MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
Make Room For Bigot Chicken
By Michael Maiello on Fri, 07/27/2012 - 5:18pm |My second Op-Ed for Reuters, about our chickeny friends from the south.
URL:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/07/27/room-for-bigot-chicken/
- Add new comment
- 6801 reads
Comments
Gotta tell ya, a terrific 0p-Ed, doubt any could do as well, much less better!!
It is scary tho', the temptation to engage in the outcry and deny 'equal rights' to bigots. But, then we would only be playing in their sandbox and nothing good can come of that.
by Aunt Sam on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 1:53am
No I agree with the mayors, but for an entirely different reason, how many more fast food places does America need? Jeebus we are already so unhealthy. Chik-Fil-A is just another place that makes us FATTER.
I live next to Vashon Island, where they've been banning certain kinds of businesses for years, no WalMarts or Targets or Domino's etc, you have to go off island for everything. They do have a small, old craptastic grocery store with jacked up prices because the ferry trip makes everything cost more, but the island is a cool community of artists, which probably explains the rules.
But I am also sure this won't hurt Menino or Emmanuel or even the Cathy's with their constituencies. But you don't hear protests from people other than reporters, because I think most people are getting tired of folks like the Cathy's, Koch's, and all the others who constantly push their bigoted, anti-democratic agenda's on the whole country and I think the country is kind of fed up with it. In the end it doesn't hurt those businesses either, they just set up shop elsewhere so American's can continue to gorge on crap that passes for real food.
I did enjoy reading the article Des! Reuters, that is awesome!!!
by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 8:29am
Definitely with you on the health argument, Tmac. And I'd support limiting chains and big boxes, were the rules consistently applied. I hope you're right that people are tiring of the Cathy's and people like them trying to buy the kind of society that people won't vote for.
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 10:56am
I would hope, for the sake of American's and their health, that at a certain point we would all reject fast food, or as we call it in this house, POISON.
I also do hope that most American's see that people who have large sums of money to throw away to buy themselves politicians are just not helping anything, in fact they are hurting the entire country.
The first time I went back to Manila after almost 30 years and I saw some of my old classmates, (my barkada as your group of friends are called in Tagalog) the first thing Roxie said to me was: "I thought all Americans were fat, but you aren't Teri", I laughed and said, "Well, not all Americans." And then the four of us caught up cause it had been almost 30 years.
That is what people think of us, and here we are wondering if a crappy, food substitute borderline restaurant should give us more fat stores, where the employees make minimum wage, no health insurance, no retirement accounts, etc and so on. God I hate fast food places, I really do. Yeah, I'd ban em all, but not because their owners are assholes, because they are literally killing us from the inside out.
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 10:00am
In general it seems the employees like it, though many are kids in first jobs as is normal in the fast-food world.
http://www.indeed.com/cmp/Chick--fil--a/reviews?start=20&lang=en
The franchise seems to get a good rating - very inexpensive for new owners to get in - and people seem quite satisfied about quality of food -
http://franchises.about.com/od/franchisereviews/fr/chick-fil-a.htm
You can compare the food at say McDonalds to Chick-fil-a, though misleading as McDonalds main seller is hamburgers, much fatter than chicken:
http://www.healthinsurancequotes.org/mcdonalds-vs-chickfila-who-is-superior/?doing_wp_cron
While we can mix all this in with trying to close down fast food, people eat fast food typically because they have little time and having a wait staff ups the cost of a meal greatly with food prices and tips.
While you can call "fast food" "POISON", there are differences from a veggie burrito at Chipotle with the toppings bar vs. pizza vs. a quarter pounder vs. a veggie stir fry with Tofu at a Chinese takeout vs donuts vs. chicken vs. a noodles shop vs. a Subway sandwich (veggie patty or chicken or beef or what?) vs. fish 'n chips.
The non-"fast food" options are not necessarily healthier, but it's easy to be dogmatic about all this and just demand an end to fast food. Funny, but I don't recall biscuits and gravy or the Butcher Block special at the diner being that healthy before fast food took off. IHOP pancakes or waffles? Denny's? TGIF? Applebee's? Olive Tree? Where did most people eat? Compare say "Nothing But Noodles" as fast food, and you don't have much of a leg to stand on - a decent fast food place is as healthy as most sit-downs without much of the overhead and pretension. Plus much of the issue is about helping sizes, not ingredients, but even that's false - no one puts a gun to your head to order super-size fries and 5 Hardee's hamburgers. "But they were on special, I calculated the marginal cost...how can I say no to 2-for-1 pizza or 21 pieces of greasy chicken?" and the other tough economic questions that go through the typical consumer's head.
