Government and business should be like government and religion. The less they mingle the better off we are.

This is a particularly toxic stew when all 3 come together.

A lot of people will be paying attention to their hiring practices.

Remember that the stores are individually-owed franchises. In the last several days I've seen a number of people from the LGBT community in various places state that they work in Chick-fil-a stores and are treated just like everyone else by their employers.

As long as there's no discrimination in their employment practices or against their customers, there really isn't a constitutionally viable reason to bar their stores from any locality based on the individual personal biases of one of their executives.

That fact is the key difference in their franchise model. The 'buy in' for new 'owners' is extremely low because Corporate selects location, buys and owns the real estate and the buildings, the Company, not the franchisee owns the place. Most fast food franchises require around 2 million dollars to buy in and start up, Chick fil A costs 'owners' $5,000. The company gets far more of the profits than other fast food companies get. And again, they own the store, physically and the business itself, the operator owns zip. That's what the company calls them 'operators' as they have no equity share whatsoever.
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Company/Careers-Franchise-Opportunity

Hadn't thought of it that way...

You deserve whatever comes your way. The ACLU is way too black and white on issues.

The government can mandate same-sex partnership benefits.

The government can ban harrassment of gays in the workplace.

The government can do a lot of things to fight discriminatory actions.

But the government can not discriminate against the beliefs of a business owner.

It is a vital distinction.

If those beliefs are manifested in actions that are illegal then you go after the actions.

I can promise you that viewpoint discrimination, when and where permitted, is used 95% for purposes that you and I would agree to be malignant.

To behave appropriately regardless of their stupid beliefs. It should make them think twice about coming

There is not Federal law banning discrimination against gay people and in most States it is legal to fire, evict or refuse housing or employment to a gay person or one you think might be gay.
There is nothing in place to 'ensure' he can not inject his views. Nothing.
Facts matter.

housing. That is because the Federal government has not done a thing to change that. Sure they 'can do lots of things' but they don't. What they do is lend a hand to bigots and help them do harm to others who are in fact promised equal protection under the law.
The government can not legally treat them differently, but each citizen including those in government can treat any business any way we want to, there is no law saying otherwise. And until we are all on fully equal footing, hate businesses will get to dine on the results of their actions. That lunch counter at Woolworth's was legally segregated, yet the people who insisted on sitting down to dine were and are great heroes for doing that which the government could not and would not do.

They've been defending the KKK's right to speak for decades too as well. The reason they do this is because they go beyond emotion, and recognize that the slippery slope is real and dangerous. One false move could cause an avalanche, so to speak.

The best way to love your own freedom of expression is to encourage even the most vile to express theirs.

What would happen to the branch if every gay person in town went, ordered a cup of tea and nursed it for an hour or two?

(Just make sure and be very generous tippers).

that usually is pretty busy during lunch. I have thought several times about going through the drive-thru, and "breaking down" right in front of the order-box or the drive-thru window. Forcing the drive-thru lunchers to either go in or go somewhere else. Then, when the tow-truck finally shows up my car would "miraculously heal itself" and I would drive off happily back to work.

The OP and the ACLU are right, we can't and SHOULDN'T force them not to open a business. But, as consumers, we can make it unprofitable for them!

Punish the franchise owner who undoubtedly had no idea what Mr. Cathy's personal beliefs were when s/he opened the store. The franchise owner who, for all you know, has a half-dozen gay people on the payroll.

Damn right! You show them!!

Their god-slinging is part of their company mission statement. Franchise owners can't even be open on Sunday, because, you know, god says so.

....that they can always count on not having to work. Such abuse!!

Is there anything at all you will not defend for this corporation?

If the views on some minorities of Chick Fil A were not known to the franchisee then he did not exert due diligence in researching the firm before signing the contract to become a franchisee.

