Patterico's Pontifications

7/27/2012

Glenn Greenwald, L.A. Times Not Too Keen on Mayors Wanting to Punish Chick-Fil-A Speech

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:22 am



Say what you like about Glenn Greenwald, but he tends to be pretty good about sticking with his issues regardless of personality. I’m a little more surprised by the L.A. Times.

I assume about everyone is familiar with the way that Chik-Fil-A has been opposed by Boston and Chicago mayors for taking a stand against gay marriage. Here’s Greenwald taking a whack at Rahm Emanuel:

Should government officials be able to block businesses from opening or expanding due to disagreement with the political views of the business’ executives? Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel evidently believes he should have this power . . . .

. . . .

Obviously, it’s perfectly legitimate for private citizens to decide not to patronize a business with executives who have such views (I’d likely refrain from doing so in this case). Beyond that, if a business is engaging in discriminatory hiring or service practices in violation of the law — refusing to hire gay employees or serve gay patrons in cities which have made sexual orientation discrimination illegal — then it is perfectly legitimate to take action against them.

But that is not the case here; the actions are purely in retribution against the views of the business’ top executive on the desirability of same-sex marriage . . . .

. . . .

It’s always easy to get people to condemn threats to free speech when the speech being threatened is speech that they like. It’s much more difficult to induce support for free speech rights when the speech being punished is speech they find repellent. But having Mayors and other officials punish businesses for the political and social views of their executives — regardless of what those views are — is as pure a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech as it gets, and beyond that, is genuinely dangerous.

Indeed. And now, here are the editors of the Los Angeles Times going after the Boston mayor:

As both a private citizen and a prominent public figure, Menino is welcome to abstain from fried chicken sandwiches and urge others to do likewise.

It’s a different matter if he attempts to trample the free-speech rights of others by using the power of his office to fight against a business license for Chick-fil-A. Menino suggested that it would be appropriate to block the chain from opening in Boston because Cathy’s views amount to discrimination. That would rightly apply if Chick-fil-A were to refuse service to gay customers; the city has a right and an obligation to prevent discriminatory actions against its residents and visitors. But there’s no evidence that any such thing has occurred.

Menino referred derisively to Chick-fil-A’s possible plans to open a restaurant along the city’s Freedom Trail, considering Cathy’s stand on marriage freedom. That too misreads law and history. It was the freedom to express politically unpopular views and to oppose such views that the Founding Fathers fought to establish. Boston used to be known as the prudish place most likely to ban anything outside of a set of strait-laced moral beliefs. Without freedom to express once unpopular viewpoints — in this case, full civil rights for gay and lesbian couples — Massachusetts wouldn’t have become the first state to recognize same-sex marriage.

Menino sent a letter to a landlord saying the city wouldn’t much like it if Chik-Fil-A was located there. But it’s not like local government has any ability to hassle businesses or landlords. There’s no pressure!

All I can do is say: good going, folks. It’s nice to see support for free speech even when you don’t like the content.

UPDATE: SteveMG makes an excellent point in comments:

The key and largely unlooked point in this matter, it seems to me, is that if corporations don’t have any rights – as many on the left believe – then the government could indeed forbid Chick-fil-A from building in their cities because of the views of the owner. Or for any other reason.

Indeed.

104 Responses to “Glenn Greenwald, L.A. Times Not Too Keen on Mayors Wanting to Punish Chick-Fil-A Speech”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  2. The key and largely unlooked point in this matter, it seems to me, is that if corporations don’t have any rights – as many on the left believe – then the government could indeed forbid Chick-fil-A from building in their cities because of the views of the owner. Or for any other reason.

    Greenwald deserves credit here for he also supported the decision in Citizens United. I don’t know what the LA Times said about the case.

    But many others on the left who criticize these statements by Boston and Chicago officials have been saying that corporations can’t have rights. Well, if they don’t have rights then you can’t say in this case that these cities are violating Chik-fil-A’s rights.

    Either they have rights or they don’t.

    SteveMG (2d521e)

  3. Totalitarian democrat fascists cannot stand to have free speech or any other freedoms. Totalitarians cannot stand freedom in any form.

    RecklessProcess (b3a1f5)

  4. ________________________________________________

    It’s nice to see support for free speech even when you don’t like the content.