And if you don't add the contribution of corn syrup into the equation, it's rather biased - all the crap sodas people intake probably have much more effect on their health - fat-wise and diabetes - than any of the foods they eat.
But as usual, we find someone who's politics we don't like and hone in on everything they do.
What was it, 2 years ago that Whole Earth Foods became the great satan because of some comment on health care, even though Whole Earth had pretty good health care benefits for most employees, so we had to proclaim their food sucked anyway and they charged too much.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 12:31pm
Say what you want, just leave pancakes the hell alone.
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 8:50pm
Pigs in a blanket? Sentimental are we?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 2:44am
It's interesting that Chicago and New York have no problem with permits for the banks and other financial institutions that fleeced America, blew up the global economy and destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people. You can be a bloodsucking and inequality-generating uber-capitalist monstrosity, as long as you keep the money flowing to the political parties - and don't discriminate about whose blood your sucking.
by Dan Kervick on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 9:58am
Yeah, I'd considered that angle as well. It's also interesting to me that it's Chick-Fil-A, because they made the news after the spat with Henson, but none of these mayors seem concerned with all of the other businesses being run in their towns by people who believe the same things and donate to the same causes. Is there a Forever 21 in Boston or Chicago?
And then, Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon could probably have a totally friendly discussion with any of us about same sex marriage and job equality because, yes, they believe in those things. But that doesn't mean that their wider beliefs and political activities are good for society.
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 11:00am
I think you're heart is in the right place, but I have to disagree. What the Cathy's are involved in is hate speech. New York and Boston politicians have as much right to keep these shiny turds out of their constituencies as Canada had to bar the Westboro Baptist Church and Fox News from entering their Country.
This is far bigger than a 'difference in opinion', this is condoning a business that openly practices hate speech and discrimination.
Sez the chicken.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 11:26am
While I agree with you, in the U.S. don't we generally still view hate speech as protected? The Ku Klux Klan can have their silly parade. The fundamentalists can have their fried chicken restaurants. Shouldn't we prefer shunning to banning?
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 12:07pm
I dunno, Destor. We called out the National Guard on the South because shunning didn't work. Was that the wrong thing to do? Should restaurants still be able to discriminate due to skin color?
I fail to see any difference between that and the Cathys. I would think that they would have a 'coloreds entrance' if the law didn't make that illegal.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 1:58pm
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 3:20pm
I dunno, Destor. We called out the National Guard on the South because shunning didn't work. Was that the wrong thing to do? Should restaurants still be able to discriminate due to skin color?
I fail to see any difference between that and the Cathys. I would think that they would have a 'coloreds entrance' if the law didn't make that illegal.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 1:59pm
The National Guard was used, quite properly, to desegregate public institutions. I wouldn't support letting any business discriminate against customers or employees. But its owners can believe what they want and donate to whatever causes, no matter how backward.
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 2:19pm
Sure, and elected representatives can keep them out of their districts, based on those statements. So where's the issue? If the owners want to make odious statements, people are free to keep them out. We have freedom of religion, but no one I know would allow Westboro Baptist Church to open a 'branch' here. Certainly I'd expect my elected Representative to forbid it. By all accounts this Chik-fil-a proselytes and preaches. The serving chicken thing just pays the bills.
Hate Speech is not protected speech, and local governments are not required to pretend it's anything else.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 3:49pm
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 4:20pm
So are restaurants free to carry signs in their windows saying "we only serve straight whites," or not, Rog?
I do not believe that is legal.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 5:33pm
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 6:00pm
The sign is not "speech" - it is an action - a company policy, discriminating against a certain class of people for illegal reasons. The action is subject to lawsuits.
Individuals can discriminate like this. Companies cannot, as per the Interstate Commerce clause. You'd need to look at precedent to figure out which businesses fit for these laws, but certainly restaurants do, as per 50's/60's civil rights decisions.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 6:10pm
Well done, Destor. And agree, banning is not the solution.
