Is CFA supporting criminal activity?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
Is CFA supporting criminal activity?
Dude Abides
Banned
You didn't say anything about the political views of the Wal Mart corporation or its owners being the reason the constituents and their representative government officials objected to Wal Mart's presence, so it reminds me of absolutely nothing that's relevant here, though it confirms you're still struggling to understand the issue.
What if I told you that the KKK wanted to participate in Missouri's adopt a highway program, Missouri said no, and the KKK sued and won because states and their political subdivisions, such as Boston, aren't allowed to discriminate against organizations based on their politics? Because that actually happened.
metalslimer
Member
If anything comes of this I hope it just brings a lot more attention to CFA's terrible practices and hurt them financially. On the other hand, I doubt the amount of people who care amount to enough people to affect their bottom line now.
EatinOlives
Member
Calling my example irrelevant while bringing in one that actually IS irrelevant. Neat.
Neither the reasoning for the ban nor the political views of the corporation have absolutely anything to do with what I'm talking about. The Wal-Mart example illustrates that a local government can still and does ban businesses from setting up shop in places of their choosing because their constituents subjectively get their jimmies rustled. You're absolutely missing the forest for the trees.
Your second example is completely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with opening a business.
Not merely philosophy! And no, wasn't referring to Buckley v Valeo. I think what's at issue is not simply that people hold the opinion but that the corporation as an entity acts in support of that opinion.
Then Chick-Fil-A can sue Boston and Chicago and see if they win. Nobody's preventing them from doing that.
Also if the citizens of Boston and Chicago don't like the zoning decisions that were made, the next election they can vote the people out that made those decisions.
To expand on this, pretty much any "freedom" that relies on the explicit blessing of those in charge, be it from elites or a voting majority, isn't a freedom at all but a privilege. Freedom of religion means, in part, not having to worry about whether the popular faith likes two men getting married or not.
Edit: To be clear, I'm only saying why the efforts of groups and companies like CFA shouldn't hold water to begin with.
Dude Abides
Banned
It matters why they get their jimmies rustled. If it's because of the business's political views, then it's unlawful. I don't know why you can't understand that. Jimmies rustled because they don't like Wal Mart's labor practices or that it drives out mom and pops? Ban away. Jimmies rustled because the Waltons are Republicans? Illegal. If you would just understand this you'd see why my example is relevant and yours isn't. Or just google viewpoint discrimination.
CFA will win. For the reasons I've been trying to explain.
blame space
Banned
yeah but at least someone will put up a fight
EatinOlives
Member
Even within your argued parameters this situation falls neatly in it. For my particular situation with the Supercenter, the reason why the Wal-Mart was banned was the decreased quality of life that a Supercenter brings to the surrounding area. Not for economic reasons, but for purely subjective "quality of life".
It's extremely easy, obvious even, to believe that a gay community fully aware of Chick-Fil-A's homophobic practices would feel uncomfortable with one of their restaurants setting up shop directly in their living area. They absolutely would not approve of it, because supporting that business is directly tied with the increased discrimination of the constituency in that region. It is no less subjective than a quality-of-life reasoning for the banning of a Supercenter being constructed. You're incorrectly applying viewpoint discrimination.
To further elaborate as to why your example is irrelevant, there's a big difference between the KKK, an organization, attempting to get involved in a charity, and Chick-Fil-A, a business, attempting to establish a restaurant. The difference being that the government has two distinct levels of power in what it can and cannot allow different entities to do and why. Your only link between them is in ideology that speech is protected, which isn't even what I'm disagreeing with.
EYEL1NER
Member
Well it's a good thing you don't have time to apply there.
Zoning decisions? The Chick fil a zoning permit was already approved in Chicago. The alderman says he'll block them based on another permission they need to get. If that weren't enough, it's pretty explicit that this is based on what the executive said.
I am hoping some gay-rights activist will do exactly what I described.
Death Dealer
Member
I think messing with peoples food while working at a restaurant is probably a felony.
And I bet 90% of the people eating in a chick-fil-a have no idea of the corporate policy, so no, they don't deserve it. Your plan is pathetic.
EYEL1NER
Member
Naw bro, they're eating at Chik-Fil-A, so they obviously hate gays and equal rights. They totally deserve to have someone wipe his ass with the waffle fries they are about to eat or jizz in their milkshake!
