Chic-Fil-A (Chicago: club, stores, land)

[williepotatoes]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Seriously, you cannot prevent someone from operating a business based upon race, religion etc. even if you don't like those views. To then try to do an end around on a clear cut constitutional violation by calling it a "social issue" is sad.

You know, these are the EXACT same types of arguments that racists made in support of Jim Crow?

Also, you aren't fooling anyone by trying to linguistically dodge the Farrakhan situation.

The city has let a blatant anti-gay, anti-jewish guy own and operate businesses and mosques etc. so I'm curious why you approve of this double standard?

CFA is not a religion, it's a fast food outfit. They have no right to build a restaurant on that land because the law says nobody can build a restaurant there. Not even Farrakhan.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

CFA is not a religion, it's a fast food outfit. They have no right to build a restaurant on that land because the law says nobody can build a restaurant there. Not even Farrakhan.

That's fine. Moreno and Rahm should have kept their personal reactions to the CEO's statements to themselves and followed standard protocol to deny the application.

Now, they've opened themselves up for lawsuits which look like they won't be able to win.

Instead of having to fight against a simple zoning denial, now the city is going to have to fight against a first amendment lawsuit.



I think they should let Chick Fil A build their resturant where they like. Pay all the fees and taxes associated with a venture such as this and then face the people picketing and protesting out in front. If they close down, oh well, they created some jobs and paid some taxes, and lost revenues. Hit them where it hurts - the pocketbook.

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

CFA is not a religion, it's a fast food outfit. They have no right to build a restaurant on that land because the law says nobody can build a restaurant there. Not even Farrakhan.

Wow. Did you completely miss the reason we're having this conversation? The reason they were given for not being granted a zoning deviation was because of their religious and political beliefs!!!

There woukd be no issue if the mayor and the alderman had just said "No. There's no reason to re-zone the area. We don't want you. We don't need the extra traffic. And we hate chicken."

But they didn't, did they? And now the citizens of this fine city will probably have to pay for expensive lawyers to fight this civil rights gaffe.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

There woukd be no issue if the mayor and the alderman had just said "No. There's no reason to re-zone the area. We don't want you. We don't need the extra traffic. And we hate chicken."

And, it's too late to backpedal and claim this now, even if it is true.

[Mister Mappy]

Here's a thought. Since right-wingers, and bible-thumpers love to put propositions on the ballot so they can vote to deny other people rights such as marriage, why not have a referendum in the 1st Ward, and let the residents decide if they want Chik Fil-A there or not? If it's good enough for gay marriage, then it's certainly good enough for Chik Fil-A.

[williepotatoes]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

Wow. Did you completely miss the reason we're having this conversation? The reason they were given for not being granted a zoning deviation was because of their religious and political beliefs!!!

There woukd be no issue if the mayor and the alderman had just said "No. There's no reason to re-zone the area. We don't want you. We don't need the extra traffic. And we hate chicken."

But they didn't, did they? And now the citizens of this fine city will probably have to pay for expensive lawyers to fight this civil rights gaffe.

Did Moreno ever address them as Christians or Republicans? Or did he criticize a CEO who he, and his community perceive to practice discrimination. There is no case here and CFA knows it. They are already moving away from this.

They will get their new restaurant soon, only at a different location. A legal location. And most everyone will be happy. Except for those of us who like good food.

[long101]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Seriously, you cannot prevent someone from operating a business based upon race, religion etc. even if you don't like those views. To then try to do an end around on a clear cut constitutional violation by calling it a "social issue" is sad.

Percisely. States did not even allow gay couples to marry until recently. This guy did not say that he hates gays, all he said was that he doesnt support gay marriage. WTF is so wrong with that? The pope doent support gay marriage, where is all the flap against him? I bet he would be welcomed in Chicago with open arms. I am not against gay marriage by any means, but for one person's views to stir so much emotion is crazy.

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

Did Moreno ever address them as Christians or Republicans? Or did he criticize a CEO who he, and his community perceive to practice discrimination. There is no case here and CFA knows it. They are already moving away from this.

They will get their new restaurant soon, only at a different location. A legal location. And most everyone will be happy. Except for those of us who like good food.

Lol. So because they didn't specifically call them Republicans and Christians they can discriminate based on their religious beliefs?

So they could ban a Catholic church because they don't believe in female priests and birth control as long as they don't say the word "Catholic?"

They could ban a mosque as being Jew haters and terrorists as long as the don't say "Muslim?"


And as far as having no case, read the Salon article. It's very interesting.

And BTW, if CF doesn't sue, it doesn't mean they don't think they have a case. They could just be nice people. Like they seem to be every time I've been to one of their locations.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

Lol. So because they didn't specifically call them Republicans and Christians they can discriminate based on their religious beliefs?

So they could ban a Catholic church because they don't believe in female priests and birth control as long as they don't say the word "Catholic?"

They could ban a mosque as being Jew haters and terrorists as long as the don't say "Muslim?"


And as far as having no case, read the Salon article. It's very interesting.

And BTW, if CF doesn't sue, it doesn't mean they don't think they have a case. They could just be nice people. Like they seem to be every time I've been to one of their locations.

I wonder what would happen if someone tried to open a porn shop next to the jackass ceo's church.

[williepotatoes]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

Lol. So because they didn't specifically call them Republicans and Christians they can discriminate based on their religious beliefs?

So they could ban a Catholic church because they don't believe in female priests and birth control as long as they don't say the word "Catholic?"

They could ban a mosque as being Jew haters and terrorists as long as the don't say "Muslim?"


And as far as having no case, read the Salon article. It's very interesting.

And BTW, if CF doesn't sue, it doesn't mean they don't think they have a case. They could just be nice people. Like they seem to be every time I've been to one of their locations.

Get over it. CFA is not a church and they have no basis for any type of religous claim.