Chic-Fil-A (Chicago, Media, Time: apartments, attorney, neighborhood)

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

When speech implies condoning discrimination, the community has no resposibility to grant you special priveledges i.e. zoning favors. There is nothing unconstituitional about it.

what does that even mean? did you even bother to read about the issue before making all these posts?

do me and everyone here a favor and read this article. and then feel free to post about the subject armed with a little bit of information regarding te law and their comments: Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

[Mister Mappy]

Originally Posted by UserNam3

He's not denying anyones rights. It ain't like he said gay people aren't welcome to eat there.

Well, of course not. Chic Fil-A will GLADLY accept money from gay people, so they can turn around and donate it to organizations actively trying to deny gay people rights.

Also, what people seem to forget is that Moreno has stated that he asked the representatives if Chic Fil-A supports anti-gay organizations, and they said no. They LIED! Since we seem to have a number of southern-fried bible thumpers in this thread, maybe you can tell me when lying became a virtue?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ERS-One

Does it honestly matter what Joe Moreno told the media his reason for denying the variance was? Isn't the only thing that matters is that there's a legitimate reason on the request's application filed away at the City Clerk's office, or wherever?

I'm honestly curious, because it seems like the only thing that would matter is that there's a legitimate reason noted in the paperwork of the denial. There's a lot of hand wringing and crying that the Constitution has been shredded here. Anyone see the paperwork? Does it say person "X" was denied request "Y" because they are a bigot? I doubt it.

Wait, you're being reasonable.

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by ERS-One

Does it honestly matter what Joe Moreno told the media his reason for denying the variance was? Isn't the only thing that matters is that there's a legitimate reason on the request's application filed away at the City Clerk's office, or wherever?

I'm honestly curious, because it seems like the only thing that would matter is that there's a legitimate reason noted in the paperwork of the denial. There's a lot of hand wringing and crying that the Constitution has been shredded here. Anyone see the paperwork? Does it say person "X" was denied request "Y" because they are a bigot? I doubt it.

Holy crap. Yes it matters!!!! Imagine if he had listed any other reason!

I turned them down because they're black, Jewish, gay, Democrats, handicapped, old, etc.

Wow.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

Holy crap. Yes it matters!!!! Imagine if he had listed any other reason!

I turned them down because they're black, Jewish, gay, Democrats, handicapped, old, etc.

Wow.

So why cant proco speak to the media and say he was lied to by a religious bigot's company and he is worried about the traffic?

[dewthedru]

Lol. Imagine this coming from an employer.

"I didn't pass on hiring this guy because he was black. I passed on him because he lied about being black. And he's not qualified for the job."

[UserNam3]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Huh? Who would eat there? I am talking about gay peoples right to get married and all the legal ramifications of marriage.

No, I don't care who gets married. I was refering to how Rahm Emanuel is handling it.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Mister Mappy

Well, of course not. Chic Fil-A will GLADLY accept money from gay people, so they can turn around and donate it to organizations actively trying to deny gay people rights.

Also, what people seem to forget is that Moreno has stated that he asked the representatives if Chic Fil-A supports anti-gay organizations, and they said no. They LIED! Since we seem to have a number of southern-fried bible thumpers in this thread, maybe you can tell me when lying became a virtue?

Anyone?

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by ERS-One

Does it honestly matter what Joe Moreno told the media his reason for denying the variance was? Isn't the only thing that matters is that there's a legitimate reason on the request's application filed away at the City Clerk's office, or wherever?

I'm honestly curious, because it seems like the only thing that would matter is that there's a legitimate reason noted in the paperwork of the denial. There's a lot of hand wringing and crying that the Constitution has been shredded here. Anyone see the paperwork? Does it say person "X" was denied request "Y" because they are a bigot? I doubt it.

Yes, it does actually matter. He stated, point blank, that the reason he was blocking CFA from that location is because of the CFA's owner's ignorance on gay marriage. Now, the paperwork might have said something different, but that doesn't mean the paperwork is the only official version. (Think of this example. The DMV refuses to give a guy a driver's license. The official paperwork in the DMV file says the guy failed his driver's test. The DMV instructor who failed him later tells his co-workers, friends, and the media that he failed the guy because he was Hispanic; he doesn't think Hispanics are good drivers. The driver would still have a cause of action against the DMV for an equal protection violation no matter that the official paperwork says "failed test.")

CFA could easily sue and make out a First Amendment violation based on Moreno's own words. Not many are disputing this (we have law professors and ACLU folks, on the right and left, acknowledging that this is a First Amendment violation). Now you're fine to say the Constitution is stupid, it's a dumb document, and that I'm nothing but a constitutional fetishist, etc. But if you are going to actually say it's not a constitutional violation, you have to support that statement. I'm not seeing that done here.

[ERS-One]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

Holy crap. Yes it matters!!!! Imagine if he had listed any other reason!

I turned them down because they're black, Jewish, gay, Democrats, handicapped, old, etc.

Wow.

You completely misread my entire statement. I specifically asked does it matter what he TOLD THE MEDIA his reasons were. THE MEDIA. Y'know, playing the game.....

Shouldn't the only thing that matter is what is on the paperwork? In other words, I'm suggesting that what he proclaimed to the public, how he's fighting Chik-Fil-A in the name of gay rights, is, ahem, a lie. Try to follow....

A young opportunistic politician saw an opportunity to make a name for himself in what has now turned into the national media event over all this dumbness. He caught a ride on the anti-Chik-Fil-A wave and tells everyone he's going to deny them a zoning variance because of their stance on gays, all the while he has a perfectly legitimate reason not, and I would guess the paperwork would reflect that. But shhhh, we'll keep that a secret.

He makes headlines, curries even more favor with his burgeoning base, and is now thought of as a liberal hero, and defender of equality through out the land. All because of his words to the media.

That was the fleshed out version of my original statement you quoted. How you interpreted it the way you did is beyond me. I even bolded the word "media" to highlight my point that what he tells the public, and what is actually filed away on the application, could *gasp*, be two completely different things! And maybe that's all that matters. I'm not a legal expert, hence why I asked:

"Does it honestly matter what Joe Moreno told the media his reason for denying the variance was? Isn't the only thing that matters is that there's a legitimate reason on the request's application filed away at the City Clerk's office, or wherever? "

Do his comments even matter from a legal standpoint? I'm asking. Comments are just that - comments. I don't see them as legally binding.