You know as our representative, if the people actually had an issue with what he's saying they could raise a fuss and he'd back off. But they don't, because he represents what the people want out of a community, and chick-fil-a isn't the company any mass resident wants to support.
Since when could a mayor stop someone from opening up a business based on the opinion of the owner? Unless the owners have done something illegal, I don't see how the ban would hold up in court (if CFA decided to sue the city). They don't have the legal authority to enforce something like this....I'm assuming.
Just like how the government can't shut down (or deny the opening of) a website just because of its political beliefs and where its funds go. Unless, of course, they are operating illegally. The KKK has a website. The Black Panthers have a website. Known sites that fund and coordinate terrorism get shut down immediately....because they're engaging in illegal activity.
If CFA started denying gay customers, then the mayor would have a case.
This post flies in the face of every KKK march ever permitted in America (after the civil rights movement). People feeling "uncomfortable" about someone's political views isn't reason enough to deny someone the opportunity to do something.
And allowing them to build a restaurant isn't the same thing as "supporting" them.
Just like how the government can't shut down (or deny the opening of) a website just because of its political beliefs and where its funds go. Unless, of course, they are operating illegally. The KKK has a website. The Black Panthers have a website. Known sites that fund and coordinate terrorism get shut down immediately....because they're engaging in illegal activity.
If CFA started denying gay customers, then the mayor would have a case.
This post flies in the face of every KKK march ever permitted in America (after the civil rights movement). People feeling "uncomfortable" about someone's political views isn't reason enough to deny someone the opportunity to do something.
And allowing them to build a restaurant isn't the same thing as "supporting" them.
Sometimes what the people want doesn't matter. Look at Loving v Virginia which legalized interracial marriage. At the time the public was still I think 70% against interracial marriage but that didn't matter. What matters is the legal protections guaranteed under the constitution. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.
I think the disconnect here is whether opening a business is a right. I, and many other don't think it is. KKK marches ARE speech. Opening a restaurent is not. Donating is speech, apparently, but opening a restauraunt is not.
If CFA want to hold a march, or donate money, no one should stop them. But they want to open a business.
Spehornoob
Member
I don't think that's what people are saying. I think people are saying that being able to support what cause you like without Government reprisal is a right. And this is government reprisal for what the owners of Chick-Fil-A support.
There are plenty of valid reasons to deny a business from opening. I, and some others, it would seem, just don't think this is one of them.
No, they want to open a business... under the same rules and regulations as everyone else. They want the government to be a neutral arbiter that follows its rules for evaluating the fitness of a business for being approved for a license. Like I said, there are MANY legitimate reasons and ways to deny a business a license. But ANY time the government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination (whether I'm sympathetic to the mayor's sentiment or not) that's going to be highly problematic.
I think a perfect example that the Dude Abides mentioned is the Adopt a Highway program in Missouri where the KKK applied for a permit. They were initially denied because Missouri didn't like the idea of being perceived as promoting their message, then they were approved when the ACLU supported them in a lawsuit. That led to this:
They later lost that sign when they stopped picking up the trash and it seemed clear they just wanted the publicity, but that's a separate issue. They were approved because the state couldn't discriminate based on their perspective, they had to treat the KKK like any other group. And Boston will certainly be required to treat Chick Fil A like any other business and hold them to the exact same standard.
there is no right to protect against government reprisal as it pertains to CFA. The mayor doesn't make laws. It's part of his job to provide input on what businesses can open in boston if he deems his opinion applicable. In his professional opinion, boston doesn't want a CFA because of CFA's stance on gay marriage.
end of story.
So you're suggesting a mayor of, say, Jackson Mississippi could say that an Indian restaurant could not open in his city because it was run by a Hindu and that would not be acceptable in his community? Or are you only going to say what you think the law says applies only to viewpoints you find distasteful?
Omegasquash
Member
I think what's being said is that he could say it and do things in his power to stop it...however futile that may be at the end of the day. The difference here is that Menino is not being a bigot whereas the example you're providing is clearly the opposite.
Sure, but my point is that the first amendment was created specifically to protect unpopular and even bigoted opinions. Menino can't do this because it's not the government's place to judge their personal opinion of the business, it's about the established rules and standards for the business. The government is not allowed to discriminate because it doesn't like what you believe.
I think the same rules would apply to any organisation in this situation in Boston. I think the KKK were well within their rights to apply for that permit, and depending on what the rules are for acceptance, they may have been in the right. That is still not opening a particular store in a particular spot.
