Oppression or Rightous Use of Government Power?

[JM3]

At least they made up a plausible case for firing Churchill, the guys in Boston and Chicago didn't even really try. They came right out and gave their unconstitutional reason and they thought it would buy them points somehow.
Tertius just said it was bad precedent to deny CFA on the basis of what the owner said or believes and, though it gives him some satisfaction to see the guy pay for what he said, it isn't right. (paraphrased from memory).

Except that in the case of Chicago the alderman was completely within bounds of the terms of his office. In Boston the mayor didn't threaten to block any permits- he only voiced his disagreement.

[Simma Park]

Communities are within their rights to determine what kinds of businesses they want in them within reason. Whether it's reasonable to object in ideological terms is in itself a reasonable point of debate. But companies do not have an automatic "right" to force a community to accept their presence there.

To be clear on my opinion, I object to the Alderman saying that he would use his authority to put barriers in the way of zoning, such as claiming traffic or parking problems, because he has an ideological disagreement with the Cathys. I find it shady and dishonest, especially since there appears to be no real call for action yet on the part of the actual community about this, so he doesn't appear to be representing its actual wishes or interests.

Boston is a different case. There were no threats to use authority improperly. The mayor was simply voicing his opinion, which will cause much squawking from those who disagree, but it isn't actually an ethical infraction.

Chick-Fil-A actually runs a foundation that donates millions to organizations whose primary activities are working against the honoring of equal rights for gays. So it's not just an off-the-cuff comment from Dan Cathy on the radio. It has been widely known for years that Chick-Fil-A is legitimately and significantly active against attempts to get equal rights for LGBTs.

EDIT: I do see JM3's point, though, which is that Aldermen in Chicago are tasked with representing the moral interests of their communities. If they can block the opening of a Hooters or limit the number of bars or clubs in their ward, they can block the opening of businesses that go against other aspects of morality important to the community, such as equal treatment of gays and lesbians and other minorities. The question is whether a Chick-Fil-A franchise actually represents an anti-gay, anti-secular business, or whether it's just the leadership that behaves that way. Because of certain activities of the WinShape foundation, the actions and words of the Cathys can't be easily dismissed as mere rhetoric from the leadership.

[JM3]

. I find it shady and dishonest, especially since there appears to be no real call for action yet on the part of the actual community about this, so he doesn't appear to be representing its actual wishes or interests.


The question is whether a Chick-Fil-A franchise actually represents an anti-gay, anti-secular business, or whether it's just the leadership that behaves that way. Because of certain activities of the WinShape foundation, the actions and words of the Cathys can't be easily dismissed as mere rhetoric from the leadership.

Aldermans are elected to a four year term- from the City website:



"The City of Chicago is divided into fifty legislative districts or wards. Each district is represented by an alderman who is elected by their constituency to serve a four year term. In addition to representing the interests of their ward residents, together the fifty aldermen comprise the Chicago City Council, which serves as the legislative branch of government of the City of Chicago. The legislative powers of the City Council are granted by the state legislature and by home rule provisions of the Illinois constitution. Within specified limits, the City Council has the general authority to exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur debt."

Im not seeing anything Shady or dishonest about any Alderman discharging their duties as they see fit within the parameters above. Whether is reflects the interests of his ward is evident in the backlash- is there any in his ward?

I fail to see how a business functions irrespective or contrary to the vision of its founder and majority stockholder- if that is Cathy's position (I dont know)


EDIT- the backlash in Chicago seems to consist of a letter by a local operator who claims to support Gay and lesbian organizations in addition to other charities. So apparently your question is more legimate than I would have thought.

http://www.redeyechicago.com/news/ct...0,176779.story

[KUUCman]

Federalism right down to the city council district area.

The Chicago paper's article is a little vague on the facts, but they say there had been discussions with the city over traffic issues. This, I'm certain, is the sort of routine issues that any large business and city have to deal with. So, I don't think it's generally a slam dunk for any business.

From what I could tell from reading a few different sources, the traffic issue is a secondary concern that was mentioned simply to make things official. The alderman who heads the zoning committee told Moreno something along the lines of "If you only bring up the homophobia, I can't block this. If you mention something such as concerns about traffic, then we have something official we can use." That seems a bit nudge nudge wink wink to me. Also, I checked the area that Chick-fil-a wants to go, and I am familiar w/ the area (bought my recliner right by there, in fact). It is already developed shopping plazas/strip malls. I'm not sure how adding a drive-through restaurant would cause huge traffic problems.

