Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
Is your DMV analogy really apples to apples though? Joe Moreno doesn't need to fail the driver (CFA) - the driver didn't even qualify to take the test.
If you describe your actions as unConstitutional, but your actions are legitimate, does it really matter what you say?
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.
this is the saddest rationalization for Moreno that I have seen anywhere. if i understand you correctly, it's ok for a elected member of government to claim to be violating constitutional rights as long as the "real" reason, as per the form he fills out, is legitimate?
i'm awestruck by the mental gymnastics you're able to do in order to legitimize the following comments he made:
"Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward."
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.
Most people would consider telling the Media something to be on the record and of reasonable truth.
That's a reasonable expectation of our elected officials to have.
Think before you speak, know your audience, and such.
Mayor Emanuel unveils new public school policy aimed at boosting test scores.
Three weeks later he says 'Just kidding! Playing the game, you know!'
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.
Of course it doesn't say that, but I'm sure when black people were denied apartments in the 50s, there wasn't paperwork documenting that, either. The point is a reasonable case can be made that the CEO's opinions on gay marriage factored into the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but it just seems like common sense to me that this violates constitutional law.
Is your DMV analogy really apples to apples though? Joe Moreno doesn't need to fail the driver (CFA) - the driver didn't even qualify to take the test.
If your words are unconstitutional, but your actions legitimate, does it really matter what you say?
It does because it basically creates a factual dispute as to the truth, which will need to go to a jury for resolution. His words casts some serious doubt on his actions.
Let's say that CFA's request is truly denied and they are not able to open a restaurant on Elston. CFA sues Moreno in federal court for violating its First Amdt rights. Moreno will point to official paperwork stating that the request was denied because of traffic concerns. CFA, on the other hand, will point to Moreno's own comments in which he very clearly states that he is denying CFA's request because of the owner's bigoted views on gay marriage.
Moreno will also be deposed and the exchange will go something like this:
Attorney: Why did you deny the permit? Moreno: Because of traffic concerns, as noted in the official paperwork. Attorney: Did you publish an op-ed in the Tribune on July 26, 2012? Moreno: I did. Attorney: Did you state the following in the op-ed (quote op-ed in which he states "Initially, I had some traffic concerns with their plan. But then I heard the bigoted, homophobic comments by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who recently came out against same-sex marriage. There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward."). Moreno: Yes. Attorney: So which is the correct version of the truth: when you stated in the paperwork the denial was because of traffic or when you stated in the op-ed that it was because of "bigoted, homophobic comments?" Moreno: der
I can't imagine a jury looking very kindly at this, and they shouldn't. The same would happen in my DMV example. Just because the official paperwork says one thing, doesn't mean you can't introduce other evidence to contradict that.
Note how Rahm Emmanuel is now backing off his earlier support for Moreno. The city does not want to get sued.
"On Thursday, a spokesman for Emanuel softened those remarks. “The mayor simply said that Chick-fil-a’s CEO does not share Chicago’s values,” the spokesman said. “He did not say that he would block or play any role in the company opening a new restaurant here. “If they meet all the usual requirements, then they can open their restaurant, but he does not believe the CEO’s values are reflective of our city.”
this is the saddest rationalization for Moreno that I have seen anywhere. if i understand you correctly, it's ok for a elected member of government to claim to be violating constitutional rights as long as the "real" reason, as per the form he fills out, is legitimate?
i'm awestruck by the mental gymnastics you're able to do in order to legitimize the following comments he made:
"Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward."
In the case of Moreno, the legitimate reason existed before the illegitimate one. The traffic, and the general hellishness that is Elston, and the general attitude of a lot of 1st warders, made the possibility of a variance being granted iffy to begin with. But then Dan Cathay making his statements, then Thomas Menino making his, and now Proco Joe given this "golden opportunity" to turn it into the circus it has become? Oh boy....
A politician seizing a moment is mental gymnastics? Were you born yesterday? Get real. It's Politics 101. Elementary stuff. They live for this stuff.
I don't doubt though that Ald. Moreno genuinely disagrees with whatever CFA' stance on gay this or that. He has an opportunity to safely exploit that and he's going with it.
Porn on every corner with dive bars selling packaged goods across the street!
what are you talking about? how does that even relate?
at best, a comparison might be the idea of a restaurant chain owned by a guy that own a stake in a porn business opening up shop in a conservative neighborhood but being vetoed for religious reasons but even that's a stretch.
It does because it basically creates a factual dispute as to the truth, which will need to go to a jury for resolution. His words casts some serious doubt on his actions.
Let's say that CFA's request is truly denied and they are not able to open a restaurant on Elston. CFA sues Moreno in federal court for violating its First Amdt rights. Moreno will point to official paperwork stating that the request was denied because of traffic concerns. CFA, on the other hand, will point to Moreno's own comments in which he very clearly states that he is denying CFA's request because of the owner's bigoted views on gay marriage.
Moreno will also be deposed and the exchange will go something like this:
Attorney: Why did you deny the permit? Moreno: Because of traffic concerns, as noted in the official paperwork. Attorney: Did you publish an op-ed in the Tribune on July 26, 2012? Moreno: I did. Attorney: Did you state the following in the op-ed (quote op-ed in which he states "Initially, I had some traffic concerns with their plan. But then I heard the bigoted, homophobic comments by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who recently came out against same-sex marriage. There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward."). Moreno: Yes. Attorney: So which is the correct version of the truth: when you stated in the paperwork the denial was because of traffic or when you stated in the op-ed that it was because of "bigoted, homophobic comments?" Moreno: der
I can't imagine a jury looking very kindly at this, and they shouldn't. The same would happen in my DMV example. Just because the official paperwork says one thing, doesn't mean you can't introduce other evidence to contradict that.
Note how Rahm Emmanuel is now backing off his earlier support for Moreno. The city does not want to get sued.
"On Thursday, a spokesman for Emanuel softened those remarks. “The mayor simply said that Chick-fil-a’s CEO does not share Chicago’s values,” the spokesman said. “He did not say that he would block or play any role in the company opening a new restaurant here. “If they meet all the usual requirements, then they can open their restaurant, but he does not believe the CEO’s values are reflective of our city.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
