Chic-Fil-A (Chicago: apartment, to rent, zoned)

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by wawa1992

How about the Chicago government buzz off and let the Chick Fil A be built. Chick Fil A has the freedom to build wherever the heck they want to.

Without intervention BY Chicago government, they can't build at their desired location.

We clearly need a Civics 101 class for adults in this town.

[plates]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Without intervention BY Chicago government, they can't build at their desired location.

We clearly need a Civics 101 class for adults in this town.

That poster is not even from Chicago. They just came in to tell us how our city should work.

[Plzeň]

Originally Posted by plates

That poster is not even from Chicago. They just came in to tell us how our city should work.

There are quite a lot of posters in that category, I've noticed.

[plates]

Originally Posted by Plzeň

There are quite a lot of posters in that category, I've noticed.

Big cities will always get people like this.

[wawa1992]

I don't care where the city is, Chicago just happens to be in the news for this right now. Governments should not have the authority to ban a legal business (like Chick Fil A) for any reason in their jurisdiction. Chick Fil A is a legally incorporated business operating in a safe and proper manner. If CUSTOMERS want to avoid Chick Fil A because of the CEO's views on gay marriage, that's fine. People have their freedom of choice in businesses they frequent.

But the government needs to buzz off in interfering with Chick Fil A's decision to operate a safe and legal business. People need freedom. Companies need freedom. Government's freedom needs to be reined in.

[jpchi60630]

i agree with a previous poster in that this is a completely redundant thread but i just want to say a few things... people eat with their stomachs when their hungry theyre trying to decide if they want a # 1,2,or 3 combo, not cuz they want to make some kind of statement supporting a cause. eating at chick fil a doesnt mean one automatically de-values homosexuals or gays or promotes homophobia.... it only means i have a taste for a good chicken sandwich i havent tried yet, cuz im sick of white castle, BK, and mcky d's... who eats somewhere to prove a political point or serve an underlying agenda anyways? if the LGBT community altogether boycotted chick fil-a that imo would be more effective...

its stupid crap thats haphazardly handled like this that gives chicago a black eye. dont get me wrong, there are gays in my own family and i dont love them any less... but dont scare prospective buisnesses away because of their own personal beliefs, even if u dont agree with them, cuz that IS discrimanation. freedom of speech... one of the founding principles that us freedom is built upon. the ability to believe and state your beliefs without persecution is for ALL americans, gay or conservative etc.

these politicians imo are doing more damage, being presumptious speaking for everyone in chi about what our values are (thats impossible) and then hypocritically openly discriminating against a conservative based franchise is unneccessary, regardless of the ceo's personal beliefs... i hate to use this example but would alderman joe or mayor rahm deny a middle eastern restaurant a buisness license soley based upon that middle easterners believe in a different values/religion or god? obviously not. eating middle eastern food doesnt mean the customers support violence, so why give chick fil a hard time? just to garner support for re- election or somethin else? city that works huh? i dont hate this city just how the idiots run/ruin it and then make a big stink about it on tv...

let them build chick fil-a already. im sure there are other buisneses in the 1st ward that dont neccessarily share alderman joe's views, but theyre not getting thrown under the bus. if not, theres plenty of other locations to build. chicagoland is a big area. with tons of hungry people lol. its up to the customer after all to determine where to spend their money, not the politicians job to limit customer's freedom of choice.

good point in a previous post regarding what if a legit LGBT buisness opened in the middle of the bible belt? would it be ok for the town mayor to tell the buisness owner on tv they arent allowed to open because they dont reflect conservative values? its discrimination either way and thinking the public doesnt see that is foolish and rather risky...

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by Diws

Really the question is, 'can politicians (local and otherwise) arbitratily punish free speech?' Fortunately, it appears that most supporters of same sex marriage understand that this precedent could just as easily be used against them, whether on this or another subject.

This^^ nails the entire issue on the head. I am very much a supporter of gay rights but the alderman really messed up. I personally can't stand Chik-Fil-A and find the fact that the owner openly contributes to and supports hate and bigotry repugnant. The day I step in a Chik-Fil-A will be the day hell freezes over. But gays or women or racial minorities any other class of people cannot expect to have the protections of the Constitution unless everyone else else is allowed the protections of the Constitution. So unfortunately I have to side with Chik-Fil-A on this matter, from a purely legal standpoint.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by wawa1992

I don't care where the city is, Chicago just happens to be in the news for this right now. Governments should not have the authority to ban a legal business (like Chick Fil A) for any reason in their jurisdiction. Chick Fil A is a legally incorporated business operating in a safe and proper manner. If CUSTOMERS want to avoid Chick Fil A because of the CEO's views on gay marriage, that's fine. People have their freedom of choice in businesses they frequent.

But the government needs to buzz off in interfering with Chick Fil A's decision to operate a safe and legal business. People need freedom. Companies need freedom. Government's freedom needs to be reined in.

I agree i'm going to open a porn shop next to your house.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Zoning is great, taking a crap on the First Amendment is not. Two different issues. I would never tell longtime Chicagoans how the city should work, but I will tell people how the First Amendment works.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

Zoning is great, taking a crap on the First Amendment is not. Two different issues. I would never tell longtime Chicagoans how the city should work, but I will tell people how the First Amendment works.

Then you do understand that in this case, the issue is zoning, not the 1st Amendment.