Op-Ed When we boycot Starbucks, it's the will of Jesus, but when gays boycot CFA, it's bullying!!

[Kulindahr]

I'm pretty sure that an entire city council can actually flat-out refuse opening a franchise if reasonable terms won't (or can't) be met. If terms include complete protection against all forms of discrimination, I can see how they could hold their footing.

Cities have gotten away with keeping out Walmart on the basis of protecting local business. All it would take is someone local having their own chicken place for that to work.

 

[Ninja108]

Free speech means you won't be thrown in jail and charged with a crime. Free speech does NOT mean you can say whatever you want and not expect consquences such as boycotts or being called out.

 

[JB3]

I'm pretty sure that an entire city council can actually flat-out refuse opening a franchise if reasonable terms won't (or can't) be met. If terms include complete protection against all forms of discrimination, I can see how they could hold their footing.

Reasonable terms HAVE been met though. It was approvedy the city's zoning commission.

- - - Updated - - -

Free speech means you won't be thrown in jail and charged with a crime. Free speech does NOT mean you can say whatever you want and not expect consquences such as boycotts or being called out.

Telling someone they can't open a restaurant based solely on their personal beliefs is discrimination and a violation of their right to free speech.

 

[JB3]

Not in the least. He is free to speak whatever he wants. Right to free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Those consequences cannot be discriminatory and cannot violate federal law and his constitutional rights.

 

[Rolyo85]

I trust that people more fluent in the law than both you and me are dealing with this

 

[JB3]

I trust that people more fluent in the law than both you and me are dealing with this

If there's politicians involved, they're talking out their ass.

 

[frankfrank]

Refusing to allow a company to build a property solely based on their stance on gays, especially when the company has met all of the zoning requirements and worked out any other issues with the city, is illegal. That is what the alderman in Chicago has done. It is arbitrary, it is wrong, and it certainly will not stand.

Look, CFA's leadership's stance on gays, and their contributions to anti-gay groups, is obviously wrong. That is not up for debate. But they DO have the right to contribute that money, and they DO have the right to express their opinion. Denying them the right to build a restaurant based on those views is wrong, plain and simple.

Its discrimination based on their beliefs and a violation of Cathy's right to free speech.

As much as I despise what that chain restaurant stands for, I agree ENTIRELY with your analysis. Any other analysis and action against CfA results in a slippery slope.

What if the shoe was on the other foot, and Terrific Tacos (just to name a FICTIONAL chain restaurant which is openly gay-friendly, successful, and tithes their profits to pro-Gay causes including marriage) wanted to expand into Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas? Waddayawannabet that the mayors, commissioners, aldermen...and perhaps even legislators...would be queueing up all to take their turns to make sure that Terrific Tacos didn't ever darken their cities, or perhaps even their states? We would be SCREAMING in here about how awful and horrible and unfair (and illegal) the ban is, disqualifying (DISCRIMINATING) against that company because they are pro-gay.

In the Bizarro World politics of today, CfA (or Terrific Tacos), as a corporation, IS A PERSON...and no matter how much money they donate to which causes, IS "SPEECH." The Citizens United Supreme Court decision equates money to speech in politics, which implies that MONEY = SPEECH in nonpolitical venues as well. (Of course one could argue this is political, because it does involve issues of social policy.)

I'm pretty sure that an entire city council can actually flat-out refuse opening a franchise if reasonable terms won't (or can't) be met. If terms include complete protection against all forms of discrimination, I can see how they could hold their footing.

Yes, but CfA has certainly hired gay employees (with, as I think, a "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy), and they will NOT refuse to serve gay people.

However, don't forget that there is NO FEDERAL LAW that prohibits antigay discrimination in public accommodations, so they COULD conceivably have huge signs that scream "NO GAYS ALLOWED!!" and it would be entirely legal. Hey, HELL YEAH, let them DO JUST THAT!! That might actually be something which helps put antigay discrimination into the U. S. code as another illegal form of discrimination!!

As such, any effort to ding them for DISCRIMINATION wouldn't hold water. A corporation is free do to whatever it wants with its profits, as long as it's legal - and donating big $$ to 501 (c)(3)'s (which many of these organizations are) is 100% allowed. As far as the U. S. Government is concerned, most of these organizations are officially churches. Donating to them is not discrimination, as the Government is officially blind to what ideology they actually preach.

