Chic-Fil-A (Chicago: employment, lawsuit, earnings)

[Chicagoist123]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

Ok. Thank you for trolling. Goodbye.

Haha you really think Vljaos is a troll?

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by Chicagoist123

Haha you really think Vljaos is a troll?

Only because that specific question has been explored at great length in this thread.

[aragx6]

^I don't understand what you're saying; please try again. And if you think I'm not focused on this whole issue read the other damn thread.

It's pretty easy to combine two threads; it would have been nice if our mod had done so before they both got to be 2 million pages long.

I think the alderman should back off and give CFA the damn variance because to not do so is hypocritical and not good progressive policy. That said, I don't think CFA has a legal leg to stand on -- if there's an argument of a valid reason (and it's clear there is) he doesn't have to give them the variance. Period.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by aragx6

^I don't understand what you're saying; please try again. And if you think I'm not focused on this whole issue read the other damn thread.

It's pretty easy to combine two threads; it would have been nice if our mod had done so before they both got to be 2 million pages long.

I think the alderman should back off and give CFA the damn variance because to not do so is hypocritical and not good progressive policy. That said, I don't think CFA has a legal leg to stand on -- if there's an argument of a valid reason (and it's clear there is) he doesn't have to give them the variance. Period.

As I have explained in detail and ad nauseum in this thread and the other, generally speaking, yes, Alderman Moreno had a lot of discretion to deny CFA's request for a zoning variance. As I noted before, he had many legitimate reasons at his disposal to deny the request. But once he made clear -- by his own words in a major newspaper -- that he was denying the request because of the owner's ignorance on gay marriage, he moved into the territory of committing a constitutional violation.

This has been explained several times in both threads, but a few of you keep saying "It doesn't matter. CFA had no right to the zoning variance. End of story." This is wrong for the reasons I (and others) have pointed out numerous times.

So when you say "I don't think CFA has a legal leg to stand on" you are, in fact, completely wrong. Denying a zoning variance based on the constitutionally protected speech of the applicant is a clear cut constitutional violation, as much as would be denying the request based on the religion or race of the applicant. I really don't know how much clearer I can make this.

Here is a further explanation, with some hypotheticals to get you through it. I wrote the hypotheticals because I'm a bit of a constitutional fetishist.

**********************************************

Let's use a hypothetical to illustrate why [Moreno is wrong].

Area One is zoned for a certain type of activity (let's say big box stores and strip malls, but no standalone fast food restaurants). Los Pollos Hermanos, a popular chicken outfit, comes along and files a special request to have Area One zoned for a different type of activity (here, the existence of a standalone restaurant in the parking lot of a big box store). Once the request is made and the proper paperwork is filed, the local alderman needs to make a decision on this request (grant, deny, or request more information).

The alderman can make the decision to grant or not grant the request based on a variety of different legitimate reasons. As you point out, this happens everyday across America. What Alderman cannot do is make the decision for an unconstitutional reason. Thus, even though no party is entitled to a particular zoning permit or a variance in existing zoning laws, the Alderman must still act in a constitutional manner when he makes the decision.

1. Race - So if Alderman says to the proprietor of Los Pollos Hermanos, "I am denying your request because you are Hispanic, and I strongly dislike Hispanics; they just don't fit in to this neighborhood well," the Alderman's decision would be unconstitutional. (Why? Because it would constitute governmental discrimination on the basis of race, which is prohibited under the 14th Amendment.)

2. Religion - If Alderman says to the proprietor of Los Pollos Hermanos, "I am denying your request because you are Catholic, and I strongly dislike Catholics; they just don't fit in to this neighborhood well," the Alderman's decision would be unconstitutional. (Why? Because it would constitute governmental discrimination on the basis of religion, which is prohibited under the First Amendment.)

