• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

MaggieD said:
Exactly.

"We're only going to give business licenses to Democrats."
"We're only going to give business licenses to Catholics."
"We're only going to give business licenses to union shops."
Ad Infinitum.

If this isn't illegal? It should be.

BTW, Boston's mayor did the same thing last week.
Click to expand...

this again I agree with but freedom of speech isnt infringed, right not to be unfairly discriminate against is
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My post was different from stating that YOUR values are not MY values so you may not do business in this town how? Is this not what you support; each is free to do as they please without regard to the rights of others? If our opinons differ then you must look elsewhere to do business?
Click to expand...

Well, if I walked into someone's place of business and they asked me to leave, that's their prerogative. It's not exactly parallel to our topic, because the government's role is different. But let me put it to you this way: how is this any different from the Ground Zero Mosque incident? I won't be an idiot and assume you felt one way or another about it at the time, because I don't know crap about you. But do you think there is any difference between that incidence and what we're talking about now?
 
I don't like what the Chick fil a guy said, but to bar them from building a restaurant because of it is idiotic. I hope they add up how many jobs and how much economic impact that refusing that store is going to cost the city and run that by the people in the city and all of the people that want to block construction. I'd vote to recall our mayor or our city council if they did something like that.
 
Miguel17 said:
Well, if I walked into someone's place of business and they asked me to leave, that's their prerogative. It's not exactly parallel to our topic, because the government's role is different. But let me put it to you this way: how is this any different from the Ground Zero Mosque incident? I won't be an idiot and assume you felt one way or another about it at the time, because I don't know crap about you. But do you think there is any difference between that incidence and what we're talking about now?
Click to expand...

No. The issue is very similar. If a property is zoned to include that use, it should not be up to the gov't to deny that use. Holding up a permit based only on political (or religious) views of the applicant should be illegal, just as requiring a political contribution or bribe would be. I believe that the NYC mosque "deal" was simply a publicity stunt to help raise funds for its construction, but did not oppose it.
 
I'm a little torn on this one. On the one hand I do agree that a business owner's opinions should not prevent him from getting a license. On the other hand, Chick-Fil-A does more then just express an opinion. The chain donates a lot of money to a host of politically active organisations that lobby to keep gays from obtaining the right to civil marriage. In light of this, I'm not too much against local governments taking a stand, especially in places like Boston where gay marriage is legal. It's not legal in Illinois, though, so that's a little dicier, but still...
 
Last edited:
Just another example of "if you agree with my liberal stance, I won't punish you"

I wonder what the ACLU would have to say about a mayor who blocked the construction of a private business where the owner claimed he was an atheist?

Come on guys, we all know the left is chalked full of double standards. I've come to expect this kind of reaction and thuggery from the left. They are liars, cheats, and hide behind the shield of "tolerance". Anyone with a contrasting opinion to theirs is labeled "intollerant". This is about freedom of speech and expression. It says to any other business owner, "if you do not agree with our social values, you will be punished by not being allowed to do business here".

Any person who agrees with this kind of reaction is a straight up tyrant. And they are supposed to be the party of "tolerance". We've known for a long time that liberals are more intollerant than any other group in our society. They do not tolerate opposing view points. They do not tolerate religious expression. They do not tolerate those who oppose abortion. They do not tolerate those who honor traditional marriage. They do not tolerate a lot of things. They attack them, ridicule them, punish them, and label them.

who's shocked????
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No. The issue is very similar. If a property is zoned to include that use, it should not be up to the gov't to deny that use. Holding up a permit based only on political (or religious) views of the applicant should be illegal, just as requiring a political contribution or bribe would be. I believe that the NYC mosque "deal" was simply a publicity stunt to help raise funds for its construction, but did not oppose it.
Click to expand...

Well, lest you misinterpret my stance, I'm not sitting here saying that I think Rahm's proposal is a great idea. I disagree with the Chick-fil-A guy's comments to the utmost, but I think this is the wrong way to oppose him. I'm simply talking about the legality of the move, which I think is sound. I think opposing the Mosque was silly, but I know of no evidence that it's illegal.

Oh, and you accidentally "liked" my last post. Just lettin' you know.
 
Same view here as I had during the Mosque debate. While I can understand (though don't agree) with peoples desire not to see Chick-Fil-A in their city, utlimately elected officials should not be ordering city employees to discriminate based on religious or political beliefs held by someone whose a part of that business. If individuals want to boycott them (and miss out on the tasty chicken goodness) then that's perfectly fine...but mayors should not be utilizing their power to stop a business from acting in a legal manner based singularly on their political/religious beliefs
 
Zyphlin said:
Same view here as I had during the Mosque debate. While I can understand (though don't agree) with peoples desire not to see Chick-Fil-A in their city, utlimately elected officials should not be ordering city employees to discriminate based on religious or political beliefs held by someone whose a part of that business. If individuals want to boycott them (and miss out on the tasty chicken goodness) then that's perfectly fine...but mayors should not be utilizing their power to stop a business from acting in a legal manner based singularly on their political/religious beliefs
Click to expand...


this I agree with also 100%
 
What IS shocking, is how people of a free society actually agree with this kind of crap. You say you value freedom? Really? You think it supports the philosophy of freedom to oppose a private business from coming into your community simply because the owner of that company has an opposing opinion about gay marriage????