[ColoWayno]

EDIT: I do see JM3's point, though, which is that Aldermen in Chicago are tasked with representing the moral interests of their communities. If they can block the opening of a Hooters or limit the number of bars or clubs in their ward, they can block the opening of businesses that go against other aspects of morality important to the community, such as equal treatment of gays and lesbians and other minorities. The question is whether a Chick-Fil-A franchise actually represents an anti-gay, anti-secular business, or whether it's just the leadership that behaves that way. Because of certain activities of the WinShape foundation, the actions and words of the Cathys can't be easily dismissed as mere rhetoric from the leadership.

if it were something in the nature of the business that the community found objectionable then I think they have a say.
But it's chicken... So no, unless they are offended by chicken.

If you haven't been to a Chick-fil-A, they employ a lot of teenage kids. During the busiest hours they take your order in person while you are waiting in the drive through. Another kid takes payment before you get to the window and they literally hand you your food the instant you get to the window. It takes less than 5 minutes to wait in a line that goes all the way around the building because they hire so many kids. I don't know about Chicago but most places need jobs for teenagers.

[Mark E. Hurling]

From what I could tell from reading a few different sources, the traffic issue is a secondary concern that was mentioned simply to make things official. The alderman who heads the zoning committee told Moreno something along the lines of "If you only bring up the homophobia, I can't block this. If you mention something such as concerns about traffic, then we have something official we can use." That seems a bit nudge nudge wink wink to me. Also, I checked the area that Chick-fil-a wants to go, and I am familiar w/ the area (bought my recliner right by there, in fact). It is already developed shopping plazas/strip malls. I'm not sure how adding a drive-through restaurant would cause huge traffic problems.

OK, that brings some context to the alderman's objection. He's ostensibly representing putative objections from his constituency about traffic. Fair enough if such is the case, that's his job. But maybe I missed the "traffic" meme here elsewhere, so thanks for the grass roots level report of the view from The Loop. Here's something worth pondering about the traffic issue though. Companies determine where to place their businesses (of all types) based on fairly sophisticated mapping software made by the likes of ESRI GIS. You feed general areas and it feeds where the best traffic flows and customer attraction points are likely to be. Places like McD's and Snarbucks use it I know for certain. I wouldn't be at all surprised if these folks did too. One of the factors the software uses is traffic congestion and backup to surrounding streets and such.

[ColoWayno]

OK, that brings some context to the alderman's objection. He's ostensibly representing putative objections from his constituency about traffic. Fair enough if such is the case, that's his job. But maybe I missed the "traffic" meme here elsewhere, so thanks for the grass roots level report of the view from The Loop. Here's something worth pondering about the traffic issue though. Companies determine where to place their businesses (of all types) based on fairly sophisticated mapping software made by the likes of ESRI GIS. You feed general areas and it feeds where the best traffic flows and customer attraction points are likely to be. Places like McD's and Snarbucks use it I know for certain. I wouldn't be at all surprised if these folks did too. One of the factors the software uses is traffic congestion and backup to surrounding streets and such.

Chick-fil-A does generate lots of traffic because they are successful. I forgot to point out in my description of their operations above that they also have a person out there, when needed, to direct traffic to avoid things like tying up traffic on the street. They just want to sell chicken as fast as possible.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Chick-fil-A does generate lots of traffic because they are successful. I forgot to point out in my description of their operations above that they also have a person out there, when needed, to direct traffic to avoid things like tying up traffic on the street. They just want to sell chicken as fast as possible.

The more "exclusive" communities in the South Bay have turned down new fast food places for traffic. Perhaps this would not have become the issue it did had the good alderman stuck to that story.

[JM3]

well - here is one mayor who agrees with yall.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP03fc...ec83f54ab.html

[JM3]

if it were something in the nature of the business that the community found objectionable then I think they have a say.
But it's chicken... So no, unless they are offended by chicken..

Guess you missed the part about civil rights.

Anyway- I agree with your point about it ultimately being not the governments job to determine someones ability to do business- but Im glad we had public figures push back in such a forceful way- and I dont see how Chik File can lose on legal grounds- so Im just enjoying the fight.