I don't like your religious positions, so you're not getting this zoning permit.

On Wednesday, Moreno did not dispute that Cathy had the right to say what he said. But, Moreno said, "There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago."

Chick-fil-A has obtained a zoning permit for the restaurant but needs approval from the City Council to divide the land, Moreno said. And in a city where the City Council rarely go against the wishes of the alderman, Chick-fil-A needs Moreno's help.

Moreno said holding up construction would be as simple as refusing to introduce an ordinance to subdivide the land where Chick-fil-A wants to build.

He said he was not worried about being sued. First, he said, there are well-documented traffic and congestion issues in the Logan Square neighborhood that he could raise to justify his decision.

source

And because people are flying off the handle about something they've never read, the quote that got Chick Fil A in trouble:

"That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries," Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

source

To begin with, I agree with the religious position held by the president of Chick Fil A. Homosexuality is a Biblical sin, and according to the New Testament marriage is a God given institution to be shared only between a man and a woman. I applaud the fact that he wants to further and share that belief.

However, I disagree with his political position, that our government should forbid or even get in the way of homosexual marriages. Banning homosexual marriage will not accomplish what religious conservatives want it to accomplish. Homosexuals will still have sex, they will still live together, they will still love each other, they will still adopt children, they will still legally marry, if not here then elsewhere. The only thing it will accomplish is to deny good and honest people of legal rights that we religious conservatives enjoy. I don't see any good reason why a secular government should forbid an act that verifiably harms no one. They're not going to stop being homosexuals, they're not going to stop feeling what they feel. They're not going to join the Baptist church and repent of their sins. They're just going to be hurt. Even though I adamantly disagree with homosexuality, I don't think banning homosexual marriage would do any good, only harm.

That being said, I am appalled at these government workers who have publicly announced that they plan to actively oppose this company because the owner has made a brief statement opposing homosexual marriage. I could completely understand if these politicians would find it unconscionable to work with the president of Chick Fil A. Everyone should have a right to not act based on conscience. But these men and women are not simply not acting, they plan to actively oppose this company because they disagree with the owner's religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by president of Chick Fil A

...but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.

I'm not so sure we do live in that country anymore, when our government leaders publicly single out a Christian owned business and make plans to actively oppose it because of its owner's religious positions.

If things are as reported, then the alderman is definitely in the wrong.

I strongly dislike Chick-Fil-A for their political lobbying against freedom of religion*, but that is not reason to deny them zoning.


*When you spend lots of money to make same-sex marriage illegal, despite Christian denominations and other religions willing to marry such people, then yes, you are opposing such freedom.



Edit: I will admit that a tiny part of me does enjoy the schadenfreude. CFA's owners tend to both actively campaign for oppression against others and claim to be constantly persecuted. This is a taste of their own medicine and exposure to what real discrimination feels like, and it's clear they don't like either. Still, not something they should have to experience in the first place.

What John said.

Having said that, I don't see why religion is brought into (and emphasized in) this particular discussion. The belief being acted against is an opposition towards same-sex marriage (irrespective of religion). If religious convictions (specifically) were being discriminated against (as implied by the OP and title), we'd have seen this sort of thing ages ago and/or more often, no?

The ironic thing is that had this alderman kept his mouth shut about it they very well might have repelled the franchise from establishing a restaurant since zoning boards--especially in big cities like Chicago--are pretty powerful and have tremendous discretion to do what they want short of a showing of some type of discrimination . The problem with this, naturally, is that his statements evidence just that. The big no-nos of zoning is that 1) you don’t restrictively zone areas for religious reasons and 2) you don’t specifically discriminate against individuals in the process of the zoning. When you say: "There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you're not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago" it’s pretty clear you’re running afoul of one or both. I know he stated that he’s not worried about being sued, but I question how sure he is about that. At the very least comments like that create a presumption that First Amendment rights were violated--even if he later justifies it as an issue of traffic or congestion. Now, typically the way these things work is that Chick-Fil-A has to file for the zoning permit and then, if denied, seek a variance of that zoning until such efforts are seen as clearly futile. Then, and only then, could they file suit. Therefore, it would be a lengthy process.

However, unlike 99% of zoning complaints where the government wins, I think Chick-Fil-A has a very good shot at prevailing (though, I do seem to remember a case involving some of the proof problems involved in demonstrating that zoning permits/variances were denied due to the comments of a minority of members). However, I think this guy is just posturing. I think he’s probably either ignorant of zoning law or that he really wants to make more of a political point than he legitimately wants to harm the interests of a corporation he disagrees with. Again, if he did, he would have kept his mouth shut.

I cannot help but note that the irony of this is highly relevant... ^_^;

Originally Posted by Double A

What John said.

Having said that, I don't see why religion is brought into (and emphasized in) this particular discussion. The belief being acted against is an opposition towards same-sex marriage (irrespective of religion). If religious convictions (specifically) were being discriminated against (as implied by the OP and title), we'd have seen this sort of thing ages ago and/or more often, no?

