Book of the Month

Shuts and Failures

by Michael Maiello

Michael Maiello's picture

Make Room For Bigot Chicken

by Michael Maiello 7/27/2012 - 5:18 pm

My second Op-Ed for Reuters, about our chickeny friends from the south.

Read the full article at http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/07/27/room-for-bigot-chicken/

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 7/28/2012 - 1:53 am

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 7/28/2012 - 8:29 am

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 7/28/2012 - 10:56 am (re: tmccarthy0)

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 7/29/2012 - 10:00 am (re: destor23)

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 7/29/2012 - 12:31 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

Say what you want, just leave pancakes the hell alone.

by Qnonymous (not verified) 7/29/2012 - 8:50 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Pigs in a blanket? Sentimental are we?

by PeraclesPlease 7/30/2012 - 2:44 am (re: Qnonymous)

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 7/28/2012 - 9:58 am

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 7/28/2012 - 11:00 am (re: Dan Kervick)

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) 7/28/2012 - 11:26 am

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 7/28/2012 - 12:07 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/28/2012 - 1:58 pm (re: destor23)
the difference: the national guard was enforcing access, not enforcing silence. Would you want them enforcing silence? that's what mandated " free speech" zones are about
by jollyroger 7/28/2012 - 3:20 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/28/2012 - 1:59 pm (re: destor23)

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 7/28/2012 - 2:19 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/28/2012 - 3:49 pm (re: destor23)
Of course hate speech is protected. What makes you think it is not? It may be actionable as intentional infliction of emotional distress, or commercial interference, but it is protected from prior restraint by the state. Yes "people " ie, landlords, are free to ".keep them out "ie. refuse to rent. but they can't use the police power of the state in that endeavor.
by jollyroger 7/28/2012 - 4:20 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/28/2012 - 5:33 pm (re: jollyroger)
No, that's prohibited discrimination. They can, however, have a sign that says "all served, but we wish we didn't have to"
by jollyroger 7/28/2012 - 6:00 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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 7/28/2012 - 6:10 pm (re: Bwakkie)

The distinction you're looking for isn't individuals from companies, it's actually public accommodations versus certain private behavior.  And the conduct you're talking about was proscribed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II.

by Articleman 7/28/2012 - 7:53 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

But let's be clear: Bwakkie is positing a total red herring. Chick-fil-A is not refusing to serve anyone. So they are not breaking any law. I don't see how they can legally be denied licenses because their owners are bigots.

by acanuck 7/28/2012 - 11:14 pm (re: Articleman)

Sarah Palin went to Chick-fil-A today, so you know the debate has gone to a wonderful place.  But yes, ack, I think all of us are in disagreement with the Chicken in this thread.  

Rahm, I think, was trying to make a point.  Rahm is not respecting the First Amendment in making his point, and he is already a bit of a punching bag on the left for many, so it accelerates the frenzy of Rahm-disagreeing.  

I still think Rahm is trying to make a good point, which is that intolerance is not a value he likes or endorses or thinks belongs in Chicago.  But you don't bring the authority of the state to bear to legislate values in that way.  That is oppressive and fascistic.

by Articleman 7/29/2012 - 12:21 am (re: acanuck)

I think we need to drill a bit deeper on this subject. According to the article Bwak links to, the chicken joint has been sued some dozen times for discriminating acts of one kind or another. With this recent flak, haven't they as much as signaled their intent to flaunt, if not violate outright laws protecting gays and lesbians? Seriously, what chance does an openly homosexual employee have for advancement, that is if they're hired in the first place? Why can't we assume they're breaking the law based on shit they say? Is it a crime if me and my buddies gather in my kitchen to chat about say, blowing up some bridge? Anyway, I'm not necessarily gushing with agreement that the first amendment is under assault with this case. 

by kyle flynn 7/29/2012 - 1:06 am (re: Articleman)

People say a lot of shit. "If that damn cat wakes me up one more time, I'll chop him to pieces and feed him to the pigeons." SPCA had a hoot with that threat.

Roseanne Barr says "giving your kids cancer from processed foods is child abuse" - if we take the next step of banning restaurants perceived as unhealthy fast food, anyone who protests? "promoting child abuse through hate speech"

I don't like abortion - if I had a company that donated to creative abortion alternatives (including say Planned Parenthood), should my company's business license be denied, even though I didn't deny anyone the right of abortion?

