Chic-Fil-A (Noble, Standard: lawyer, bars, ordinances)

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by rparz

That's all well and fine, but if they file a suit for violating their first amendment rights, will a judge laugh and throw it out of court?

The judge may not laugh, but it's very unlikely it would get to court. It's important to remember that absolutely no action was taken to block Chick-Fil-A, they were requesting a change in the law that they are now not going to get. It's important to remember is that there were 9 months of talks that preceded the crapstorm of the last day or two. Those talks will play a much larger role in deciding if a case can be brought than any press releases or media coverage over the last couple of days. One part of those talks was ensuring that Chick-Fil-A takes non-discrimination laws seriously, and today's events and press releases can easily be seen as a continuation of those concerns.

Some people think that the denial of the variance is unusual - it isn't. A pawnshop a few blocks West of there was just denied a variance early this week, and plenty of variances are denied every month for a wide variety of reasons.

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I have, why cant i set up a gentlemans club anywhere I choose?

i am free to object to your business, deny you entry, refuse to hire you, fire you, or otherwise discriminate against you as long as i am not doing so on the basis of your religion, ethnicity, age, disability status, political affiliation, or any other constitutionally protected status.

make sense? that's the problem here. the mayor and alderman could have articulated virtually any other reason for not granting them the waiver and there would be no issue. but they didn't. and unless you have something which contradicts any of this, i'm done playing your games.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

what makes me sad and worried is that you don't care that the alderman either lied or clearly violated the constitutional rights of an organization simply because his views align with yours.

Thought Police - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of course:
Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read this and get back to me: Voltaire - Wikiquote

This is shorter:
Evelyn Beatrice Hall - Wikiquote

This might be helpful too:
Fahrenheit 451 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by Attrill

The judge may not laugh, but it's very unlikely it would get to court. It's important to remember that absolutely no action was taken to block Chick-Fil-A, they were requesting a change in the law that they are now not going to get. It's important to remember is that there were 9 months of talks that preceded the crapstorm of the last day or two. Those talks will play a much larger role in deciding if a case can be brought than any press releases or media coverage over the last couple of days. One part of those talks was ensuring that Chick-Fil-A takes non-discrimination laws seriously, and today's events and press releases can easily be seen as a continuation of those concerns.

Some people think that the denial of the variance is unusual - it isn't. A pawnshop a few blocks West of there was just denied a variance early this week, and plenty of variances are denied every month for a wide variety of reasons.

interesting points. thank you.

i'm okay with the alderman exploring whether or not the organization they take non-discrimination laws seriously. that's fantastic. i'm more concerned with the mayor's comments that basically said because of the religious views expressed by the CEO, the company is not welcome in this community. that could have a very chilling effect on free speech.

imagine if the mayor of Salt Lake City stated, "this city will not welcome any business that supports the DNC, has given money to Planned Parenthood, or has donated to the NAACP." that would be horrendous and not altogether different than what our mayor did. you laugh at the idea but there are cities that, unlike Chicago, are overwhelmingly conservative and it could happen. that's not the kind of country i want to live in.

[dewthedru]

anyhow...thanks for the discourse. i enjoyed chatting with those of you that put thought into your responses. i've got to go run now...literally. the marathon isn't going to get easier the more i type.

[Quelquefois]

What the CEO said was a bad business move but he has every right to say it because it's a political view. Had he said that he's not in favor of hiring gays then that's discrimination. What the CEO said is no different then what Obama believe in just a few weeks ago when he said his beliefs were evolving. Basically, a bad business move and should've kept his mouth shut, but he has every right to say his political view.

"But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.

Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (if his statement is quoted in context), seem to either not know or not care about the law."
The Volokh Conspiracy » No Building Permits for Opponent of Same-Sex Marriage

[williepotatoes]

Originally Posted by dewthedru

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

Yeah right, that was real convincing. The freedom of speech argument is even thinner than the religious bias claim.

[Pammyd]

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

Chicago Chick-fil-A owner wants to talk with Emanuel - WGN Radio

Thoughts??

Really any company should not be slamming someone for their lifestyle but the city is facing other pressing issues that should be higher on the list.

Can someone elaborate on this? I keep seeing this Chick-fil-A ...what in the blue blazes is this??

[RogueMom]

Originally Posted by Chicagoist123

I 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.

He didn't "feel the need", and he was talking about the business. During an interview, he was asked if the company view was against gay marriage. He was honest enough to state what that stand is.

A better question would by, why would an interviewer "feel the need" to ask that particular question when doing a business interview.

Always good to know the back story.

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

Yeah right, that was real convincing. The freedom of speech argument is even thinner than the religious bias claim.

Virtually every legal mind that has weighed in in this, both liberal and conservative, has echoed the same opinion.

If you take issue with any points in the article, try to do better than "yeah right."