Corporate retains full ownership of all locations, selects and purchases the real estate, builds the building or pays for leasing. It only costs $5,000 to become an 'operator' because it is not an investment and it has no equity stake involved at all. Other fast food franchises cost around 2 million dollars to start up, franchise fees, location leasing or purchase, and they are franchisee owned, the franchisee owns the location and the business, Corporate is paid fees and shares, they do not own the physical plant nor the business itself.
Chick Fil A itself is very clear in their language, and specifically use the title 'operators' and on their website it says if you expect an equity interest, this is not for you, it is not an investment.
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Company/Careers-Franchise-Opportunity

they will not sign a statement saying they understand the anti-discrimination laws that apply to them.

That's it. That's the hold up. That's what St. Greenwald the Pure's favorite punching bag, Mayor Emmanuel, is talking about.

That's not Chicago blocking Chick-fil-A. That's Chick-fil-A trying to get around the law.

Fuck 'em.

the standard form.

They also lied to Moreno's face for nine months about their discriminatory practices and bigotry to get the permission to build the second Chick-fil-A. The Cathy interview gave the lie to those statements made to the alderman and he bloody well called them on it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726,0,3773507.story?dssReturn (free account required)

Why does Chick-fil-A get to violate Chicago law?

The Alderman said: Because of this man's ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward. That is the sole reason listed in the article for denial of the permit.

I read the article written by the Alderman himself which you linked to. There is nothing about the assertions you made. Either link to them or admit this is BS.

From the article I linked:

You stated they were violating a law. You stated they would not sign "standard forms". You implied that was the reason the Alderman would not let them build. You then provided a link. This link had nothing to do with those claims. You have not fooled anyone on this thread. You should apologize to the posters on this thread.

You lied about me. You continue to lie and misrepresent me. I think you better back up and reconsider your actions.

You stated they violated the law. I called you on it. Your link does not support you. What law?

You said there was nothing at all in my post backed up by the link. I quoted you the part of my post backed up by the link and now YOU are narrowing it to one claim.

You really would be best served by ending your lying about and misrepresentations of me now.

What "Chicago law" do you suggest CFA has violated or will violate?

Take that back to Corporate and cry to Jesus about it.

Right now, if you don't mind. I don't have time to play your little foolish games.

hear me out.

WHY IS THE ACLU DEFENDING A BUSINESS? It has no constitutional rights. It's just a business.

I rest my case.

Again you are defending a business...Not the people who own the business. People have their rights, their rights ends where it goes to the product they sell. I don't believe the ACLU has a valid case here.


Take the case of the State of Mississippi, it created laws and local level had zoning laws changed for the sole purpose of ending Abortion within that state. the case is before the court now.

If they can create laws to zone out, or law enforcement, make them comply, if they could not comply, they would have to cease operation within that state. We can do the same for a chicken sandwich store....jes sayin.

In order for such a ploy to work in this case, they'd have to change their zoning laws to prohibit all McDonald's, Taco Bell, Burger King, KFC, Dairy Queen and other such fast food establishments. Otherwise, they would be clearly discriminatory.

If there's a Wendy's, they'll have a difficult time defending a zoning ordinance that disallows a Chick-fil-a.

And by the way, there has been no assertion by any of the cities who are discussing banning Chick-fil-a stores that their bans would have anything whatsoever to do with "the product they sell". In fact, the proposed bans have nothing whatsoever to do with the business itself at all. The controversy is about denying franchisees the right to open a fast food store based solely on the stated personal beliefs of someone else, namely the company's CEO.

Rham and Alderman Moreno have already backed down on this because they realized that their knee-jerk reactions, while understandable, were not really related to the business, but to the personal statements of one man and their proposed ban would never hold up in court.

Nice try, though.

A business is not a person. A city can decide what business they want within their limits.

They can Re-zone laws to prevent a Half-way house from going up in a neighborhood. Or a child-care opening right next door to you. Just takes a majority vote.

And certainly not for a reason that has nothing at all to do with the business itself.

You pretty much have to be trying not to see the difference.

is really too many, and Chick fil a tried to get a license to operate within city limits...do they choke back disappointment and welcome the 4th chicken sandwich joint, or say three is enough?