What you don't seem to fathom is that Cathy only stated his company supports traditional marriage - including that they don't marry trophy wives and that they believe in man-woman marriage only, which is the law in say 44 of 50 states. 

Curiously, the Roman Catholic church espouses the same view - should we deny the church the right to operate in states with gay marriage laws? [The President until March held the same view - how in the hell did Democrats choose him to be their candidate and praise his speeches and fund-raise for him rather than condemn him for intolerance and hate speech?]

Or should these issues be debated civilly in the public forum and at the ballot box and through actual challenges on real legal principles?

The article Bwak links to links to a longer more interesting article:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html

That a large franchiser was sued 12 times over a number of years, with only 1 suit elaborated on slightly - is that news or innuendo? As far as we know, none of those suits were related to serving customers, and we only know the topic of 1 suit settled out of court re: attending a group prayer.

The article paints Chick-fil-a as unique - they are the only fast food chain to close on Sundays so employees can be with their families, and close on Christmas and Thanksgiving. Isn't that a little bit cool?

They profess and seem to select and treat their employees as life-time workers, part of a family, as something more than shit-scraping bottom-rung-of-the-ladder minimum wage scum to exploit. In the age of offshoring and WalMart anti-union behavior, isn't that refreshing? (their employee turnover is significantly lower than comparable outlets)

As Chick-fil-a is a franchise, the article notes that they're not subject to some of the employee restrictions.

But in any case, I see the same intolerance over and over from the liberal side as well as conservative - someone says something I don't like, so I must sue, boycott, seek arrests, bring in draconian federal intervention, call in air strikes, wage Total War and blitzkrieg because I consider such statement/opinion/outlook [a) blasphemous and anti-Christmas b) hate speech and intolerance to group X, c) immoral & destroying the world]

No wonder we're all eager to accept targeted assassinations - we're just intolerant of the ambiguity and complicated processes of life, due process, free choice, impassioned speech.

Take a pill and a deep breath. 

by PeraclesPlease 7/29/2012 - 2:19 am (re: kyle flynn)

Too much tolerance of discriminatory viewpoints is unilateral disarmament in a real war for our identity.  There is to me a degree of false equivalency in your comment.  Everyone is all the same on tolerance is to me way too pat.

by Articleman 7/29/2012 - 2:09 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

There's a schmidgen of difference:

 

Eighty-three percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll approve of Obama’s use of unmanned drones against terrorist suspects, 78 percent back the drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and 70 percent favor keeping open the Guantanamo Bay detention center – the latter a reversal by Obama of his 2008 campaign position.

That was in February - they might have come around by then. Support for the invasion of Iraq was somewhere 90%+. 

So not "all the same on tolearnce", but easily co-opted. Better?

Even with the current issue, we're talking about supporting the right to be controversial over whether the content matches my opinion. From lists of major bloggers and columnists, there's actually pretty good support for the tolerant position that runs counter to personal viewpoints.

And it's not really "tolerance of discriminatory viewpoints" - it's simply tolerance of free speech. It that speech has a detriimental effect, you counter it in a way that fits the Constitution - say persuasion, organizing, lobbying, contributions, strikes and protests and boycotts. Just not using denial of 1st Amendment rights. That's not "unilateral disarmament" - that's living up to liberal democracy, and requiring a legal, ethical strategy instead.

by PeraclesPlease 7/29/2012 - 6:33 pm (re: Articleman)

We can't "assume" people are breaking the law and punish them, we have to prove they have broken the law. Anyway, opposing gay marriage isn't illegal, and it shouldn't be.

by Aaron Carine (not verified) 7/29/2012 - 10:24 am (re: kyle flynn)

I do wonder if all of this attention won't bring serious civil rights allegations to light on the hiring and employment side of things.

by Michael Maiello 7/29/2012 - 10:46 am (re: kyle flynn)

Sure, just like one more Romney tax form will bring a ton of new disclosures, and Hillary/Bill's 2008 tax forms were going to show tons of malfeasance and conflicts of interest.

(by the way, John Kerry's wife never released her tax forms, but no one seemed to mind back then)

Look, the family's been Christians since the beginning, they ran this carefully as a franchise business that don't have employee obligations, the store franchisees seem happy, the employees seem happy, the customers seem happy - why the need to run him down?

He said something silly - because the last thing you want to do in America is speak your opinion, even if it's legal and actually fits the status quo.

Now his franchise-holders are trying to patch up in Atlanta, Chicago, Hollywood, New York. But in the end, most Americans are too lazy and attention-deprived to stick with a boycott for long, so it'll be okay.