This is precisely how the left operates. This is precisely how they "impose" their social values onto society. They say, unless you want to be financially punished, you will keep your opposing opinions to yourself. Party of tolerance? Supporters of freedom?

Give me a break.....to the lefties, freedom means "freedom to silence or punish anyone who doesn't agree with me". To them, it was noble that a mayor of a large city sent the message that any opinion on gay marriage contradicting the opinion that gay marriage is fine, will not be tolerated. "you wanna build in my city? Then you better keep your opinions on gay marriage to yourself".

Yes, that's how the left operates......and it's shocking so many people agree with their tactics.
 
ChuckBerry said:
BTW it's a pity I don't like Chik-Fil-A's food, else I would switch all my fast food consumption to them exclusively.
Click to expand...

Really? You'd change your eating habits just to spite someone? Seems kind of silly and counter productive.

Anyway, I disagree with the actions of these cities. Chik-Fil-A as far as I can tell has no discriminatory practices in the form of not serving or hiring people based on any kind of unjustifiable reason, like skin color or sexuality. It is the right of the business owner, as an individual citizen, and the right of the company, especially after Citizen's United, to engage in political speech even if I personally think their opinions are narrow minded and stupid. If a city wishes to bar a business from operating in their jurisdiction they need better reasons than personal disagreements about politics.

Operating and owning a business is a not something protected under the 1st amendment, however that's irrelevant.
 
Ever since i found out that Chick Filla's owner donates a lot of the companies profits to anti LBJT causes i then immideatly stopped going there about 2.5 years ago. And damn do i miss those shakes.
 
Chicago values are the worst in the country.
 
Miguel17 said:
Well, lest you misinterpret my stance, I'm not sitting here saying that I think Rahm's proposal is a great idea. I disagree with the Chick-fil-A guy's comments to the utmost, but I think this is the wrong way to oppose him. I'm simply talking about the legality of the move, which I think is sound. I think opposing the Mosque was silly, but I know of no evidence that it's illegal.

Oh, and you accidentally "liked" my last post. Just lettin' you know.
Click to expand...

Couple things, Rahm didn't threaten to withhold licenses to Chik, he just blasted them as bigots and said they'd be a poor investment since Chichagoans wouldn't frequent a bigotted establishment. It was a Ward boss who refuses to license to them in an individual ward. Rahm knows doing so for the city would be a legal loser.

The Mosque issue isn't analogous. The opposition was private, not government.

As to legality, the right of the state to discriminate in licensing would easily be trumped by the First amendment at the SCOTUS. This article should give you a guidepost. The court has already decided that corporations have free speech rights, and, as divided as they are, they all agree on one thing, the First trumps everything else.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Ever since i found out that Chick Filla's owner donates a lot of the companies profits to anti LBJT causes i then immideatly stopped going there about 2.5 years ago. And damn do i miss those shakes.
Click to expand...

I spent a month in Ft Walton Beach FL on business earlier this year and I ate me some chik-fil-a almost every day. would have been every day but they close on Sundays. I could care ****all about their politics. they make the best chicken sandwich in the business. and as long as they are willing to serve or hire anybody.... :shrug:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:doh
Uhhh who is blocking anyones freedom of speech here?
Click to expand...

Uhhh, any punishment or action that would work to silence or limit a person's speech or opinion is literally blocking freedom of speech. If you will look at several Supreme Court Cases, you will find this to be true. Government cannot punish a person or a company because of statements or opinions of that person. By not allowing the business to enter this community, the government has punished a person for an opposing opinion.

Chik fil A could easily sue, and win. But because the owner seems like a moral man, I doubt he will. Ya see, people like him aren't into "forcing" their opinions on people, and they aren't into punishing anyone else who thinks gay marriage is super cool. I agree with his opinion, and I think I'll stop by CFA on my way home this evening and show my support.

I do business every single day with liberals. I know it's shocking, but there are a few liberal business owners. Despite their messed up social views on a lot of things, they should not be punished for their views and opinions. Boycotting over opinions has to be one of the most childish things I've ever heard of. I don't do business with liberals concerning political and social issues, we simply conduct business, and that's great. You don't have to agree with me to do business with me, and I don't have to agree with you to do business with you. It's business. But with liberals.....everything is personal, which is why they are so intollerant to anyone who disagrees with their social values.
 
clownboy said:
since Chichagoans wouldn't frequent a bigotted establishment.
Click to expand...

