Boston & Chic-Fil-A

  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jul 21, 2012 5:20 AM GMT
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/boston-mayor-vows-chick-fil-city-16821117

    Good move? Bad move?

    Personally, I think the point of a business is to make money and I'm not convinced that Chic-Fil-A's ambitions are horribly inconsistent with that. Even a not-for-profit shares the same objective; a for profit business should line your own pockets and a NFP should line the pockets of someone else to achieve some goal of bettering society. Even though Chic-Fil-A may have it's leanings and connections that they support, I don't think it is their mission to go out of their way to achieve social goals such as preventing gays from marrying. Now, if the LDS church turned out to be the majority shareholder (hahah, I honestly wouldn't be surprised....), then we'd have a different story.

    Good move for Boston? Bad Move? And not based on the future lack of Chic-Fil-A in Boston or because it's gay marriage, but rather for taking a stand (albeit a good one) against a group whose *primary* mission is to make money and not most likely to achieve social outcomes...... Personally, I agree with Mayor Menino. His job is to make the city a better place for everyone and Chic-Fil-A's presence in Massachusetts is limited and social change accelerates when someone in a position of power stands up and says something. Thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2012 3:34 PM GMT
    This is not just a stand. This is Massachusetts state law. State law banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1989. When a company states a belief in a particular prejudical policy (which it does), then it is violating those laws. If they don't wish to abide by them, then they have the right to not practice business there.

    This is a company, not an individual voicing his own personal right to speech. Companies are held to a different standard, because they hold the ability to discriminate against their employees and customers.

  • easterndude69

    Posts: 632

    Jul 23, 2012 6:45 AM GMT
    scholargrowingmuscle saidThis is not just a stand. This is Massachusetts state law. State law banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1989. When a company states a belief in a particular prejudical policy (which it does), then it is violating those laws. If they don't wish to abide by them, then they have the right to not practice business there.

    This is a company, not an individual voicing his own personal right to speech. Companies are held to a different standard, because they hold the ability to discriminate against their employees and customers.



    Amen! GTFO, homophobic Chick-Fil-A!icon_twisted.gif
  • LJay

    Posts: 11612

    Jul 23, 2012 6:51 AM GMT
    scholargrowingmuscle saidThis is not just a stand. This is Massachusetts state law. State law banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1989. When a company states a belief in a particular prejudical policy (which it does), then it is violating those laws. If they don't wish to abide by them, then they have the right to not practice business there.

    This is a company, not an individual voicing his own personal right to speech. Companies are held to a different standard, because they hold the ability to discriminate against their employees and customers.



    Just a thought: I wonder what the Citizen's United decision would ahve to say about this company acting as an individual.

    I sorta feel that the restaurant chain has a right to say what it wishes, but that I also have a right to eat where I wish and that it will not be at one of their establishments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2012 5:25 PM GMT

    Quoting LJay:

    Just a thought: I wonder what the Citizen's United decision would ahve to say about this company acting as an individual.

    I sorta feel that the restaurant chain has a right to say what it wishes, but that I also have a right to eat where I wish and that it will not be at one of their establishments.[/quote]


    Interesting thought. I am limited in my knowledge, but to my understanding is that the Citizen's United decision would not have application.

    Citizen's United is a political non-profit coalition of individuals, whereas Chick-Fil-A is a private for profit company.

    However, I again reiterate that my knowledge is more limited and there may be issues I am undereducated on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2012 11:39 PM GMT
    scholargrowingmuscle saidThis is not just a stand. This is Massachusetts state law. State law banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1989. When a company states a belief in a particular prejudical policy (which it does), then it is violating those laws. If they don't wish to abide by them, then they have the right to not practice business there.

    This is a company, not an individual voicing his own personal right to speech. Companies are held to a different standard, because they hold the ability to discriminate against their employees and customers.


    Isn't that discrimination based on employment, housing, etc., though?