Do they have the right to do that? Plan their city?

But to play along, in order for that to work, they the city of Chicago would have to deny further licenses to KFC and Browns and any other business that predominently sells chicken. Otherwise it's discriminatory.......and I'm not going to argue with you about whether it's discrimination against the business or the business owner because you seem to be the only one around here who doesn't understand that the business owner is a person whose rights would be thusly infringed upon.

They too wanted the Government to intervene and block the building of the Mosque. Airc, the ACLU took the exact same position on that. The business had a right to build that Mosque regardless of the objections of the protesters. I supported that Mosque. Did you?

not the same as zoning laws for a business. City planners aren't obligated to hand out licenses just for the asking. We have the right as citizens to dictate the shopping establishments we want.

Would ACLU be trying to press the issue of Coporations/business as a personhood ruling, because to admit discrimination, would have to admit a Business is the same as a Human being...That is why I don't believe they have a valid case.

For the record, I think the Federal laws against discrimination do trump a private business' rights to be prejudiced in its hiring practices and in serving the public.

In the case of this business, while the CEO has expressed his personal opinion, the official position appears to be that his opinion is not reflected in their practices. If that is the case, then you cannot block a business because you don't like the personal opinion of its CEO.

All the politicians who initially spoke about blocking them have since back-tracked on that position, so it's not just the ACLU. While the views of the CEO are reprehensible, far more reprehensible would be setting a standard that a business can be shut down simply because someone holds a personal opinion that is not supported either by the left or the right.

There are other ways to force a business to abide by our anti-discrimination laws, assuming they are not doing so. As for the haters, we can't legislate people's thoughts or opinions, but with time, we can influence them.

or the right to speak out. Once you do exercise your right to speak out, don't be surprised of the actions taken.

I would sure as hell try to get a new zoning restriction if a KKK motorcycle club tried to open a Bar and Grill Downtown. I believe as citizens we have that right, not to patronize bigots. nor should be tolerated. We have the right to dictate what is acceptable and what isn't.

They are free to be bigots, and free to feel the consequences. Live and let live concept, let them go where they are welcomed. It's not like that plot of re-estate, is the only one there is.

What you are talking about is citizens reacting to businesses they do not like by using tools that are available to them, boycotts, etc.

What the ACLU is talking about is Government interfering which is a dangerous premise to set because the next time, Government might use its power to interfere in something you support.

And as already pointed out, the mayors and other elected officials who initially threatened to interfere, have back-tracked from those threats while still expressing their opinions.

Ground broken? Building erected?

"WHY IS THE ACLU DEFENDING A BUSINESS? It has no constitutional rights. It's just a business."

...the way the comment is phrased. It should say business owner instead of business. From the OP:

to allow the marriage of the African American couple. Do Federal laws against discrimination trump the rights of a private business to discriminate? I think they do, but that is just my opinion.

However in this case, it seems that while the views of the CEO are known, the claims are that those views are not put into practice. If they were, then my question remains, would Federal Law supersede the business' claim to a right to implement their own 'laws'. Again, I think it would. But again, I am not a lawyer and have no clue whether I am right or not.

and confiscated all of its assets without paying compensation, it would not be appropriate for the ACLU to defend DemocraticUnderground LLC? It's only a business, after all.

Freedom of speech is not only for those who agree with our views. I cringed at Dan Cathy's remarks, but he has a right to make them. It's up to the public to decide whether they want to patronize Chick-fil-A or not. The same goes for the conservatives who object to Disney providing benefits to the gay partners of their employees.

he is perfectly free to say whatever his old pea pickin heart desires...BUT...he has to put his big boy pants on, you are responsible for your words, and be man enough to take the consequences of those words.

NO ONE is taking anyone's freedom of speech away...you want to deny me the right to RESPOND.

In fact, I have yet to see anyone even attempt to deny you the right to respond.