:lamo they'll pistol whip you over $20 but they won't go to a bigotted fast food joint. :lamo
 
I disagree with Chick-fil-a management on this issue(obviously), but damn they are so good I will gladly ignore my morals to eat a chicken biscuit once a month :lol:
 
clownboy said:
Couple things, Rahm didn't threaten to withhold licenses to Chik, he just blasted them as bigots and said they'd be a poor investment since Chichagoans wouldn't frequent a bigotted establishment. It was a Ward boss who refuses to license to them in an individual ward. Rahm knows doing so for the city would be a legal loser.

The Mosque issue isn't analogous. The opposition was private, not government.

As to legality, the right of the state to discriminate in licensing would easily be trumped by the First amendment at the SCOTUS. This article should give you a guidepost. The court has already decided that corporations have free speech rights, and, as divided as they are, they all agree on one thing, the First trumps everything else.
Click to expand...

You're right, it was the Boston mayor, Menino, that talked about actually banning it. Obviously the Mosque issue is analogous, because the question is whether the government would withhold a license on the basis of First Amendment related beliefs. The opposition is not the element about which we are drawing the analogy, although that would be analogous too as government officials made statements about it. But let's not split hairs.

I disagree strongly with Citizens United, as do most Americans. It will do terrible damage to our political system, but that's beyond the scope of this thread. Your interpretation of the SCOTUS' decisions, extrapolated to this issue, may mean it would be overturned. But of course it's a moral as well as a legal issue. This thread could go into the anti-SSM comments themselves, which clearly have no moral support. But legality is another issue.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
I disagree with Chick-fil-a management on this issue(obviously), but damn they are so good I will gladly ignore my morals to eat a chicken biscuit once a month :lol:
Click to expand...


exactly. There are lots of companies that I have philosophical issues with...but as long as they aren't doing anything illegal and they make a good product at a reasonable price, I'll buy it
 
OscarB63 said:
exactly. There are lots of companies that I have philosophical issues with...but as long as they aren't doing anything illegal and they make a good product at a reasonable price, I'll buy it
Click to expand...

And besides, Chick-Fil-A is not going to slow down the legalization of SSM at all so it's rather pointless to get in a fuss.
 
Wiseone said:
Really? You'd change your eating habits just to spite someone? Seems kind of silly and counter productive.

Anyway, I disagree with the actions of these cities. Chik-Fil-A as far as I can tell has no discriminatory practices in the form of not serving or hiring people based on any kind of unjustifiable reason, like skin color or sexuality. It is the right of the business owner, as an individual citizen, and the right of the company, especially after Citizen's United, to engage in political speech even if I personally think their opinions are narrow minded and stupid. If a city wishes to bar a business from operating in their jurisdiction they need better reasons than personal disagreements about politics.

Operating and owning a business is a not something protected under the 1st amendment, however that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you here. I find it interesting why government is taking a stance to begin with. They should know better.
 
Zyphlin said:
Same view here as I had during the Mosque debate. While I can understand (though don't agree) with peoples desire not to see Chick-Fil-A in their city, utlimately elected officials should not be ordering city employees to discriminate based on religious or political beliefs held by someone whose a part of that business. If individuals want to boycott them (and miss out on the tasty chicken goodness) then that's perfectly fine...but mayors should not be utilizing their power to stop a business from acting in a legal manner based singularly on their political/religious beliefs
Click to expand...

Good analogy, Zyph. I couldn't agree more. I must admit I have to urge to look back at that thread and observe the stances of those who think this is an injustice and see if there's consistency.
 
Arcana XV said:
I'm a little torn on this one. On the one hand I do agree that a business owner's opinions should not prevent him from getting a license. On the other hand, Chick-Fil-A does more then just express an opinion. The chain donates a lot of money to a host of politically active organisations that lobby to keep gays from obtaining the right to civil marriage. In light of this, I'm not too much against local governments taking a stand, especially in places like Boston where gay marriage is legal. It's not legal in Illinois, though, so that's a little dicier, but still...
Click to expand...

I do understand where you're coming from, but in the current legal environment a private business should be free to donate money to whatever charitable or political organizations they choose without fear that local governments will bar them from doing business or opening new locations in response.

If Chick-Fil-A was hosting rallies to promote the views of its owners on company property and those rallies continued even after local authorities or neighborhood organizations asked them to host them elsewhere because of whatever quality-of-life issues resulted, that would be a good reason to withhold a license. Or if they were turning away gay customers. Or if they were discriminating in their hiring practices in violation of labor laws. That kind of thing.

In other words, if their day-to-day behavior disrupted the peace or flagrantly violated social taboo or violated the law, those would be good reasons to withhold a license.

What political activity they support with their profits is not a good reason to withhold a license -- it's a good reason for residents to withhold custom.


ETA: I will make one exception -- if the community in question had completed and filed a community planning document (the kind of document they'd have to have in order to deny WalMart the right to buy property and build a new facility on it) which spoke to this kind of political activity, they'd have more ground to stand on. It wouldn't be great ground, but it would serve as yet another example why we should pay attention to local and not just state or national politics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom