will be engaging in "viewpoint discrimination," Fox News reported Thursday.

“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said ACLU senior attorney Adam Schwartz.

“When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination,” he added.

“But we also support the First Amendment,” Schwartz said. “We don’t think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/article/aclu-attorney-blocking-chick-fil-a-over-gay-marriage-viewpoint-discrimination

[GrantDem]

1. So...

I wonder how Chick-fil-a, and other rightwingers, will feel about the ACLU coming to their defense???

[atreides1]

5. Are you kidding

They love it...look what happened with Skokie Illinois and the ACLU's support of the American Nazi Party...the ACLU lost lots of Jewish support after that...and the rightwingers know that almost everytime the ACLU comes to their defense, more supporters will either leave or just not give the donations the ACLU needs!

[JoeInNy]

43. They also defended Rush Limbaugh when he was going through his painkiller addiction.

[iamthebandfanman]

71. Yep

and even after he said drug abusers should get LIFE in jail, and that rehab was a joke..

right before he BEGGED for mercy from the court to get some time in REHAB

[mahatmakanejeeves]

142. and Ollie North

Congress said to him, "testify before us, and you'll have immunity." He testified, but there was no immunity. The ACLU said, "not so fast."

[hack89]

15. After the ACLU agreed with the Citizens United decision

I suspect many changed their minds about the ACLU.

[wordpix]

115. I know I have

[blkmusclmachine]

127. ACLU who ??

Do you know about Operation Northwoods ?? You should.

[Joe Bacon]

147. Yes, that's why I stopped giving money to them

Since they support Citizens United, let them get their money from the Koch Brothers.

[iamthebandfanman]

69. Like any other issue/belief

theyll just change whatever they think to fit for what they need right now.. as soon as they are done, back to their old ways.

[Lint Head]

2. The hole I see in that argument are the segregated lunch counters of the 60's.

[unblock]

7. chick-fil-a doesn't have seating segregated on the basis of sexual orientation

i haven't been following this one too closely, but i thought this was all about some bigotted statements the owner made, not that the restaurants themselves discriminate.

if so, politicians are encouraged not to woo the business with tax cuts or anything like that, but the bureaucrats are obligated to do whatever the government is supposed to do in terms of granting permits and what not.

this is one of those "nazis in skokie" kind of cases. however heinous they may be, the rights they exercise belong to all of us, and we curtail them at our own risk.

[marble falls]

136. I agree. Chick-fil-a can support whatever whacko stance they want ....

and I am not buying anymore of their great (and overpriced) sandwiches. I will be there on August 1 to order a glass of water and then will not be back until they change their public stance on gay marriage.

[unblock]

137. exactly. we can protest. politicians can write letters and encourage them to change or keep away.

but government bureaucrats have to keep within the law and grant permits and such to the extent restaurants have equal rights to such things.

[Sterling]

173. I am glad to see this reaction.

I very much hate what these Chicken people think about gays but the city stopping them from open is not the way to go. If anything It is a rallying cause for Tea Party types who want to portray liberals/progressives as secret totalitarian, take there guns and Jesus away.

I don't think chicken people are helping their business by being so public about their views but that is their mistake to make. Protest the stores, boycott them but don't be all Stalinist on their asses.

[Enrique]

26. I don't understand the comparison n/t

[cali]

126. uh, that's a very poor comparison.

Look, unless someone can prove they discriminate in hiring or serving, there is no discrimination case. And yes, of course I support Marriage Equality and have done for a long time, and I wouldn't go into one of their outlets because of the bigotry of the company, but expressed bigotry is not the same legally as discrimination.

[MrDiaz]

3. if the owner of burger king

said that he believed gay people should get married...would it be okay if a governor who opposes those views were to ban that business from a city? Nobody here would have a problem with that?

[Deep13]

13. I don't feel we owe equal consideration for the enemy. nt

[PavePusher]

24. Well, that's how the Constitution works.

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2012, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

If you don't like that... I don't know what to tell you.

[Deep13]

32. Fine, but I have no reason to defend the rights of bigots.

Or to support an organization that does.

[MrDiaz]

41. OK

but that is a very myopic way to view things...isn't that part of what angers us about the repukes... JUST SAYIN!

[xtraxritical]

65. Geez, we don't like RepubliCONs and say so all the time, what's the difference here?

[PavePusher]

44. Actually, in our society, you should defend their rights.

You do not, of course, have to defend their beliefs.

The distinction is fairly obvious.

[annabanana]

129. (always sorry to see DUers miss this point.)

The corrective to BAD speech is MORE speech.

I say every gay person in the city should go there, in flagrate if you will, order a cup of tea and tie up the tables for hours.

[PavePusher]

54. See #48. n/t

[annabanana]

131. You have EVERY reason to defend their rights. The cure for hate speech

is MORE speech.

[treestar]

153. +1

This is wrong and just lets the bigot turn themselves into the victim. They could take this to the courts and they'd have to win - the law cannot be applied differently to different people.

[closeupready]

169. Yep. Defending bigots is not my problem.

Let other bigots do that. Or just let someone else do it. I'm not willing. Period.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. +1 :)

re: "If you don't like that... I don't know what to tell you."

I do but I'm not that kind of guy.

[PavePusher]

74. I know exactly what to tell her/him....

but it would violate the terms of service here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

99. That's what I thought. :) n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

27. Sort of like when Fox "News" discusses whether accused terrorists deserve civil rights?

[Downtown Hound]

28. Um, no. Locking people up for years on end with no trial and subjecting them to torture

is a little different from refusing to grant a business permit. Your rather lame comparison is more reminiscent of the type of logic that Faux news uses all the time. Sensationalist, extremest garbage.

[Faryn Balyncd]

36. The issue is whether or not bad people, or those accused of being bad, have civil & economic rights.

[Downtown Hound]

45. And I would argue that those who attempt to deny others their basic rights

as Chick-fil-A has done, should not be allowed to do business. So no, I don't believe those that commit acts of oppression against others have some infallible right to do business anywhere.

[RKP5637]

81. I think you make a good point. Chick-fil-A is engaged in

persecution of a beleaguered minority in this country. I don't welcome outfits like that with opened arms. Frankly, IMO, Chick-fil-A is functioning as a profitable Hate Group and funding hatred by its donations.

[grok]

92. chick-fil-A is not engaged in discrimination.

as far as I know, they are abiding by the law/ federal,state or otherwise. If there are suits against them, well thats par for the course. ALL major franchises have suits against them. that is the very nature of being a big target. merited or not.

any business has no business existing in the USA if they offend somebody that barks. The smart thing is to leave and do global commerce outside ths country. in a dictatorship that doesn't care as long as taxes are paid and palms are greased

why do you think this country is going downhill? Capitalists know where they are not welcome unless they bend over and genuflect.

[atreides1]

176. Not directly

They're just giving money to groups that are engaged in discrimination against the Gay community...it's not just about what is said anymore, we have to look at their actions as well.

[Missycim]

121. They didn't discriminate

against anyone, the owner just stated his dumb, bigoted views.

[Deep13]

34. I have no idea how that relates to this story. nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

39. Do bad people have rights?

[Deep13]

51. Well, the rich ones do.

And even if everyone does, do not expect me to contribute to the George Zimmerman defense fund. It's not my job to protect the rights of the enemy. That is the problem with the political left. It still sees these debates as good-natured discussions over ideas. I don't care about the rights of bigots. IF Chickfila wants to litigate, they can. It is not my problem. I am not after fairness. I want gay rights to win, period. I certainly have no reason to support their rights or organizations that collaborate with the enemy.