 

by PeraclesPlease 7/29/2012 - 11:40 am (re: destor23)

You're making my point.  Start with laws being broken and work from there.

You are wrong about the First Amendment piece, though.  You can't have towns, or major cities, outlaw businesses based on viewpoint.  That's basic First Amendment law.

You could bar serial discriminators, who were thus adjudicated to be such, though.  Chicago doesn't have to let systematic violators of antidiscrimination laws in, I think.

by Articleman 7/29/2012 - 2:06 pm (re: kyle flynn)

Start with laws...

I thought I implied as much. It seems the chicken shop has some history of discrimination.

And generally, I agree with PP. Dan Cathy said something silly. I'm not suggesting it should disqualify them from peddling their fried cluck in Chicago. But there might be a pattern here, and if so, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno has a point. He's threatened to run interference unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy. His words: “They have nothing on the books that says they do not discriminate and they are open to everyone. I want to see that policy before they go forward."

 

by kyle flynn 7/29/2012 - 5:20 pm (re: Articleman)

No, you still don't get it.

Gay marriage is not legal in Illinois.

The state itself is defending the ban on gay marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/illinois-gay-marriage-dow_0_n_1647102.html

Rahm Emmanuel can go take a flying fuck - he has absolutely no legal right to demand a "written anti-discrimination policy" that runs counter to Illinois law. And actually, even if it were law, he has no right to ask for some avowal that Chick-fil-A won't commit a crime in advance, unless that's law for every single company in Illinois.

If every company is require to submit an anti-discrimination policy - which I doubt would pass constitutional muster - then he can go ahead.

You simply don't get to choose your way of regulating based on a CEO's free speech.

And that speech said nothing about discrimination in the work place - the guy said he's against gay marriage as well as swapping out wives like car models. Despite all the screaming, he said nothing about being "anti-gay".

If being against gay marriage was such a problem, Rahm should have never worked for Obama, who until this year was against gay marriage.

"Might be a pattern" isn't how it works in the US - investigate and charge, or piss off.

by PeraclesPlease 7/29/2012 - 6:11 pm (re: kyle flynn)

No, I get it. And I've said I generally agree with you that his comments about marriage amount to little and shouldn't be a reason to prevent the chicken shop from doing business. But that's not all he's said. And as long as we're in an age where corporations are people and money is speech, he's said a lot more. 

Look, you make a good case. And pretty much all of the players in Chicago and Boston have walked back their positions. But sorry, I'm not altogether convinced Chic Fil A hasn't engaged in a campaign to intimidate and discourage openly gay and lesbian employees or potential employees. Tell me how, in the culture Chic Fil A has created, openly gay and lesbian people get a fair shake?  

 

by kyle flynn 7/29/2012 - 8:08 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

This is innuendo - if there's proof they discriminated, investigate them and charge them.

"I'm not altogether convinced" - that's not how the law works. I'm not altogether convinced you didn't chop up your neighbor - so don't go anywhere till you prove it?

by PeraclesPlease 7/30/2012 - 2:29 am (re: kyle flynn)

Look, I'm not the law, I'm just speculating, same as you.  And I think the day is coming soon when someone does formally challenge Chic Fil A on the grounds I've suggested. And it forces a change.

by kyle flynn 7/30/2012 - 4:09 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

But I'm not speculating.

I'm saying when there's a complaint - investigate & charge.

If not, government should shut up - it's not their business to accuse companies without proof, or change policy per individual companies.

If there are written requirements to open business, then Chick-Fil-a has to pass them. Period. 

But I don't think a building permit involves any of this.

by PeraclesPlease 7/30/2012 - 6:10 am (re: kyle flynn)

Discrimination against LGBT in employment and public accommodation is illegal in Chicago.  

Chick-fil-A has a documented history of fixation on the marital status of employees and franchise operators, of wanting married ones, which is a not-too-subtle way of keeping away the gay.  They can do that under Title VII, which is about race and gender discrimination and not sexual orientation discrimination.  But I don't think they can do that in Chicago, at least as to employees, and probably not as to operators if that is their intent, which seems likely to me and surely plausible to anyone paying attention.

