Chicago Alderman Says Chick-fil-A Is Not Welcome In His Ward

Can someone explain to me how this is any different then what Murfreesboro did to its Muslim community by trying to prevent them from opening a church?

I am so relieved that the LGBT rights movement finally has political teeth. When I first joined the fight 25 years ago, I honestly thought that having effective, outspoken support in even local branches of government was a pipe dream. A pipe dream I was still more than willing to work for, but a pipe dream nonetheless.

Thank you, Alderman. Thank you, Mayors.

The difference lies in the fact that opening multiple locations of fast food franchises is not a constitutionally protected right, and chick -fil-a franchise owners are not in and of themselves a protected group.

” opening multiple locations of fast food franchises is not a constitutionally protected right” actually it is. If the business is operated within the law (and no one is saying that the stores themselves discriminate) then the personal beliefs of the owners can not be used as a basis for denying a zoning permit. 

Can you provide me with any jurisprudence (case law) to establish the allegation that “opening multiple locations of fast food franchises is not a constitutionally protected right?”  I always thought the First Amendment protected both groups and individuals.   While what Chick-fil-A is fighting for is disgusting in my opinion, they’re not doing anything illegal by donating to conservative advocacy groups. They’re not, as far as I am aware of, breaking any of the anti-discrimation laws as rooted within the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Seconded.  No government agency should have the ability to deny public permits on the basis of private behavior in this way.

 I agree. It’s one thing to decide not to patronize the business because you disagree with their stance. It’s another thing to use the force of government to enforce morality, even ones you think are right.

There’s a difference between people choosing of their own volition not to support a restaurant because they do not like their stances and the government preventing them from doing it for the same reason.

Also, your example, about replacing “gay” with “black,” doesn’t change anything, because I’m talking about the Constitution and not personal preference.  The fact of the matter is that businesses that deal in interstate commerce, which is most businesses now a days, are prohibited from denying access or hiring for racial, religious, gender, and sexual orientation.  But that’s it.  They’re free, as far as I know, to donate money to conservative advocacy groups that push for same-sex marriage bans.  But if you show me any case law, or even laws passed by Congress, I’ll gladly change my opinion.

I am looking, but so far am not finding anything either definitively in favor of or in conflict with my statement. If I keep having no luck, I may have to retract my claim.

 By all means, if you find anything either way, let me know.

Are you people freaking kidding me? Do you really think it’s appropriate for the government to discriminate against people based upon their stated political beliefs? Despite being members of a discriminated-against group yourselves?

You should be ashamed of yourselves. I am completely serious. As an atheist, I’m ashamed to be associated with you. Get some perspective.

According to the article there is…  “Moreno is relying on a rarely violated Chicago tradition known as aldermanic privilege, which dictates that City Council members defer to the opinion of the ward alderman on local issues.”
He represents the will of his constituents… his constituents  dont want them there why should they have to let them open a store in their neighborhood?   Are you saying that people shouldnt have a say in what stores and businesses are permitted in their neighborhoods?

This is true. Northeastern University blocked a Chick-fil-A franchise that wanted to set up on campus… that’s their own zone.  http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/03/01/435395/chick-fil-a-tries-to-mask-anti-gay-record-as-northeastern-university-rejects-contract/?mobile=nc

I’m not sure UMass would have the ability to do that. I’m not a lawyer. Chick-fil-A has their eye on a block of old historic buildings near Quincy Market and Faneuil Hall, directly across from the Freedom Trail and a monument to Holocaust Victims. And sort of downstairs from a consistent candidate in lists of 10 ugliest buildings in the world.

There’s no valid reason to use “zone” as a policy against Chick-fil-A here, as when you go in these historic areas, it’s not like stepping back in time at all, it’s not a tourist “attraction,” per se, there’s already a McDonald’s alongside the pubs on that block; Faneuil Hall is a Boston gift shop, and Quincy Market is a shopping mall. It’s all cobblestone and hard to walk in sandals, but the experience is cheap as far as sightseeing. You can’t say it will ruin the atmosphere, you can’t say it will be out of place on any ground heretofore considered sacred and historical and preserved in any fashion. And people will eat there. Some will boycott, but its proposed location is where all the tourists go, people who agree with the policies anyway. It’s not for Bostonians. Has anyone asked the Union Oyster House where they donate money? I’m not trying to start any rumors, it’s just a question. I don’t even think Menino can say this is or would be the only bigoted corporation/business owner, by far, in that section of businesses.