What you can't do is deny someone else the right to open a completely legal business for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the business.

A business can not be discriminated against, it is not a human being. Helloooo...is this thing on?

I just said you cannot deny a person (a.k.a. "human being&quot the right to open a legal business for reasons having nothing to do with the business. Or, in this case, also having nothing to do with the person being denied the right to open his/her business. You want to be able to tell Jack and Jane Franchisee that they cannot open a Chick-fil-a shop, not because there is anything wrong with the food, not because there is any aspect of the business that does not comport with local ordinances pertaining to every other establishment that sells chicken, not because Jack and/or Jane refuses to hire gay people (or black people, or muslims), not because Jack and/or Jane refuses to serve gay people (or black people, or muslims), but because the CEO of the franchisor has expressed a personal belief that you disagree with that has nothing whatsoever to do with his business.

And you don't see anything wrong with that. Fine. Just sayin' you're wrong is all.

Have a nice weekend.

I see a problem with applying a business as a constitutional issue. It doesn't matter what reasons a town gives to Business A, not granting a license.
A business can not claim discrimination because we prefer KFC over Chick fil a. within our city limits.

They are not human beings. The people owning this business can not inject their humanity. It's just a business. Allowing this would set a precedent, much like Citizens United.

By the way, the snark regarding my reading comprehension, de nada, the feeling was mutual.

what reasons a town gives for not granting a license. And I can claim discrimination if an agent of the government places obstacles in front of my business while greasing the wheels of my competitor for reasons that have nothing to do with my compliance to the rules set out for EVERYONE!

Chick-fil-A has been wanting to build a second chicken shack there. They have permission for the building, but they also want to knock down the building next to them and build a parking lot.

The parking lot requires a zoning variance, because that lot will no longer be contributing tax revenue to the city (not like a healthy business there would). It's in a growing trendy part of town, so this parking lot is no small favor to grant Chick-fil-A -- particularly since there is a church that would be happy to rent the parking lot on Sundays, the day that Chick-fil-A always closes its pious and Christian doors for business. The church gets cheap parking on Sundays, Chick-fil-A gets a tax writeoff for below-market-price charitable giving.

OK, all well and good. But getting a zoning variance is not your Creator-endowed right, just because you're a jobby-job creator. Chicago needs a good reason to give up tax revenues and give Chick-fil-A a further tax writeoff. Part of that is the assurance that Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate and contribute to the debasement and denial of the rights of some Chicagoans. For nine months, the alderman has been working with Chick-fil-A's lawyers, who again and again assured him of Chick-fil-A's saintly motives.

Said saintly motives came into full view in that Cathy interview. "Guilty as charged," said the crotchety old oaf. That along with the history of discrimination and the history of millions of dollars continuing to to be contributed to hate groups was the final straw for the alderman. If he deems it's not in the best interest of Chicago to grant that zoning variance, it's over. He has that authority as the elected representative of his constituents, and if they don't like the way he handles his power, they will certainly let him know. I have no doubt as to the ability of Chicago residents to make their voices heard.

Is Mr. Cathy = Chick-Fil-A?

Is restricting Chick-Fil-A the same as restricting or "punishing" Mr. Cathy?

Is CFA a "person" and is that "person" Mr. Cathy?

to see all evidence of their accusers..again a Business is not a human being. It can not be discriminated against.

Answer that question and it all falls into place.

Of course a business can be discriminated against.

"No business owned by a Jew can be granted a business license."

That only discriminates against businesses. A person doesn't need a business license, a business does.

I appreciate that you think you are right, but discrimination is not limited to individuals.

How about a government funding program for colleges that excludes historically black universities? A university is not a person.

And so on.

Can PP be discriminated against if the mayor was a fundie? You would be ok with this?