    That voicing support for traditional marriage is seen as an increasingly controversial reaction really makes the notion that the goal posts eventually will be pushed forward in favor of polygamy is not necessarily a flip or sarcastic assumption. Even more so when Islamic society, which is oddly accommodated to by much of the left in the Western world — and is worming its way throughout Europe — already gives wide latitude to multi-partner relationships.

    In general, call this a form of Bill-Clinton-and-Monica desensitization, in which behavior that was once perceived as truly disturbing — as very marginal or an outlier — becomes more and more a case of “oh, well…”

    Mark (7b2cc7)

  5. Chick-fil-A should open restaurants outside Mayor Fascist’s control and hire people who don’t live in Mayor Fascist’s plantation. The same goes for Mayor Dead-Fish in Chicago.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  6. Chick-fil-a doesn’t have Chicago values. They only serve live people.

    Jim (748bc6)

  7. Liberal Democrats the largest threat to free speech.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  8. Are there no Muslim-owned businesses in Chicago or Boston?

    And wasn’t Obama, until recently, against gay marriage?

    Makes me think this really has little if anything to do with homosexuality.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  9. “Are there no Muslim-owned businesses in Chicago or Boston?”

    Indeed. Even more remarkable is that the state of Illinois doesn’t recognize SSM. The only legally recognized marriage is between a man and a woman.

    This is politically driven. Which is why I mentioned above that for those who think corporations don’t have rights that this is the type of result that can and will happen. Government can arbitrarily decide which corporations can operate – or even literally exist – and which corporations cannot.

    Which, come to think about it, may be what many on the left want.

    SteveMG (2d521e)

  10. Steve,
    In that case, they should be very careful what they wish for.

    Jay Stevens (c26b9d)

  11. The Democrats really are the Party of Hate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  12. Totalitarian democrat fascists…

    Fixed that for you, RP.
    The word “democrat”, for these people, is just camouflage-netting.

    They prove the “Duck Test”, each and every day.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  13. “Are there no Muslim-owned businesses in Chicago or Boston?”

    The Boston Mayor was a featured guest at the opening of a Mosque in his city.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  14. Bloomberg was also against what Chicago seems to be doing.

    You can’t have a test for what the owners’ personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city. You really don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit, that’s just not government’s job.

    And he aslo added there couild be cities where the conservative point of vieww is in the mnajority.

    Of course Bloomberg doesn’t understand what’s going on here.

    The gay rights lobby is trying to make opposition to gay marriage as unacceptable as support of the Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan. Actually I should say they are trying to make opposition to homosexuality this way. (That’s the reason for the move for gay marriage – to cement this in)

    And it is also ythe reason for this ostracizing of people.

    They are acting very totalitarian and any person who wants to be called a sympathizer is supposed to also act that way.

    By them, this is no mere political or religious point of view, but is supposed to be treated as something akin to support of Nazism.

    The whole point of this is that things are really not that way. That’s why they do it. They want people to treat it that way. It’s not.

    We then later get into the issue of how it is caused and what is it. I say that, just like pedophilia, it is not inborn or inevitable at birth, but once established, it is almost impossible to change, and it is voluntary at first..that’s the truith about this.

    One problem here is that people who think of this as a sin, think it therefore must be possible for people to repent, and stoip doing it, and those who think of it as disease, think that therefore it is possible to be cured.

    But actially it is a developmental disorder that is usually caused by decisions made around the time of puberty.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  15. Of course they don’t like big non-union retailers in CVhicago anyway.

    But this is caused by the totalitarian gay rights lobby that will brook no hint of opposition if they can get away with it.

    They still won’t change homosexuality from what it is.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  16. I am big-time conflicted on this one. The mayors are idiots; turning away a new source of revenue for your treasury, along with jobs for your citizenry, is just bad governing. Unfortunately, the Democrat voting majorities in their cities probably won’t care, and will keep voting them in.

    Having said that, I don’t really see how what they’re doing is illegal or unconstitutional at all. It looks bad, it looks dumb, it looks hateful & petty & narrow-minded; but a violation of free speech? Don’t think so.

    Icy (5ef891)

  17. Icy, if they actually do put up government impediments to a business in punishment for an opinion they don’t like, that’s a very clear violation of the First Amendment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned.

    Icy, the Mayor has threatened to use the power of government to prevent a business from opening up. Period. How is that not a violation?

