Much blogosphere discussion on suggestions (now somewhat walked back) by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other Democratic politicos on using the zoning laws against Chick-fil-A due to the company’s anti-gay-marriage views (the company says it does not discriminate against gay customers or employees). Writes James Peron at the Huffington Post:
Boycott the hell out of them; even drive them into liquidation by popular refusal to support the company, if you wish, but when the law is used selectively to punish a business because of the owner’s opinions and donations, then the law is overstepping its bounds. If anything, the moral case against Chick-fil-A is tainted by such actions.
More from Glen Greenwald at Salon:
You can’t cheer when political officials punish the expression of views you dislike and then expect to be taken seriously when you wrap yourself in the banner of free speech in order to protest state punishment of views you like and share.
James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:
The mayors were playing something of a game of chicken: making a threat they lacked the authority to back up in the hope of both scoring political points and intimidating Chick-fil-A into backing down. The latter might well have succeeded if public reaction had been favorable to the mayors’ efforts.
And Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy:
A government official [Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno] thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business.
18 Comments for “Chicken Zone?”
posted by Doug on
Welcome back to the world of common sense Mr. Miller.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’m not even going to try to argue that the various politicos were in the right. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that they weren’t.
But I really don’t understand people that try to say “we can’t do things like this, we’ll lose the moral high-ground and then the people who think we’re diseased, disordered and should be deported if not executed won’t respect us in our civil dialogue!”
And really, have you paid attention to what the other side does? They cheer when their politicos abuse their power in support of their moral vision, and then they turn around and decry when Emmanuel does the same. They don’t *care* about hypocrisy.
So yeah. Whatever you do, don’t try to justify it based on what the other side is going to think, ’cause you’re wasting your time. They think you’re a dirty pervert that’s going to hell, after all. And that’s not really an impression that’s going to get better because you said “I think you’re wrong, but I’ll defend your right to say it.”
posted by Jorge on
But I really don’t understand people that try to say “we can’t do things like this, we’ll lose the moral high-ground and then the people who think we’re diseased, disordered and should be deported if not executed won’t respect us in our civil dialogue!”
No one is saying that the “people who think we’re diseased, disordered, and should be deported if not executed” are a relevant part of any civil dialogue. Nor will I concede for one moment that “the other side” consists only or even predominantly of such people. This dispute isn’t about gay rights or gay equality. It’s about the one gay rights issue for which there is the least public support, and the vast majority of Americans believe that is for cause. Your decision to call out principled if misguided opponents of same sex marriage in these inaccurate and offensive terms is part of the problem.
And really, have you paid attention to what the other side does? They cheer when their politicos abuse their power in support of their moral vision, and then they turn around and decry when Emmanuel does the same. They don’t *care* about hypocrisy.
They don’t, but the moral center of our political universe does. By continuing to hold them accountable for the worst of their behaviors, things will move closer to reasonable. However, that is a two way street.
posted by Doug on
Equality is not something that requires public support. If public support ruled we would probably still have slavery, a segregated educational system and interracial marriage would be illegal. The public did not support Truman when he integrated the armed forces but it was the right thing to do. Sometimes equality requires real leadership something that is in very short supply in both parties in this country.
posted by Jorge on
Equality is not something that requires public support. If public support ruled we would probably still have slavery, a segregated educational system and interracial marriage would be illegal.
Actually we still have a segregated educational system, the abolition of slavery was followed very quickly by the rise of the KKK and Jim Crow, and (looks it up) you are possibly right on interracial marriage: Loving v. Virginia overturned 16 state laws, but the trend away from laws banning interracial marriage was started by a state court. I don’t agree with you at all.
posted by JohnInCA on
Let’s see… Dan Cathy, Huckabee, NOM, FRC… pretty much everyone that’s going all press release mode on this? Yeah… they fit into the “thinks we’re diseased” group. The people that don’t? Aren’t the one’s making the messages that most people will hear.
So if you’re worried about the messaging, then I stand firmly by what I said. The people that are going go give us grief don’t care if we play by the rules or play dirty.
Which brings me back to my point (which you ignored)… if you want to play by the rules, do so. But don’t pretend it’s out of some sense of fair play, as that was taken off the table a long time ago and isn’t likely to come back anytime soon.
posted by Jorge on
Let’s see… Dan Cathy, Huckabee, NOM, FRC… pretty much everyone that’s going all press release mode on this? Yeah… they fit into the “thinks we’re diseased” group. The people that don’t? Aren’t the one’s making the messages that most people will hear.
Real classy of you to back off your original statement about “people who think we’re diseased, disordered, and should be deported if not executed”, without admitting it. However, I will not let you. I want to know why you carry such hatred in yourself that you would make such false and careless statements.
Either you believe with good reason that all or most of the other side on same sex marriage consists of “people who think we’re diseased, disordered, and should be deported if not executed” or you don’t. Which is it? I want to know who you are talking about who believes that before I will take you seriously for even a minute longer.
posted by JohnInCA on
… you know, I had a response. Here’s part of it.
Peter Sprigg.
Scott Lively.
Bradlee Dean.
Charles Worley.
Bryan Fischer.
But really? I did not say or imply that “all or most” held any specific view. I was listing views found among the opposition to illustrate that “civil dialogue” is already out of the window.
And seeing as I’m not in the habit of defending things I didn’t say, you can have your victory that I “backed off” of saying that “all or most” of the “other-side” wants to kill/criminalize/export/whatever.
My point, that the “other side” isn’t interested in playing by the rules, doesn’t actually engage in civil dialogue, and won’t respect us regardless of whether we play fair or dirty, stands. And you harping on my ambiguous grammar doesn’t really do much to refute it.
posted by Arthur on
This goes beyond the donations of the founder. The donations to “marriage” causes are just the tip of the iceberg. But the current rhetoric from politicians pandering to their base does not have the force of law. It is anti-free speech and the politicians deserve a remedial constitutional law course.