Bigot Chicken---what a great idea for a new business. Did you reserve the name?
by Oxy Mora on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 1:00pm
What took you so long? I expected to see something here about this teapot tempest earlier in the week when support for Chick-fil-a started showing up in my Facebook news feed.
I admit to being pleasantly surprised when I learned via Kevin Drum that Glenn Greenwald was "appalled that Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston mayor Thomas Menino are trying to block Chick-fil-A from opening stores in their cities because the company's CEO opposes gay marriage:"
Rahm Emanuel’s dangerous free speech attack - Glenn Greenwald -Salon.com
Hooray for Glenn!!! As well as for the much easier to read Kevin Drum | Mother Jones:
by EmmaZahn on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 2:01pm
I should have noted that that Facebook campaign is by supporters and not Chick-fil-A itself.
by EmmaZahn on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 2:03pm
There were people that defended THIS shit as free enterprise, too.
Pray tell, what is the difference? It took a bunch of politicians standing up and saying NO to this crap that started to make it change.
Must say, the cheering for discrimination on this thread is pretty lame. In the name of free speech? Really? Free enterprise? Seriously?
Good grief!
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 2:09pm
Do you have evidence that Chic-Fil-A has discriminated against any customer or any employee based on the personal beliefs of its owners and management that you [and I] disagree with? Do they have a policy to do so? If not, then I think the difference you pray to be told is quite obvious.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 2:38pm
http://www.alan.com/2012/07/26/chick-fil-a-faced-12-employment-discrimin...
You were sayin'?
The government also regulates how clean they have to be and that they can't use spoiled meat.
Truly, these are the same tired arguments against "making" restaurant owners serve EVERYONE regardless of skin color. They are just as lame, too.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 3:36pm
Sure, I'd post it, but the link gets blocked by the spam filter. They've been sued a dozen times for discrimination, as Des reports in the article.
The government also makes these poor-wittle restaurant owners keep a level of cleanliness, and avoid serving spoiled meat.
The arguments I am seeing are the same ones used in the 1950s. Wrod, for word even. Nice company you people are keeping. Hate speech is not protected speech.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 3:40pm
If you choose to not log in, you can write the URL in pieces so people can follow, such as "www somewhere org a/bunch/of/stuff/goes/here"
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 2:22am
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 3:02pm
Funny, but when we passed Civil Rights legislation and forbid this type of discrimination, by law, the first amendment survived.
No doubt many famous bigots in the 1950s thought your argument sound. I don't.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 3:43pm
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 4:04pm
No, but crowds at a political speech do not require a license to serve the public. Chikfila does.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 5:14pm
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 6:05pm
Our civil rights legislation does not prohibit opposition to gay marriage. The First Amendment does prohibit punishing people for their political and social views, and forbidding businesses to operate is a punishment.
Add to this the recent law authorizing detention without trial, and our claim to be the land of the free is looking more and more like a bad joke.
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 5:30pm
Name a state where a restaurant that proposes to discriminate certain groups to race, religion, or sexual preference is granted a license to operate.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 5:36pm
Look, if you can't distinguish "speech" and "actions", then maybe your internet driving license should be revoked.
Discriminatory business practices are restricted based on the Interstate Commerce clause.
Free speech is protected by the 1st Amerndment except in cases such as defamation, incitement to riot, fighting words.
There are no "Hate Speech" laws in America as they're unconstitutional.
However, an employer allowing the persistence of certain types of hate speech in the work environment might be deemed harassment and subject to lawsuits for creating a hostile work environment.
In any case, you're suggesting that a private individual who owns a company has stepped into illegal hate speech because he publicly supports what's on the books as law in most states, which is that marriage is between a man and a woman of certain age.
And that the state should then deny him a business permit for agreeing with existing law in 90% of the states. Is that wacky or what?
Shouldn't we prosecute people who are anti-drug because they're being hateful? How about someone who favors lower education expenses - they must hate little kids.
How about we fight our battles on the field of public opnion, through persuasion and organizing, such as liberal democracy favors?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 6:12pm
We're aren't talking about a restaurant discriminating in services/employment. We are talking about people being punished for their political views. If we do adopt a policy of denying a license to businesses on the basis of the views of their owners, that weapon will be used against left-liberals as well as conservatives(although you should oppose it if it was only used against conservatives; you get no credit for supporting free speech for yourself).