[kelly1mm]

33. Do you understand how the Constitution works? The GOVERNMENT cannot

discriminate based on political views. If you think that Chicago and Boston are correct then how could you be against Kansas not allowing businesses to open if they support marriage equality?

In both cases, INDIVIDUALS are free to boycott/protest those businesses.

[Deep13]

35. Not my problem.

If Chick-filet wants to litigate, they can do that. But I am not going to defend the rights of bigots either in print or by contributing to organizations that collaborate with the enemy.

[PavePusher]

48. If you don't believe it's important to defend the rights of others, even when you disagree with them

don't be surprised if no-one rushes to defend YOUR rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Downtown Hound]

61. OoooH! Big bad bogeyman comin' to getch'a if you don't support Chick-fil-A!

Please.

[PavePusher]

62. Thanks for spinning. Now, please respond to what I was actually saying. Or not... n/t

[Downtown Hound]

67. I believe I've already answered that question many times, but what the hell?

I'll do it once again. I support the right to his free speech. I don't support the right of him to open a business that practices discrimination and bigotry anywhere he wants. So no, I won't defend it.

Any other questions?

[PavePusher]

70. Errr, I am not aware that the busines itself, as in each actual eating establishment...

"practices discrimination and bigotry". If you can cite to this, great, then you have a talking point.

But if it's only the owner that is taking action, outside the running of the business, you can not discriminate against the business that way, as much as you might disagree with them.

[Downtown Hound]

75. As has now been mentioned several times on this thread

The Chick-fil-A CEO has not only donated millions of dollars to anti-gay Christian groups, he has said that he steers his company to supporting traditional marriage and hiring married employees, but apparently that doesn't mean gay married employees. So yeah, that's discrimination.

http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/vod/HSE31

[PavePusher]

82. Now we're getting somewhere, I hadn't seen that earlier.

That could well be (and certainly should be) legally actionable, depending on jurisdiction.

[PavePusher]

139. O.K., on further review, I'm not seeing what you seem to be implying.

That video seems to display a bias towards married versus non-married, but it certainly doesn't seem to single out non-heterosexuals. So I'm not seeing a direct relevence.

[Downtown Hound]

188. Really? How many married gay couples do you see in those videos?

Oh wait, none. Because they're not allowed to get married, thanks to assholes like Chick-fil-A's CEO.

[treestar]

154. What other rights does he forfeit?

He's not entitled to go into business. Can he get a job?

What if that type of law is applied by conservatives?

[Downtown Hound]

186. He's already in business

But there's no law that says a city has to grant him an extension.

[annabanana]

132. Dear Deep 13 I want to thank you for offering so many opportunities

to explain the value of an organization like the ACLU. Even when they do things we don't like.

[PavePusher]

140. That's gonna leave a mark.... n/t

[Major Nikon]

123. They can and do discriminate against moral views

Zoning laws discriminate against all sorts of businesses on moral grounds. I don't see much difference here.

[Deep13]

168. Boston and Chicago officials are only voicing opinions.

These are not laws and that is the flaw in the logic of all the fundy apologists here.

[liberallibral]

177. Something the freeps would say...

We're supposed to be the 'tolerant' ones, remember... And President Obama held the same belief as Dan Cathy did, until about a month or two ago - why are people forgetting that??

The constitution allows people to say whatever they believe, and if you disagree, then simply don't give Chick-Fil-A your business. But shutting them down or blocking them from doing business is very un-American! Now, if they actually discriminated, then it's a totally different story........

[Downtown Hound]

4. Hey ACLU, I love you. And kindly STFU.

No one is saying Chick-fil-A CEO's should be taken out to a concentration camp and burned at the stake. They have a right to express their opinions. And we, as Americans and as consumers, have to the right to decide where our money goes and what kind of businesses practices we support. And if we want to tell Chick-fil-A to take a hike, that's what we're going to do.

Now go do something worthwhile instead of defending the rights of millionaire reich wing bigots.

[arely staircase]

6. huh?

this isn't about your right to boycott them.

[Downtown Hound]

11. Um yeah, actually it is

We currently have a Chick-fil-A trying to open up here in my hometown, and the city council recently voted no. Why? Because they listened to the people who spoke out against it. Now according to the ACLU, we just practiced discrimination by participating in democracy and telling our elected representatives that we don't want bigoted businesses in our city.

If the ACLU has a problem with that, they can go #$%! themselves.

I also used to live in Arcata, CA, which doesn't allow chain stores in its plaza. I guess the ACLU thinks that's "corporate discrimination" because the people there actually believe that having local businesses is a good thing for the community?

[arely staircase]

18. are you the government? that is who the aclu is talking about

not private citizens boycotting.

[Downtown Hound]

20. As I pointed out in my example, the "government" in this case is often acting is coordination

with the wishes of the people in their communities. People are standing up and demanding that Chick-fil-A move out. It ain't just a few lone politicians.

You do realize that's what democracy is all about, right?

[arely staircase]

95. using government powers

to run people out of town because of their political beliefs, however repugnant, is not "what democracy is.all about."

[primavera]

104. As much as I want to agree with you...

... democratic initiatives can still be trumped if they conflict with the constitution and, as much as I hate to admit it, ACLU has a valid point. The First Amendment bars governmental reprisal against an entity for engaging in free speech. Individuals are under no obligation to give their money to a company with repugnant values, but a government agency is not constitutionally authorized to shut down a company based solely upon its repugnant values.

[Downtown Hound]

110. No one is shutting Chick-fil-A down

All that's happening is that some cities are talking about not allowing them to expand. That happens all the time for a variety of reasons, many of them not nearly as good as this one. Bars are sometimes not allowed to open because they sell alcohol. Sex shops are sometimes not allowed because they're considered "smutty." Convenience stores are sometimes not allowed because they either will sell alcohol or want to sell more of it. Gun stores, pot clubs, legal brothels, you name it. I've lived in communities where Wal Mart wasn't allowed because of their practice of drowning out local businesses.

Lots of businesses have had trouble getting permission to operate. I'm not saying it's always right, I'm just saying it happens. Personally, I think not allowing a business to operate because it supports bigotry is a damn good reason not to.

[Faryn Balyncd]

9. There is a difference between boycotting and banning an opponent from exercising their rights.

[Downtown Hound]

14. Did somebody say that the Chick-fil-A CEO doesn't have a legal right to express his opinion?

No. But communities do have a right to say no to a company if they so choose. It happens all the time. So if they want to say no the Chick-fil-A, that's their right.

[Faryn Balyncd]

17. "Saying no to a company" because of political views is fundamentally different from saying no to...

...a company because of business practices, economic regulation, or any other reason.

[Downtown Hound]

19. Ah, and I guess Chick-fil-A's CEO donating millions of dollars to Christian anti-gay

groups doesn't fall under "business practices?"

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/27/157417229/chick-fil-a-gay-flap-a-wakeup-call-for-companies

[Faryn Balyncd]

23. Why not revoke the business licenses of all businesses whose owners donate to the Republican Party?

[Downtown Hound]

25. LOL. Sounds like a good idea to me.

But really, if we're gong to be technical about it, the Republican Party (in theory at least) can stand for a whole host of things. There are Republicans who support gay rights. Not many to be sure, but there are a few. So simply revoking the the business license of them on the basis of the fact that they're Republican isn't enough of a reason to go on.

