somebody has the gall to be born poor or fall upon hard times through no fault of their own??

Just trying to see this the way RWers do.......

of his religious viewpoint, would people be so quick to shrug it all off? I wonder.

People did use the Bible to try to deny civil rights to African Americans, picking and choosing verses . . .

The argument is that the government has no business penalizing a business for the thoughts of it's CEO or any employee for that matter. If Chick-Fil-A acts in a bigoted way then the government can act. This is the way it should be.

Subject to a consumer boycott?

Denied 1st amendment rights?

Only one of these two doesn't belong.

Which is it?

Not that I've seen anyway.

I've seen people say that we can't deny the right of them to do business simply because the guy that founded the business is against gay marriage... and this is true.

I vehemently disagree with the guy, and will therefor not spend my money there. But legally, we should not stop the company from opening restaurants.

If the general public don't like the guy and poor business forces him to close up shop, then fantastic. But denying zoning permits based on political or moral beliefs is NOT a road we want to start going down. It cuts both ways.

Ever try to open say ...

An adult book and novelty shop?

An exotic smoking paraphernalia shop?

A massage parlor?

I could likely come up with more, but the point being is that "zoning laws" are used all the time to stop businesses that some portion of the public "morally disagrees with."

We're way "down that road" already.

Pot, prostitution, pornography... being pro or anti gay isn't illegal (as an attitude) OR age restricted.

NIMBY- ?????

we used to have a group home next door. We had no problem at all. As a matter of fact, they went out of their way to be good neighbors. And yet, when other group homes wanted to open here (Las Vegas), the public outcry was so loud that the local county commission disapproved their permits because they would be in a "residential neighborhood".

I was winging it and didn't have a lot of time to give examples. So, of course, the "moralists" had to jump on me with BS. I see they have nothing to say to your examples.

Wadda surprise.

Thanks again.

That doesn't make them doing so in Chick-Fil-A's case RIGHT.

Laws sometimes cut both ways. I know "hiding behind the first amendment" is frowned upon, but the first amendment is the most important one we have. He has every right to believe what he does. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. But I can't force him not to believe it.

But that said, this isn't even the CASE.

He isn't selling "Anti Gay Sandwiches". He has a business that sells chicken sandwiches and he also happens to be against gay marriage equality. Punishing the business with legal action for the man's moral beliefs just seems crazy to me.

What if Republicans refused to let, say, a daycare open down the street SPECIFICALLY because the owner once said he was pro gay marriage?

Wouldn't you think that was crazy? Well you'd be right. The only difference is our beliefs on the issue are reversed.

Don't get me wrong, I get the outrage. The owner of Chick-Fil-A is a crazy tool and I hope his business crashes and burns. But that should be up to us and not the government.

and fund organizations which seek to deny the civil rights of others IS. There is a huge difference. We can't legislate that people "think" a certian way- We do and must require that people not be deprived of the same rights under the law. As it stands now in many states, people are being denied rights based on other people's personal "beliefs"- that is wrong. No one is trying to force anyone not interested in a same sex marriage to enter into one- the other is denying another couple the self-same rights YOU expect and recieve.

Mr. Cathy has exercised his freedom of speech, and no one is advocating taking that away. The consequences of his speech are that many MANY people are choosing to exercise our "freedom of speech- through the media and our own mouths to point out the fact that Mr. Cathy is advocating publicly and with money earned by selling his 'goods'-to the public in order to actively deny fellow citizens the THEIR inalienable equal rights-
I recently had an argument with a "friend" of a 'friend' on FB who tried to use the same " I buy stuff from people who are pro gay marriage" comparison- as if that were a valid.

It ISN'T- If the "marriage equality" that is being legislated in states across the country defined "marriage" as the union of two people of the same sex" and excluded the rights of people of opposite sex to marry- I would be as against that stupidity as vocally and adamantly as I am against the laws which exist in this country which EXCLUDE a particular 'select' portion of our population based solely on bigotry against individuals that people choose to see as "undeserving" of the rights which our constitution guarantees everyone.