So I think Alderman Moreno is sensible in questioning whether an organization with a history of discrimination that would violate Chicago law has a policy that aims to comply with Chicago law.  Your tirade against Emanuel is wrong on three levels.  First, the comment to which you respond is from Moreno, not Emanuel.  Second, Moreno is entirely within his rights.  Third, the requested policy is consistent with and not contradictory to the law of the relevant jurisdiction.

by Articleman 7/30/2012 - 12:27 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

"not-too-subtle way of keeping away the gay" - nonsense, he says "Cathy, who wants married workers, believing they are more industrious and productive". Just because you can surmise an alternative motive doesn't mean there has to be.

Companies discriminate against married and oler people all the time - they want younger single people they can overwork late hours and weekends, travel too much, lower their health costs - is Alderman Moreno investigating all of them too?

Yes, there is a chance 1) that Chick-fil-A discriminates against gays intentionally, or 2) that Chick-fil-A discriminates unintentionally through policy.

I believe #1 is not legal and #2 might be legal, but it depends partly on the nature of franchisee vs. employee aspect - I don't specifically know.

If there is a real complaint in their based on real behavior and real evidence, then investigate and charge. Otherwise let it go - fr:ankly, I'd save my venom for Dominos, where the owner seems rabid.

The article sums it up - Moreno can find an actual discrimination case to sign on with and run with it, or he can STFU:

Is it legal? There are no federal laws that prohibit companies from asking nosy questions about religion and marital status during interviews. Most companies don't because it can open them up to discrimination claims, says James Ryan, a spokesman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chick-fil-A has more freedom to ask whatever it wants of franchisees because they are independent contractors and not necessarily subject to federal employment discrimination laws. (Employees, however, may sue under those laws.)

by PeraclesPlease 7/30/2012 - 2:43 am (re: Articleman)

See below.

by Articleman 7/30/2012 - 1:24 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

'believes married people are more industious..."

replace 'married people' with 'white' and maybe see the problem.

by Bwakkie (not verified) 7/30/2012 - 11:31 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Thanks.

by PeraclesPlease 7/29/2012 - 1:55 am (re: Articleman)

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 7/28/2012 - 1:00 pm

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:

"If you want to picket them, go ahead. If they violate the law, go after them. But you don't hand out business licenses based on whether you agree with the political views of the executives. Not in America, anyway. 

On a related note, what makes this whole situation so weird is that Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy has always opposed gay marriage. He's a devout Southern Baptist, just like his father, who founded the company. The place is closed on Sundays, for crying out loud. There's just nothing new here."

And hooray for you too now, destor.
 
My understanding is that the quote that started it all (shown in the image above) was made to a Baptist publication.  So why make a big deal out of old news?  Is GLAAD really that desperate for controversy?
 
 
by EmmaZahn 7/28/2012 - 2:01 pm

I should have noted that that Facebook campaign is by supporters and not Chick-fil-A itself.

by EmmaZahn 7/28/2012 - 2:03 pm (re: EmmaZahn)

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) 7/28/2012 - 2:09 pm (re: EmmaZahn)

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 7/28/2012 - 2:38 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/28/2012 - 3:36 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

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) 7/28/2012 - 3:40 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

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 7/29/2012 - 2:22 am (re: Bwakkie)
you can boycott, picket, sabotage (if you have the stones...). You cannot however, enlist the power of the state and make a policy that some license or benefit will turn on the content of someone's speech. As Hugo Black clarified for us, "No law means no law" as in "Congress shall make no law abridging, etc. " Do you really want to carve up the First Amendment?
by jollyroger 7/28/2012 - 3:02 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/28/2012 - 3:43 pm (re: jollyroger)

Chicken, using your analogy, isn't Chick-fil-A more like a lunch counter that is happy to serve black people in the old South, but which gives money to groups which oppose their having equal rights?

While my heart is in the same place as yours in strongly supporting equal rights and marriage rights, there's a huge difference between opening Uncle McNasty's Antigay Chicken Parlor (and serving gay and lesbian married couples, for example), than opening up Uncle McNasty's (now directly violating the rights of a suspect class by refusing them service).

By your argument, Domino's Pizza's former owner's antiabortion donations would have meant the owner was directly violating the rights to privacy of women whose abortions he spent money to oppose.  He was not, though I haven't had Domino's now in 25 years.  That's my right.

I think giving close scrutiny to and wide publicity when found to discriminatory employment measures undertaken by employers who take public stances like Chick-fil-A's are far more likely to result in society regarding them as you and I do, than arguing incorrectly that they may not speak as they do.  Indeed, that's part of why Rahm's pandering to Chicago's LGBT community may be counterproductive of the aims he's espousing.  Chick-fil-A won't be allowed to discriminate against gay or lesbian people in hiring in Chicago.  So let them come and then watch whether they obey laws that actually protect LGBT folks.