    Dana (5ae38e)

  19. SPQR- In Massachusetts SSM is legal, correct? An issue I’ve raised before is if the government (state or fed) says SSM is “the same” meaning “identical to” HSM, does it legally become discrimination to treat the two differently? If SSM is framed as a civil rights issue, then it would seem to me that anything that was required to be equal because of race would be required to be equal regardless of SSM or HSM. One can always say, “I don’t like people of that race” and not be breaking the law, but you can’t say, “I’m not going to hire you because you’re ‘X’ race, or I’ll not give you employee benefits because you are of ‘X’ race”, right?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  20. SPQR, I guess I just don’t see how regulating the restaurant trade violates the First Amendment. It would be one thing if the mayors had declared that news stands were not allowed to carry National Review, or local radio stations were banned from broadcasting Rush Limbaugh; it’s another thing, IMHO, to say that a retail business that engages in no political activity whatsoever at the individual unit level isn’t welcome. I think it’s a stupid move, both politically and economically, for a local government to do so, but I just don’t see where they are not allowed to do it.

    We have hundreds of dry counties in this country; local municipalities routinely restrict the locations of (or put an outright ban on) adult theaters and bookstores; there are entire towns & cities that don’t allow WalMart to build within their confines. Zoning laws abound. Is there some arbiter going around determining if any of those restrictions were put into place in order to limit the companies’ right to free speech?

    Perhaps Jack Daniels should sue every dry county in the nation because without the additional revenue they could be earning from those locations their ability to contribute to causes they believe in is limited.

    Icy (5ef891)

  21. MD in Philly, in equal protection analysis, the issue turns on what classification is being made.

    Race is a class protected by the highest levels of constitutional scrutiny. Homosexuality is not a protected class under 14th Amendment equal protection law.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. Icy, punishing a business because of the free speech of the owner is a violation of the First Amendment. I’m baffled why you are not following this.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  23. In a state where 45% of its residents are Catholic and already ticked off by the whole birth control/abortion/Obamacare kerfuffle, it would seem this an even more foolish move by Mayor Menino. Thus, it’s likely that Huckabee’s call to protest might now generate far greater support and attention than if the Mayor hadn’t attempted to strong arm a potential business. He’s riled an already angry voting bloc.

    More than 40, 000 people and counting have accepted Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s Facebook invitation to “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” on Wednesday, August 1. The Facebook Page for the event, which was created less than 24 hours ago, has attracted an enormous fan base that will prompt people nationwide to indulge in their local Chick Fil-A in support of conservative beliefs on the issue of marriage.

    Dana (5ae38e)

  24. Dana, when did the operation of a business become synonymous with freedom of expression?

    Icy (5ef891)

  25. Absent a compelling Public Safety issue, it should be damn hard to deny any business a license to operate.
    The government is supposed to protect the Rights of all in a society, not pick and choose which party’s have Rights.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  26. Just what makes Chick-Fil-A different than Col.Sanders?
    Or, any other chicken fast-food emporium?
    It is blatant discrimination!

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  27. “The key and largely unlooked point in this matter, it seems to me, is that if corporations don’t have any rights – as many on the left believe – then the government could indeed forbid Chick-fil-A from building in their cities because of the views of the owner. Or for any other reason.”
    “Indeed.”

    No. He should be able to have his own beliefs and spend his own money, not his company’s money.

    nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/under-citizens-united-public-employees-are-compelled-to-pay-for-corporate-political-speech.html

    Public pensions, moreover, are so-called defined benefit plans, which means that employees don’t have a say in how their mandatory contributions are invested. The employees cannot request, for example, that their money be used only to buy government bonds or that it be invested only in certain mutual funds or only in select corporations.

    Instead, the employees’ money is invested according to whatever decisions the pension plan’s trustee makes. And, not surprisingly, pension plans invest heavily in corporate securities: in 2008, public pensions held about $1.15 trillion in corporate stock.

    Here’s the problem. In its Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court held that companies have a First Amendment right to make electoral expenditures with general corporate treasuries. And they’ve done so, with relish, pouring millions into the political system.

    What Citizens United failed to account for, however, is that a significant portion of the money that corporations are spending on politics is financed by equity capital provided by public pension funds — capital contributions that the government requires public employees to finance with their paychecks.

    still sleeeeepy (b5f718)

  28. H/T- Hot Air….

    Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno says the door isn’t entirely closed on a new Chick-fil-A restaurant opening in his 1st ward.