...and he has every right to. Mr.Cathy is not a government official.

He can believe what he wants and spend his money how he wants. He's a citizen of the United States of America. That's how that works. Chick-Fil-A the company is NOT stopping gay citizens from eating or working at their businesses. Chick-Fil-A as a company is not against gay marriage.

The guy who founded it is and I believe with every fiber of my being that he is WRONG.

But that fast food joint isn't keeping gay and lesbian citizens from getting married. IT IS NOT. This guy is a wrong headed jerk with too much money, but it's his head and his money. If he wants to donate to Republican campaigns for politicians who are against equal marriage, he can.

that they do not deserve the right to equal treatment under the law, and by using the money garnered through the sale of chicken sandwiches to fund organizations which lobby and seek to continue denying fellow citizens their constitutional rights.

If he were joe shmoe ordinary nobody would give a f- k what he or his family thought about marriage. And he wouldn't have the power that his money gives him to influence government policy.

If the people of a city object to a business being established in their community because of the prejudice and bigotry it promotes- and YES there is no way around it, Chick Fil A is promoting an agenda- which says that people who are gay or lesbian are second class citizens. It is promoting denying civil rights to a segment of the population. The people who work at Chick Fil A are caught in the crossfire that their arrogant, and oppressive boss has chosen to saddle them with. He could have kept his personal beliefs and his business separate. He chose not to. He needs to face the consequences. The donations given to anti gay organizations aren't personal donations by Mr.Cathy, they are donations made through the WinShape Foundation- who's parent organization is Chick Fil A.

Did I say pot? No, I said exotic smoking paraphernalia. The laws and zoning crap used against these inanimate objects are based SOLELY on someones own personal opinion against them.

Did I say prostitution? No, I said massage, a completely legal occupation. Why should they be set to a different standard than other LEGITIMATE businesses.

Exotic reading and viewing materials are a Constitutionally protected form of expression, so under what stretch of the imagination do you find your own brand of Puritanism to justify totally misusing local code requirements to stop them from doing their COMPLETELY LEGAL business. Or does the Constitution only apply to things you approve of?

You can't have both ways, my friend.

or how much they want to allow.

With the above examples... many communities simply confine those business to a certain/specific local.

Not every community has an adult book store, massage parlor etc, or area specially zoned for that type of business.

Every community does have specific zoning laws and areas where fast food chains/restaurants can set up business.

They can legally deny Chick-Fil-A (or any other victualler), a permit/license to open near a school or in a residential area, and they can put regulations/conditions on those licenses, as long as they are applied equally and fairly to all similar business'.

How do you propose (or justify), changing or toying with zoning laws to keep Chick-Fil-A from opening in an area where other fast food chains are already operating?

I happen to agree that many zoning restrictions on "vice" related businesses are unconstitutional, but such bad practices are a poor analogy for the chick-fil-a case.

If Chicago imposed restrictions on all restaurants then we would have an analogy.

Adult businesses are zoned against (often improperly, IMO) for the nature of the business, not because of who the business owner contributes to or what he says in an interview.

Can a town deny business permits to a restaurant because it donates some of its profits to Planned Parenthood?

based on the viewpoint of the business operator/owner?

The zoning restriction you cite are about community standards. not about the views of the business owners.

Communities do have some rights regarding what type of product/services they allow. The way it should be.

You debated against a point no one was making.

Impressive. I'm humbled.

I could likely come up with more, but the point being is that "zoning laws" are used all the time to stop businesses that some portion of the public "morally disagrees with."

We're way "down that road" already.

100%

restaurants. I just won't eat there.

What he said is legal under the first amendment. It may be hate speech, but it is protected. Which is actually a damn good thing, when you come down to it. If that protection starts breaking down, a future administration might decide to shut down all internet sites that don't agree with its policies.