Chick-fil-A's CEO however, has made it very clear where he stand on THIS ONE ISSUE. So, yeah, go ahead and not give them any license renewals or new operating permits.

[Faryn Balyncd]

31. So donating to a malignant organization whose members include a few dissenters "isn't enough of a...

...reason" to cancel someone's rights to do business, but making it "very clear"where (one) stand(s) on THIS ONE ISSUE" is?

[Downtown Hound]

38. So you've now defined the Republican Party as a malignant organization.

Hey guess what? I agree with you. So if you wanted to make the issue about the Republican Party's embrace of war crimes, illegal invasion, environmental destruction, and a whole host of other nasties as a reason why Republican businesses should be closed down, hey guess what, go right ahead! I'll be the first to be on board.

Good luck in actually getting that to happen though. You gotta pick your battles. And this is one we can not only win but win big. So, I'll take my victories where I can get them, and send the human shitfucks known as Chick-fil-A CEO's a-packing. You sit here and mourn over their oppressed rights if you want, but personally, I think it's a waste of time. Your time would be better spent on working for the equality of all Americans and seeing to it that gays get equal rights in stead of lamenting the poor, oppressed, victims of Chick-fil-A.

[Faryn Balyncd]

50. Perhaps our time would be better spent fighting for justice WITHOUT adopting the tactics of...

...those who believe that noble goals automatically justify the means of achieving those goals.

[Downtown Hound]

57. LOL. I'll tell you what

When I've actively denied the right of millions of people to live as they choose and marry as they choose, when I've invaded another country and stolen their oil, when I've embraced waterboarding and other forms of torture, when I've ignored all scientific evidence of global warming and put the entire future of the planet in danger, then you can accuse me of adopting the tactics of the other side.

But simply telling a dumbass, bigoted, cholesterol causing fast food joint to take a hike doesn't really qualify in my book. You sure do like using that sensationalist, extremest Faux News type of logic, don't you?

[kelly1mm]

37. So if the local governmet was against marriage equality and a company made it very clear

they supported marriage equality it would be OK for the local government to not give them license renewals or new permits?

If not why not?

[Downtown Hound]

42. A CEO donating millions of dollars to anti-gay causes falls under business practices that violate

individual civil rights. Denying the right of individuals to marry is also denying individual rights. In both cases, the true perpetrator of denying civil rights falls on those who are opposed to equal rights for gays. Individual rights are sovereign and not touchable. Therefore, it would not be okay for a local government to oppose a business that practiced equality. However, if a company denies individual rights, as Chick-fil-A has done, then they are guilty, and as such should be denied the right to do business if a local government deems fit.

[kelly1mm]

52. Since Heller has defined the right to a firearm as an individual civil right, should

a company that supports gun control be denied a license to operate if the local government sees fit?

[Downtown Hound]

53. Who the fuck is Heller?

[kelly1mm]

55. USSC case of DC v. Heller. Here is a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[Downtown Hound]

58. Okay, gun control is kind of a broad issue, don't you think?

Gun control can mean supporting the right of an individual to own a hunting rifle, but not an M-60. So I think, in addition to nitpicking in banalities at this point, your point is rather moot. Somebody can be for gun control and still support the right of somebody to own a firearm.

[kelly1mm]

63. Assume for argument's sake that some CEO was for a total ban on all handguns. Would you then

be ok with the local government denying the permits? Since banning handguns would be violative of civil rights (as per USSC) it should be the same as denying the right to marriage equality, right???

My point is that I DO NOT want the GOVERNMENT to practice viewpoint discrimination as it would have unintended consequences. Additionally, I am pretty much a Bill of Rights absolutist and generally agree with the ACLU.

[Downtown Hound]

66. Okay, let's assume for some totally pointless sake and for no other reason than appeasing

your repeated entries into banal nitpicking that a CEO supports banning all handguns. First of all, is this just his personal opinion, or does he actively give millions of dollars to said cause? Has he gone on record as saying that he tries to steer his companies' hiring to only people who support his position? Because the CEO of Dick Fillet has done all these things.

And still, I would say, no. Because handguns AREN'T ALL GUNS. He could still support owning a hunting rifle. Now I'll just save you the trouble of typing your next banal entry and include it to be ALL guns. Well, then, go ahead and speak to your city council about it. Try and get them banned. Do I support it? No. But that's because I could really care less what a CEO thinks about guns, even though I own ten of them. If you want to try and use the same logic that I've used here in your imaginary scenario, go for it. I will not be joining you and I doubt many others will either.

Ultimately gay rights are more important to me than my right to own a small penis compensator that can fire 100 rounds per minute. But on this issue, it's not only me but millions of others that are fed up with bigotry from the right on this issue, and we're fighting back. If you think you can muster that same kind of passion for your imaginary gun issue with your imaginary CEO in your imaginary universe, then go for it.

[joeglow3]

175. Spin, Spin....

....Spin the Black Circle...

[Downtown Hound]

189. Lame, lame. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. Let me ask you this:

You mention "business practices" are a valid reason for denial.


If the city(s) cites a pattern of religious discrimination in their HIRING practices, would that be a valid reason to deny permitting? Would the city be required, in your view, to prove beyond a certain (what?) level of proof that discrimination in hiring exists?

Or can a city use statements by the owner regarding preferring to hire "married" workers (when gay marriage is still illegal). Or espouses their "christian values" in their business practices when the owner CLEARLY believes being gay is against his version of Christianity?

How much proof does the city require to be able to cite and deny based on "business practices" that you mentioned up-thread?

I guess my point is: You can, as an owner, make political statements. And you can make donations to political causes. And you can make bigoted hate statements. And you can PROUDLY operate your business based on your bigoted version of "Christan values".

But don't be surprised when you have problems obtaining licenses in jurisdictions where the object of your bigotry (and potential employees) are PROTECTED classes.

The writing is on the wall with these people. How clear does it have to be?

[Faryn Balyncd]

64. Yes, a pattern of violating the law in hiring (or other) business practices may be a valid reason...

...to deny a business permit.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

85. Good enough.

Have a hearing, fly in victims from around the country and deny the permit.

[PavePusher]

141. Deliberatly mis-representing the very first sentence of the article doesn't help your argument.

Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A has long stood by its Bible-based roots, keeping stores closed on Sundays and donating millions to Christian causes.

If you have evidence that they directly and purposefully support anti-gay causes, please present it.

[Downtown Hound]

187. Are you honestly trying to tell me that donating to right wing Christian causes

isn't supporting anti-gay bigotry?

[TheKentuckian]

149. So if the owner of a chicken shack openly supports gay marriage

You believe the regressives that run some community are within their rights to deny the ability to engage in commerce for the public statement of their views?

You really believe that minority owned companies should just be blackballed in favor of white owned companies based on whatever flimsy pretense can be made up.
You really think it is okay to say we are a Papa Johns town, no Godfather's here, cause "we" say so? You can't see how allowing such arbitrary ability to participate in enterprise cannot be twisted to limit opportunity and that minorities have the very most to lose in this insane exchange?

[SylviaD]

163. Bravo n/t

[Redford]

164. Bravo Twice!

The pendulum swings both ways.

[iamthebandfanman]

73. Yeah,

i agree with the stance that governments cant force them to not open/operate stores..

but we can sure as hell not go there, and tell others to do the same.

[Downtown Hound]

77. Nobody's forcing them on anything

But a local government can deny them the right to open a business up or not renew a permit, and that is a right I do agree with them on in this case.

[geardaddy]

8. Examiner? Really?

This is just some conservative nut job re-hashing a Fox story.