    Moreno told WBEZ that the owners seeking to build the restaurant have said they won’t support any groups with a political agenda, including those with an anti-gay marriage stance.

    Moreno says if he gets an explicit guarantee from the franchise owner he will consider granting zoning rights to a new Chick-fil-A in Logan Square.

    “If they’re serious about that, and they’re willing to put that in writing and they’re willing to adopt that. I think those are the grounds where we can move forward,” Moreno said.”

    No 1st-A prior restraint there.
    I’m sure that they’ll act like good little serfs.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  29. SPQR, and others, as I said, I am way way conflicted on this, but I’m not gonna lie, or toe the so-called conservative line on this one. Local governments enjoy the freedom to deny business permits.

    Please explain how denying a permit for a chicken restaurant because of someone’s expressed political views denies that person’s right to express those views?

    Icy (5ef891)

  30. SPQR, I guess I just don’t see how regulating the restaurant trade violates the First Amendment.

    Icy, you’re oversimplifying the situation. If Chic-fil-A is denied a permit while complying with all the city, county, and state laws, but another restaurant is granted a permit, then Chic-fil-A would have a very good case against the city that it was denied a permit as punishment for its political views.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  31. Icy,

    Mr. Cathy is well within his First Amendment right to express his stance against homosexual marriage. Directly because of that, the mayor of Boston has threatened to use the power of the government to prevent him from opening up his business. He is being punished and essentially, monetarily penalized for utilizing his First Amendment right. How is that not a violation?

    If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies,” he warned.

    The mayor is threatening to not give necessary permits, licenses, etc., so that a private citizen can open a place of business simply because the mayor disagrees with what the business owner believes and has lawfully espoused. I would ask, too, how is that not a serious abuse of power?

    Dana (5ae38e)

  32. sleeeeepy….
    Borrowed money has to be paid back, unless you borrowed it from the Federal Government, of course.
    So, that equity capital has to be repaid to those pension funds at some point. If the fund managers thought that the business practices, including the manner in which the corporation publicly expressed its corporate message, was inimical to sound business practices, they wouldn’t invest there.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  33. Please explain how denying a permit for a chicken restaurant because of someone’s expressed political views denies that person’s right to express those views?

    Icy, I’m in awe of your ability to ask such a self-answering question.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  34. Even Bloomberg gets it. Which is suprising, if not a bit ironic.

    “They’re all friends but I disagree with them really strongly on this one,” Mr. Bloomberg said of his mayoral colleagues. “You can’t have a test for what the owners’ personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city. You really don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit, that’s just not government’s job.”

    Mr. Bloomberg went on to argue that blocking a business based on their political beliefs opens a potential slippery slope where liberal cities block conservative establishments and vice versa with conservative cities.

    “Freedom of speech — everybody’s in favor of it as long as it’s what they want to hear,” he explained. “Well the only way that you have your freedom of speech is if you give other people freedom of speech. … This is just a bad idea and it’s not going to happen in New York City.”

    Dana (5ae38e)

  35. ________________________________________________

    Please explain how denying a permit for a chicken restaurant because of someone’s expressed political views denies that person’s right to express those views?

    Wow. Damn.

    Icy, you recently expressed disapproval of my often focusing on what makes people tick, namely whether their opinions are or aren’t triggered by their ideological biases. Based on your comment above, you’re either being a Devil’s Advocate, or you’re doing a contortionist routine that would make even Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts green with envy.

    Mark (7b2cc7)

  36. A tyrant mayor threatening to apply non-codified zoning restrictions on a business that wants to open, on the basis that the tyrant does not personally like what a “potential” business owner may believe (and has said openly and publicly in a non hateful way) is not a violation of first amendment rights? If Rahm’s threat and chastisement is not an example of government power and an attempt to punish and thwart free speech I don’t know what one can call it.

    Most political watchers around here expect Rahm to slowly back off now that he has made points with a powerful constituency that Obama needs.

    Of course it took Walmart something like seven years to get approval to build Walmarts in a couple of low income areas that were in desperate need of products and employment. It was the unions that time pushing the buttons–another constituency a Chicago mayor placated until the communities themselves rose up and demanded that the non union Walmarts be built.

    elissa (771358)

  37. Someone on a radio show today asked whether the people of the city of Chicago will welcome paying tax dollars to defend a lawsuit over this. (The answer is no.) Plus–Chicago transplants from the south loove and want their Chick-Fil-A sammiches.