Not in the least. He is free to speak whatever he wants. Right to free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Exactly true, but as long as nothing is being done illegally, or which endangers human life or health or well-being directly, the U. S. political system is set up so that "consequences" evolve in the marketplace. So yes, their antigay speech comes with consequences - but free speech doesn't allow a governmental entity to limit or prohibit commerce because of that. It has to be left to Boycotts, etc.

 

[Kulindahr]

In the Bizarro World politics of today, CfA (or Terrific Tacos), as a corporation, IS A PERSON...and no matter how much money they donate to which causes, IS "SPEECH." The Citizens United Supreme Court decision equates money to speech in politics, which implies that MONEY = SPEECH in nonpolitical venues as well. (Of course one could argue this is political, because it does involve issues of social policy.)

That was done a very long time ago. It would have been a pretty radical decision to overturn that principle.

Yes, but CfA has certainly hired gay employees (with, as I think, a "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy), and they will NOT refuse to serve gay people. As such, any effort to ding them for DISCRIMINATION wouldn't hold water. A corporation is free do to whatever it wants with its profits, as long as it's legal - and donating big $$ to 501 (c)(3)'s (which many of these organizations are) is 100% allowed. As far as the U. S. Government is concerned, most of these organizations are officially churches. Donating to them is not discrimination, as the Government is officially blind to what ideology they actually preach.

That's where the attack should be: corporations have no business donating to politics. They are not human, and thus have no inherent rights. Donating to politics is a privilege whose time is long over.

 

[maxpowr9]

Since this actually falls into the realm of property law, I asked my dad about it. At least in MA, for every food or beverage (beverage meaning alcohol) establishment, they must have a Victualler's License. A town or city committee must vote to issue said license [pending application of course] to an establishment. Like any council/court, they can not approve a license for nearly any reason. The applicant can of course appeal the decision but usually there is a valid reason why the license was rejected. There's a crap ton of sections (over 200) of all the regulations but yeah, all this talk about "free speech" is really a load of bunk. It comes down to a few people sitting in a room to decide if a place can open or not.

I'm just glad arbitration is not allowed in this regard.

 

[Ninja108]

I will say this...the mayors have no leg to stand on telling them they can't come to their cities because of what they've said. That is a Pandora's box that doesn't need to be opened.
The free speech part I was refering to is where the AFA and others think that people don't have the right to call them out for what they are saying. That is BS but what you would expect from them.

 

[JB3]

Since this actually falls into the realm of property law, I asked my dad about it. At least in MA, for every food or beverage (beverage meaning alcohol) establishment, they must have a Victualler's License. A town or city committee must vote to issue said license [pending application of course] to an establishment. Like any council/court, they can not approve a license for nearly any reason. The applicant can of course appeal the decision but usually there is a valid reason why the license was rejected. There's a crap ton of sections (over 200) of all the regulations but yeah, all this talk about "free speech" is really a load of bunk. It comes down to a few people sitting in a room to decide if a place can open or not.

I'm just glad arbitration is not allowed in this regard.

If their decision is based on the applicant's owner's political viewpoints, then the council can't deny their application.

 

[JB3]

Oh, and the alderman that heads the Chicago Zoning committee today stated that the city has no legal right to deny CFA's application if the site plan meets zoning regulations, and that he would override the aldermen's attempt to block the construction when the application goes to the zoning committee.

Zoning Chair: Moreno Shouldn’t Block Chick-Fil-A Solely Over Gay Marriage Flap « CBS Chicago

However, Solis said Moreno should not try to block Chick-Fil-A’s plans, just because he disagrees with Cathy’s objection to gay marriage.

“That’s not going to be an issue that will be considered in the decision of the committee, and my recommendation,” Solis said.

He said, if Moreno asks the committee to block Chick-Fil-A over human rights issues tied to Cathy’s stance on gay marriage, he would override Moreno’s aldermanic privilege.

“Yes I would, because I would not be on good legal ground to support that,” Solis said.

And not surprisingly, both the Mayor and aldermen have 'clarified' their position and are now saying they weren't going to block the restaurant at all. Apparently they finally consulted with the city's lawyers and realized they would lose any lawsuit that CFA brought against them.

Rahm Clarifies Chick-fil-A Stance | NBC Chicago

 

[Kulindahr]

The crazy thing is that if he'd kept his mouth shut, Rahm could have kept them out using one of several hundred bureaucratic tricks.

 

[JB3]

The crazy thing is that if he'd kept his mouth shut, Rahm could have kept them out using one of several hundred bureaucratic tricks.

Not in Chicago. The mayor has no power over things like this.