I do think it’s great of these mayors to explicitly state such an intention as something they politically stand for, even if they can’t actually block it from happening. It’s one thing to leave these things unsaid and let the chips fall, but to openly express a displeasure in the policies and donations of Chick-fil-A is appreciated.

Okay, what case law I am finding thus far has to do with commercial speech as defined by the Supreme Court, and the lack of 1st Amendment protections thereof, and not with non-commercial speech by business owners, which is protected.

I so far have still not found anything to back up my statement that the right to open multiple franchises in a particular location is not constitutionally protected– or that it is, either– so I am going to retract my claim based upon a lack of evidence to support it. I am curious though how cities manage to get away with (for example) local ordinances barring franchise businesses from their downtown areas if the right to  open a franchise *is* constitutionally protected. I do know that’s a different beast than denying zoning or permits based upon the personal views of a business owner, but I’m still curious.

So the neighborhood should have to suffer first ?A business that wont do well taking up real eastate  that could be used for a business that would add to the community?  That doesn’t make sense.  

Second – why are we comparing the building of a place of worship with a fast food resturaunt?  Seems an apples and oranges thing.
If I dont want a strip club in my neighborhood – and the rest of my neighbors dont want it why should we be forced to allow it?

Actually none of the examples you give matter to the discussion in the least bit. My point was that a persons personal beliefs on those subjects can not be used as qualifiers for permit granting by the government.

A persons opinion on the special status of churches, or the belief in who has what rights should not be disqualifies for business ownership by the government no matter which side those beliefs fall on.

 they do it all the time. everywhere.. usually they just make up some archaic building code violation rather than tell the truth though.

It makes perfect sense to me, Stephanie.  A person has a right to put build a restaurant or a church as long as they’re not breaking any laws in the process.  Donating to conservative groups that push to protect the ban on same-sex marriage isn’t illegal.

There are lots of things that I don’t want in my area, for example another Baptist church that’s under construction, but my right to not want these things here does not necessarily supersede the right of the persons who does.  In some instances, yes, my right to be free from some imposition does supersede the right of the person who wishes to engage in the act I wish to be free from, like cigarette smoke, which is why localities put up smoking zones.  But Chick-fil-A opening a restaurant?  I’m afraid not.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don’t see how this is Constitutional or ethical.

 Unfortunately Chik-Fil-A donates a significant amount of money to politicians who take a stance against same-sex marriages. This is a problem when the CEO uses his private business’ money to enforce his personal belief against same-sex marriage. It doesn’t matter if they do not discriminate in who they hire or who they serve…we’ll stop bullying them when they stop giving money.

Since Chick-fil-a holds the same opinion of same-sex marriage as does the state of Illinois, this guy’s standing is even weaker. The restaurant is only as discriminatory as the state is.

 I think you’re lost. Stormfront and WND are over there —> …

But that’s not the comparison.  Strip clubs operate under very strict zoning laws.  There are no zoning laws that can differentiate between a McDonald’s and a Chick-Fil-A.  If you don’t want a Chick-Fil-A in your neighborhood, don’t eat there.  Eventually lack of sales will drive them out of the area.  But you can’t deny them a permit for a business that would otherwise be allowed to operate in your neighborhood solely because of the political views of the owner.

Communities can prevent zoning permits on the TYPE of business in their neighborhood, like the strip club example. But they can not do that based on the beliefs of who owns the business. 

So in you example, yes a community can get together and say no strip clubs allowed (even this has it’s limits) but as soon as they allow one strip club to go up, they can not deny the next one from opening because the owner is jewish or gives to the ACLU. Get it now!?