The real answer is to boycott his business. Make it clear that the reason you are not going is because of the CEO. Boycotts can be successful - we know that from the civil rights movement.

If Chik-Fil-A as a corporation is shown to be using discriminatory practices, then by all means use the power of the law to punish them. Unless that happens, though, the company cannot be held to be legally liable for the stupid comments of the CEO.

What consequences do you think there should be? If the owner of a corner market, for instance, is vocally against marriage equality or a member of the tea party, should his/her market be seized by the gov't and given to someone with opinions you approve of?
What if the market owner doesn't discriminate in hiring or serving anyone but is a demonstrable bigot?

I have read these threads and I have not seen anyone argue that I am required to eat at chick-fil-a, required to like chick-fil-a, required to invest in chick-fil-a...

You are confusing consequences and government imposed consequences.

If a boycott bankrupted the company that would be fine.

But relative to the government , yes, "you can say as offensive and hateful a thing as you want, donate money to any group at all."

Goodness... you honestly think government should be able to treat entities differently based on who they donate to?

So you would support Congress' power to pass a law against George Soros operating businesses in the United States based on his contributions? Because I am sure the current House would gladly pass such a law, if it was not unconstitutional on its face.

Do you believe the government should be able to block you from buying a house in a certain neighborhood based on your DU posts? Based on your political contributions? Based on your religious views?

It appears that you do... or else that you think consequences are just something for other people.

Yeah what Chik Fil A's CEO said does make him an asshole - but our constitution does allow him to be an asshole.

People are arguing that consumers should not take their business elsewhere when a company has a hateful and bigoted position on something?

What imbeciles. I'm glad nobody here on DU is that stupid.

Not government officials with political disagreements. I haven't seen anyone criticizing people for voting with their wallets.

Inclusiveness is an American value. Exclusiveness is not.

Cathay used his very public position to make a public statement. That makes him fair game for government reprisals.

IMO.

if pro-choice offends local sensitivities?

I think that's a distinction that can pass most objective philosophies.

why do you think every city official in America shares your values?

...it should be the idea of inclusiveness. I think citizens can, and should, hold their officials accountable when this value is not upheld or is deliberately undercut.

I think that still fits in with the idea of democracy and freedom of expression if we believe that public expressions of private behavior is different from privately held views.

if city officials can keep a business out of their town, not because they have violated any laws, but because of the personal views of its owner, what is to stop a conservative town from denying business licenses because their company's owners are pro-choice, or pro-gay marriage or are pro - something else that offends conservatives?

There are many American's that believe that the sanctity of life is a genuine expression of what is America.

The personal views of Cathay would not be an issue but he used his public position as head of a public corporation to put those views into the public sphere.

Therefore, I see it as valid that public officials react appropriately.

but if you are happy to set such a precedent, ok.

'Voluntary' manslaughter. 'Cruel and unusual'. Pornography.

I still think 'inclusiveness' versus 'exclusiveness' -when in relation to public statements made by public officials of a public corporation- is a valid line to draw.

It may not be a very bright line. But I would not have a problem seeing it drawn.

As always, I will admit to the possibility that I could be wrong. At the very least, this has been a worthwhile topic to discuss.

just pointing out you are swinging a two edged sword.

Although, just for the sake of argument, I suppose you can say that ignoring certain laws is not always to our detriment. Witness Obama's willingness to disregard DOMA.

of people's opinions. What if - God Forbid - there is a major terrorist attack? Would it not be quite possible that a government perhaps dominated by the likes of Tea Party Republicans would decide that businesses that don't rally around the flag and back their new wars are un-American and therefore should be put out of business? It is far more likely that government will be used to silence progressive dissent than to silence right-wing opinion. The only shield of protection we have for the First Amendment is to keep in tact the uncompromising principle that ALL speech is unconditionally protected from any and all government reprisals no matter how offensive it may be.

There are always limits on speech. Can employees verbally degrade the customers they serve?

