CFA - is the punishment valid or illegal?

[PepperElf]

I'm surprised the recent chic-fil-a stories aren't posted here.

But what the hell, might as well start it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/chick...ry?id=16853890

But now ... my question on this. From what I can gather, because CFA's owner is against gay marriage they've been banned from opening another location in chicago.Some may cheer for this some might not. I personally view it as a politician using his elected office to punish a private citizen for differences in political opinion.


For a moment, lets change the topic of "gay marriage" to say... what candidate you sponsored, or what church you donate to, or what political lobby you're using your own money to support. Would this now be an act of "justice" or would it be an act of revenge?

Or basically... Does the government actually have the right to punish citizens or corporations for the personal political or religious views of the owner? ...Or is this action a violation of the first amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So. Does the mayor - an elected government official - have a legal right to punish any citizen for voicing an opinion that the said official dislikes?


Or lets put it on the flip side. Say the mayor of City X bans "company z" for opening because company z supports more gun legislation. Or supports banning hunters. Or donates to the DNC but not the GOP. Should that company be punished for this?

In my opinion no. Even if I personally disagree with "Company Z" I would still STRONGLY DISAGREE with them being censured for what amounts to personal opinions and freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech was never suppose to be a popularity contest after all, but the right to not be punished by the government - including mayors, governors, or any other government official - who takes a dislike to someone's personal opinion.

[Duelist925]

For the most part, I agree with you pepperelf. I don't believe Chik fil a should be censored because of their stance on gay marriage.

But I do say there is a difference between a stance, an opinion, and active contribution. Chik donates a lot of money to anti gay groups, and, to me, that makes enough of a difference that I'm for this.

They are actively trying to deny a group their rights.

[PepperElf]

"active contribution"

So if a company donates money to a cause you disagree with, then they can legally be sanctioned against?

So who gets to decide which views or causes can be supported and which cannot? And how does this NOT violate the 1A since you'd be using the government to dictate what people can and cannot support.


In fact by that reasoning you could also say... ban ANY company that donates to a political candidate you disagree with. Or rather - the elected official can just decide who gets to exist in his/her city and banish any company that doesn't support him (or her) or his own personal causes.


So ... give the government the right to dictate what we can and cannot financially support?


Are you sure that's the kind of freedom you want?

[TheHuckster]

I agree with PepperElf. Even if an establishment donates to, say, the KKK or some neo-nazi organization, the government shouldn't refuse their license. You're going down a slippery slope where mayors and governments could then refuse businesses from opening because of their contributions on either side of the abortion issue, environmental issues, or even something as broad as republican vs. democrat.

Gay marriage and any other issue for that matter should be fairly debated and those who agree or disagree with it should come to those conclusions without fear that the government will suppress, sanction, or otherwise censor their views. That's what the first amendment is all about, and that's also what democracy is all about. Using one's power as an elected official to force his/her opinion down someone's throat by sanctioning is quite troubling for me, regardless of the content of that opinion.

[crashhelmet]

I haven't read up enough on this to see how they're justifying it, but if States like Mississippi and Kansas can change laws to eliminate abortion clinics why can't these cities use existing laws to ban a business that promotes civil unrest?

[Rapscallion]

I haven't read up enough on this to see how they're justifying it, but if States like Mississippi and Kansas can change laws to eliminate abortion clinics why can't these cities use existing laws to ban a business that promotes civil unrest?

From what I understand, in the US it takes a pretty strong amount of unrest to be considered not protected by the first amendment. Over here that shit wouldn't fly, but in the US I think the initial point is valid - under the US constitution it's illegal for them to ban an organisation for using free speech.

If the owner of the chain started to be more vocal and advocate violence against gays etc, I'd be for sending in the swat teams. As it is, my curiosity as to the quality of their wares will go forever unassuaged as I shall never eat at their stores.

That, should I end up a tourist over there once more, is my right.