Yeah, no.  What this action seeks to do is effectively criminalize private legal political activity simply because you don’t agree with it.
 
What is it about the totalitarians?  They never think that the beast they seek to release will never turn on and devour them?
 
This effort, like the ObamaCare Individual Mandate, and the HHS contraceptive mandate, is apparently so intoxicating to those who support it as a way to “get back at” those pesky “anti-gay” “anti-woman” or “anti-whatever” people, that the advocates cannot even comprehend that the path they are on will eventually turn on them and destroy them.
 
This seems to confirm the old saw that man is doomed to repeat history.  Currently I see many new Robespierres running around in “heart swelling pride” and gleeful schadenfreude, completely oblivious to the risk they run of loosing their heads.
 
Some think that Chick fil A has it coming so this is a good thing.  I say this is a bad thing for everyone, but “Women and minorities will be hardest hit.”

Nothing you said that he does is illegal. Would it be O.k. for him to donate to the KKK? No, the KKK is a designated terrorist organization and as such no one can legally donate to them. But if he where to give his money to a legal organization that held similar views, it still would not be the governments role to deny him a zoning permit for  business based on that no more that it would be O.k. for Texas to deny me a zoning permit because I gave to theACLU!

 I can’t speak for Chicago but there is a note in this post about similar happenings in Boston. There are only 2 Chick-fil-As in Massachusetts. The 3rd one being proposed for the vacancy left by a bar/grill called “The Purple Shamrock” is dead central to tourist traffic. Massachusetts is the first state in the US to allow gay people to get married; their prior attempt to establish an outlet was on the campus at Northeastern University, and the students voted to block it.

I don’t know if anyone in Boston will eat there, but plenty of tourists will. In my opinion, I would say “block it” in theory that it doesn’t belong, but it’s a restaurant taking over a restaurant space and the addition of a Chick-fil-A will not really make the vicinity any more crass than it already is.

“Moreno said he has an ace in his back pocket if he runs into legal trouble: He plans to cite traffic and congestion issues.” – http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/13988905-418/ald-moreno-trying-to-block-new-chick-fil-a-over-boss-stance-on-gay-marriage.html

Heh. Although I (reluctantly) have to admit that this is illegal and should be opposed, it’s interesting to see a Chicago machine politician (all aldermen in Chicago are machine politicians) actually take a stand for a liberal position, however misguidedly. After all, the Chicago machine heartily embraced Rahm Emmanuel, the guy who was mocking and swearing at liberals.

It will be interesting, presuming that the alderman’s ban actually goes into effect, to see what will happen. It will only be reversed if Chick-fil-A challenges it in court, and they may not want to do that because it will bring massive publicity to their CEO’s idiocy just about the time that this all starts to die down again. By now, I’m pretty sure that everyone in Chick-fil-A’s corporate headquarters wishes that the guy had just kept his stupid mouth shut.

Completely agree with you.  I am a marriage rights supporter with no qualification.  However, this city alderman is completely stepping out of bounds trying to dictate zoning based on the political opinions of the owners.  

If the company is shown to not comply with any law, then absolutely don’t give them zoning.  But because you simply disagree with the politics of the owner?  That’s complete BS.

Is he going to prevent a company from doing business in his city because they are affiliated with the Kochs?  Or because the owner may be a Cubs fan instead of a White Sox fan?  

It’s complete crap.  

And thanks to you for the gentleness of your nudge which got me to look further into the claim I made. Damn I hate not being right, but this time I hate it a little less.

For whatever it’s worth, I admire the approach and response you have made here.

This is stupid.  

Chick-fil-A can easily file a lawsuit against the city for not allowing them to open a restaurant because of their CEO’s religious beliefs. In fact Moreno does them a favor by admitting that’s what he’s doing – blocking the permit because he does not like the opinion of the CEO. It’s not the place of government to punish people for their opinion, regardless of how stupid and bigoted their opinion may be. 

I’m completely for gay marriage, but this is ridiculous.  The government punishing for free speech is a very very dangerous precedent.  What if the alderman was blocking companies that had spoken in favor of gay marriage??  