[hack89]

12. But the ACLU quotes are accurate. nt

[Deep13]

10. "ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/aclu-defends-nazis-right-to-burn-down-aclu-headqua,1648/

[FrodosPet]

128. Who Said

"If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done."

Was it:

1. The CEO of Chick-fil-A
2. Rush Limpblob
or
3. The Prophet Muhammad?

The Islamic religion has a harsher view of homosexuality than even the CEO of Chick-fil-A. This passage advocates MURDER, not merely the prevention of same-sex marriage. But people got really upset when there was an effort to block the opening of an Islamic cultural center in NYC.

I am one of those people. I don't believe in policing beliefs, even if those beliefs disgust me.

Boycott Chick-fil-A? ABSOLUTELY! I hope they end up penniless from people exercising their First Amendment rights. But using the power of the state to punish someone who has not violated the law? Totally out of bounds.

Of course, trying to might be a great jobs program for lawyers.

[Llewlladdwr]

156. Well said!

[Downwinder]

16. I don't eat chicken, alright if I boycott Chick-fil-A?

[nykym]

21. OK so the owner is

a loud mouthed bigot. Instead of telling them that they don't like his politics play the corporate game.
No tax abatement, no tax deferrals, strict adherence to sanitation rules, health codes, employee rules and so on make the climate somewhat hostile by staying within the legal boundaries of the law. If it impacts their bottom line they will reconsider.

[truebrit71]

22. Dear ACLU, as much as I love you 98% of the time, this is one of those times you're wrong...

...and not just by a little bit...

You are 100% wrong.

This is not a question of an "anti LBGT message", this is a question of blocking a company that actively supports causes that are discriminatory to gays.

[zeemike]

30. No they are not wrong.

Rights denied to one is rights denied to all....why have we forgot that basic and fundamental principle?
I guess we have been just as effected by the hype and propaganda as the right wing.
It is a slippery slope and we are near the edge.

[Downtown Hound]

78. I'm not too worried about this edge.

If we go off this edge, all I can see happening is that bigots won't have any place to hide. Oh, the horror.

[zeemike]

105. that is the same reasoning that gave us the patriot act

And other things as well...it attacks the bad guys...so let's just ignore the moral principle behind it all and get em.
It makes us just like them and justifies what they did and will do.

[Downtown Hound]

114. So denying a homophobic business permission to open up a store is now the same thing

as jailing somebody without trial, spying on them without a warrant, or using torture, excuse me, "enhanced interrogation techniques." I call bullshit. What makes us just like them is when we use sensationalist and extremest logic and make ridiculous comparisons that have no factual basis in reality. That's what Republicans do.

[zeemike]

116. Well that is what you don't understand about principal.

Maters of principle are not judged by their severity or the lack of it
And the way things are is that small things are put out for you to accept with a rational for it...then the small things get bigger and soon you have accepted the saddle...
I am against it on principle because it is just as wrong to deny someone a permit for their religious or political beliefs as it would be to deny them because they were liberals...And I think this is a mistake to line up like that to be used.

[Downtown Hound]

117. I just have a different interpretation of principals than you

For starters, as has been mentioned many times on this thread, Chick-fil-A's stance on gays goes way beyond a few recent comments made by their CEO. It includes donations to anti-gay groups and corporate policies that could easily be construed to being discrimination against gays.

I however, don't think it's at all unreasonable for communities to demand that businesses that wish to do business in their region adapt certain codes of conduct and philosophy that are designed to enhance diversity and promote tolerance. As I've said many times, the city of Arcata in CA doesn't allow corporate chain stores in their town plaza because of those types of stores business practices, as well as an effort to prop up their local economy. Somebody like you might think that that's trampling on those corporation's rights, but I say different.

What about the rights of communities to adopt principals of their own, such as being a hate and bigotry free zone? What if a community wishes to take a stand for worker and environmental rights, or in this case, gay rights? Do you at all consider that maybe communities have rights too, and that maybe a community of thousands or even millions is more important that the right of an already super rich CEO to make even more money?

Everybody here keeps bringing up the constitution, but I must have missed the amendment where it says that a business will ALWAYS have the right to open up its doors wherever and whenever it chooses, even if it flies in the face of a communities right to stand for something greater than the simple accumulation of more profit.

[zeemike]

119. does this help you understand my point?

For starters, as has been mentioned many times on this thread, Chick-fil-A's stance on environmentalism goes way beyond a few recent comments made by their CEO. It includes donations to pro-environmental groups and corporate policies that could easily be construed to being discrimination against coal company.

If not then I can't make you see if from my POV....but what you do to one you do to all...the principles of freedom of thought and beliefs are not conditional...and yes communities do have the right to say what will fit their zoning plans...but when you start letting people make those decisions based on political or religious...or lack of religious ...convictions then it is opening up that can of worms of censorship and intimidation.
It goes to the heart of the guarantees of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...we should be able to hold unpopular beliefs without the fear of punishment by the majority.

[Downtown Hound]

122. No

Because saving the environment is not the same thing as practicing bigotry. The rights of minorities should be protected, and thanks to Obama, that now includes gays as well.

If somebody wanted to try and prevent a company from expanding based on a record of trying to save the environment, first of all, let's see if they can get the support that this boycott is getting. As I've said, much of this is the result of citizens demanding that their local governments deny them permission to expand. But I have a hunch that anybody that tried would probably be laughed at, and rightfully so.

Second of all, with the exception of the pocketbooks of a few already super wealthy corporations, you'd have to demonstrate how going after an environmentally conscious company has hurt anybody en masse, whereas I could show you plenty of evidence ranging from violence to isolation and suicide of how attitudes like the one espoused by Chick-fil-A's CEO has damaged the gay community.

So no matter how much you want to try and pretend that your example is exactly like the situation with Chick-fil-A, it isn't. And again, it's the type of sensationalist and extremest logic that I find more akin to Faux News than DU.

[zeemike]

134. That was not intended to be the exact same example.

It was intended to show how you can morph your good intentions...(to punish the bad guy)..into something that is restrictive and censoring of unpopular ideas.
And we see this all the time now in Meta...there is always someone offended by some one's ideas or speech.
But I know better than trying to reason with such logic...when you are on a crusade against what you see as the great Satan you cannot be talked out of it...even though the results will do the exact opposite of what you think it will do.'
Already the right wing are lining up on the chicken sandwich side and that company may actually increase it's business from the right wing making it a mecca for conservatives....and they are already using this against democrats Obama as examples of Marxism.
It will serve nothing but to divide us further and sharpen the division...and that is the plan...divide and conquer.

Oh and by the way...I resent your suggestions that if I disagree with you I am like Fox News. But let's drop this now because we know where it will lead...where it always leads... to division and condemnation and a lot of angry words.

[Downtown Hound]

184. If you don't like being compared to Faux News, stop taking their side. n/t

[zeemike]

190. Aw yes the old "you are either with us or against us"

Independent thought not permitted in this little war.
Never the less what I have said is coming true...it is a loss for us not a gain...we have made some committed Rmoney supporters and fans of the one you are fighting against.

[Downtown Hound]

191. Fuck independent thought

We're fighting a war against bigotry here. People are being denied their rights, they're being attacked, they're being killed. This isn't the time for independent thought. This is a time to fight.

So yeah, you're either with us or you're against us. And you've made your position quite clear.

[zeemike]

192. Yes then I am against you

And it is your choosing not mine.
I do not take grover norquist pledges and my loyalty will remain with truth and justice not movements.