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 9:08am
False equivalence. Liberal arguments never condemn people due to a physical characteristic such as race or sexuality. It is a difference with a distinction. Please stop bringing these shallow objections up. It's really too pathetic.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 11:35pm
Unless of course they're white male Southerners or wealthy white people. A distinction with a difference.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 12:10am
Can conservative states like Texas or Arizona ban Ben and Jerry's ice cream for the liberal views of their owners? Can they demand Starbucks remove liberal quotes from their cups in their states?
by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 4:19pm
If the Liberal quotes are hate speech. But they aren't.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 4:57pm
No, we don't have laws against hate speech - you're confusing us with another country.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 3:08am
That country would be Canada, where inciting hatred of an identifiable group can earn you up to five years in prison. I see no statement by Chick-Fil-A or its owners that even comes close to meriting a charge, much less a conviction.
by acanuck on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 7:15pm
This is Chicago - they bring a gun to a knife fight, and a loud mouth to matins.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 2:45am
Yes, we do.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 11:36pm
Bwakkie, stop trying to change the subject. The restaurant is not being penalized for discrimination. It is being penalized because its owner opposes gay marriage. Punishing people for their political or social views is a violation of the First Amendment. If you support censorship, at least call it what it is.
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 9:44pm
Bwakkie doesn't support censorship, though. I've known this hen for a long time. In thise case, she differs with most of us about whether or not an absolutist interpretation of the first amendment is more important than an absolutist interpretation of equal rights. We've had a really valuable and vociferous argument here and I disagree with Bwak, but she's not for censorship. Many times, we share ideals but not priorities.
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 9:54pm
Thanks, Des. I am not for censorship. Most of us low artists can't be. But I do stand firmly against hate masquerading as free speech. Maybe it's just me. I don't really mind that no one agrees with me, on the right or on the left. I see a bright line where many don't. But you'll evolve. Eventually.
=D
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 11:07pm
Hey bwak,
Just got this.....
by Aunt Sam on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 11:53pm
No. They are being discriminated against because they are a creepy cultish psedo-rreligion. AND since you asked, yes, I AM my brothers keeper, even if he is gay.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 11:04pm
I thought of the following recent article after reading the "Chick-A-Fil Day" Facebook ad you got there:
Of course, it all depends upon what your definition of "family values" is whether you'll be attending the GOP convention and if so, how you'll spend your spare time there.
But there's something about that Chick-A-Fil ad ("married to our first wives" etc) that makes me think of the past arguments about Hooters being a wholesome restaurant chain, good clean fun for the whole family .Teaching 'em to ogle female body parts at a young age in order to stay physically chaste to one spouse?
The whole sex thing with the family values folks has always been very intriguing to me, strange and twisted. Nearly everything hetero allowed once you have that piece of paper called a marriage license, ala Marabel Morgan and how to keep your man happy etc. Maybe within this realm is the reason who gets that piece of paper is so important to them? That it's less about love and more about keeping heterosexual urges tied up a certain way, similar to how it is with a lot of conservative Islamic interpretation of Sharia on the same topic?
by artappraiser on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 2:39am
I don't think it's fair to automatically lump Chick-Fil-A in with Promise Keepers as frequenting strip clubs and the like.
From the one article on Chick-Fil-A, they spend quite a bit of time cultivating and developing their teams, and they're a business-focused outfit that seems to back up its attitude with action. Sure, if you can find a good example of Chick-Fil-A teams heading to Vegas to get lap dances, let me know, but I don't paint all evangelicals with one brush, despite the numerous scandals. (do those scandals involve more than 0.5% of self-avowed Christians? I'd guess not - but certainly sex scandals from any quarter gets promoted to page 1, so we're going to get that side of the story featured)
I remember some woman in Tennessee complaining about a Hooters ripoff chain that had opened there. She didn't say anything offensive in my eyes - just that "look, this is manipulative and insulting to women to sit around ogling breasts from a captive wait staff, so if you think you can take your date there or just be 'pro-family' while hanging out there, forget it". She didn't say "shut it down" or "I'm going to boycott" or anything other than stressing people's attitudes. And every single comment condemned her - mainly liberals. She wasn't threatening the store, she just didn't have a proper working-the-pole-is-grrrreeat-best-job-I-ever-had attitude, and that made her the enemy. I don't even know if she was Christian - don't see why it would change anything.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 3:26am
Promise Keepers? Are they the ones with the talking stick. Or was that another. My brother joined a couple of different men only groups when he was going through his divorce. They helped him get over it, well as much as he ever did. They sounded very much like AA without substance abuse issues.