Didn’t say it wasn’t corrupt. But it is legal.

Chick-Fil-A accused of setting up fake Facebook account

For the most part, they do.  Constitutional rights mainly define the relationship between the people/states and the federal government.  Some parts of the Bill of Rights have been construed to apply to other levels of governments as well under the incorporation argument (of the 14th amendment’s equal protection claims), but for the most part the federal Constitution doesn’t protect you from corrupt city government.

What I am seeing here is someone using a politically correct reason to justify their blocking a store opening. Doesn’t mean they actually are doing it for that reason, just stating it to get credit for taking that stance. They could simply state: Ummm… no, we want something more diverse in the area instead. But they chose to use this as the reason. With everyone else, I’m curious if this will stand. Naturally, his detractors will insist that in a time that “IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!” he is obviously AGAINST creating jobs. Mark my words.

You would make Alinsky proud.

Still, I find it amazing that a self-proclaimed oppressed minority would take such pleasure in actions that serve to replace the rule of law with the rule of men.

Just saying.

Please read what I wrote more carefully.  I did not advocate for anything, much less anything that deserves comparisons to Ingsoc.  I simply pointed out that your argument was flawed, without saying anything about whether it is moral or legal for Moreno and/or Menino to try to deny Chick-Fil-A business permits.  And forgive me for saying this, but your response (particularly the “thoughtcrime” part) makes it apparent that you still don’t get my point.  Let me be explicit:

1. The issue is not anything to do with what any particular thoughts.  It has to do with particular actions.  What thoughts led to these actions is not relevant to the issue at hand; they neither make an otherwise acceptable action unacceptable nor make an otherwise unacceptable action acceptable.

2. The issue is not what Dan Cathy or any other individual does.  It has to do with what Chick-Fil-A does.  It is the fact that Chick-Fil-A directly makes these donations that causes government officials to advocate action be taken against Chick-Fil-A.

Now, as to the question of whether Chicago, Boston, or anywhere else has the moral and/or legal authority to try to deny a business permit based on Chick-Fil-A’s actions.  Let’s start with the legal part first.  Most reasonable people would agee that American municipalities have the right to deny business permits to companies that discriminate; indeed, under certain circumstances it might even be required.  The questions then becomes whether what Chick-Fil-A is doing is sufficiently discriminatory to justify the anti-discrimination argument for denying Chick-Fil-A business permits.  Not being a lawyer, I won’t claim to know the answer to this.  I suspect many lawyers would be hesitant to say they know the answer to this, particularly if they didn’t specialize in constitutional law and/or didn’t know precisely what the municipalities’ zoning laws were.  I will simply state that my opinion, as a reasonably educated layman, is that the municipalities’ legal standing is neither airtight nor wholly deficient.

As to the moral authority, I’m conflicted.  If Chick-Fil-A were directly hiring lobbyists to lobby for the passage of anti-gay legislation, I would say the moral authority (again, legal authority is a separate issue; see above) to deny them business permits exists; doing such would be a blatantly discriminatory act which had nothing to do with the practice of selling dead birds for human consumption.  If they were making public statements that they oppose same-sex marriage but doing nothing to advocate the passage of laws/amendments regarding the issue, then I would say the moral authority does not exist.  But what they are doing is between these two points, and I simply haven’t had the time to give that question the thought necessary to reach a conclusion.  I’m also not likely to give it that much thought; since I’m not in a position to make any zoning decisions and don’t live in a municipality considering this, there’s really no point. 

All that being said, my original point remains: if there is to be reasoned discussion on this issue, then it needs to be on the actual issue as it exists: not that anyone is suggesting denying a business the right to do business because they don’t like what its owner thinks, but rather because they question the legality and/or morality of what the business does.  Anyone calling what’s going on here “thoughtcrime” is trying to argue something other than the actual issue.

 Fuck you Nordog. This has nothing to do with the healthcare bill or the contraceptive mandate. Stop throwing out red herrings.

This does look a bit too much like religious discrimination. What the guy thinks is his business… the town hall guy says “you are discriminating against a section of the community”, but thinking something is not discriminating. Only if the restaurant denied entrance or service to gays, then it would be discriminating.