I think the KKK has a retail store somewhere, don't they? Do you think they should be able to open up a store anywhere they want?
I think the distinction that people are making (and again, I may be wrong) is between individuals/npo/advocacy groups and business corporations for profit. I would never want the government to d owhat it is suggesting it will try against CFA against an individual or non profit or advocacy group. The group that CFA donated too for instance, I would support their right to signage, offices etc. But this is a for profut business. In my mind, and a lot of people's I think, that makes it different.
Let's also maker it clear that the Family Research Council, one of the organizations Chick Fil A donates to, go much farther than marriage. They are anti-civil rights for LGBT people altogether, and regularly spew hate and bile about gay people in general.
That's a fine distinction to make.
Kinda like 'Hate the Sin, not the Sinner.'
Very clever.
LyleLanley
Banned
Am I reading the Menino letter wrong or is he not actually saying that he'd stop Chik-Fil-A from opening a restaurant in Boston but rather he's advising them to not do so as he feels as if the people of Boston would boycott it?
I'm going to take you very literally here and say no, because it would depend on local zoning ordinance and where they wanted it and what kind of business it was. If you're asking "can the KKK own a business anywhere they meet the requirements of local ordinances and such so the only obstacle is "IT'S THE KKK!" my answer is yes, they should be.
Like I said though, even though I STRONGLY object to restricting a business based on viewpoint I'd be surprised if they couldn't keep CFA out for other reasons. Zoning laws can be ridiculously complex and voluminous. My objection is strictly if the denial is based on the perspective of the business in question.
That goes back to my example of a Hindu business in Jackson Mississippi. There would be a real danger if the law gave mayors the leeway you suggest of freezing out legitimate businesses with opinions and positions you LIKE if you want to give the government the ability to freeze out businesses you DON'T because of their perspective.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
whole topic is amusing. how about this scenario
'mayor of boston understands he might be beaten in court if chick-fil-a decides to take them to court, probably realises that chick-fil-a doesn't want that much publicity over this kind of issue'
good on him. Lightening rod this shit, make everybody look at what a shit business this place is. If he loses he can still make a public statement stating that he tried, sway some opinions.
Gold star for the Mayor.
Also this company is redneck total. I'm picturing a CEO wearing a cowboy hat standing out the front sayin 'sign says chick-fil-a, not dude-fil-a hurr durr'
'mayor of boston understands he might be beaten in court if chick-fil-a decides to take them to court, probably realises that chick-fil-a doesn't want that much publicity over this kind of issue'
good on him. Lightening rod this shit, make everybody look at what a shit business this place is. If he loses he can still make a public statement stating that he tried, sway some opinions.
Gold star for the Mayor.
Also this company is redneck total. I'm picturing a CEO wearing a cowboy hat standing out the front sayin 'sign says chick-fil-a, not dude-fil-a hurr durr'
Omegasquash
Member
Agreed, especially with the bolded, as it's open to interpretation. Unpopular opinion is dissent, something upon which our nation was founded. Bigoted, though...that's something that can be worked on. I have no doubt in my mind that many of the founding fathers had notions and opinions that would be deemed hateful and bigoted by today's standards, just like we have notions and opinions that, by the standards of yesteryear, may well be perceived as ridiculous.
Personally, I'd like to see our constitution adapted to meet today's standards...where things like racism, religious bias and sexual equality are addressed. IMO, it's how to move forward. Emphasis on IMO.
Teehee, as if this DOESN'T happen. Being from Jackson, I can tell you that racism plays a large roll in what businesses can setup shop where. Madison, MS, just north of Jackson, is a white-flight haven for racist pricks from Jackson, and if you don't have $ and white skin, you aren't setting up shop there. And forget it if you are a business that caters to minorities. Never seen one, doubt I will until white people flee farther north.
well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I agree that we need another few constitutional amendments (I'd go for an explicit protection of privacy rights as one example) but I actually like that we protect these views even though I find them distasteful. As a society I think dissent, even strong dissent and trying to push for perspectives I think are wrongheaded is important. I believe on average greater freedom and personal autonomy are the trend society is going for and so I believe those views will naturally become less and less popular over time anyway. I don't think it's particularly beneficial for them to publicly advocate these things anyway and I'm completely content with them continuing to do so.
magicstop - I have no doubt that it happens, but the point is that what you can do through the many many many ridiculously complex ordinances you CAN'T do with that as a stated reason.