The check on the government is we, the people. I will defend to the utmost anyone's right to be free of tyranny. But I will NOT defend the right of public corporations to make public statements denigrating fellow Americans.

That seems to me to be a valid line to draw.

a government to decide it is un-American to oppose gay marriage. The dominant forces of today's Republican Party have been indoctrinated to believe that America was founded by right-wing Evangelical Christians and that the government derives its legitimacy from the right-wing Evangelical god. It would be a very dangerous path to go down the road of allowing government to determine what opinions are American and what opinions are un-American. It is far, far more likely that reactionary forces will dominate those decision especially in the aftermath of a national trauma. I would stick with the shield of free speech even at the risk of being offended than discard the shield of free speech at the risk of falling down the slippery slope to tyranny.

But public corporations, like royalty, serve at the will of the people. (Theoretically.)

This is why we can't have nice things. No one wants to stand up for the idea of inclusiveness. Even here, we are afraid of the corporations. Progressives tend to over-think these things.

Public corporations should be held to a different standard than individuals.

Everyone - even Hitler and Stalin supported free speech for people they agreed with. There was a time not so long ago when free speech in favor of gay marriage could have brought about a movement to silence that opinion. No doubt there are places even in America today where it still could. The left is particularly vulnerable to being denied free speech because many of us of the left - such as myself frequently take extremely unpopular opinions and just can't seem to shut up abut it. The only shield we have is the extent to which we can keep in tact the principle of the right to annoy people with unpopular opinions that deeply offend the greater community.

Everyone has a right to take their business elsewhere if the opinions of a company's management offends them. I am unaware of anyone arguing otherwise.

People who make public statements you do not like are fair game for government reprisals...

How do you live with yourself?

In a world of poetic justice Eric Cantor would have you fired from your job and evicted from your home for the content of things you have written on the internet. You would than have plenty of time to think about government reprisals for public statements.

But thanks to people like myself and dozens of others in these threads, that will not happen to you. And you will continue to enjoy rights for which you have utter contempt and that you publicly proclaim should not exist.

You are a rights parasite... a particular sort of political monster. You use our rights to agitate to deny rights to others.

Just like Cathay.

But even rights parasites have rights.

And a public CEO making a public stance calling for exclusion is not something that should be brushed aside.

I think that's a valid distinction.

Use your public position to exclude Americans and expect the public to react.

Two peas in a pod.

Or your life. Or whatever. I thought I was just positing an alternate view of the issue.

to disagreeable statements.

But government reprisal? I can't believe we're having this discussion.

What do you call a government that exacts retribution for incorrect thoughts and words?

Inclusiveness versus exclusiveness. Public statements made by public officials of public corporations -an argument can be made that this type of speech can be treated differently.

Nowhere is anyone saying that privately held thoughts or privately expressed words can invoke government reprisals.

We cheered when Obama declared he would ignore DOMA because of its exclusiveness.

to express my ideas in public, the government has the authority to use its unlimited coercive power against me.

Scary.

BTW: When candidate Obama expressed his opinion that marriage should be reserved for unions between one man and one woman, should the more enlightened states have taken his name off the ballot? If you can't operate a chicken stand for expressing impure thoughts, you certainly should not be allowed to run for president.

The American ideal falls squarely on the side of inclusiveness. Obama's stated opinion is an example of advocating for inclusiveness, not exclusiveness.

Thoughts have nothing to do with this discussion, IMO. But when a public official uses his public prestige and position to state opinions in the public arena that express exclusiveness, then I think the public has the right to come down hard on the public corporation he manages.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but I think this is no different from all the other judgements society does each and every day. 'Voluntary' manslaughter. 'Cruel and unusual'. Pornography. What constitutes spousal abuse? Child abuse?

We draw lines in society all the time and they are not always bright and clear.

that EXCLUDED same-sex couples from the benefits of state-sanctioned marriage.

Should progressive states have excluded him from their presidential ballots in 2008?

Should there be an inclusiveness test before anyone is permitted to speak freely, run for public office, operate a business, travel from state to state, have children, buy a home in your community, send their children to a public school, obtain a driver's license, have a picnic in a public park, take out a library book, ride on Amtrak, attend a community college, apply for welfare, collect Social Security, get treatment in a VA hospital...

If the ground rules had been well established before the election, he would not have said that. We all know he was trying to edge the country closer to gay rights. In other words, his statement was 'politics'. If exclusiveness was widely derided, fewer politicians would be playing those kind of games.

We cheered when Obama said he would not enforce DOMA. I would not have a problem with Boston preventing CFA from entering their city if it was done on the basis of public statements from public officials who work for public corporations taking a stand that advocates exclusiveness.

I think that's a fine line we could at least put to the test.

get close to testing.

I suggest a DU poll asking this question:

Should the government, on any level, use zoning laws or permitting/licensing rules to punish the exercise of constitutionally-protected speech?

The American ideal is inclusiveness, not exclusiveness.

'Constitutionally protected speech' is not even on the table, IMO. Privately expressed views should always be protected, even when those views are expressed publicly BUT NOT when a public official uses his/her power and prestige to advocate exclusiveness.

When a public official of a public corporation makes public statements advocating against the American ideal, should we not stand against him/her?

I don't see that this is different from wanting to prevent corporations from donating to political causes. We want checks on corporate power. I think we want checks on corporate expressions of exclusiveness, also.

Calling him a "Public Official" does not make it so.

Is George Soros a public official? How about Ben & Jerry? I was an executive with a Fortune 500 company. Am I a public official?

You say "...should we not stand against him/her." But what you mean is: "I want the government to use its coercive power to enforce my view of what speech is acceptable."

BTW: Even public officials have the right to make stupid statements. Would you vote them out at the next election, or drag them into the street for a tar-and-feathers party.

I have nothing against individuals -rich or poor- expressing their views and donating to whatever political candidates or causes strike their fancies.

But I DO think the American ideal of inclusiveness should be defended. And we vote officials out of office for their stupid remarks all the time. Not sure where 'tar and feathers' comes from. I'm not at all advocating anarchy. Quite the opposite.

If Cathy had been interviewed, not as a CEO, but as a rich man expressing his personal beliefs, I would not have a problem with that.

But he chose to use his public position, his power and prestige, to make his statement have more effect than the statements you or I might make.

I think that's something we can safely say is against the American ideal of inclusiveness.

Because you WERE an executive of a Fortune 500 company -I assume this means you are no longer- has nothing to do with this, so far as I can see, anyways. If you were to use your public position and power to influence us, then, yes, I think we should have a problem with that.

But as far as you expressing your private views in a non-Corporate-power-backed way, go for it.

On edit: Not necessarily directed to you, but I have yet to see a response regarding Obama's refusal to defend DOMA. I think that's a relevant point because we cheered him when he disobeyed a law because of its exclusiveness. Yet here we are defending to the death a corporate CEO's right to use his power and prestige to influence public opinion. Are they the same? Different?

at least when they are being interviewed in that capacity?"

No, they are not.

There is a difference between a public person and a public official. Tom Cruise, Alex Rodriguez, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are public persons. Mayors Menino and Emmanuel are public officials.

I am currently one of the founding partners of my company. I did not agree to give up my First Amendment rights for the privilege of launching a business. And yes, what Mr. Cathy said is constitutionally-protected speech.

Don't patronize his business. That's everyone's right. But asking the government to use its regulatory authority to punish his business for what he said is dangerously close to what we accuse the other side of being.

I take that back. It's exactly what we accuse the other side of being.

I would be okay with that. But, again, I am not saying anything about 'punishing' anyone for their personal beliefs. It's only when those beliefs are backed by public, corporate power that I am in favor of a public reaction. And that reaction would be against the public corporation, not the individual.

And in regards to exclusiveness only, which goes against what most people think is the American ideal.