The actions are describing are all legal, and most large companies give money to political lobbying organizations of some sort. Be it lobbying for or against regulations or social causes. Now unless you are calling for any company that gives any money for any cause that is trying to influence government laws and policy to be denied permits then you are just applying an arbitrary burden on some political thought and not others. That is what makes this basically a “thought crime”. The “actions” they are taking are actions any citizen is free to take, the only difference is you do not agree with them.

The position that there is some moral authority to do this rest entirely on the fact that you do not like the political position the company has taken. And you know what, I do not like it either. But that does not mean the government can take that into account when deciding zoning permits. If it does, then any political action by any individual or company becomes subject to approval of the ruling political party at the time. Under your reasoning a ruling republican party could deny zoning permits to people who give to PETA, or contribute to the ACLU. 

 Here I was thinking I would be the only one holding this opinion. Kudos to you for saving me the time and stating it better than I would have.

So, the company doesn’t discriminate against their employees or customers. But they publicly  and repeatedly state that they dislike gays and donate to anti-gay organizations. And how do employees or customers that do not hate gays feel about this? Welcome?

“Currently I see many new Robespierres running around in “heart swelling pride” and gleeful schadenfreude, completely oblivious to the risk they run of loosing their heads.”

TFM man TFM

Thanks for the weird gibberish Nordog, you may find this hard to believe but I’m a big fan of yours.

STUFF YOURSELVES WITH CHICK-FIL-A SAINTS; Because, Chicago’s Political “Prostitutes” Are Telling Chick-Fil-A To “Stuff It” ! Chicago’s 1st Ward Alderman, Joseph “Proco(pio)” Moreno, Has Gone On Record Saying He Is Opposed To A New Chick-Fil-A Planning To Open In Chicago’s Near-North-East Side. He Has The Support (& Backing, No Doubt In The Next Chicago Aldermanic-Election$) Of Closet-Sodomite-Mayor Rahm Emanuel; Who, Has Also Gone Publicly On Record & CBS-News Radio LYING LIKE THE DEVIL (Emanuel’s Spriritual Father) And Saying “Chick-Fil-A’s Values Are Not Chicago’s Values” ! I Believe DuSable (The True Historic Founder Of Chicago, IL), Dwight Lyman Moody (Founder Of The Moody Bible Institute) & Old-Fashioned Christian-Fundamentalist Evangelist, PAUL RADER, Would Unequivocally Disagree, Condemn & ANATHAMIZE Chicago’s Present Pro-Sodomite Mayor Rahm Emanuel For His HISTORICALLY PERVERTED WORDS About/Against CHICAGO, THE MORAL POSITION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF CHICAGO & THE PRESENT OPINION AGAINST THE SODOMITES & SODOMY TAKEN BY THE CITIZENS OF CHICAGO, IL, TODAY ! In 2011, Alderman Moreno Endorsed Mayoral Candidate Gery Chico–Whose Union Supporters Referred To Rahm Emanuel As “THAT WALL ST. JUDAS” ! **ALD. MORENO HAS “FLIPPED” & IS NOW A “JUDAS” HIMSELF !

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN & AMEN !

My real issue would come in if they decided to stop serving people they either knew or assumed were gay. Even then, I don’t believe it would be illegal, as homosexuals are not a protected class under the civil rights act. Now if it were a black person, an old person, or an elderly person they refused to serve, they would be sued, fined, and made to comply because I am sure they engage in interstate commerce. Until homosexuals are added as a protected class, there is not a whole lot that one can do  about it in the legal sense. This should be what the gay community should focus on accomplishing. Everything else would follow. 

The next thing you know, council members will be (if not already) denying permits and such to companies that support one political candidate or another that THEY do not support.  Again, this is just wrong and hopefully the voters will let him know that.

I have no real opinion on the matter at hand ATM, but I’m not sure that a huge corporation donating money to active political campaigns to deny a good chunk of the population their rights can be considered “private.” 