[Downtown Hound]

197. LOL. Do me a favor, go and say that to a group of gay people that aren't even allowed to have legal

families yet. Yeah, preach to them about truth and justice because a multi-millionaire bigot can't make even more money clogging people's arteries when they're not even allowed to marry the person they love. Yeah, that's some truth and justice for you.

[zeemike]

198. Say what?

That I am not with them right or wrong?....and when they are wrong I say so?
Sorry if I am a reality check but there it is...and they would do well to listen to constructive criticizing instead of viewing all critics as the enemy.
And how will protesting a chicken sandwich get you the rights you seem to want?...you think that Mr Chicken man is going to give it to you because of the pressure you are putting on him?....right now he is laughing his ass off all the way to the bank, and other right wingers are seeing it and thinking how can I get the gays to protest me...and the gays have gained nothing...and may have lost ground.

[Downtown Hound]

199. Protesting a chicken sandwich will do nothing

But slamming a business who's CEO supports bigotry will let them know that that kind of thinking is no longer acceptable in modern society, and rightfully so. As to Mr. Chicken man laughing all the way to the bank, well, that wouldn't happen if people like you didn't kiss their butt and let them expand their reach under the guise of "free speech" now, would it?

And no, gays won't protest you, because well, you simply don't matter enough. But I'd just like to see how you react to them when you tell them in person that their rights don't matter more than a mega corporations right to expand.

[zeemike]

200. Hey it DID happen without me.

And I have never kissed the right wing ass ever...but I will and never have insisted that the first amendment to the constitution did not apply to them...and never will.
And if that makes me the enemy then so be it...but I will stand on basic principles of fairness no mater who is involved...what is right for one is right for all.

The problem here is that someone has convinced you that it is OK to modify principles to achieve some goal...or the end justifying the means.

But your right I don't matter...only the ones that do not decent matter...the rest of us are just nothing.
I find this very troubling and it looks bad for progressives long term cause a house divided cannot stand...and boy are the right wingers good and division.

[Downtown Hound]

201. Your idea of fairness is what's warped

As I've said, cities zone and regulate all the time. It's nothing unusual. It seems that this is the only time people like you come out and whine about fairness, and for what? For a fucking Christian bigot who made his millions giving people heart attacks?

I have modified no principals, contrary to your claim. My principals have ALWAYS been that it's okay for cities and communities to act for their well being, and if that means telling bigotry to take a hike, I'm all for it.

If you're so worried about progressives not being united, then stop taking the side of the right wing. Your choice. No one else's. But truth is, we can do without the likes of you and we'll be just fine.

[zeemike]

202. Well perhaps I should just tuck my tail in and slink away from here

If you don't need me around....then you could insist all agree with you or slink away like me or face the condemnation of the collective DUers like you....I am the divider because I say no to you.

So then it is OK with you for a city to zone out a chicken place if that owner gives money to Greenpeace and openly talks about environmentalism and probably has links to eco terrorism....and the city zoners don't like that and can decide that it is not in the best interest of the city....and don't complain about it cause they have the power and you support that power.
I guess you are right...you have not modified principles...you just don't posses the same ones as I do....nor the same ones as the constitution has in spirit and law.

[Downtown Hound]

203. hey if you want to leave, buh bye.

That's your choice. And no, it wouldn't be okay with me for a city to zone out a business based on a record of supporting the environment, because that type of thing helps us as a society. Bigotry does nothing for us but hold us back and injure all of us, but in this case, gays the most of all.

I think it's okay for a city to zone based on the collective health of all. Phasing out bigotry falls under that. Protecting our planet does not.

Boy that was simple, wasn't it?

[zeemike]

206. Well I guess you don't get sarcasm ether.

And I am not going anywhere unless you can get Skinner to post new TOS that says thou shall never disagree with the gay posters here or their supporters.

But Eco terrorist are good for the city?...who knew that?
And you can't seem to see that solid principles of fairness and law are essential....and the must apply to all not just the ones you like or approve of....without it you have the dictatorship of the majority...something the founding fathers feared would happen without clear principles of free speech and association.

But what else would you like to phase out of society...hell religion itself can be harmful to the collective society...think Jim Jones or the militia groups...is that next?....would the atheist go for that too?
How about Scientology?..you could make a case against them too....hell if we made a list we could go after them all and turn this into a country with no danger at all...safe from unpopular speech and unpopular ideas and full of dead brains that were afraid of their own thoughts.

[Downtown Hound]

207. So you're now equating a business that supports the environment with eco-terrorists?

Pretty much everyone of your examples is the type of extremest, sensationalist bullshit that I find, oh now where was it? Oh yeah!

Faux News.

[zeemike]

208. Well your business that supports the environment

Is the coal town's business that supports Eco terrorism....it is all bout perception and point of view.
And that is why we have free speech and it is protected by law.
But yep I am a conservative through and through posting right wing things I see on Fox news....but I don't have TV so I must get it from Freepervill and post it here as a mole....we are a clever bunch us moles.

[Downtown Hound]

212. Let's just cut to the chase

Can you show me the constitutional amendment that says that a business has the right to open anywhere and that communities must grant that right no matter what? The constitution protects free speech, and Chick-fil-A's CEo isn't going to jail for exercising it. It protects freedom of religion, and the CEO isn't going to jail for exercising it. Can you show me where it says that a business can open anywhere and communities have no right to zone against it? What part of the constitution protects that?

[zeemike]

213. Does life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mean nothing to you?

How can you say you have liberty if your business hinges on whether or not you have an unpopular idea?...there is nothing more fundamental to liberty than that...and if you allow government to punish people for their speech by restricting their business then the first amendment becomes a joke...free speech if you don't speak wrong is not free speech.
And ANY kind of punishment for free speech is wrong...you don't get to say that it is OK because no criminal charges were filed...and besides you say that his speech and giving to organizations you think are bad then why don't you file a legal complaint about it...make a discrimination complaint....well you can't because he did not DO anything..the laws is designed to protect people from what you do not what you say or who you associate yourself with.

Cities DO NOT have the right to zone out unpopular speech...that is unconstitutional and would be quickly rejected by any court...but what you want to do is an end run around that by getting them to reject it on some phony reason or to just say they don't have to tell you the reason...and that flies in the face of honest government and establishes it's own authority in disregard of the law of the land...and that is a dangerous slide to dictatorship...so you can see how people will reject this and think that the Liberals if they are so foolish to support this are what the right says they are...authoritarians bent on destroying the constitution.

And that is what this is about...making the left look as much like what the right says they are before the election. and this is probably just the beginning of that and worked very well for the right wing agenda.

[Downtown Hound]

214. So in other words, no, you can't point out any constitutional amendment

that says a business has the right to open anywhere. All you can do is quote right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but ignore the fact that Chick-fil-A is denying those very things to gays.

And I'm sorry, but businesses are zoned out all the time, so you know what? You got nothing. It's not illegal. And you know what, it's not immoral either to take a stand for equality. So, go stand for "truth and justice" someplace else Superman. Because we're going to do everything we can to stop the spread of this bigoted business from spreading.

And you can bitch all you want, but it ain't gonna change nothing.

[zeemike]

215. I have no illusions that I will ever convince you of anything.

When ideology becomes your king logic can never rule.
And the ideology that you are saying here it that the end justifies the means...and if it is necessary for you to punish someone for their speech that you don't like you are willing to overlook the first amendment and make some new rules.....speech is only free when approved of by you...and if it is not then you have the right to punish it by government intervention...something you would never tolerate if it was against you or something you cared about....then you would scream discrimination at the top of your lungs.