It is important to note some individual franchisees have stated they do not discriminate and most statements start with, ” My husband and I” or “My wife and I.” A closer look at the statements from them and national headquarters reveals they talk about customers and low level employees. Nowhere do any of the public statements talk about franchisee recruitment. Here lies the problem for most of us. Every employee who has a child out of wedlock, every divorced employee, every atheist or even a non-church going Christian employee, knows they can not get ahead in the national company or get a franchise. It’s not just a gay thing.
It may be perfectly reasonable to recruit franchisees from small circle when the company is starting up, a friend of a friend character referral helps weed out applicants. When a privately held company goes big and continues to use intact first marriages and a participation in some kind of religious life to reward franchises, it may be legal, but at the minimum you have a PR nightmare.
As Americans we believe anyone can start at the bottom and work their was to the top. A premise featured in both presidential campaigns. The candidates argue about methodology, but not the core belief. Here is a company where that is not true for everyone.
posted by Houndentenor on
Chick-Fil-A can do or say or donate whatever they want. I can also spend my money elsewhere. Yes, a few local politicians mouthed off and said things they had to walk back. But that happens every day at every level of our politics. But in the process a lot of people both public and private have revealed to me where they stand on what to me is an important issue. I will not vote for anyone taking anti-gay positions, and it’s amazingly easy to delete old friends from my life with a few clicks of a mouse. Goodbye and good riddance.
posted by Jorge on
But in the process a lot of people both public and private have revealed to me where they stand on what to me is an important issue. I will not vote for anyone taking anti-gay positions, and it’s amazingly easy to delete old friends from my life with a few clicks of a mouse. Goodbye and good riddance.
I’m hesitant to stick my neck out, but… so I’ll be brief. What’s the issue to you and why is it important?
I am reminded that you have probably been out for longer than I have.
posted by Houndentenor on
What’s the issue? Chick-Fil-A donates to anti-gay groups. That’s not enough of an issue? and it goes beyond just opposing gay marriage.
I deserve the same rights as everyone else. I will not waste my time and money on people who think that I don’t deserve the same rights. And if someone is actively working to restrict or limit my rights, I will do my best not to give them my money or my time. I will not eat at Chick-Fil-A. I will not take gigs from Catholic Churches. Etc. I respect myself more than that. They have the right to hold another view. They do not have the right to my time, talent and money.
We all have to draw a line somewhere. That’s mine. You are an adult. You can draw your own.
posted by Jorge on
We all have to draw a line somewhere. That’s mine. You are an adult. You can draw your own.
We know that already.
What’s a little foreign to me is that Chick-Fil-A is donating to anti-gay groups in a way that goes beyond just opposing gay marriage. Up to now it has mostly seemed to be an issue of making donations in order to oppose gay marriage–and I can’t even say it’s the business and not just the CEO. There was a guest on the O’Reilly Factor Friday who made statements suggesting it was more than just opposing gay marriage, but he only said them in a rant when he was losing the debate, so while I have questions it seems they are not being answered.
I don’t really get the “why now” part, either. If you’re someone who draws the line at the anti-gay marriage part, it would seem to me there should have been other provocations a lot earlier. And if you’re someone who draws the line at the supporting anti-gay organizations part, it is surprising to me that people would choose an event that is just about gay marriage to cross that line.
posted by Houndentenor on
This has been an issue for quite some time. But recently Cathay gave an interview to Christianity Today, some blogs mentioned it and the mainstream media started paying attention. Why now? Because straight people actually paid attention. Plenty of gay people have been talking about Chick-Fil-A’s donations to social conservative causes for years. If your question is why did the media just now pick up the story, it’s because someone just handed them this story on a silver platter without them having to do any work or research. That’s how the corporate media works these days.
posted by Jorge on
Okay, I didn’t explain myself.
My question is more along the lines of why did the old friends you deleted in your life not do anything to offend you until just now, when there were many other recent occasions in which gay marriage has been in the news, and more blatantly.
posted by Houndentenor on
Maybe you were clear and I was multi-tasking as usual.
Ah. I have a zero-tolerance policy on racist or homophobic postings. Some of these are people that I was friends with in high school or college. I was in the closet and attended a fundamentalist church back then. Perhaps I missed earlier hateful posts? Perhaps I was in a mood to ignore them? I couldn’t tell you. I doubt most of them have noticed (although a few have tried to refriend me). I don’t want to know people who would use the N word to describe our president or make violent (not exaggerating) threats against gay people in general. I’m a little sad that I ever knew people like that, but I did. Maybe I didn’t notice at the time, maybe they have gotten worse, or maybe in my denial back then I went along with crap like that. In any case, I don’t need it in my life now. There’s a reason why we have the options to delete and block on social media. Caller ID serves an equally valuable purpose. Anyway, it’s not just about gay marriage. Not once has it just been about gay marriage. The people deleted clearly don’t want gay people to have any rights. Some seemed still angry that the sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. Perhaps you didn’t grow up around people like that. If not, lucky you.
posted by Jorge on
Holy Mimic casting Beat, I was not guessing that at all.
Perhaps you didn’t grow up around people like that. If not, lucky you.
Adolescents are scum.
Other than that, well, no. Imagine going from public school (scum) to a Catholic high school in a major liberal city.
posted by Sandwiched in | Maryland for All Families on
[…] And many others rounded up at my Overlawyered posts here and here, as well as those of Stephen Miller at Independent Gay Forum and Tim Carney at the Washington […]