Boycott of Chick-Fil-A

[NHL Fever]

NYC getting in on it. City Council speaker Christine Quinn said that the (one) Chick-Fil-A is "not welcome in New York City".

How is this not punishing free speech?

Does the city council speaker have the authority to do anything about it?

Cities can restrict things like images of hard-core pornography on billboards or outside shop displays. Should free speech mean any shop should be able to do this?

[Jeanne D]

Political correctness is nothing short of nauseating.

Jeanne

[Fenris]

Does the city council speaker have the authority to do anything about it?

Dunno. I guess we shall see.

Cities can restrict things like images of hard-core pornography on billboards or outside shop displays. Should free speech mean any shop should be able to do this?

The point has been debated. But it's one thing to zone an area and exclude a certain type of business. It's another to exclude one specific business because of some opinion of it's owner.

[Jeanne D]

Does the city council speaker have the authority to do anything about it?

Cities can restrict things like images of hard-core pornography on billboards or outside shop displays. Should free speech mean any shop should be able to do this?

I'm not sure I see the connection between restricting pornography and the presence of a chicken restaurant?

Jeanne

[NHL Fever]

Dunno. I guess we shall see.
The point has been debated. But it's one thing to zone an area and exclude a certain type of business. It's another to exclude one specific business because of some opinion of it's owner.

I suppose they could try to litigate the issue. Some cities like Chicago apparently don't need a reason, the Alderman has the authority to exclude business that paint their building the wrong color, if he wanted.

Presumably it is only to the disadvantage of the ward itself to limit types of business that increase its economic productivity.

I'm not sure I see the connection between restricting pornography and the presence of a chicken restaurant?

Jeanne

Simply that cities can control permitting and zoning. Too bad they would actually take action against based on that, however they are still accountable to the voters.

[Fenris]

I suppose they could try to litigate the issue. Some cities like Chicago apparently don't need a reason, the Alderman has the authority to exclude business that paint their building the wrong color, if he wanted.

And that might be legal. Free speech, however, is protected.

[keck553]

And that might be legal. Free speech, however, is protected.

Not in liberal-land.

[Vhayes]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chi...7/26/id/446713

Chicago and Boston might want to keep Chick-fil-A out of their cities but that doesn’t mean they have the right to do so, according to the ACLU.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s recent comments supporting the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman has led to calls by gay rights advocates to boycott the chain. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have recently promised to stop further expansion of the restaurants in their cities. Emanuel weighed in after Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno said he intends to block the chain from opening its second Chicago location because of Cathy’s remarks.

Legal experts said the cities’ push to stop Chick-fil-A doesn’t stand a chance because barring Chick-fil-A over the personal views of its owner is an “open and shut” discrimination case, Fox News reported.


“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, told Fox News. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”

The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz told Fox, but said that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.

“But we also support the First Amendment,” he said. “We don’ think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”

Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, told Fox News barring the restaurant raises “serious” constitutional concerns.

“It’s also a very slippery slope,” Turley told Fox News. “If a City Council started to punish companies because of the viewpoints of their chief operating officers, that would become a very long list of banned companies.”

Wilson Huhn, a professor and associate director of the Constitutional Law Center at The University of Akron School of Law, told Fox News that denying the restaurant the right to locate in Chicago “absolutely” violates the First Amendment. “It would be an open and shut case,” Huhn told Fox News. “You can’t do that. They cannot be denied a zoning permit based upon the viewpoint of their CEO.”

Cathy's position of supporting the biblical definition of marriage is not out of the mainstream as polls show Americans approve of gay marriage by 50-48 percent, according to Fox News.

Meantime, the Rev. Billy Graham has thrown his support behind the embattled Cathy and announced plans to stop by the fast food restaurant next Wednesday as part of Mike Huckabee’s “Eat Mor Chikin” promotion.


Read more on Newsmax.com: ACLU Backs Chick-fil-A Against Rahm Emanuel's Threatened Ban

[Vhayes]

http://gawker.com/5929429/boston-may...ch-in-beantown

Boston Mayor Won’t Stop Chick-fil-A from Opening Branch in Beantown

Neetzan Zimmerman

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is no fan of Chick-fil-A, but there isn't anything he can do to stop the controversial fast-food chain from opening a branch in the city — and he knows it.
"I can't do that," Menino told the Boston Herald today. "That would be interference to his rights to go there."
Menino said his tough talk about making it "very difficult" for Chick-fil-A to open a store across the street from City Hall was "a mistake" — a "Menino-ism" — but insisted that his distaste for Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's anti-gay remarks remains unchanged.
"Some people might not like these positions, but as mayor of the city of Boston, you can't run and hide, and I'll always protect people's rights," he said. "I'm right out front there and if people don't like it, I feel sorry for them. But I'm the mayor of Boston and I get elected to make my opinions known."
Meanwhile, in Chicago, the owner of the Windy City's lone Chick-fil-A franchise asked Mayor Rahm Emanuel for some face-time to clear things up.
After a local alderman expressed his intent to block a second franchise from opening in his ward, Emanuel appeared to support the effort, remarking that "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values."
Lauren Silich says she has gay employees in her restaurant and doesn't discriminate. "I just want people to know there's a local face to this controversy," she told the Chicago Tribune. "We're not a corporate face. We love our city."

[NHL Fever]

And that might be legal. Free speech, however, is protected.

They would probably have good case for litigation, seems like low-hanging fruit.

[RevLogos]

So here’s an interesting case study in evil.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, after decrying the horrible statements made by the Chick-fil-a CEO, embraced Louis Farrakhan and army of his followers to stop the violence in Chicago neighborhoods. Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader is well known for his anti-Semitic beliefs, and for his position against gay marriage. Rahm hasn’t said a peep about Farrakhan’s opinion on gays.

Rahm said “People of faith have a role to play and community leaders have a role to play in helping to protect our neighborhoods and our citizens.”

Apparently the Nation of Islam is a valid faith but Christianity isn’t.

How could this be? This is a study of evil.

Here is a video of Farrakhan preaching on gay marriage shortly after Obama came out in support of it. Whatever you think of Farrakhan, he is a powerful speaker. I can see why people are drawn to him.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

[Vhayes]

Farrakhan is one of the most frightening people I have ever listened to. He motivates people and sways people in a way that makes my hair stand on end. He appeals to mans need to "matter".

[Reynolds357]

Farrakhan is one of the most frightening people I have ever listened to. He motivates people and sways people in a way that makes my hair stand on end. He appeals to mans need to "matter".

What was wrong with what he said? Other than the facts of Abraham being slightly off, I can not find fault with what he said here.

[Watchman]

Farrakhan...appeals to mans need to "matter".

Our basic needs are acceptance, security, identity, and purpose. While Jesus meets every one, unbelievers will attempt to fill them in one way or another.

[Jeanne D]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...--finance.html

"Chick-Fil-A Braces for protest; Same-sex "kiss-in".

Good grief I hope not.

Jeanne