Cities Have a Right to Ban Chik fil-A

The individual people of a community, be it city, town, or just a group visiting a park, have the right to not patronize (boycott) any given business or GOVERNMENT service.


The Government of a City cannot ban a business from operating in a given city based solely on politics.


A Government could ban an business due to zoning ( appropriate use by class of business), health or safety impacts, or proven illegal business practices.


Chik-Fil-A has done none of these things, and it is operating a restraunt in an zones approved for such businesses.


What the lefties are attempting to do with this whole issue is a very direct path into Fascism.

 

There would have to be cause in order for a city to ban Chick-fil-A franchisee's.
Meaning a record of discrimatory practice in the work place.To my knowledge
not a single discrimination lawsuit has been filed against Cjick-fil-A.
There is absolutely nothing illegal,both morally,or ethically with ascribing one's
religious belief { Believer in Traditional Marriage and NOT the New Gay interpretation }.
As long as that belief does not infringe within the work place.Meaning Chick-fil-A
not serving Gay couples,or hiring gays or failing to promote gays that do work there.

In effect Mayors like Rahm Emanueal were practicing discrimination against
Chick-fil-A based on Political will.

 

In my opinion, that firm lobbying for anti hypocrisy laws would engender more confidence in their sincerity.

 

WHAT THE PRO-CHIK-FIL-A PEOPLE ARE OBJECTIVELY SUPPORTING

(In particular, check out beginning about midway through.)

I saw this full interview last night. This being CNN, unfortunately only an excerpt has been made available online, but you'll get the idea. As anyone with a functioning brain here knows, I am not taking issue with the right of INDIVIDUALS to speak their minds, however offensive their thoughts may be. What I'm against here is the corporate "speech", as in to say the flow of dollars to not just hate organizations (e.g. groups that believe gay people should be thrown in jail for being gay), but specifically these completely discredited "pray away the gay" quack therapies that cause real harm to those who undergo them. That is not a joke. That is not speech. That is real people's lives we're talking about.

Like I said, I saw this full interview last night, so let me give you the rundown of what's in it, including what you won't find at the link: the friend-of-the-top-Chik-fil-A-exec dude is challenged on the fact that Chik fil-A is bankrolling these totally discredited quack therapies. He responds by explaining that people apply for such therapies voluntarily. The other guest then points out that that's just not true because many of those who undergo said therapies are young children sent there very much against their will by their parents, to which the company shill responds that the company supports the right of parents to raise their children however they see fit. At that point admittedly I just kind of tuned out the rest of what he said, though I did continue to watch. I was too disgusted to continue actively paying attention. You get the idea. They actively support the exploitation and even the imprisonment of perfectly normal people WITH THEIR MONEY.

Those who are defending this as perfectly legitimate free speech should have THEIR heads examined, IMO!

 

My dear Polly, it seems you are not advocating for equal rights you seem to be advocating special treatment for gays.
Chic-Fil-A should be able to spend their money any way they see fit within the law.

No group should have special treatment under the law. Equal treatment is justified and right. Special treatment is unjustified and wrong.

If I decided to donate to a cause that wanted to ban abortion for example, it should be my right to support this cause. Just because someone does not agree with my politics does not mean that they should have the right to violate my right to spend my money anyway i see fit.

Some kids are sent to " boot camps" to correct behavior problems...should we outlaw them too?

I am in no way infering that being gay is a behavior problem but some people think so.

 

Polly, here's the problem. The first amendment is designed to limit the power of government over individual speech. It cannot get in the way of individual speech and it cannot punish individual speech. The owner of the restaurant chain, like you, has the right to believe what he likes and say so. If people don't like it, they can boycott him or advertise against him or whatever. The government, however, cannot do anything to him. That would include punishing him for his belief by standing in the way of his business. If the city failed to grant him the license for some other reason - health, zoning or something like that, it wouldn't have been an issue. It is an issue because they failed to grant it based on what he believes. Think about how scary it would be if the government punished you for what you believe.

 

Your standard for refusing permits to a business is donations to a political group or cause you think is harmful? By that standard alone, no business will get permission to operate. You might as well close down any business that funds public education given the evidence of the harm it is causing. Just wait until the radical right gets to issue the permits. Now imagine what businesses will be denied the exercise of their rights.

 

It should be clear that as organs of any given State, cities do not have any right to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States because it is no longer a States' right since the ratification of our federal Constitution.

 

But the government entity should?

 

Of course, when you boycott government, your house is invaded by men with guns who kidnap and cage you.

 

Cities Have a Right to Ban Chik fil-A

You couldn't be further wrong if you tried. No one said city and citizens can't boycott them. They sure can. But, cities have no right to ban a legitimate business that conforms to the neighborhood. They and the people can boycott them if they wish and even put them out of business if enough boycott. But to refuse to allow them in, will bring about a huge law suit against them, which the city would lose.

 

If every gay person in America refused toe at tehre it would reduce there buisness by no more than a whopping 5%.

 

I agree with you that people have a right to not go to any restaurant they want, obviously, and I personally wouldn't go to one of these restaurants knowing that they'll take my money and use it to screw with people. But the government can't deny anyone a building permit based on their political, religious or moral views -- that's a clear violation of the first amendment.