I don't think that is the same as what the 'other side' is doing. They are all ABOUT exclusiveness. I think we can draw a line there and see how it works out.

Not that I think the world will change according to my whims but it's been an interesting thought experiment. Thanks for your input.

public figure instead of public person.

I came to the conclusion that the terms were synonymous.

I am also in favor of a public reaction... meaning reaction by the public. I am not in favor of government power being used to suppress free speech.

Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from market consequences. I can say whatever I please. You can shun me, ridicule me, refuse to patronize my business. The First Amendment does, however, guarantee freedom from government retaliation.

The mayors made ill-conceived statements on the matter. The slap-down was instantaneous.

That's the bright line. And I don't think that we're going to test it anytime soon.

You make a big to-do about "Inclusiveness" and "Exclusiveness" in this thread, but these are just your arbitrary terms that describe no legal principle.

The law doesn't privilege certain speech based on whether or not you like it.

Your desire to restrict the speech of opponents betrays an authoritarian impulse. The First Amendment is always troublesome to speech restrictionists such as yourself.

And you'll probably be better off choosing a healthy alternative for your meal, anyway.

I think the point is people like myself choose not to give our money to an organization that is known to support bigotry. God knows there are enough bigots in this country to keep Chick Fil A going strong for a long, long time.

and haven't discovered the easy recipe to create it in their own homes. All they do is soak both chicken and potatoes in brine, then fry it. It tastes good to many palates, and people haven't yet figured out it's pickle juice they soak both in before frying.

Once people realize that, I think this "I still love Chick-Fil-A despite their organization being assholes and bigots" will fade.

I won't eat at Chick-Fil-A and will encourage others to boycott them as well. Does the management have a right to express their opinion however deeply it offends me? Of course. And I have the right to take my business elsewhere. I am unaware of one single post suggesting otherwise.

I have not seen any such posts.

The poster was saying (correctly) that nobody argues that Chick-fil-a should be immune from consequences like boycotts and customers disliking them.

in order to "get" Chick-fil-a.

I've seen many, many such posts and in your other thread on this subject I pointed out that this is a misuse of the ACLU statement, for they are addressing what government should do, and yet people are using that claim that citizens should not boycott them.
Pretending you do not see this is just daft beans. We can all read this site.

An OP said that.

that Chick-Fil-A should be immune from any consequences. I have not seen anyone suggest that. I certainly agree that the government has no right restricting anyone's freedom of speech. I know that there have been some posts in the last few days arguing in favor of the government controlling what opinions people are allowed to express. I hope the OP is not suggesting that.

But there seems to be several people here that do in fact want the government to step in and shut down a business based on one man's opinion.

If that is what the OP meant, then I very much disagree. If not, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. But even if that's not what the OP is saying, certainly several others ARE saying that.

Again, I can't blame them for being really mad at this Cathy guy. He sounds like a real piece of trash. I just think their anger is making them think irrationally in this instance. I've certainly been guilty of it myself from time to time.

I have not followed the threads all that closely, but I have seen a couple, myself.

Part of your money goes to organizations like Exodus International, which promotes "reparative therapy" For Gays and Lesbians. There is significant anecdotal evidence of harm to LGBT people resulting from attempts to change their sexual orientation. Every major medical and human health organization in the United States has issued a statement condemning the use of reparative therapy.

DO YOU SUPPORT CHICK-FIL-A'S ENDORSEMENT OF REPARATIVE THERAPY?

Simple question with a simple answer.

Chick-fil-A stands for.

congrats on that bit of slime.

I have see not one person here even come within shouting distance of saying that they endorse what the asshat wingnut xian CEO believes.

What people have said is that they believe the 1st amendment protects his right to spew his bigoted crap.

And it sure as fuck does.

"A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked."

When you fund organizations whose sole purpose is to change the law to comply with your religious beliefs, you are a bigot.

Dan Cathy, at least you should own the term.

Because most people don't believe being against gay marriage automatically means one "hates" gay people.