    I mean, unless CFA is firing employees for being gay, bi, or trans, or denying employment based on an applicant's being gay, bi, or trans...I don't see how CFA operating in Boston would violate state or local discrimination laws.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 5:45 AM GMT
    Why is Chic-Fil-a such a big deal. Does not eating there change anything politically? Would you stop buying gas from Saudi Arabia because homosexuality is a crime punishable by death there?icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 6:06 AM GMT
    Samui saidWhy is Chic-Fil-a such a big deal.
    Because they donate millions of dollars to organizations that are hell bent on taking away what few equal rights we have, denying more equal rights, and they also donate millions to organizations that work to suppress homosexuality (e.g. 'ex-gay therapy clinics).
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Aug 08, 2012 7:15 AM GMT
    will Papa john's be the only chain paying for obamacare-Nope yet another reason to stop eating all low end chain food.icon_idea.gif
    Just don't eat at any of these places!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 12:33 PM GMT
    The thing that is interesting is that people are misinterpreting what Menino actually did--- more importantly what he actually CAN do. Here's the actual letter that the City Posted on its Facebook wall.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151791883475752&set=a.336030020751.189466.64266725751&type=1&theater

    No where in there did Menino actually say he would ban Chic-Fil-A from the city. He actually just says there is no place for discrimination and therefore no place Chic-Fil-A. In fact he "only" 'urges' Cathy to reconsider looking for a spot in Boston.

    Menino cannot legally deny a company a zoning permit under the premise of their stance on marriage equality. But, you'd be a fool to think he couldn't influence how easy or difficult it could be for CFA to move into Boston... What he CAN do, is informally put pressure on landlords and leasing companies who rent/lease properties in Boston to not provide a lease to CFA.... As one of those companies, having the Mayor of the city unhappy with you is never something that works in your favor. Menino may be a bumbling fool some times, but he's no idiot.

    He's always been a huge advocate for gays here in Boston, and frankly I applaud him for what he's publically said... be it a bit grey on the specifics.


  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Aug 08, 2012 1:09 PM GMT
    Cranky_san said
    Unfortunately, you seem to have bought into the right-wing talking point that this is about CFA's and Dan Cathy's right to voice their homophobia.

    It is not. It is about Dan Cathy taking a portion of the money that you pay him and beating you over the head with it.



    Which, unfortunately, Dan Cathy has every right to do. Once mayors of cities start discriminating against private companies based on their owner's political beliefs, we enter a very slippery slope.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 1:17 PM GMT
    A bit off topic:

    I was in a mall food court yesterday at lunchtime, and there was a huge line at the Chik fil A. I was so disgusted and dismayed.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Aug 08, 2012 1:29 PM GMT
    Cranky_san said
    Yes, he does have the right.
    And we have the right not to give him that ammuntition.
    I think---am I wrong?---that you agree that we are under no obligation to hand him the weapon and stand there and be abused by it.
    So why all the faux outrage over how Cathy's rights are the ones that one must be so tenderly respectful of?


    Of course. It only makes sense that we don't give our money or support of any kind to companies who do not support us. As for outrage about respecting Cathy's rights....like it or not, he has every right to have an opinion -- even state that opinion as a private citizen and/or private business owner. However, elected officials -- in this case Mayors of a city -- who make public statements that discourage and/or make it problematic for companies to do business in their city based on their personal political beliefs crosses a line that simply is inappropriate. Mayors, or any political figure, do not get to pick and choose who can or should do business in their jurisdictions based on their personal beliefs --- unless, of course, these businesses are breaking laws which, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Cathy or CFA was not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 1:49 PM GMT
    While I think CJ's defense of the non-existent freedom of speech issue diverts from the truth of the Dan Cathay debacle I think he has a point about Menino.

    It is my understanding that though Menino never directly stated he would interfere with Chick-fil-a going to Boston he does imply that he would interfere based solely on their stance against gay marriage.

    http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-27/metro/32869124_1_political-science-gay-marriage-chick-fil-a-stance

    If this is true then I'm not sure this is the right thing for a Mayor to do. If I have the wrong information then please let me know.