 

WOW! where do I begin...In your first paragraph you say that retards are defending cfls right to say whatever they want...Uh yea sweatheart, its called freedom of speech, you know, one of those silly little rights you and all your little ows friends hid behind while bashing corporate america last year. And as far as the boycott thing goes, well no one said you couldn't boycott them, how could anyone possibly stop you from boycotting them, you simply don't buy their chicken anymore.
You see the issue here has nothing to do with boycotting, it has to do with the discriminating abuse of public office, that is, mayors of Boston, Chicago etc. stating that they would no longer welcome CFL into their cities due to their position regarding gay marriage. Let me give you an example that may make things more clear...
Lets say that you, miss polly minx, decided that you wanted to open up a little shop selling hand made pink and purple monkey hand puppets, so you worked hard and saved your money and noticed that the little shoe store in the center of town went out of business ( like so many have since Obama became president). So you went to the town business zoning permit guy and said "hey I want to buy the old shoe store in the center of town and sell purple and pink monkey hand puppets, but I need the proper permits and such so that I can do this legally." And the guy looks at you and says... "Hey I know you, you where one of those lazy, stinkin, trespassin, vandalizin, dirty mouthed, no good, ows people that spent all last year turning my nice town green into a big stinkin cesspool of a mud pit for no good reason, and since I disagree with that bowel movement of an organization I'm not going to allow you to ever sell purple and pink hand puppet monkeys in my town ever ever again"
Now you see poly, he's not simply boycotting your business, he is discriminating against you because of your personal beliefs and abusing his political position to destroy your purple and pink monkey hand puppet business before it even begins...understand the difference? Because most liberals do not.

 

SO WHAT? The company is not allowed to donate money where they choose? and who exactly decides where they can donate their money to? you Miss Polly minx?
It is in my personal opinion that OWS was a disgusting mess of lazy hippies, and homeless vagrants. they destroyed both public and private property, they where full of hate towards the successful 1%, they spray painted buildings, and statues, they broke windows, blatantly broke the law and disobeid police, cuased riots in the streets, reports of rape and even murder in Oakland etc. etc. Now if CFL donated millions of dollars to the OWS bowel movement I bet you'd be lovin all up on them, eatin their chicken and fries even if you are a vegan, but since they are donating their money to an organisation which you disagree with well then the gubment needs to just shut them down right? Okay now I understand where your coming from.

 

It's illegal for poor people. Everything's legal for the rich, and like that would make any difference to the rich...yeah right.

 

I don't think you agree with this statement:

All men are created equal.

 

That's right. Corporations are creatures of the state. They submit to regulations for the privilege of limited liability which individuals do not have.

The trouble is that the people who control the corporations also got control of the government, media, churches, banks, etc., so that now they have even more limited liability and little regulation, unless your corporation is not cooperating with them........then, they'll sick their government officials on you.

When Americans sign the Social Security contract they pledge all their wages to be taxed as income.
Under the Social Security system, our "rights" become privileges granted by the gurus of taxes, oppression and wars.

We are all incorporated. Every year, they make it more so.

 

Would this even be a potentially litigious issue, if persons could simply apply for unemployment compensation if they are unemployed?

 

You are confusing what ought to be and what is. Nazi organizations ought to be done away with, however their speech is protected under the first Amendment. Westboro Baptist Church ought to be banned, but it's hate speech is protected under the first amendment.

Your premise is naive. Hate speech is protected under the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. Government is plainly forbidden, and demonstrably so from every restricting any kind of speech. Their is a reason Government is forbidden from interfering in the political, social or religious views of the Public. Your inability to see that makes me wonder what the hell country you think this is.

Not to mention that Chicago has no rights to restrict such freedoms since the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the State and Local Governments.

Next question, this thread is over.

 

Dumbest (*)(*)(*)(*) ever. It's a fast food restaurant, get over it and stop stomping your feet over the personal beliefs of a few Corporate Execs who have done nothing to you.

 

So your definition of anti-gay hate groups are all Christian Churches, Islamic Mosques, Jewish Synagogues, Sikh Temples and such? Get over yourself and stop being so (*)(*)(*)(*) hypersensitive.

 

This thread is delightful.

Affirmitive Action means an employer has to have a certain amount of black employees of various positions. Whether or not the employer wanted to hire them or not. It also means that Blacks get scholarships, and student aide at the expense of white, asian or other children who may be more qualified.

Come on now. Affirmitive action treats blacks like they are helpless retarded kids who need white people to hold them by the hand every step of the way. It doesn't help blacks and it makes a lot of whites angry. It does not help race relations, at all. Which was one of it's intended purposes. It also was meant to bring blacks out of poverty. That's not working out either, it seems.

Have a nice day and come back when you have a clue.

 

No.

Get you head out of the sand, and see what some are doing to oppress others. Or go get yourself a chicken sandwich; maybe it'll clear your clouded mind a bit.

 

My head is rather out in front. It's always fun to see people shake a fist and stomp a feet at something they disagree with. It's another thing to implement your personal opinions into policy. CFA did nothing illegal, broke no laws and I don't see liberals boycotting other organizations that do unliberal things.

McDonalds for instance through the parent company, various owned subsidiaries and franchise owning companies and corporations have contributed heavily to Republican Party campaigns. Same goes for Coca Cola who does a lot of business with McDonalds and I don't hear one thing out of the gay marriage crowd about this. This is just pandering to the lowest idiots of young people who feel good holding up signs and pretending they stand for something.

If they stood for anything they would be boycotting Coca Cola and McDonalds and a long list of other companies who contribute to "keeping gay marriage down" through political donations.