I remember eating at the very first Chick-fil-A when I lived nearby in my very first apartment. Was aggravated when I went there to eat and found it closed on Sunday. That was in 1971.
Sure there are a lot of people who do not practice what they preach but the Cathys are not among them, at least not the senior ones. Very strait-laced, very devout.
As I noted, the FB campaign was not initiated by Chick-fil-A or the Cathys and, as I understand it, the contested quote was in a Baptist publication, likely in response to a question.
Why anyone would get their knickers in a twist about it completely baffles me. But then so does why anyone would make something as mutable as sexual preference and as ephemeral as sexual desire the basis of their identity and value system.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 3:28am
Great article, Michael/Destor, and congrats on the Reuters nab. As much as I love our Leetle Cheekin here, I have to agree with you that the two city officials overstepped badly. Get Chik-Fil-A on discrimination if you can, but denying them the right to open a restaurant because you hate their political views can't be good for anybody.
Someone here said let them open up and see if they fail, and I have to agree with that, too. I hate the Cathys and what they're doing, but if this were reversed and it was a city official trying to block me from opening a business because I got loud-mouthed about my wholly liberal views, the outcry from these quarters would predictably be in my favor.
by Ramona on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 4:51pm
False equivalence. Your extreme liberal views are in no way hurting people because of their sexuality.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 5:02pm
Some people do think liberalism is hurting people. Banning Ben and Jerry's for their political views would be no different from what has happened here. Does Bwannie think only speech which has no effect on anything should be permitted? Because all political speech is intended to have an effect.
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 5:35pm
False equivalence. Discriminating against people because of their sexual preference is completely different from a "political view."
But hey, thanks for playing.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 5:38pm
Who exactly is "discriminating"? Did Chick-fil-a do something that's discriminating?
US courts in general don't allow pre-emptive judgments because someone might do something illegal in the future.
Discriminating against people because of their sexual preference is the law in 90% of the states.
As US law doesn't automatically override state laws - you get to either 1) have state laws change to be non-discriminatory, or 2) find a legal justification at the federal level overriding state decisions.
But since people's free speech is protected, you can't just make them shut up, whether they agree with law changes or not.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/28/2012 - 6:04pm
Oy, you silly orange mushroom cloud.
Lookie here:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html
That's a bit more than just "speech", no? And nothing new. for these sick bastards. This isn't a business it's a cult. Bit different, that. They have homes where they indoctrinate the kids, and give them jobs, 'for life.'
It's sick stuff. No, they should be stopped with whatever tools we have available. Humans are human, they can say what they want, but when they buy kids and spread hate, ya know what? I'VE got free speech, too. I can keep them out of MY neighborhood, and that's as American as can be.
Haven't been to a zoning meeting lately, have you?
pffffft.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 10:43pm
I can try to make them shut up, as is MY right. I will continue to do so.
by Bwakkie (not verified) on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 11:22pm
Sure, but if your way isn't Constitutional and denies their rights, you might be shut down or just simply ignored.
And I still think people are too uncreative with their solutions.
Do you think a shrieking hen is more effective, or just an accepting community that lets a paranoic know there was nothing to be afraid of?
A buddy's uncle was an Italian POW in Mississippi during the war - he was amazed by how well he was treated, hardly as an enemy, went home a lifelong friend of America's.
There has to be more in the liberal toolkit than outrage and protests.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 12:05am
To respond to your original article, the best thing for Chick-Fil-A might be to show up in progressive cities and find their best customers are gay, and how unthreatening they are.
If you're running a franchise, and you see gay couples come in an out for a year, being friendly, posing no problems, being human, don't you think that'd change your mind more than a boycott?