Omegasquash
Member
The pessimist in me says just to lock it down completely. I feel like the right to marry should be treated like the right to practice religion....totally up to you. I absolutely agree with you that we're (as a society) moving more in the direction of personal freedom, but the rights of one citizen to try to limit the rights of another isn't something I see as worth protecting, as it's about personal, private rights in the case of gay marriage.
No doubt, no doubt. Just wanted to make it clear that it does happen, and for shitty reasons, so I'm totally OK with it happening for a kickass reason for once.
I think that's just a philosophical disagreement we'll have to have then.
I would agree with you if it was based on some random ordinance, but not when it's publicly being said it is because of their political views. I would hate to have this set as a precedent because it would endorse things like we know happen in Jackson for the WRONG reasons even though it's disguised. Let's make the bigots work a little at least.
I think the SC backs you up, but I don't think they should. I'll leave it there for now, late as hell here.
Wut! Vut!?
If one doesn't have a problem with homosexuals then that indifference flows naturally to what they do with their personal lives which includes marriage.
Also, I wonder where in their job application do they ask about sexual orientation so that they may possess this personal knowledge since it's unquestionably irrelevant.
From cradle to the grave in school and at work members of LGBT community are looked down upon, bullied and harassed. Perhaps one day when religion is largely irrelevant or when the govt step in protect the rights and liberties of all its citizens then this miasma of depravity justified and disguised as religious moral values will finally decay for good.
Omegasquash
Member
No problem whatsoever. At least we can interact in a civil manner (which is refreshing, I assure you).
One of my Facebook friends sent this to me. I don't have a problem with supporting Chick Fil-A, but considering who is asking for them to be supported gives me pause. Mike Huckabee in the past has given inaccurate statements concerning homosexuality and its dubious links to pedophilia.
Not to mention I really don't think Chick Fil-A should have given millions of dollars to organizations against same-sex marriage, act like everything is fine, and take people's money who don't agree with them anyway.
Not to mention I really don't think Chick Fil-A should have given millions of dollars to organizations against same-sex marriage, act like everything is fine, and take people's money who don't agree with them anyway.
Mike Huckabee said:
NathanMcMahon
Banned
='s the same thing. why is this concept so hard to understand? why do you try to be inept about it? or are you just that naive?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
That's what I really don't get. Why are we supposed to care that your values are "Biblical"? The Bible has been used to condone MANY unethical things before, from human slavery to mass murder to war to... If the internet had been around in the 1960's and people were saying that they didn't hate black people, they just believed in promoting God's separation of people of different colors, would THAT be seen as some all-encompassing excuse?
Are you sure about that?
Example...
Company says, "We are against gay marriage" - That seems fundamentally different than the company saying, "We are against gay people."
That might be a dubious example, but assume said company does not provide money to groups that are anti-gay and is not actively campaigning against gay rights. Yeah, I'd agree that CFA providing money to anti-gay-rights groups (if that's what they're doing) to be pretty scummy, BUT if that wasn't going on and all CFA did was make a statement that they aren't for gay marriage because of their beliefs, then I don't see the big deal. In that case, they wouldn't be linked to groups that were actively seeking to suppress gay rights, and therefore I wouldn't consider them to be anti-gay. You might not like what they believe in, but at the very least - that's all it is - a difference of beliefs/opinions and nothing more.
Vermillion
Banned
"Love the sinner, hate the sin."
This is still deleterious for gays, but it's at least (somewhat) less damaging. It's not precisely the same thing, and I think he's making that distinction.
That's the problem: the people being feed (no pun intended) this garbage about Chick Fil-A and how they should 'support' them because they are 'pro family' or 'pro-Bible' aren't considering the source.
I've eaten at Chick Fil-A yesterday and was surprised by how quiet it was. This was at 11 am, which for lunch is normally busy. But I didn't see a diverse group of people eating there; it was mostly white people who looked like me. This isn't to say that I didn't go to that particular location on an off-day and is not indictive of performance of other locations.
If Chick Fil-A wants to hitch their wagon to white male evangelical Republicans and the president of the company wants to say the things that group wants to hear, I suspect that a dwindling audience will be in their future.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
it's not. it's bigotry and any attempt to try to run it through the normal semantics routine is absurd. they are actively involved in second-classing a group of people. fuck-off if you think that's okay (not you, ruxtpin, in particular, but the people who agree with it)
The former is a product of the latter. They are mutually inclusive.
- Status