    I read the whole Greenwald article with updates yesterday. I can probably count five times in the last five years I’ve agreed with Gleen, but I thought he pretty much knocked it out the park this time.

    elissa (771358)

  38. I plan on driving to Iowa City (Nearest Chick-Fil-A) and buy a couple of sandwiches. Take that Liberal intolerant bigots!

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  39. Chik-Fil-A is already in Chicago

    http://www.yelp.com/biz/chick-fil-a-chicago

    Chick-fil-A
    175 reviews Rating Details

    Category: Fast Food [Edit]
    30 E Chicago Ave
    (between State St & Wabash Ave)
    Chicago, IL 60611
    Neighborhood: Near North Side
    (312) 266-8888
    http://www.cfawatertower.com

    Sabba Hillel (edc670)

  40. Chick-Fil-a’s head of PR has died of a hweart attack. The company’s statement:.

    “We are saddened to report the news to you that our dear friend Don Perry, vice president of public relations, passed away suddenly this morning.

    “Don was a member of our Chick-fil-A family for nearly 29 years. For many of you in the media, he was the spokesperson for Chick-fil-A. He was a well-respected and well-liked media executive in the Atlanta and University of Georgia communities, and we will all miss him.

    elissa (771358)

  41. 38- it is ironic that you are defending intolerance of homosexuals by calling others bigots. Hilarious.

    tye (8aa613)

  42. Color me shocked that tye doesn’t get it, and hates the 1st Amendnent.

    Hohophobes.

    JD (1727ed)

  43. Belief in marriage being between a man and a woman does not equate to intolerance of homosexuality.

    JD (1727ed)

  44. It really shouldn’t surprise me when tye lies, since he’s done it so often.

    Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd)

  45. it is ironic that you are defending intolerance of homosexuals by calling others bigots. Hilarious.

    Since I’m a Christian, do you consider me intolerant of homosexuals?

    ∅ (721840)

  46. ==Color me shocked that tye doesn’t get it, and hates the 1st Amendment==

    Well, JD, tye “getting it” would entail tye actually reading the article by Greenwald (who is a Prog. lawyer and gay man himself). What do you think the odds are that tye even read the featured subject of the thread before jumping in to hurl ad homs at people?

    elissa (771358)

  47. Comment by JD — 7/27/2012 @ 1:54 pm

    JD, I agree with you that, “Belief in marriage being between a man and a woman does not equate to intolerance of homosexuality”, however I’m not sure that everyone else agrees with that. I think there are many people who would grant SS couples some kind of civil commitment analogous to marriage, but for some such an arrangement is still considered treating SS couples as “different”, a “separate but equal” situation, as opposed to being excepted as “equal” and “normal” (though some have said and written that “normal” is “just a setting on the dryer”).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  48. Call me naive if you want, but IMHO it’s nice to see prominent liberals standing up on this. Kudos to Greenwald, the LA Times, and others for getting this right.

    And what’s this?!? Even our beloved Andy S. gets it:

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/emanuel-and-menino-liberal-thugs.html

    qdpsteve (e4fc78)

  49. It is nice to see some on the Left calling this out for exactly what it is. I am not willing to give them too much credit, since this is an easy position to take, given how extreme the statements from Boston and Chicago were.

    JD (771bb8)

  50. And why the heck shouldn’t prominent liberals stand up for the 1st amendment of the Constitution when they see idiocy? We all know that over time political correctness has muted once common words that now sound ugly to us, and that passing time has opened public discussion into a wider range of social issues which may make some uncomfortable. But our respect for the primacy of the 1st amendment should never change. Sully’s post combined with Greenwald’s excellent one will hopefully clarify things for some on both the left and right.

    elissa (771358)

  51. I live the first amendment.

    tye (8aa613)

  52. And love it too.

    tye (8aa613)

  53. It’s refreshing to see a liberal such as tye to stand up so strongly against the AHA. I applaud your commitment to the First Amendment and I hope you can convince your compatriots on the left to join you is calling for the repeal of AHA.

    Thanks, tye!

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  54. Much of the Left can’t seem to grasp that it is they who are promoting an intolerant agenda, when they try to set fire to thousands of years of human history and a practice that – while not perfect – is the foundation of our healthy civil society.

    Colonel Haiku (369d4c)

  55. Icy, you recently expressed disapproval of my often focusing on what makes people tick, namely whether their opinions are or aren’t triggered by their ideological biases. Based on your comment above, you’re either being a Devil’s Advocate, or you’re doing a contortionist routine that would make even Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts green with envy.
    Comment by Mark — 7/27/2012 @ 10:46 am

    — I am NOT being a devil’s advocate.

    I wouldn’t want to put Finkelman out of a job.

    Icy (b67b87)

  56. AD-RtR/OS! @#32

    It’s not about the fund managers
    “Public pensions, moreover, are so-called defined benefit plans, which means that employees don’t have a say in how their mandatory contributions are invested. The employees cannot request, for example, that their money be used only to buy government bonds or that it be invested only in certain mutual funds or only in select corporations.”

    Also Greenwald has been consistent on free speech.
    He’s opposed hate speech restrictions as well.

    still sleeeeepy (b5f718)

  57. Icy, punishing a business because of the free speech of the owner is a violation of the First Amendment. I’m baffled why you are not following this.
    Comment by SPQR — 7/27/2012 @ 10:22 am

    — Because I don’t see how Mr. Cathy’s ability to express his views has been abridged. That’s why.

    Icy (b67b87)

  58. – Because I don’t see how Mr. Cathy’s ability to express his views has been abridged.

    It’s being abridged because the government is punishing him for his views. The whole point to the 1st Amendment is that government can’t punish people for expressing political opinions.

    Chuck Bartowski (99415f)

  59. I’ll put a finer point on this for Icy’s benefit:

    Government will punish you if you steal my car. Now, you are perfectly able to take my car, but you will get thrown in jail for doing so.

    Icy’s argument seems to be that since he is physically able to take the car, then his right to take it is not abridged. But the reality is that when government punishes you for committing an act, then you don’t have the right to do it.

    Therefore, when the government punishes a person for expressing an opinion, it is infringing about his right to speak freely.

    Chuck Bartowski (99415f)

  60. Please explain how denying a permit for a chicken restaurant because of someone’s expressed political views denies that person’s right to express those views?

    Icy, I’m in awe of your ability to ask such a self-answering question.
    Comment by SPQR — 7/27/2012 @ 10:42 am

    — And I’m still asking it. How does discriminating against someone for their political views equal abridging their right to speak those views? Cathy has the same number of stores from which he took profits to fund his political contributions. No arm of government has shut down any of his existing operations. No arm of government has limited his right to speak at all. He does not speak thru the instrument of his restaurants.

    Icy (b67b87)

  61. And I’m still asking it. How does discriminating against someone for their political views equal abridging their right to speak those views? Cathy has the same number of stores from which he took profits to fund his political contributions. No arm of government has shut down any of his existing operations. No arm of government has limited his right to speak at all. He does not speak thru the instrument of his restaurants.

    You honestly don’t see how government punishing someone for their views is an infringement on the First Amendment??

    Patterico (feda6b)

  62. Here, a stated political or social view would be arbitrarily used by “government” as a punishing barrier to entry for a business. No other reason. That’s the problem as I see it. You know, if he had not spoken out about gay marriage–just shut up– Rahm would never have known and Chick-Fil-A would have been welcomed with open arms to create multiple franchises and hire people and pay taxes in Chicago. Sure sounds like a freedom of speech thing to me.

    But really, Rahm was never serious. It was all just street theater for Rahm and Moreno. I think it mostly backfired, too.

    elissa (771358)

  63. 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.

    Perhaps a re-reading of the text will help, Icy. It’s difficult hard to understand why you don’t understand this.

    Dana (292dcf)

  64. I bet I could run a tasty chicken sandwich chain without making all these people hate my guts cause of my gay marriage thinkings. I bet you a tasty chicken sammich they’d never even know what my thinkings were cause I’d be so busy saying hey you guys these chicken sandwiches are really effing tasty you should try some and hey did you know we have chicken n biscuits breakfast items you should bring your whole family one morning they make you wanna slap you mama

    Plus don’t forget we have extra spicy too

    happyfeet (a12946)

  65. It’s being abridged because the government is punishing him for his views. The whole point to the 1st Amendment is that government can’t punish people for expressing political opinions.
    Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 7/27/2012 @ 9:34 pm

    — The strict constructionist Scalia-type in me says that the Congress (or, by extension, the state or local legislative body) cannot enact any laws that abridge a person’s freedom of speech. And I say again, Mr. Cathy is just as free to express himself today as he was the day before he gave that interview.