And what T-Mac said, how horribly unhealthy this "food" is anyway.  Yecch.

by Articleman 7/28/2012 - 3:58 pm (re: Bwakkie)

I think Dominoes is why I object. I can't help but think if it affected men, Dominoes would have gone out of business. 

As a female, I wish their misanthrope had been taken seriously.

by Bwakkie (not verified) 7/28/2012 - 5:16 pm (re: Articleman)

And thank you for the thoughtful response, and everyone. I appreciate them. I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. There are many gay people that I love very much, and I can not countenance this supposedly OK way-on-gay-marriage anymore than I do the war-on-women.

It's wrong and needs to stop, with whatever tools we have available. 

by Bwakkie (not verified) 7/28/2012 - 5:21 pm (re: Articleman)

Realistically, no, it doesn't need to stop, whatever you think you can't countenance.

Gay marriage has been illegal and frowned upon for however many thousands of years of documented human history.

That the world has not collectively clicked its heels at your demand and fixed this issue in a matter of days was just never going to happen, and the progress that's been made in a relatively short time frame of say since Stonewall 1969 is still impressive. Universal gay marriage by 2050 would steal be quite a feat, whatever your impatience.

Gay marriage itself is just one of a number of LGBT issues that have been addressed in the last 10 years, progress like DADT repeal and employment rights and acceptance in public office being significant. Just because you feel it hasn't gone fast enough doesn't mean we have to be petulant and drop all other issues and throw a fit at everyone who might show any objection.

Gandhi went on hunger strikes when he felt his followers were pushing things the wrong way - speed was not his only criteria - doing things the right way was. In our case, following the Constitution seems germane - especially if you don't want everything switched back the next change of government.

Painting Dan Cathy as "hates gays" or trying to get government action against his stores - "with whatever tools we have available" as you say - is overboard just because he hasn't signed on to the next step of LGBT priorities. To quote David Bowie, "I'm Afraid of Americans".

 

 

by PeraclesPlease 7/29/2012 - 3:07 am (re: Bwakkie)
somehow I failed to help you see the difference between speech as a protected liberty and discrimination as a proscribed action. do you, then, endorse the caging of protesters in "free speech" areas away from presidential view, as has become a common practice under both bush and Prez? surely not.
by jollyroger 7/28/2012 - 4:04 pm (re: Bwakkie)

No, but crowds at a political speech do not require a license to serve the public. Chikfila does.

by Bwakkie (not verified) 7/28/2012 - 5:14 pm (re: jollyroger)
True, but the granting or denial of the license cannot turn on the content of speech If the speech on question was an amplified diatribe at 4am, the business license could be pulled because, unlike content, the time, place, and manner of speech is not protected.
by jollyroger 7/28/2012 - 6:05 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/28/2012 - 5:30 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/28/2012 - 5:36 pm (re: Aaron Carine)

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 7/28/2012 - 6:12 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/29/2012 - 9:08 am (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/30/2012 - 11:35 pm (re: Aaron Carine)

Unless of course they're white male Southerners or wealthy white people. A distinction with a difference.

by PeraclesPlease 7/31/2012 - 12:10 am (re: Bwakkie)

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 7/28/2012 - 4:19 pm (re: Bwakkie)

If the Liberal quotes are hate speech. But they aren't.

 

 

by Bwakkie (not verified) 7/28/2012 - 4:57 pm (re: ocean-kat)

No, we don't have laws against hate speech - you're confusing us with another country.

by PeraclesPlease 7/29/2012 - 3:08 am (re: Bwakkie)

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 7/29/2012 - 7:15 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

This is Chicago - they bring a gun to a knife fight, and a loud mouth to matins.

by PeraclesPlease 7/30/2012 - 2:45 am (re: acanuck)

Yes, we do.

by Bwakkie (not verified) 7/30/2012 - 11:36 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

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 7/29/2012 - 9:44 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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 7/29/2012 - 9:54 pm (re: Aaron Carine)

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) 7/30/2012 - 11:07 pm (re: destor23)

Hey bwak,

Just got this.....

Yesterday, Sarah Cantor and Brian Real, graduate students in Maryland, sent Lambda Legal an email letting us know that they and their friends were promoting a Facebook event they created called “Donate (the cost of) a Chicken Dinner to Marriage Equality Day”. These students took action in response to the restaurant chain Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay stance, encouraging Facebook users all around the country to donate $6.50 (the cost of a chicken dinner) to an organization fighting for equality.