What you will accomplish it is to rally the christian right and they will vote against Obama because they have been convinced by all of these actions that he is anti christian because you are on his side...(presumably but at this point I am not sure of that ether)
And by extension that makes him anti Christian...now where have I heard that Obama is anti christian...you bet the right wingers say it all the time...and this is confirming it in the mind of those that heard it but did not really know it.

And I will stay right where I am thank you... as long as the democratic party and DU still is still open to me and people like me that can see things with a clear eye and not ruled by the political correctness you want to impose....I do not give in to intimidating speech as you have found out.

[Downtown Hound]

216. Um, yeah, you go right ahead and pat yourself on the back about

what a true hero and independent thinker you are. I'll be out fighting for true equal rights and against bigotry. In the end my efforts will pay off as millions of people will get the rights denied to them for so long. Yours will pay off in millions of more people having heart attacks and gay people having their rights denied longer than they should be.

Have a nice day.

[zeemike]

217. It is rare to see an independent thinker as a hero.

they are usually destroyed by the group thinkers.
But I am curious as to how I am gong to cause millions of people to have heart attacks...but don't bother answering it...I know it was just a shot.

[truebrit71]

160. Yes they are. They are an organisation that supports bigotry.

It is illegal to discriminate based on sex, race, gender or sexual orientation. Chik openly encourages bigotry and is therefore in violation of the law. END.OF.STORY.

[zeemike]

165. Well pardon me but it is not the end of the story at all.

The laws against discrimination does not cover speech...so you cannot be tried under the law for what you say even if it is bigoted...and by the way I support that idea NOT because I am a bigot or I encourage it in any way...I support that right because if they can do it to him they can do it to me....History is filled with examples of the rights of people being taken away piece by piece and using moral justifications for it too....so if you can set a president of restricting a right for a moral reason you can then do it for other rights.
Free speech is either a right or it is not...and what you take away from one you take from all.

We have the freedom to be assholes if we want...and if you take the freedom to be a bigot away then how can you say you have the right to be gay?..maybe he was born a bigot, raised as a bigot and has bigoted blood in his veins...maybe he can help it any more than a gay can help being what he is?
We have totally lost the idea of live and let live...you have the right not to eat there and I would never eat there even though I am not gay...is that not enough for you?.

No I only see this as an attempt to polarize for political gain....each new outrage that comes up drives people to one side or the other and increases the anger and fear on both sides...and it usually works against us by making us give up principles of fairness and justice and plays into their meme....and then they pick a new one to divide us on.

[truebrit71]

166. Boston and Chicago have a right to grant (or not) building permits..

...for whatever fucking reason they choose...if the company is breaking the law then it's game over...

There are other, far better things for the ACLU to be concentrating on then this tempest in a tea-cup...

[zeemike]

167. Well indeed they do have that right.

And the right wingers have the right to feel that he is being punished for his unpopular speech...which he clearly is.

And so then does say Montgomery Alabama have the right to deny a permit to do business to someone who is openly gay and gives money to organizations that promote gay agendas right?
And Phoenix Arizona can deny that same permit to someone who donates to La Raza.
And no reason need be given.
These principles protect us all and what you are suggesting is opening up a can or worm social war that in the end progressives will lose.
But nothing will stop them I suppose...especially as we near November...the more conflict and more social waring is good for the right wing.

[COLGATE4]

179. What is the law that says "It is illegal to discriminate based on sex,

race, gender or sexual orientation" that you are taking about?

[truebrit71]

180. This one..

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/illinois-employment-discrimination-31693.html

[COLGATE4]

193. That's only the law in Illinois, not other states.

[COLGATE4]

194. There is nothing you can point to that

says that Chick (the corporation) discriminates. Encouraging bigotry is not an illegal act, nor is it legally discrimination. It's called free speech.

[4th law of robotics]

158. Remember that next time Jackson MS works on banning some company for it's pro-choice message

or Atlanta because that corporation publicly opposes the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, that pendulum swings both ways.

[JoeyT]

29. I agree with the ACLU

As a non-white atheist that lives in the deep south, I'm not comfortable with the local government stepping in and telling people they can't open a business. I can very easily imagine some of the people that live here doing that to me.

The correct way for these places to handle Shit-Fil-A is to allow them to open, and at the first whiff of discrimination fine them into oblivion while giving massive settlements to those they discriminated against. Plus it costs them a lot more money, fills local coffers, and makes it absolutely clear discriminatory practices will *not* be tolerated.

[NeverEnuff]

46. Me too!

The principles laid out by the Constitution must apply to all.

[RufusTFirefly]

68. +1 Apparently, some people don't get the whole "Constitution thing" n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

89. Government can regulate commerce. It's in The Constitution. Look it up.

[Travis_0004]

102. Lets say a business was pro gay marriage?

What would you say if a mayor who was against gay marriage blocks that business from opening. I'm sure you would be against it.

In the same sense, I think even if a business is agaisnt gay mariage, they have a right to open whereever they want. Protest out side their stores, boycott them, I'm fine with that, but don't think we should block their right to open a business.

If they were refusing to serve gay customers, or hire gay people, that would be one thing, but I have no evidence that that is the case.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

103. Watch this and let me know what you think.

http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/vod/HSE31

How do you think gay families make out at those "retreats"?

What you (and others) can't seem to grasp is, CF HQ operates in a state where it is still OK to discriminate against gay people. They DO discriminate against gay people. But now they want to expand everywhere else, including where gays are a protected class, and now they are screaming bloody murder when called on it.





See these gray states? You can be fired or denied employment for being gay in those states.

I think people don't recognized the lack of protections when they spout that CF follows the laws. Yeah they follow the laws alright.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

[JoeyT]

124. I say let them expand to those states.

And when they discriminate against gay people as they've become accustomed to doing, the people they're discriminating against can sue them into oblivion while the non-shitty state they're now operating in can fine the living hell out of them.

So you'd be comfortable with those gray states banning companies that didn't discriminate against gay people? Or banning gay people from owning businesses? Of course you wouldn't. That's why you can't ban CF operating in a state that doesn't agree with them. You can make them follow the laws of that state, though.

The message sent to them should be loud and clear: "Dear CF, you've gotten away with being bigots elsewhere, but if you try that shit here you're going to find out just how fast a large company can go bankrupt."

[COLGATE4]

196. Yes, but it can't regulate speech (except within very

tight boundaries). Viewpoint discrimination isn't one of them.

[Bellerophon]

90. And many

Are ignorant to the fact that the precedent that they are creating can be used against them....

[Matariki]

40. As much as I hate their bigotry, I agree with the ACLU

People need to boycott their business. Cities should not ban a business because of the CEO's opinions. If they were refusing to serve or employ particular groups of people that would be another story.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

56. What about when the CEO has a pattern of transferring his religious opinions to business practices?

For instance: Preferring to hire "married people" when gay marriage is still illegal where he is headquartered?

Or asking for an "essay" on a potential employees "life story"?

[hack89]

59. There are appropriate labor laws to address such issues. nt

[Downtown Hound]

76. And there's the right of local governments to not allow them to do business there.

Those can also address such issues.

[hack89]

80. So a local government has the "right" to deny a license to pro-choice corporation?

because local people don't like abortion?

[Downtown Hound]

84. See post# 83

I meant to post that as a response to this post.

[arely staircase]

101. governments dont have rights

They have powers. Specifically enumerated powers. In the case of a city they would be defined by the city charter and must conform to state and federal constitutions. Im guessing that denying permits based on obnoxious opinions runs afoul of both.