There just doesn’t seem like there’s anything personal or private involved, other than their “deeply held personal belief.” 

Atheists aren’t required to love. That’s Christians. Brush up a little before you come trolling next time.

Political opinions of the owners? Imagine that this was fifty years ago, and the owner of a business openly condemned interracial marriage, or publicly stated a prejudice against black people. Would it be ok for the alderman to deny a permit to that business based on the owner’s discriminatory remarks against a segment of the population? Or would you deem those “political opinions”, too?

 If you’ll read above you’ll see that I actually agree with those that say this alderman is out of bounds and we shouldn’t be supporting it. The part I disagree with is your characterization of the hhs and the contraceptive mandate. These things are not similar and should not be compared. I don’t want to be sucked into a debate about the mandate with you though, because I know that’s what you really wanted to begin with–to turn a discussion about whether or not we should be supporting this into another tired discussion of your ignorance about the mandate. That is why a hardy “fuck you” was needed. I’ve given you well thought out replies in the past and you ignore them, so “fuck you” again.

 It’s even funnier because there are only a few people (the op included) who actually think this is a good thing. While I appreciate the sentiment, I don’t think it’s something we should support and I’ve stated as such. Maybe Nordog should read the comments better and direct his “totalitarian” bullshit at those who have said they agree.

Actually, I don’t care to debate the Obamarcare mandates here, though I do deny that those two examples are not at all similar to this case.

Still, I find it interesting that you post here basically boils down to, “You’re wrong and I don’t want to talk about it.  Fuck off.”

That’s kinda funny really.

In any event it appears that while you and I disagree on that, we agree that the adlerman’s actions are inappropriate.

So, that’s a good thing.  Right?

Why don’t you have a direct discussion with people you’re accusing then. You just like to say stupid things in general and pretend you’re not insulting anyone. Have some balls to engage those people and be relevant, or admit you are just a troll with opinions that don’t actually fit in any intelligent discussion.

This is Chicago…what do you expect. Mr Moreno and many other liberals only support free speech if they agree with it. 

I
wander what the bridge on the logo endorsed. Building bridges?
Crossing Bridges? Worshiping bridges? The point is that the
church/cross in the logo does not endorse religion. If you would
follow through with that logic putting up pictures of churches on the
tourist information pages on the internet would be endorsing religion
either. Actually any mention of even existence of religion would mean
endorsing it. People you are crazy. You have gone down the deep end
and you need to start realizing it

I admit
this is borderline case but two thoughts.
1) Strip
club and sex shops are frequently denied permits purely because of
ick-factor. Now Chick-fil-A is denied a permit on the same grounds.
Homophobia and the discrimination of gays simply being icky.

2) What
you are essentially saying is that as long as the discrimination of
gays is subtle enough it is okay. It is not. If the city would give
Chick-fil-A a permit they would indirectly be endorsing the
discrimination of gay people. If a city does not want to do that I
think they have a point.

 Even when you’re on the right side, people are more likely to listen when you don’t go straight to an argument-from-standin-for-Hitler.

Being a crazy bigoted slimeball gets you little positive attention here. Go spew randomly capitalized hatred for your fellow human beings elsewhere, you compulsive anal-obsesser.

That’s the thing about religion…if you don’t like their policies don’t work for them or live somewhere around them. I live close to an area where religion is deemed just as you say. Let them live the way they want to live, and you live your life the way you want to live. I don’t want to tear down religion, just alter both thought processes so we can finally find peace alongside one another. To joke, not criticize someone for believing in god or not believing in god. We are all offended so easily that it makes us uptight, finding everything disrespectful.  I believe in god, but I don’t view things like abortion as a religious matter, even though I oppose it. I just do not like it, and will never do it myself. From my perspective, the individual should not be restricted to making such a choice, but you are also allowed to decide where you want to work and what things you believe in. So if they don’t have the sort of benefits you want, just walk away, and finds somewhere else to go. Under such hard times as we’ve come upon, it probably isn’t as easy, but then again we cannot always have everything perfect and the way we want it to be. The world is not made out like that, and we have to understand that.