Hungry For Equality?: Make Your $6.50 Gift Today!

The swift reaction we have seen to Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay stance has highlighted something Lambda Legal has been saying for some time now: the winds of change are not coming…they’re already here.

 

by Aunt Sam 7/31/2012 - 11:53 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/30/2012 - 11:04 pm (re: Aaron Carine)

I thought of the following recent article after reading the "Chick-A-Fil Day" Facebook ad you got there:

Strip Clubs in Tampa Are Ready to Cash In on G.O.P. Convention
By Lizette Alavarez, New York Times, July 26/27, 2012

TAMPA, Fla. — [....]

Club owners here say they have schmoozed with their counterparts in former host cities, like Denver, and have been told that revenue pours in during conventions, sometimes quadrupling earnings from a Super Bowl week. As for party affiliation, this is one place where the country’s caustic partisan differences fall away, owners say.

Angelina Spencer, the executive director of the Association of Club Executives, which serves as a trade association for strip clubs, said an informal survey of convention business in New York and Denver had determined that Republicans dropped more money at clubs, by far.

“Hands down, it was Republicans,” she said. “The average was $150 for Republicans and $50 for Democrats.”

As further evidence of the clubs’ nonpartisan appeal, Don Kleinhans, the owner of the 2001 Odyssey, said when the Promise Keepers, a male evangelical group, came to town years ago, business was rollicking.

“We had phenomenal numbers all weekend, and they walked in wearing badges and name tags and weren’t shy at all,” he said.

[....]

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 7/29/2012 - 2:39 am (re: EmmaZahn)

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 7/29/2012 - 3:26 am (re: artappraiser)

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 7/29/2012 - 3:28 am (re: artappraiser)

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 7/28/2012 - 4:51 pm

False equivalence. Your extreme liberal views are in no way hurting people because of their sexuality.

 

by Bwakkie (not verified) 7/28/2012 - 5:02 pm (re: Ramona)

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) 7/28/2012 - 5:35 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/28/2012 - 5:38 pm (re: Aaron Carine)

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 7/28/2012 - 6:04 pm (re: Bwakkie)

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) 7/30/2012 - 10:43 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

I can try to make them shut up, as is MY right. I will continue to do so.

 

by Bwakkie (not verified) 7/30/2012 - 11:22 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

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 7/31/2012 - 12:05 am (re: Bwakkie)

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 7/29/2012 - 3:14 am

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 7/30/2012 - 5:38 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Now that you mention it, "Chick-Fil-Á" does sound kinda gay, doesn't it? 

by PeraclesPlease 7/30/2012 - 6:53 pm (re: acanuck)

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 7/29/2012 - 10:29 pm

[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 7/30/2012 - 7:00 pm (re: Donal)

Try that argument on zoning and planning review boards.

by Donal 7/30/2012 - 7:33 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Did you edit my comment and delete something?

Couldn't have just highlighted something or clarified?

Fucking awesome.

by PeraclesPlease 7/30/2012 - 11:53 pm (re: Donal)

 

"It seems to me that the city mayors are discouraging rather than banning Chik-Fil-A from opening new locations. "

“They have nothing on the books that says they do not discriminate and they are open to everyone,” said Moreno, whose ward is on the northwest side. “I want to see that policy before they go forward.”

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 students blacks or homosexuals and he got no breaks" - still like that Alderman's freedom?

"The neighbors didn't want to live next to students union supporting liberal and he got no breaks" 

" If say the neighbors object to an adult bookstore, bar or club a 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 7/30/2012 - 11:57 pm (re: Donal)

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 7/30/2012 - 11:58 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

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 7/31/2012 - 9:13 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

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 7/31/2012 - 9:54 am (re: Donal)

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 7/31/2012 - 10:35 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

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 7/31/2012 - 11:08 am (re: Donal)

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 7/31/2012 - 12:40 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

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 7/31/2012 - 1:00 pm (re: Donal)

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 7/31/2012 - 2:05 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

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 7/31/2012 - 3:11 pm (re: Donal)

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 7/31/2012 - 3:19 pm (re: acanuck)

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 7/31/2012 - 4:26 pm (re: acanuck)

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 7/31/2012 - 4:35 pm (re: Donal)

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 7/31/2012 - 5:15 pm (re: acanuck)

In discrimination suits, if a government is using a facially neutral rule, you look for both impact and intent.  A rule instituted that you want everyone to be married has an antigay impact.  Cathy's intent is easy for the rest of us to spot.