I don't know their business structure, but I assume that the majority of the Chick-fil-As are individually owned. Is it fair to punish the owners and their employees for the beliefs of the parent company's president?

releases which openly oppose the rights of others. Belief is an inner thing, what Cathy is doing is not believing hateful lies, he is promoting them and using his business as a platform to do so.

has many people boycotting them. That is bullshit, it is material he promoted in the press as part of his doing of business. He thought it would profit him to speak hate, and he was incorrect.
And just fyi, Corporate owns all of their locations, their 'franchisees' are actually known as operators as they hold no equity share whatsoever in any portion of the business.
I agree that the government should not prevent them from opening, I just hope a free people using free speech causes that company to find expansion no longer affordable. In fact, seeing closures would be great. Not one location is owned by a private operator. Not one.

Closures would not be great. They employ thousands of people who would lose their jobs in this very bad economy. The guy may be a jerk, but why should his employees pay for it? I'm sure that he's wealthy enough to continue living well, but how about the people he employs?

Fuck them.

Businesses have the right to be anywhere they want to be. Cities would be obligated to grant them licenses to operate in their cities, Towns.

Walmarts can force their way in, claiming discrimination. Next we will have to grant preferential treatment due to this discrimination...lets see how far the rabbit hole we could go?

HOW IN THE HELL CAN A BUSINESS BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST..it is not a HUMAN BEING, the constitution does not apply here.

etc., issues. This is about blocking a business because of the personal view points of the owner. Those personal views are protected speech and government retaliation taken to punish that speech is considered an Constitutional offense.

Would you defend the mayor of a town or city who sought to block CostCo solely because of the CEO's political views?

to Moreno's face for nine months that they were not a discriminatory organization.

They lied to the alderman and he put the kibosh on them. Chick-fil-A should get a pass for lying about the nature of their business?

Chick-fil-a because of their discriminatory business practices. Hopefully, they will take immediate action and oust every business in their cities that have been sued (and lost) for discrimination. I say they start with Walmart and then next Denny's and then MacDonalds.

Now that would be the kind of city I would like to live in!

The lawyers assured him it wasn't the case, and then Cathy ran his mouth.

$5 million in corporate money to anti-gay "charities" from Chick-fil-A. Discrimination suits. On and on the list goes. Sorry, St. Greenwald didn't give you all the facts.

block a business a license but Moreno clearly admitted that he made the ultimate decision based soley on the speech Dan Cathy

The case that was referred to was a case of a single franchisee in Georgia who is being sued for gender discrimination. There's no indication that the plaintiff in that case ever sought relief from CFA corporate or that they were ever even made aware of the situation prior to bringing the suit.

That's hardly a justification to deny a franchise to someone else in Chicago. Or Boston, for that matter. In the case of Chicago, it's a moot point now because both Alderman Moreno and Rahm Emmanuel have withdrawn their objections to awarding a business permit to the new franchisee seeking one.

And now here you are still minimizing and defending this bullshit hate group-funding chicken joint.

They lied to Moreno's face. He's the alderman and he makes the call. Fuck Chick-fil-A.

Moreno was twisting the fact that CFA corporate has assured them that they do not discriminate in their business practices by refusing to hire or serve people based on sexual orientation is a lie because Mr. Cathy stated his personal opposition to gay marriage, which is not the same thing. And it's wrong. Unless they he can demonstrate discriminatory business practices, there is no legal basis to deny the business permit.

And please don't bring up the case in Georgia again. That was one franchisee who is, as yet, only accused of discrimination based on gender and without demonstrating a pattern of such behavior across many franchises, known by CFA corporate, would have no bearing on the eligibility of someone else in a different city to open a new franchise.

Because it shows what a goalpost-moving poster you are. Sorry, you asked, I provided, you got to sputtering.

They have discrimination suits aganst them and have made out of court settlements. There isn't a business in the country that isn't subject to lawsuits.

that Chick-fil-A does. That's what gives the bad faith to Chick-fil-A's claims to not discriminate as a company policy.

Can you cite one instance of that business discriminating against anyone anywhere?

And please do tell, in what way did Chick-fil-a lie about the nature of their business? Do you mean to say that they don't actually sell chicken sandwiches and waffle fries?