    I would not want Mayor's suddenly deciding that Hamburger Mary's are not welcome in their cities and preventing them from setting up shop. Though I'm sure that this activity happens without our knowledge it should not be tolerated.

    CuriousJockAZ said
    Cranky_san said
    Yes, he does have the right.
    And we have the right not to give him that ammuntition.
    I think---am I wrong?---that you agree that we are under no obligation to hand him the weapon and stand there and be abused by it.
    So why all the faux outrage over how Cathy's rights are the ones that one must be so tenderly respectful of?


    Of course. It only makes sense that we don't give our money or support of any kind to companies who do not support us. As for outrage about respecting Cathy's rights....like it or not, he has every right to have an opinion -- even state that opinion as a private citizen and/or private business owner. However, elected officials -- in this case Mayors of a city -- who make public statements that discourage and/or make it problematic for companies to do business in their city based on their personal political beliefs crosses a line that simply is inappropriate. Mayors, or any political figure, do not get to pick and choose who can or should do business in their jurisdictions based on their personal beliefs --- unless, of course, these businesses are breaking laws which, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Cathy or CFA was not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 2:10 PM GMT
    I'm counting on you to help me understand this better, so don't get upset as I counter. I would really rather believe it is ok for Menino to take his stance.

    I'm not sure all of your examples are equivalent especially the titty bars and dirty book stores around churches, but let's side step this as an issue for a minute.

    My concern is would this not open up the possibility that any company that gives money to gay causes could be treated the same way by other Mayors?

    If so is this really a route we want to take?

    Cranky_san saidOkay, I wasn't going to go any farther with this, but----and let me say right up front that I'm not even 100% sure I agree with myself here---I think the first-amendment purists here are overlooking a point.

    We already tolerate--even encourage---the use of zoning and other ordinances to keep businesses out of a particular area when the local community finds that business offensive. Municipalities have used ordinances to keep a Wal-Mart out because of disapproval of Wal-Mart's union-busting and abysmal pay scales. Counties have specifically zoned areas around churches to keep out titty bars and dirty bookstores; other ordinances have been used to keep out industries deemed too polluting.

    We already make these choices----so why is it so much more offensive to say that Chick-Fil-A does actual harm to our residents? This was the argument made by the alderman in Chicago whose ward includes Boystown. His point was that there were tanglble harms being done to his constituents----doesn't he have the obligation to protect his constituents from an entity bent on harming them?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Aug 08, 2012 3:01 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]creyente said[/cite

    My concern is would this not open up the possibility that any company that gives money to gay causes could be treated the same way by other Mayors?

    If so is this really a route we want to take?[/quote]

    No, it's not a route we want or should be taking. It would open a great big pandoras box setting a precedent that may work for us one day, against us the next.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 3:04 PM GMT
    Cranky_san saidOkay, I wasn't going to go any farther with this, but----and let me say right up front that I'm not even 100% sure I agree with myself here---I think the first-amendment purists here are overlooking a point.

    We already tolerate--even encourage---the use of zoning and other ordinances to keep businesses out of a particular area when the local community finds that business offensive. Municipalities have used ordinances to keep a Wal-Mart out because of disapproval of Wal-Mart's union-busting and abysmal pay scales. Counties have specifically zoned areas around churches to keep out titty bars and dirty bookstores; other ordinances have been used to keep out industries deemed too polluting.

    We already make these choices----so why is it so much more offensive to say that Chick-Fil-A does actual harm to our residents? This was the argument made by the alderman in Chicago whose ward includes Boystown. His point was that there were tanglble harms being done to his constituents----doesn't he have the obligation to protect his constituents from an entity bent on harming them?