Within your comment, the federal law point is a smokescreen, as is the point that Illinois doesn't legalize gay marriage.  Neither the fact that Title VII omits gay people, nor the fact that Illinois doesn't legalize gay marriage, makes it ok to discriminate against gay people in Chicago.

Your point about supposed contrariness to Illinois law is also uninformed and incorrect, because in Illinois, not just Chicago, it is illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in public accommodations.

You and I agree that Moreno and Chicago cannot deny a permit because of the owner's views. 

But you have joined the Chicken in confusing the line between protecting Cathy's First Amendment rights and the government's legitimate interest in deterring discrimination when you say that asking for a policy evidencing *compliance* with antidiscrimination law is a big STFU for you.  The rule you are inventing that governments cannot be interested in the state of compliance with their laws is both not a rule, is counterfactual, and makes no sense.  Legislatures both investigate factual matters by committee or individually, and ask the attorneys they work with (either as committee counsel, in the U.S. Senate or House), or ask the County Attorney or State Attorney General to do stuff like that all the time.  The Cathys of the world, despite your concern and the First Amendment's protection for their right to think and espouse discriminatory thoughts, have no First Amendment or other right to be free from that kind of scrutiny.

by Articleman 7/30/2012 - 1:40 pm

Who talked about "discriminating against gay people"? Cathy talked about gay marriage, not allowed under Illinois law, not about discriminating against people.

"Cathy's intent is easy for the rest of us to spot" is bullshit, and it pisses me off. This company was founded decades ago, long before gay issues were on the radar. Just because you can weld a new issue onto their age-old policy and it seems to fit doesn't mean they had that intent originally or even now. So just tamp it down, you're not a mind-reader and there's no smoking gun.

Auto insurance companies give discounts to older married people - because they hate the gays? Or because married people on average drive safer? Kinda similar to driving a franchise.

But the main point I'm making is whatever scrutiny has to be level under the law.

While it is not permitted for  to discriminate against customers in Illinois

"Investigate factual matters" is very different from requiring a non-convicted company to pre-emptively draw up a "we won't discriminate" plan. Is this pre-emptive requirement used for everyone? Not compliance, but assurance in advance? Wal-Mart's had tons of suits over worker discrimination, using old people as a way of cutting costs, etc. - Is Moreno looking out for that as well? I understand Hooters is rather discriiminatory in who it hires - I'm sure he'll be researching that one. Just like I'm sure he's tracking those companies who consistently turn down blacks, Hispanics and women, even if there's been no court-verified discrimination.

And again, Moreno's response seemed to be based on Cathy's anti-gay marriage statement, not any company history of discrimination, or him saying he wanted to discriminate.

As for whether Chicago or Illinois distinguishes between employees vs. franchises in discrimination law, I don't know. If a "facially neutral rule" is seen to apply in the case of Chick-Fil-A hiring practices, fine, then use it. But Moreno / Emmanuel weren't talking about that - they were talking about denying a building permit, crap approach from big mouth politicians. And that pisses me off as well. Just follow the law.

by PeraclesPlease 7/30/2012 - 3:37 pm (re: Articleman)

As always, you offer moving targets to change the point.  While you ask me in this comment who is talking about discriminating against gay people, upthread, you said that Alderman Moreno's request for an antidiscrimination policy violated Illinois law:

"Rahm Emmanuel can go take a flying fuck - he has absolutely no legal right to demand a 'written anti-discrimination policy' [you meant Moreno's request, but it's so much fun to swear about Rahm] that runs counter to Illinois law."

Except you don't know what you're talking about -- Illinois and Chicago law both mandate the very nondiscrimination that made you say that Alderman Moreno for asking for one should "STFU."  So the answer to your first paragraph's question here is you; you were talking about laws about discriminating against gay people, and bollixing up your facts.  Illinois bars it; the requested policy would aid it.

Your anger that anyone would think that someone who operates their business "on Biblical principles" and says that gay advocates are "shaking their fists at God" and gave $2 million to antigay causes in 2010 alone while checking employees for marriage status might be prone toward antigay discrimination is silly.  Of course they are.  In pretending that has no context, yours is the facial neutrality of letting bums and millionaires sleep under the same bridge.