How come Charm Offensive is absent from the left's vocabulary these days?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 3:14am
Right. Certainly boycotting the place just plays into the owners' hands, enhancing their image of a nice, wholesome, gay-free dining experience. Try going the other way. Turn the Chicago Chick-Fil-A into the gayest gathering spot in town. The city's LGBT community no doubt has the critical mass to do that. Basically, challenge the company to make even the slightest discriminatory move against any customer. Just a thought.
by acanuck on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 5:38pm
Now that you mention it, "Chick-Fil-Á" does sound kinda gay, doesn't it?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 6:53pm
It seems to me that the city mayors are discouraging rather than banning Chik-Fil-A from opening new locations. In most situations, a business or entrepreneur will rent space, or put up a building, open a new business and then interface with the local jurisdictions only to get the required permits and post the required bonds. The city can't stop them, but they can make life easier or more difficult. If say the neighbors object to an adult bookstore, bar or club, it can get complicated. A long time ago I had a client that was trying to sneak some student housing into a residential neighborhood. The neighbors didn't want to live next to students, and he got no breaks.
But large chains often have it easier than the ordinary shmoe. Some towns have waived or deferred taxes or made improvements to attract businesses, like WalMart or manufacturers, that seem to promise jobs. I don't know if that is the case with Chik, but getting building, health dept and signage permits in large cities is no picnic, and it would certainly not bother me if the mayors were not-so-subtly telling them that they could not expect any favors.
by Donal on Sun, 07/29/2012 - 10:29pm
[misquote deleted]
Thanks, I'll take my Constitution plain, not stirred, thank you - I don't need an Alderman or Mayor adding new hoops to the law to jump through because they think they know better. Most politicians are assholes - having them do their jobs with the strictest interpretation of duty is probably safest. If they feel they need to be creative, they can always go back to their selling garbage collection contracts to their closest relative or the guy who sneaks them the most money.
It's pretty simple - write a Constitutional law based on ethical values, get the votes to pass it, enforce it for everyone. Why's everyone yearning to be some quasi-legal banana republic?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 7:00pm
Try that argument on zoning and planning review boards.
by Donal on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 7:33pm
Did you edit my comment and delete something?
Couldn't have just highlighted something or clarified?
Fucking awesome.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 11:53pm
"It seems to me that the city mayors are discouraging rather than banning Chik-Fil-A from opening new locations. "
How about "blocking" rather than "discouraging"? Until Chick-Fil-A does what Moreno wants, Constitutional or not. "I want to see that policy that they oppose the Muslim Brotherhood before they go forward", to paraphrase Michelle Bachmann.
Your "if say the neighbors object to a" comment is misleading - you're confusing actual public nuisance with someone's right to free speech. Sneaking in student housing is violating city planning; Cathy's comments didn't turn a chicken fastfood into a brothel or gun shop.
Try this misquote: "The neighbors didn't want to live next to
studentsblacks or homosexuals and he got no breaks" - still like that Alderman's freedom?"The neighbors didn't want to live next to
studentsunion supporting liberal and he got no breaks"" If say the neighbors object to
an adult bookstore, bar or cluba company run by blacks or homosexuals it can get complicated." Still feel warm and fuzzy about this ad hoc process.It's funny, not long ago lots of liberals supported the Muslim mosque near the WTC even though it could be argued that was potentially a public nuisance/danger. And here we are with a chicken restaurant that seems to be even more dangerous. How our world moves.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 11:57pm
So you are equating a councilman who wants to see what Chik-fil-A has in the corporate handbooks about their policies or lack thereof pertaining to anti-discrimination, with the what the 5 idiot McCarthyite Congressfolks are doing to innocent American citizens by accusing them of being in the Muslim Brotherhood, infiltrating the American government and possibly committing treason against the nation.
Kind of over-the-top don't you think.
by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 11:58pm
You can substitute various minorities for Chik-Fil-A 'til the cows eat more chikin, but the analogies actually highlight the absurdity of your bald attempt to garner sympathy for the Cathys. You can call it blocking, but that assumes that Chik-Fil-A has a right to do business anywhere they choose under any terms they proclaim. If I was mayor of a cosmopolitan community, I would want assurances that a business was not going to come in and start trouble with my constituents.
Neighbors objecting to a new business is not about free speech — it is (putatively) about them protecting their property values and the character and quality of their neighborhood. Sometimes it is simply reactionary; sometimes it is personal; sometimes it is valid. We made sure that student housing did not violate city planning, but homeowners in college towns are often leery of (presumably) noisy students next door, and their opposition had enough influence that the project stalled.
by Donal on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 9:13am
No, not "under any terms they proclaim" - under the standard law for everyone, written in the books, not arbitrary rules made up to fit someone's pique.
"protecting their property values and the character and quality of their neighborhood" - we've heard that argument countless times - "putatively" or not.