    I am not in favor of using zoning regulations in that fashion. Here's an article on the constitutional issues involved.

    http://www.nh.gov/oep/resourcelibrary/referencelibrary/z/zoningordinances/documents/zoning_ordinances_and_free_speech.pdf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 3:08 PM GMT
    Think about how many gay-owned businesses are given the same treatment by city officials. Silent discrimination. They know the owners are gay so they deny permits. People are discriminated against all the time. Maybe the chick in the city plannning office doesn't like how you look, so she never passes your information along.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 3:12 PM GMT
    Since I am hardly a legal or political genius...

    I wonder if a city has non-discrimination ordinances in place, could a city refuse an Permit if this business openly discriminates against a protected group?

    Is a mayor a dictator? Is it his role to step in and defend the ordinances and laws of his city?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 3:21 PM GMT
    Mormons and Baptists are especially discriminatory, and I've got personal experience with that discrimination, although, I don't feel that anyone owes me a job. (Who wants to work for assholes?)

    While any business is free to hire, and serve, whomever they want, we don't need to give horrible religious folks things like tax breaks, zoning changes, and so on.

    We certainly don't need to be giving our buying dollars to hateful, or religions / cults / false belief systems.

    It's important that we educate folks not just about sexuality, but, also about false belief systems ( religions / cults) and all the horrible things they do. We need to steer young folks (and rational older folks) towards fact-based belief systems, and work hard to end the religious malarkey. While great gains have been made, and those "churches" are at all time lows, it's not enough. Religion has, is, and will continue to be the root of most bad in our world.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Aug 08, 2012 3:24 PM GMT
    n8698u said
    I wonder if a city has non-discrimination ordinances in place, could a city refuse an Permit if this business openly discriminates against a protected group?


    If you mean not hiring gays, or firing someone because they are gay, or not allowing someone to eat in their restaurant because they are gay, then obviously this would more than likely be a violation of city laws or ordinances. However, the private citizen/owner of a private company stating publicly his/her stance on gay marriage, even supporting organizations with private funds who also have the same POV does not constitute discrimination of a protected group per se when it comes to city ordinances.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 3:36 PM GMT
    Laws can easily be skirted. E.g., I can fire anyone based upon their performance, or even a personality conflict. No one is guaranteed a job, nor, should they be.

    Because of EEO, which WAS necessary, we've got grossly incompetent, rude, lazy folks working in government, and large organizations, because they are EEO "whammies". E.g. Black, female, lesbian, is a triple play, and no HR office will get rid of that person because the legal department has given them instructions to avoid legal costs.

    I've been on both sides of discrimination. Reality is that we can vote with our buying dollars, and not support religious folks, and the bad things they do, and promote.

    As a single, gay, white, guy, if someone of ethnic origin, EEO whammy, or a foreign national, goes off whining to HR, I'll be thrown out. It will NOT matter about my performance, nor ability. That is reality and the workplace that we've created.

    I don't go near Chick Filet. They are owned, operated, and hire bigoted, hateful, folks. I'm NOT giving them my money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 3:38 PM GMT
    If a business gave money to KKK and Nazi organizations, would people be so up in arms about them being denied a permit to do business in your city?
  • hartfan

    Posts: 1037

    Aug 08, 2012 3:39 PM GMT
    The mayor may publicly state his support of marriage equality, but he may not, as unpalatable and hateful the business owner's opinion is, legally deny a license to owner due to said opinion. That is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    However, if they do indeed violate anti-discrimination laws that governs the hiring and equal treatment of LGBT employees and customers, then the government also has the right to apply the appropriate punishment.

    This also does not stop ordinary citizens from voting with your money and boycotting the restaurant. That is well within First Amendment rights, as long as the government does not step in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2012 3:40 PM GMT
    chuckystud said

    As a single, gay, white, guy, if someone of ethic origin, EEO whammy, or a foreign national, goes off whining to HR, I'll be thrown out. It will NOT matter about my performance, nor ability. That is reality and the workplace that we've created.


    This is stupid.