[Downtown Hound]

113. And yet, Arcata continues to do it

Feel free to challenge them in a court of law for it, but I have a hunch that you're not going to get very far.

[treestar]

155. No they can't

They cannot make laws that don't pass muster under the constitution.

[Downtown Hound]

83. Gay people are a protected class under law

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/October/Gays-Now-a-Protected-Class-of-People-under-New-Law/

One could easily interpret this as saying that working against their rights is in violation of this law, and could be subject to penalties, such as not having your business permit approved.

Denying business licenses to those who are pro-choice doesn't fit into protecting any kind of legal class that i know of, given that the Supreme Court made abortion legal.

[hack89]

87. But how is expressing an opinion of marriage equality violating anyone's rights?

if the corporation says they will obey all local, state and federal civil rights laws, there is no grounds to deny a license.

[Downtown Hound]

88. Donating millions of dollars to anti-gay groups

Promoting traditional marriage in the workplace while denying it to others, and in general, working to see to it that gays are a continued second class group of citizens is violating their rights.

Oh and, have you seen this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021032029

[hack89]

96. But if they hire gay workers and serve gay customers whose rights are being violated?

they have to do something illegal - donating money to anti-gay groups is not illegal.

[Downtown Hound]

108. No, you don't have to do something illegal

Like I said above, the city of Arcata doesn't allow corporate chain stores in its plaza out of concern for both local businesses and the fact that corporate chain stores in general engage in questionable business practices. Arcata is far from the only city that has done this.

How is that different from denying Chick-fil-A permits on the basis that they're homophobic?

[hack89]

109. It is a two edge sword you are swinging there

don't complain when more conservative cities start goring your sacred oxen.

[Downtown Hound]

112. LOL. Conservatives have been coming after my sacred oxen for years

Pot clubs in my state are under attack by both Democrats and Republicans. Night clubs have been shut down. Even a boxing club that I belonged to as a teenager was shut down because of the type of sport that it was.

So if, after all that, I can stop he expansion of a business that practices bigotry, I'm going to take it.

That's one of the major problems with the left. They'll let the right beat on them and beat on them and beat on them, and when they finally get a chance to hit back, they won't take it out of some misguided notion of fairness and erroneously believing that Republicans will extend them the same courtesy if the situation was reversed. They won't.

[TheKentuckian]

150. How is it you don't get that all chains are being treated exactly the same

regardless of the ownerships politics?

All fast food isn't being restricted, nor all chicken places, not all fried chicken places.

[Downtown Hound]

185. How is it that you don't understand that cities can zone however they want?

And that in some areas, certain businesses are restricted for a variety of reasons, many of them less valid than defense of bigotry?

[bluestateguy]

49. ACLU: defenders of Rush Limbaugh's "privacy", Citizens United, Nazi marches in Skokie

and the Westboro Baptist Church.

Yep. They can pretty much go to hell.

[askeptic]

138. What you advocate is more oppressive than those you denigrate

The Constitution has to apply equally - it has to defend everyone's free speech and freedom of thought, not just those you agree with. If I thought you were representative of most people on this forum I would drop my Dem party affiliation

[Vattel]

60. OMG, that is insane

[Not Me]

79. I had this discussion with a friend of a Facebook friend...

My response was, "how is this any different than denying a group of Muslims a permit for a Community Center in lower Manhattan?"

Politics are and will always be.

[PoliticAverse]

86. Indeed... n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

91. Because one is based on their religion and the other is based on their ACTIONS.

(note: in the case of dick-fil-it, just because religion is their EXCUSE for their discriminatory practices, that doesn't mean they get to hide behind their religion when violating the law).

Hope this helps.

[Not Me]

93. Hassin, you are right

My point was that politics will always cloud the decision.

[randome]

94. What 'practices'?

So far as I know, the company does not discriminate against anyone.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

98. Watch this and let me know if it changes your view of CF?

And tell me if you honestly believe a gay person would have a chance in that company?

[randome]

106. My opnion of Chick-Fil-A is not a good one.

But I'm watching and watching and I still don't see anything.

[mainer]

120. Has there been evidence of CF discrimination against gay employees or customers?

I haven't seen any. Show that to me, and you'll have a case.

[SkatmanRoth]

97. So bigots have rights too; they are still bigots

[jmowreader]

100. This isn't going to be popular, but I'm prepared for that

I'm thinkin' 'fuck it, let 'em do whatever the hell they want.'

Chick-fil-A is in the fast food industry. (The part that serves especially boring and bland food, but that's an issue for a different thread.)

They don't go into places where they're the only fast-food restaurant, so no one is forced to eat there.

Because they ARE in the fast-food industry, which has something like 200 percent annual turnover (hence they're always hiring), no one is forced to work there.

Not one LGBT dollar, or one LGBT-supporting dollar, has to make its way into Don Cathy's cash register. Those dollars can go into the registers of restaurants that support LGBT causes (or at least support food that has flavor).

Call it the Final Solution to the bigot problem: let's let the teabaggers and fundies eat Chick-fil-A until their arteries clog and they drop dead in the middle of the street from a combination of atheriosclerosis and hate, and us rational people can go to locally-owned places that have at least heard of seasonings besides salt.

[annabanana]

133. OR Every gay in town could show up every day. Buy ONE CUP OF TEA and spend hours

at the booth.

on edit: make sure and tip the wait staff generously.

[jmowreader]

148. On edit: WHAT wait staff?

We're talking about a fast food chain here...six or seven people behind the counter, and that's it.

[TheKentuckian]

151. No, tea is to high a profit margin. I'd bet they make more off a tea than anything.

At least by percentage.

I'm thinking that it is possible that a sandwich (not a combo...fries, salad, and the drink are all high margin) and a water (makes em burn a cup, ice, water probably comes from the soda machine which adds wear and tear) might be the lowest profit way to go plus you have bought an "entree" which precludes you from being described as a hindrance/clogging up the operation/being vagrants like a gang of teenagers sipping on a drink all day while really doing exactly that.

Somebody on our side has a grasp on their food costs and margins that can explain how to really hit them but I guess tea cost them as close to same as water. My bet is though they are known for their sandwiches they make the profits off sides and drinks. I could be wrong, a sandwich is big ticket so the percentage may be much lower the bottom line net income may be more than the total cost of the tea.
I'm just thinking bog them up, do so in a fashion that minimizes profits, and do so in a way that makes it hard for pro-business forces to keep you from bogging them down on loitering and shit.

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. I find it most disconcerting that there are so many people here on DU who don't believe in freedom

" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire


Now, just what's so difficult about understanding this principle?

[annabanana]

130. I'm suspecting there's bunches of

trolling going on in this thread.

The ACLU's support of stuff we KNOW is repugnant is their bonafides. It is the proof to us that they will support US when we take a stand for unpopular positions.

[Douglas Carpenter]

143. I don't think they are intentionally trolling and even I don't agree with the ACLU 100% of the time

on everything. I think they were being more ideological than realistic about the reality of how elections actually work when it came to the Citizens United decision for example. However, free speech and the principle of free speech was created specifically for free speech we don't like. .

[NoGOPZone]

146. Yes indeed.

Many of the usual suspects turned up for this discussion

[Riftaxe]

111. ACLU does the right thing again

condemned soundly by a very few extremists who would have fought tooth and nail against the civil rights movement, yet proclaim their own support for gay marriage (and cannot even see their own hypocrisy).