    Icy (b67b87)

  66. I don’t want to live in a country where they think you should interrogate your barber or dentist or dog groomer or mechanic or party planner or farmers’ market vendor beforehand, so as to be sure that their really non relevant thinkings are in sync with yours. It seems much smarter to look for experience and quality and the safe performance of the service. Maybe I’m old fashioned.

    elissa (771358)

  67. – The strict constructionist Scalia-type in me says that the Congress (or, by extension, the state or local legislative body) cannot enact any laws that abridge a person’s freedom of speech. And I say again, Mr. Cathy is just as free to express himself today as he was the day before he gave that interview.

    Good God, you are being deliberately obtuse. If Chicago and Boston do what they have threatened, Mr. Cathy would suffer a financial penalty because of his views. That’s the same thing as government fining him for voicing his opinion.

    Sure, he’s still able to speak, but the fact is that government is trying to punish him for doing so.

    That you refuse to see how that is an infringement of his 1st Amendment rights speaks volumes about your stubbornness.

    Chuck Bartowski (99415f)

  68. – The strict constructionist Scalia-type in me says that the Congress (or, by extension, the state or local legislative body) cannot enact any laws that abridge a person’s freedom of speech.

    First, Scalia is more of an “original intent” jurist than a strict constructionist. Second, even a strict constructionist would realize that the Congressional prohibitions on abridging free speech were extended to bar state and local governments from doing the same thing by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

    Chuck Bartowski (99415f)

  69. I know that I’m being quite the contrarian on this issue, and I’m really not trying to pick a fight, but I just believe that Mayors Emanuel and Menino have every right to be so stupid that they tell a major business “sorry, but we don’t want your sales tax revenue & your property taxes & your purchase/lease of commercial real estate/buildings & your employment of hundreds of our citizens.”

    If I was the mayor of one of their cities I would be saying the exact opposite of what they said.

    Icy (b67b87)

  70. First, Scalia is more of an “original intent” jurist than a strict constructionist. Second, even a strict constructionist would realize that the Congressional prohibitions on abridging free speech were extended to bar state and local governments from doing the same thing by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
    Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 7/27/2012 @ 10:29 pm

    — We do not disagree on this point, not even one iota.

    Icy (b67b87)

  71. but I just believe that Mayors Emanuel and Menino have every right to be so stupid that they tell a major business “sorry, but we don’t want your sales tax revenue & your property taxes & your purchase/lease of commercial real estate/buildings & your employment of hundreds of our citizens.”

    NO THEY DON’T, not if the reason they do so is due to the company’s political opinions.

    Chuck Bartowski (99415f)

  72. First, Scalia is more of an “original intent” jurist than a strict constructionist.

    Sort of. I think he would describe himself more as an “original understanding” jurist. He eschews intent for textualism.

    Patterico (feda6b)

  73. But it’s true that he rejects the label of “strict constructionist.”

    Patterico (feda6b)

  74. Icy – how is the demand by the Aldernan that Cathy not engage in ant activism not abridging his right to free speech? Do you think that the Alderman should be able to tell Cathy that he can only engage in a list of certain approved political activities, or keep him from engaging in others, as a function of doing business there? Have the current standards been applied equally to others?

    JD (c56220)

  75. In your version of this, the Alderman could make the owner only contribute to Dem pols and affiliated groups, and ban him from donating to Rep pols and affiliated group. Where in the world do you think govt would derive this power?

    JD (c56220)

  76. To add another analogy, as a business owner I should have the right to fire any of my employees. And, it a work-at-will state, I pretty much do. But I can’t fire someone for an illegal reason. I can fire a black employee for not doing his work properly, but I can’t fire a black employee just because he’s black. And that’s as it should be, it keeps the employer from abridging the rights of the employee.

    Icy says cities have the right to reject business permits. Sure, they do; but they can’t reject the permits for illegal reasons. And rejecting a permit because the business has a different political opinion would be an illegal reason.