" If I was mayor of a cosmopolitan community, I would want assurances that a business was not going to come in and start trouble with my constituents." - and keep those damned Hells Angels out, and no Nazi marches through Skokie. We've been through all this.
And I'm sympathetic with all sides - home renters want to protect their rental property, calmer older homeowners don't want banshees living next door, students need inexpensive places to live, not everyone's life ends at 10pm, etc.
There of course is discrimination against students in this case - for some reason we'll accept that as a given, while the side-effects of a marriage-supporting religiously based company is considered fanatical, even if we haven't proven that they in fact discriminate as a matter of policy.
Do you see the amusing contradiction? It's not a big deal - we do make a lot of compromises in our ideals & our everyday systems. Just when people start speaking up about absolutes in terms of Chick-Fil-A, it becomes a bit of a joke. Chick-Fil-A has to follow the rules we think moral or we'll break the written rules to get rid of them.
What could go wrong?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 9:54am
Yes, if Hell's Angels or American Nazis wanted to open a business I'd be concerned. Opening a business is not protected free speech. It's business, and it requires negotiation and compromise. Smart business people avoid alienating the people with whom they have to negotiate.
by Donal on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 10:35am
Was referring to various ACLU actions on marches/conventions.
Smart people don't alienate their pharmacists or they won't sell them contraceptives.
Smart people don't talk back to policemen or they get taken to jail on spurious charges.
Smart people don't talk politics with their neighbors or their kids will get strange looks.
It's a wonder smart people talk at all.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 11:08am
Allowing a group to hold a political march or convention in your city is not the same as encouraging them to open a business in your city.
Smart people don't alienate the folk they're trying to convince.
by Donal on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 12:40pm
Sometimes smart people do not expect to change the minds of people who disagree, they don't even try, they find it more expedient and pragmatic to encourage the mental reactions and then the overt actions of those who already agree with them. Sometimes the reactions they encourage are knee-jerk and wrong, or at least should be more nuanced, but once defended they are likely to be defended until the bitter end.
We have enough trouble correctly dealing with breakers of legitimate laws. I am completely against any action which tip toes around near the slippery slope of thought-crime and how to punish thought-crime, if we see a thought as being such, by stretching and misusing the proper application of legitimate laws.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 1:00pm
I don't think Chik-Fil-A statements can be dismissed as mere thought, nor do I consider their beliefs criminal (though Bwak mentioned that there have been complaints) just unpleasant. I used to be far more tolerant of conservatives, but in return have found that they have become far less tolerant of me. I'm tired of being a doormat, so to the extent I get to choose with whom I associate, I do so. So if I was in charge of a tolerant, cosmopolitan place, I wouldn't be hurling any keys to the city at Chik-Fil-A.
by Donal on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 2:05pm
I support the right to same-sex marriage; I oppose DOMA and similar state laws. But in this case, Peracles and Lulu are totally, totally right and Donal is totally wrong. It isn't a question of how tolerant conservatives are, and it isn't a question of "my side" winning. It's a question of whether you stand for consistent principles and equal application of laws and processes.
If that's too hard, try the simple "do unto others" test: Imagine redneck urban officials trying to ban or obstruct a company or institution from setting up in their city because it supports gay marriage. Or birth control. Or abortion. Or civil rights. It's easy to imagine, because we've seen it happen. Wrong there, wrong here.
by acanuck on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 3:11pm
Kudos, BTW, to destor for the original op-ed/post. "The slippery slope here is obvious," he wrote. Yeah, and even more obvious after reading through this thread.
by acanuck on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 3:19pm
Chik-Fil-A is asking for zoning relief — a new ordinance. They want to subdivide in an already traffic-congested area. What do they bring to the city? A few minimum wage jobs, increased traffic, more solid waste, profits sent back to Georgia and a mess of attitude? Here's another opportunity to bend over backwards for people that hate us. Boy, howdy, how can we say no?
by Donal on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 4:26pm
Traffic congestion? Well, that changes everything, doesn't it?
First time it's been mentioned in this thread, though.
You're rationalizing and obfuscating. Totally, totally wrong.
by acanuck on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 4:35pm
Well, not to worry. The Dems will cave, and then you can go back to complaining that the world is moving to the right.
by Donal on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 5:15pm
by jollyroger on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 12:28am