These are entirely new allegations.

from the company's charitable arm.

I cannot believe I have people on DU denying the bigotry of Chick-fil-A and its hypocritical management.

Also:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/27/1114244/-Another-Headache-for-Chick-fil-A-Sued-for-Gender-Discrimination

There's your one. You're going to stop defending this bunch of bastards, aren't you?

There is a huge difference between expressing views, either as an individual (in the case of Mr. Cathy's remarks), or as a corportion (in the case of charitible or political contributions) and discriminatory business practices. I'm amazed at how many people here are unable, or at least unwilling, to make that distinction.

By your line of logic, a business could also justifiably be denied a city business permit based solely on the basis of the fact that its corporate arm makes donations to Planned Parenthood if some right wing mayor or city council chose to. Works both ways, y'know.

Try again.

There is no indication that I could see in the suit that any relief was sought from Chick-fil-a corporate or that Chick-fil-a corporate was ever made aware of that problem.

And that suit against ONE franchisee should prevent someone else halfway across the Country from opening a Chick-fil-a store? I find that a little difficult to swallow (no pun intended).

And I still haven't seen any indication that Chick-fil-a or any franchise thereof has ever "lied about the nature of their business". I noticed that you didn't address that.

Your defense of a rancid hate chicken shack operation is duly noted. Be off with you now.

PS: Fuck Ron Paul!

The participatory process of a sustained people's action is hard work but, in our democracy, it is preferable to swift government retaliation.

The business isn't human, I didn't violate the owner's rights in anyway.

Like I said up thread, I would block the hell out of a KKK Motorcycle group from opening a Bar And Grill in the middle of town...not because I dislike Bars or grills, I dislike what the KKK stands for, same type of discrimination rhetoric. Gays are AMERICANS, they have violated NO LAW, just existing. This kind of speech should never be tolerated. They are free to be bigots, and I am free to lobby my city council to keep their filthy crusty chicken joint out of my town.

Whether it be firing them from their job or taking way their property or blocking them conducting business.

Yes, you are free to lobby them to keep them out of your town (the right wing is trying their best to get rid of the last Planned Parenthood in Tennessee or Louisiana - I forget which) but your government is obligated to use non-discriminatory reasons to block a permit. A KKK motorcycle group would present a few legitimate reasons. #1 - They would probably be unwilling to sign your city's non-discrimination regulations documents. #2 - they'd be unable to show that the business would have a benign impact on the neighborhood because of the protests and increased policing. #3 - they would be unable to show that their customers would have a benign impact on the neighborhood.

Legally, American law has long (since long before Citizens United) treated a corporation as a person for some purposes, though not for others. See, for example, the Supreme Court's decision in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985). The city refused to grant the corporation a permit. The Court held that the refusal was discriminatory and was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws&quot .

The permit was for a group home for the mentally retarded. The motivation for the denial was prejudice against the retarded, but the entity that was discriminated against was the corporation that applied for the permit to build the group home. You can read more about the decision here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Cleburne_v._Cleburne_Living_Center,_Inc.

You're of course free to argue that the Cleburne Living Center decision (and a few hundred others like it) were wrong, and that a sensible legal system would never treat a corporation as a person. Would that be good policy? Well, consider this example:

As others have pointed out in this thread, if blue-state discrimination against businesses were legal, then so would be red-state discrimination. Suppose there's a corporation that grants family medical benefits to same-sex partners, or that donates outdoor equipment to the Sierra Club for a raffle to raise money to fight global warming, or whose CEO heads up Business Executives for Obama. Could a RW-dominated city or state government deny that business the right to operate in its jurisdiction? (Assume that the business complies with all applicable laws about zoning, etc., and the only basis for the exclusion is the progressive conduct described in this paragraph.) Under current law, that discrimination would be illegal. Your interpretation would appear to allow it.