 

[frankfrank]

Some have made the argument to me that gay people are against freedom of speech because they are protesting and boycotting Cfa. It's just screwed up republican logic. Gay people are exercising their freedom of speech by talking out against a company that has donated millions to organizations like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, two hate groups that have driven gay people to suicide through their destructive policies.

Cfa may say they may not discriminate in that silly mission statement, but we all know they probably come up with reasons not to hire gay employees.

On the other hand, look at who screams BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT!! when Disney, Starbucks, Target, etc. do something which is gay-friendly. It's the SAME goddam people who thinks gays are horrible bullies for suggesting a Boycott of CfA.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

From my blog:

OK, has anybody actually listened to this?! The latter three minutes are pathetic! Such drama queens playing the victim about being bullied by all those antichristian homersetuals LOL.

 

[chance1]

what's happening with CFA is bullying

looking to close them down or not let them open stores

see Boston, Chicago and NYC (Christine Quinn - likely next mayor to succeed Bloomberg)

Gay Nazis at work

"you don't support gay marriage?" = you can't run a business

how not to sway hearts and minds for all to see - and it will push us backwards

 

[Kulindahr]

OK, has anybody actually listened to this?! The latter three minutes are pathetic! Such drama queens playing the victim about being bullied by all those antichristian homersetuals LOL.

Yes, I listened to it. I scrolled down so I didn't have to look at the wind-up toy on the left.

They can't even do justice to "drama queen" -- they just don't have the right spark.

 

[Kulindahr]

what's happening with CFA is bullying

looking to close them down or not let them open stores

see Boston, Chicago and NYC (Christine Quinn - likely next mayor to succeed Bloomberg)

Gay Nazis at work

"you don't support gay marriage?" = you can't run a business

how not to sway hearts and minds for all to see - and it will push us backwards

Making stuff up again, Chance?

You've really gone for the deep end lately, supporting lies all over the place. How about coming clean and calling Romney a socialist for having said all the same things about business that Obama did?


BTW, bullying means attacking someone without cause. $2mn a year is definitely cause.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

I don't even know where to begin!!! I'm not sure if you're just playing devil's advocate (you rascal you) or you really believe this.

(laces up workboots) so let's just dig in, I guess

what's happening with CFA is bullying

You gotta be shitting me! Using the term "bullying" (as well as the other term the religious right has co-opted, "intolerance") to describe the long overdue push-back that we (and many of our fellow travelers) have finally grown the balls for is nothing more than an attempt by those same people to create yet another false equivalency. They have long been accused of intolerance and bullying (and rightly so) so they create the equivalency that anyone who speaks out for what is right and is in disagreement with their "political stance" is bullying THEM. Make no mistake, it's nothing more than an attempt to discredit the idea that they were guilty of intolerance and bullying in the first place. PLEASE don't buy into that bullshit.

How, exactly is it "bullying" to determine (as a gay male) not to spend another red cent in a place committed to our enslavement and denying us a place at the table? How is it "bullying" to encourage our friends, family and acquaintances that spending money in such an establishment is funneling money to a group working against us?

looking to close them down or not let them open stores

What stores are we attempting to close? I'm not being rhetorical but there are existing stores we are attempting to have closed? Where? I would not be on board with attempting to have stores closed because they are anti-gay, but if they were forced to close stores because enough people refused to fund bigotry then that is the "free market" and the first amendment at its best, IMO.

see Boston, Chicago and NYC (Christine Quinn - likely next mayor to succeed Bloomberg)

Gay Nazis at work

Oh brother, for someone who went into a fit of apoplexy over the "gay republicans" = "Jews for Hitler" imbroglio of recent memory, I can't quite believe you went there, but it will come as a surprise to many that Thomas Menino and Rahm Emmanuel are gay so thanks for the tip.

"you don't support gay marriage?" = you can't run a business

While I believe both men spoke hastily (and from their hearts) I don't believe there was ever a workable plan in place to subvert the law to prevent the chain from opening anywhere. JB3 made very good points and I would not support a government entity attempting to block someone from spewing hatred, but I have yet to see one instance where a store was actually blocked from opening.

how not to sway hearts and minds for all to see - and it will push us backwards

Quite frankly, this surprises me the most from you. I had no idea you thought this way. I, for one, am not about to play nice, grovel and scrape in hopes that they will someday see fit to "gift us" with equal protection under the law and civil rights. That "gift" is not theirs to give and those things rightfully "belong" to us whether they like it or not. This will come as a nasty surprise to most of them, but they have no say.

I leave the swaying of hearts and minds to all the quirky, fun, safe gay characters on TV shows.