Rapscallion

[TheHuckster]

I haven't read up enough on this to see how they're justifying it, but if States like Mississippi and Kansas can change laws to eliminate abortion clinics why can't these cities use existing laws to ban a business that promotes civil unrest?

An abortion clinic is banned based on what its services do. One can have a simple zoning law that bans abortion clinics the same way towns may restrict liquor stores, heavy industry, and tall buildings.

Chic-Fil-A is a fast food joint. If a McDonalds or Burger King is allowed to be on a certain plot of land, then so does Chic-Fil-A regardless of whether it supports gay marriage or not.

If you want to say it promotes civil unrest by making a statement on an issue, then for the same reason one should ban any business that supports gay marriage because that also promotes civil unrest from the other side.

[crashhelmet]

An abortion clinic is banned based on what its services do. One can have a simple zoning law that bans abortion clinics the same way towns may restrict liquor stores, heavy industry, and tall buildings.

Chic-Fil-A is a fast food joint. If a McDonalds or Burger King is allowed to be on a certain plot of land, then so does Chic-Fil-A regardless of whether it supports gay marriage or not.

If you want to say it promotes civil unrest by making a statement on an issue, then for the same reason one should ban any business that supports gay marriage because that also promotes civil unrest from the other side.

As I said, I don't know how Chicago is justifying it, or if they are even trying to.

My point was that governments get involved all the time in using political influence to decide whether or not businesses can operate. Mississippi lawmakers found that none of their abortion clinics had licensed OB/GYNs employed there, so they passed a law making it a requirement that one be. That shut them all down immediately. I believe it was the same thing in Kansas, but could be mistaken.

Chicago may be citing some law they have on the books, some loop hole or grey area to justify it. Again, if they even are trying to do it on legal grounds. i don't know.

[drunkenwildmage]

The Mayor, or any other governmental entity, has no right to 'ban' a place just based on their political views. That amounts to censorship. That should be something that the Citizens can decide by either eating, or not eating there.

It's simple, if you don't like companies polices, or practices.. Don't go there. If they don't get any business as a result, then they will close. Remember, their is no one holding a gun to your head, forcing you to eat there.

[Rapscallion]

The politician quoted in the article apparently has the ability in his position to block businesses opening in one way or another. He intends to use it on them.

Rapscallion

[Nekojin]

The politician quoted in the article apparently has the ability in his position to block businesses opening in one way or another. He intends to use it on them.

Perhaps, but the letter in question (posted in full on this article) doesn't actually come out and say that they're being blocked, just that they wouldn't have a warm reception, and that they should perhaps seek a location somewhere else. The article that PepperElf linked is actually a bit alarmist, and making it seem like Mayor Menino is taking a more active and aggressive stance than he has so far actually indicated.

I agree that if all of their paperwork is in order, they should absolutely be allowed to open a new store in that city, just the same as any Subway or Arby's. But it'll be quite amusing if they end up having to close that store due to terrible sales, thanks to organized boycotts standing outside the restaurant. It's probably in their best interest to not stick their *censored* in the hornet's nest.

[Duelist925]

Ive been thinking over this for a few hours, and I have to admit, I was wrong before. I can't support this--as much as I loathe their stance, this is tantamount to censorship, and I can't support it. =/

[Andara Bledin]

I haven't read up on the whys behind the action.

If it's purely refusing to allow the company to hold a location in the city based on the company line on a social issue, then I agree that it's out of bounds and abuse of power.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

It sounds illegal. I think the CFA managers are a bunch of sanctimonious douchebags, but that should be no reason to keep them from opening a restaurant. Let the public decide if they want to eat there or not.

[fireheart17]

There is a slightly similar story down here, although the company in question haven't been blocked from opening other stores.

Gloria Jeans has been known for donating to anti-gay groups, as well as previously supporting a program that ran "conversion therapy" for gay women, under the guise of women's health.

They've come under fire down here by a growing movement, who have vowed to boycott Gloria Jeans until they stop donating to the anti-gay groups.

That said, it's a BOYCOTT run by local people. I'm surprised that boycott groups haven't sprung up over this. :\