Again.  Chick-fil-A is entitled to building permits irrespective of spending in the vain hope of eradicating homosexual behavior.  And its obsession with this issue is a perfectly valid reason to ask it to affirm that it won't discriminate.

by Articleman 7/30/2012 - 5:02 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

No, I cover every single motherfucking point same as always.

It wasn't Cathy who proclaimed he wanted to discriminate, but he said something like ethical happily married employees make the best workers.

Here he goes on at length on their social work on marriage without hinting at "the gays", only heterosexual marriage ad nauseum if you will:

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/bubba_cathy

That's the "$2 million to antigay causes" group you keep droning on about - if you have something more than "opposes gay marriage", show it - otherwise you're boring me. There's nothing horribly "anti-gay" about essentially quoting the law on gay marriage in 90% of the states. Yeah, the "shaking their fists at God" bit is overboard and a bit silly, but so is most religion - and government should stay out of religion, so let him rant on. If they display discriminatory practices, sue, shut them down, follow the law. Until then, they get the benefit of the doubt, of the law, innocent until proven guilty.

Funny I "don't know what I'm talking about", because you just accepted my main argument that company donations have nothing to do with getting a building permit, but turn around and say that then city elders can require a (useless) pre-emptive non-discrimination statement to get a building permit. If you can't find a reference, stop ragging on about it. If "Illinois bars it" and "the requested policy would aid it", sing verse and paragraph - where do they require these statements of non-discrimination? 

If a club owner makes comments about weed and extasy, does he have to fill out forms for the city proclaiming he'll never have illegal drugs in his establishment? Do strip joints write 100 times in advance that they'll never offer illegal backroom sex?

Note again, this isn't about having non-discrimination laws. This is about having some clause somewhere that an org has to verify it will never ever ever discriminate, so help me The Simpsons. Not as a result of a court action for displayed discriminatory behavior, but only because we don't trust someone because of something they said kinda similar sorta. And we see inside their souls.

Incredibly shallow reasoning to think that someone feeling gay marriage is against God's will is the same as acting anti-gay. That doesn't mean I wouldn't find him bigoted or anti-gay, or that under inspection it might be proven discriminatory in deed and/or intent, but innocent until proven guilty.

In 50 years, likely sooner, gay marriage will be legal in most modern, developed countries. Acting like pricks with hair on fire until it happens doesn't really help the transition, and frankly I'm as much worried about running a hole through the 1st Amendment with liberals hopping on to conservative witch burnings as I am about getting rid of arcane church-infested attitudes. To end:

 

Despite the overwhelming evidence, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy insists his company is “not anti-anybody.” He says that “while my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees.”

To prove his love, he even participated in this year’s AIDS Walk Atlanta 5K Run. [and won]

by PeraclesPlease 7/30/2012 - 6:50 pm (re: Articleman)

Was that before or after he settled 'out of court' for improperly fired a Muslim for not participating in his mandatory christianist marriage indoctrination BS?

When there is a mushroom cloud, there is an asshole pushing the button. Good people stand up and point BEFORE it blows.

by Bwakkie (not verified) 7/30/2012 - 11:14 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

Your prejudice is showing.

If you were Mr. Cathy, shouldn't we withhold your license until you showed you didn't discriminate towards Christians?

The company tries to support its employees in home life and marriage, what they see as win-win, and many employees appreciate it.

That's kind of nice alternative to just being exploitive and not carrying about people's families, how work affects home life, work them until they drop?

Many companies pick only single people so they can work them harder, or hire older people already on pension so they can pay them less.

Yes, Chick-Fil-A has to follow the law for those who aren't Christian or married.

To give perspective, WalMart is being sued by 2000 women in a class action suit. Chick-Fil-A had 12 cases, and I've only seen a bit on 1 or 2 that seem to have been settled.

But Chick-Fil-A should be able to express Christian values in their business as well, no? What makes a modern teamwork retreat with all its "there's no 'I' in team" cliches any less dreary than Bible scripture on the same subject?

Say customer service: "“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’?  Extra cheese coming up.

And there's no mushroom cloud here, Daisy. Plus turn everyone upside down you find an asshole. Life goes on anyway. Don't panic.

by PeraclesPlease 7/31/2012 - 12:39 am (re: Bwakkie)
It looks like the Cathys may be halfway home, at least as far as employment of teh gays, though they may still have to serve them.
by jollyroger 7/31/2012 - 12:28 am

Latest Comments

more