Of course, if a locality has an ordinance that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and a company doesn't abide by that ordinance, then the government can take appropriate steps, which might include denial of permission to open a new franchise. If the only basis is dislike for an opinion, however, then the ACLU is completely correct in opposing that government action.

say donated to Planned Parenthood or was a member of Sierra Club or even because they had donated to a Democrat?

What goes in Baltimore and Chicago goes in Mississippi and Texas. You are arguing for a precedent that allows the prevailing local political/religious doctrine in a locality to discriminate against businesses of the opposite persuasion.

I don't think you are being philosophically honest or consistent. I don't believe for a moment that you'd have the same message if an business was denied a permit because the president/owner/ceo was an outspoken supporter of gay rights or Costco being denied the ability to open a store because they might lean Democratic or whatever absurd notion some backward ass community fancies.

You can only act against actual discrimination legally, that doesn't mean that individuals cannot boycott or even protest or that other businesses can't promote that they act within the comfort of the community but you can't eliminate equal protection under the law. I certainly do not believe corporations are people but even legal constructs designed to limit individual liability need to be treated equally within the limits created by their charters or soon you will create a wild west situation where the actual people are being discriminated against and yes I think it is discrimination to withhold the right to earn a living to a gay man who wants to open a restaurant because the local yahoos think the gay is evil and can get a majority of yahoos to back them on it.

I bet you'd figure out quick that a black owned business can be discriminated against, person or not.

I think there is and must be some room between no rights and personhood or you'll soon see a nightmarish and sectarian wave flowing across this country and restore a lot of real deal discrimination against minorities and women that will break your heart because it won't be women, or muslims, or blacks being denied it will just be their rightless companies. Never mind that the owner is prevented from a legal and desirable enterprise because the community has spoken. The community doesn't like that you wrote that maximum contribution to Obama, no store for you.

whose constitutional rights are bring violated.

to marry, and we are subjected to unfair and unequal taxation because of that. Part of why this issue is problematic for the 'pro Cathy' folks is that very basic rights are constantly denied to the very minority Cathy attacks in public, at press conferences. Every gay person in America is already that unpopular person having their rights denied and violated.
In most States it is legal to discriminate against gay people and there is no federal law to prevent it.

It is the court that dropped the ball by not balancing the greater societal good.

Within their mission, what other position was the organization really supposed to take?
I hate the ruling as much as you do but the argument is legitimate.

The problem is that charter law was allowed to go off the rails and the only obligations the legal constructs have is to profits and shareholders instead of also to the communities. Charters became open ended instead of granting specific rights, duties, and obligations within the narrow focus of why the charter is granted.

I think you are angry at the ACLU because they did their job the courts didn't do theirs. Its like "no way the courts do what they are supposed to so it is important that _____ doesn't also do theirs because a can of worms might be opened".

"viewpoint discrimination"? Get real. Either governments CAN discriminate based on viewpoint or not. And,... it just so turns out, they can.

over zoning regulations?

Then i'm fine with CFA being blocked.... And, I think zoning with respect to "adult" businesses IS viewpoint discrimination. Or more to the point, banning certain types of adult businesses. For example, a dildo store is not allowed to exist in the state of Alabama. I'm A.O.K. with Chick Fil AAAAASShole being banned. No problem whatsoever.

the political viewpoints of it's liberal CEO.

I'm saying that viewpoint discrimination exists and is A O K if it involves dirty sexy.... why is it bad if it involves Fine Upstanding White Protestant Christians?

It's the nature of the enterprise and its impact on a street or community that is being restricted. The personal political viewpoint of any of the operators is immaterial. That is; ALL strip joints are banned not just the ones owned by commies. Or ALL churches are restricted in a suburban neighborhood not just the Christian ones.

is not a human being, it can not be discriminated against...Would my patronizing KFC be considered a discriminatory act to Chick fil A?

It's another Citizen's united type case, granting businesses rights of a human being....be careful of the zeal to defend the constitution...I have never seen a business born with inalienable rights.