3. Free Speech - If Alderman says to the proprietor of Los Pollos Hermanos, "I am denying your request because I dislike your views on the U.S. War on Drugs, and I believe your views do not comport with Area One," the Alderman's decision would be unconstitutional. (Why? Because it would constitute governmental discrimination on the basis of the content of the proprietor's speech, which is prohibited under the First Amendment.)

Now of course, Alderman could have initially said to the proprietor of Los Pollos Hermanos, "I am denying your request because there is already way too much traffic in this area, and the addition of your restaurant will lead to even more traffic." This would have been totally fine. End of story. Or Alderman could have said, "I am denying your request because your business is a cheesy fast food chain restaurant, and we are trying to maintain a semblance of authenticity and class to Area One." This would have been totally fine. End of story.

But what Alderman can't do is state that his decision to block Los Pollos Hermanos is for an unconstitutional reason. Presumably Alderman would have been educated on how the Constitution works before he would make a decision. That is because his first duty -- even before getting to his constituent's desires or his own personal preferences -- is to uphold the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, not men (even Alderman), and the supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, most politicians either have a poor understanding of the Constitution, or just don't really care about it.

[ClevelandMike]

If I were the CEO of Chik-Fil-A,
Monday's special would be a Hen & Rooster Delux,
Tues would be Pope's Nose & Rooster Nuggets and
Weds we would offer Hen & Hen Breast combo meals.

[aragx6]

Nonsense. It only matters what he says in the actual denial and if he has anything with which to back that up. If he does (and he does) then there's no legal issue. You can say anything you want to the Trib of the Sun. It's completely beside the point.

[duster1979]

Originally Posted by nana053

Of course, it is corporate policy. He won't give a franchise to anyone who doesn't agree with his views. Of course, I can't believe that a gay person would actually want a chic-fil-A franchise, but you can bet if they applied, they would not get it.

Yes, because of that line on every franchise application that says "Are you gay?"

This thing has been blown way out of proportion. Time for the hoopla to die off.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by duster1979

Yes, because of that line on every franchise application that says "Are you gay?"

This thing has been blown way out of proportion. Time for the hoopla to die off.

Of course it's been blown way out of proportion. But that's the fault of legal experts that Fox News found. A little part of me hopes somehow this would go to the Supreme Court.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by duster1979

Yes, because of that line on every franchise application that says "Are you gay?"

This thing has been blown way out of proportion. Time for the hoopla to die off.

It doesn't matter in the least if it's a line on the application if they use your sexual orientation to make franchising decisions.

And it's not blown at all out of proportion. You buy their lousy chicken sandwich and they give a huge chunk of the profits to dispicable organizations like Focus on the Family whose sole goal is to take away the rights of Americans.

[jamaicabound60565]

Originally Posted by Chicagoist123

I think businesses really need to just stick what they do, which is business. Why the owner feels need to make his opinions on gay marriage is beyond me? What's the point? The owner needs to stick to talking about business not about his personal beliefs.

Also, as some of you say, the owner has the freedom to say whatever he wants, so why can't a city have the right to also decide what companies they want and don't want?

Religious beliefs should be something personal. Regardless if it is implemented in their corporate policy, you are just making things more complicated when you open your big mouth and say something like this. I say Chick Fil A brought this upon themsleves.

his comments were made to a baptist publication if im not mistakenand not to forbes magazine or some business publication. these comments were made about his personal life and views not of his business an how he runs it.

as for why the owner can say what he wants because he's a private business what he said affects his own pocket book and his own business. the city represents the entire city of chicago and some people wnat a chick filet and others want the jobs they offer its not asingle aldermans choice to say he doesn't want a chick filet.

also its funny how emanuel and some alderman talk about chicago values. so chick filet isn't allowed but we welcome louie fairkan who hates whites and jews and is extremelly devisive. we allow rap musicians to perform concerts here and sell cds talking about violence, drugs, etc. we allow strip clubs, liquore stores, adult book stores. we allow the movie batman returns an other violent movies to be played. does all that mesh with chicago values?