    Chuck Bartowski (99415f)

  77. As far as I am concerned, they already do this. Wal*Mart Supercenters are already banned in many towns. Wal*Mart is the bane of the left and has been for many years. You won’t find one in San Francisco, either (but some nearby).

    Some try to pass it as a ban on “box stores” but that is going to be a more difficult charade for SF to maintain now that a Target store is being built downtown and Target sells groceries, just like Wall*Mart.

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  78. I’m very surprised to see Randazza’s take on this. Am I missing something?

    Dana (292dcf)

  79. Is it an issue of a visceral emotional reaction superseding all else?

    Dana (292dcf)

  80. If you have the same opinion on the issue as President Obama had until two months ago, you are a “bigoted douchebag”.

    Brilliant.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  81. SPQR, so I’m not missing anything, eh?

    Dana (292dcf)

  82. eat chicken… stay away from sugar and bread…

    http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad81/rdbrewer/fat-car-1.jpg

    Colonel Haiku (5af332)

  83. Chick-Fil-A bad but people who actually advocate for the deaths of homosexuals? That’d be great to have in Boston …

    Michael Graham in Boston Herald pointing out the hypocrisy.

    Its obvious that its not about finding opposition to same sex marriage unacceptable, its about attacking political opponents.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  84. David Errorstein is off its meds again.

    JD (395555)

  85. Tye, you are beyond intolerant and you are really a sick joke on these boards. You are ultra intolerant of views not your own.

    I bought 3 Chick-Fil-A sandwiches Saturday since I can’t make it Wednesday. It is a 100 mile trip for me each way. VIVA FREE SPEECH!! That’s another thing tye hates the opposition to have.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  86. Oh, for that matter Dead-fish Emmanuel is a bankrupt personality running a corrupt bankrupt town in corrupt bankrupt state.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  87. Useful info. Lucky me I discovered your site by accident, and I am stunned why this accident didn’t took place earlier! I bookmarked it.

    Free Brazzers Account (d7361e)

  88. Cool, I could use a free pron acct.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  89. Chik-Fil-A is packed at the 3 locations I have seen today. Ginormous lines just to get in the building, a lines around the block for the drive-thru.

    JD (cfef43)

  90. Yeah, I didn’t stop at Chik Fil A for lunch because the line is just too long today. Amazing level of support. I’ll have to get something tomorrow.

    Dustin (73fead)

  91. don’t forget they have tasty breakfastses too

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  92. I might make the long round trip Saturday to get more. Anyone hear who made the longest trip to support Chick-Fil-A? My marker is 200 miles, round trip. Anyone do more than that?

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  93. Meanwhile New York City Council Speaker and mayoral candidate (as well as recently married lesbian) Christine Quinn endorsed the idea of official discriminatuion against Chick-A-Fil but then semi-backtracked.

    Meanwhile the Republicans are looking for a candidate and some seem to want State Senate te Democrat Leader Malcolm Smoth (on the grounds he is pro-business. Pro-business is not the most important thing.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/malcolm-smith-mayor-gop-republican-2013.html

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  94. Comment by happyfeet — 8/1/2012 @ 10:53 am

    I assume some of their breakfastses have eggs

    Because of the underlying subject matter, I assume they know how little chickies can get into the eggs.

    But, since they are experts in both chicken and eggs, do they know which came first?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  95. there was a chik-fil-a at the Minneapolis airport yesterday – just one fat guy was there when I went past but you know how sometimes terminals have lulls

    plus there was tasty vietnamese nearby where you can get banh mi, which is what I woulda picked if I’d been hungry cause they’re really not very easy to find in my zone here in the valley

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  96. You know, it was hard to believe there could be anybody decent after Giuliani, so there may be some hope.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  97. you know I haven’t had eggs there Mr. Dr. just these chicken biscuit things

    but they’re very good and you can bring em home and set a dozen on a platter when you have guests and do an informal breakfast where people can just grab them when they wake up

    eggs you have to worry more about temperature and such

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  98. I heart banh mi

    JD (cfef43)

  99. it really is special and it’s weird I can find them more easily in chicago than I can here

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  100. Lots in Orange County

    JD (cfef43)

  101. i wish I’d known about them when I lived there

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  102. Excellent weblog here! Also your website a lot up fast! What host are you the usage of? Can I am getting your affiliate link to your host? I want my website loaded up as quickly as yours lol

    here (1dc7b6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1300 secs.