[mainer]

118. Gay marriage supporter here, but I must agree with the ACLU on this.

If Chick Fil-A (horrible sandwiches, by the way) were to refuse to serve gay patrons, then they should be banned from opening a business.

But if the manager or owner of chick Fil-A simply voices his opinion about gay marriage, and still serves all patrons, then he has not violated any laws. He's simply expressed an opinion. Which, according to the Constitution, means he is perfectly within his rights.

[guneydomuz]

125. Community Standards

Many cities and towns legally discriminate by using ‘Community Standards”, you know the same standards that keep one from opining up a strip club or sex toy shop in the town of their choosing.

Strip clubs and Sex Toy Shops are 100% Legal but localities can and do routinely use them as an excuse to keep businesses out or to force them to a less desirable section of town.

The chicken place can be easily discourage from even opening up, citizens and the city, county and state can tie up the company in court for years if they want with various zoning laws and other assorted business and health rules, city inspectors can take an extra hard line on everything they do, the bureaucrats can ‘lose’ paperwork and take their sweet assed time doing things, people can have protests even while they are building the place. Anyone hired or working for the chicken place can be easily identified and protested, even at their home including their family and relatives.

Much can been done legally to discourage the chicken place to not open, corporations HATE bad PR and if the drums are beaten long and loud enough the chicken place will change their mind and go away.

[part man all 86]

135. Fracking, alcohol, nuclear power plants, firework makers, bars, guns and ammo, landfills, refineries

all of these have been barred from towns. These are legitmate businesses that have been discriminated against. Head shops, tobacco, mines, oil derricks are even more business that are zoned out of cities. My favorite is Orlando Florida, homeless organizations that are barred for feeding the homeless. Also planned parenthood and abortion clinics. The list is endless that the conservatives and moderates have pushed on their citizens inthe name of zoning laws and such. In absolute freedoms these are wrong to stop from opening as some are suggesting but there are no absolute freedoms, hey what do I know I am just, you know insane for not wanting facking in our towns and counties.

[TheKentuckian]

152. They aren't talking restricting restaurants, chicken places, fried chicken shacks, sandwich shops

The target is a specific company based on one of its principles political expression not the company's actual practices.

In every instance you have describe whole industries not specific companies. 100% apples and oranges on this.

The community not wanting drilling is not even comparable to not wanting a company to drill because they also have made a commitment to renewable energy but allowing carbon minded only companies to drill away, which folks seem to be arguing is okay.

Hell, essentially it is being argued that Colorado Springs could force out and keep out people for say contributing to Obama or sending Bernie some money. That shit is all public, the Reich Wingers rule there why should they permit folks who support Democrats, Socialists, and other forces opposed to their majority beliefs to profit from their communities?

[4th law of robotics]

159. Those are practices or types of companies

not specific companies.

If they banned fracking . . . from specific oil companies and not from others based on the opinion of the city government for those specific companies that would be wrong.

Or they they banned guns from a certain company. And so on.

[Douglas Carpenter]

144. Free speech exist specifically to protect opinions we loathe

Everyone - even Hitler and Stalin supported free speech for people they agreed with. There was a time not so long ago when free speech in favor of gay marriage could have brought about a movement to silence that opinion. No doubt there are places even in America today where it still could. The left is particularly vulnerable to being denied free speech because many of us of the left - such as myself frequently take extremely unpopular opinions and just can't seem to shut up abut it. The only shield we have is the extent to which we can keep in tact the principle of the right to annoy people with unpopular opinions that deeply offend the greater community.

[cthulu2016]

145. 100% Right

[4th law of robotics]

157. +1

Applying laws selectively to punish people/groups based on their viewpoints is a hallmark of fascism.

Hold them to the exact same standard as any other business and then protest once they open the store.

[SylviaD]

161. I agree with the ACLU. Democrats stand for free speech n/t

[may3rd]

162. agreed, and when it comes to boycott, has anybody ever really found one of those places ?

[4th law of robotics]

170. That looks photoshopped

won't live or die by that claim but that's my impression.

[Bucky]

171. I hate it when I'm wrong.

But the ACLU is right. There's other ways to skin this cat. There should be a boycott. But singling out Chick-Fil-A for the views of its CEO is wrong. The better solution would be for Chicago to adopt a policy requiring non-gender-of-partner discrimination laws for city contractors or food operating licenses. This is appropriate government regulation without the targeted discrimination of the current proposal.

[and-justice-for-all]

172. They, He, can say whatever the fuck he wants...

they are entitled to that. But, we as a society, do not have to accept it and he should be held accountable for his words.

[alp227]

174. I think the cities should let the chick fil a restaurants set up shop there and fail.

So that the owners would follow the advice of a certain former presidential candidate: "BLAME YOURSELF!"

If a KKK Grand Wizard wanted to open a business in my town, I say let him do it and make an ass of himself in the process. This story is why I like the ACLU. You've gotta defend the rights of even those you disagree with.

[goclark]

178. Well what about our new Du members

situation ? ~ the boss at chik-fil-a should have been fired IMO.

Sorry I don't know the current rules about how to post the remarks in a thread -- just returned to DU a few months ago and delighted to be back ...

Here is the name / Post of the new member:

BBGC (36 posts)

Interesting day at work today.... (chik-fil-a

[Odin2005]

181. Municipalities have the right to zone any way they like.

They do not need to justify why they refuse to allow a business into their city.

The ACLU can go jump in a lake, they are Bourgeois "Civil Libertarians" who sided with the corporations in Citizens United. Fuck them, they are not our friend.

[hack89]

182. So even if a company meets every legal requirement

the city can say no and give as a reason "because"? Really?

What other laws can they ignore?

[Downtown Hound]

183. Thank you. A voice of reason

in a thread full of disgusting defense of bigotry.

[COLGATE4]

195. Not true. Overly restrictive zoning measures,

particularly those which are viewpoint discrimination disguised as zoning are routinely struck down by the courts.

[slackmaster]

204. Zoning to exclude one specific business as opposed to all similar businesses would be begging...

...to get sued.

[hack89]

209. What if a company meets all the requirements of the zoning laws?

what then?

Don't you think cities have to follow their own laws or can they simply do what they want?

[Odin2005]

210. Deny them a permit, saying that they are a threat to land values.

[hack89]

211. So make shit up and hope you don't lose in court?

OK.

[dtom67]

205. Change the view.....

Wanna know if your view is discriminatory?

Change the name of the company to one that has views similar to yours and ask if a municipality has the right to deny them

Fairness is a difficult position to take; sooner or later you will face a challenge to your personal beliefs. What will you do? Be fair or act unfairly by acting in a biased manner?

If it is OK to deny this company based solely on the open beliefs of the Owner then it is OK for municipalities dominated by beliefs other than yours to act in accordance with those beliefs.

So a North Carolina city should be able to deny rights to a small business owner who has a daughter that has had an abortion unless he public condemns her.

Sound fair to you?

It has nothing to do with defending the rights of Chickflay .

You either defend the rights of everyone , or you don't defend anyone.

Of course, all that really needs to be done is to ask the chickflay Owner if he hires Homosexuals or people who are Pro-gay rights.

If he says no, then he is guilty of discrimination.

If he says yes, then some of those Homophobes who eat at Chickflay are eating food that has been touched by said homosexuals or the people who support equal rights.

Therefore, any homophobe who eats at chickflay is an idiot.


Doesn't matter to me if the goober on my chicken sandwich came from a homosexual or a hetero;

I wouldn't eat it.