Oh, I agree with you that the belief being acted against is an opposition towards same-sex marriage, but I don't see how it could be irrespective of religion. The interview that caused these mayors and government officials to publicly state their plans to actively oppose Chick Fil A was overwhelmingly religious in nature. The president of Chick Fil A clearly opposes homosexuality on religious grounds. Its his religious conviction. Those government officials may not view the issue as a religious issue, and religion may mean nothing to them personally, but that man and his company is being discriminated against by our (U.S.) government because of his religious conviction. I don't see how religion could be extracted from this situation.

[edit]
I wasn't at all interested in this story. I had seen a brief headline about it when it first hit, but never looked into it, simply rolling my eyes and moving on. But when I hopped on google news this afternoon it was all over the place. I just about had an aneurysm when I looked up the original interview and realized what a mountain the media, and some of our government officials have made out of this molehill.

Originally Posted by mattj

Oh, I agree with you that the belief being acted against is an opposition towards same-sex marriage, but I don't see how it could be irrespective of religion. The interview that caused these mayors and government officials to publicly state their plans to actively oppose Chick Fil A was overwhelmingly religious in nature. The president of Chick Fil A clearly opposes homosexuality on religious grounds. Its his religious conviction. Those government officials may not view the issue as a religious issue, and religion may mean nothing to them personally, but that man and his company is being discriminated against by our (U.S.) government because of his religious conviction. I don't see how religion could be extracted from this situation.

I really don't see how it matters. They are attempting to base a zoning decision--a government position--around a matter of opinion. Whether it is religious, esoteric, stinky, pink, or evil to me is irrelevant.
At the very least there is still discrimination--the exact flavor of which might be up for debate. However, for a zoning analysis that flavor need not be overly investigated.


*Trying to rescue the thread from being derailed over whether this is over religious discrimination or not. *

^ excellent point as always

I think it upsets me to an extra degree because I can personally relate to the president of Chick Fil A, even though I don't fully agree with his position. But if this was a case of a Republican Alderman, and a Republican Mayor denying a Democratic business zoning permits because of their political positions it wouldn't be any less disgusting, or illegal.

@Wes: there seems to be a consensus that the zoning decision was unjust. If we left it at that, there'd be no discussion

Originally Posted by mattj

Oh, I agree with you that the belief being acted against is an opposition towards same-sex marriage, but I don't see how it could be irrespective of religion.

Alls' I'm suggesting is that this probably would have happened even if religion wasn't involved (and there HAVE been arguments against same-sex marriage that did not invoke religion).

I don't agree with what these people did to Chick-Fil-A, but to label this as religious discrimination is a bit misleading, from my point of view. It makes this thread a response to the wrong people. For all we know, the people who made this zoning decision are religious themselves and may even hold the same opinion of same-sex marriage.

Originally Posted by Double A

@Wes: there seems to be a consensus that the zoning decision was unjust. If we left it at that, there'd be no discussion

Never underestimate SD! The night is still young, my friend!

The opinion the president holds should be irreverent. As far as I'm aware, there are no hate crime laws in the US. Although I find the company's morals quite detestable, they have every legal right to obtain a permit. Without hate crime laws, a neo-nazi organization could set up their headquarters in Boston, and there's nothing they could legally do about it (until that organization starts acting with violence, of course).

Now, if this restaurant actively barred homosexuals from entering, then they can be charged under the Federal Civil Rights Act. Until that point, however, there is nothing that the city of Boston can (legally) do about it.

Originally Posted by Cascadian

Now, if this restaurant actively barred homosexuals from entering, then they can be charged under the Federal Civil Rights Act. Until that point, however, there is nothing that the city of Boston can (legally) do about it.

I'm wondering if Chicago is going to potentially use that as an argument since the Alderman mentioned that Chick-Fil-A doesn't have a set non-discrimination policy. However, the lack of a non-discrimination policy does not in itself evidence discrimination without actual evidence of discriminatory conduct.

I think it upsets me to an extra degree because I can personally relate to the president of Chick Fil A, even though I don't fully agree with his position.

I'm personally not sure which view I dislike more. I certainly am not a fan of any opinion that wishes to limit a party's freedom of contract, privacy, and personhood on account of traits that (I personally) think are inherent and biological. However, I have absolute contempt for statements, made by a member of a government, that there are consequences for freedom of speech. Well, of course there are consequences. However, the Constitution was constructed so that government would have no role in those consequences.

On a personal note I commend them for taking a stance against this. I don't care what people want to believe, but once it takes a physical form (in this case, opposing gay marriage and denying homosexuals the legal benefits that come with it), I have an issue. I see this as no different than trying to tell blacks that they can't marry because they are black, or believing that interracial marriage should be outlawed.

Though I'm not sure whether disallowing them to open a restaurant is right or not. It's probably illegal, but at the same time I'm glad that a business that donates money to anti-gay groups with anti-gay agendas won't have as much to give now.

I prefer chinese chicken anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Originally Posted by Ysionris

I cannot help but note that the irony of this is highly relevant... ^_^;

I'm pretty tired of this "homosexuals are intolerant too!" nonsense in regards to this debate. There's a difference between being intolerant to views that are ignorant, hurtful and discriminatory, and being condemning of said views. I'm perfectly "tolerant" of CFA's views on gay marriage. They're allowed to have that opinion.

Those who ARE being "intolerant" have a reason and a right to be so. Would YOU tolerate being discriminated against by your society and your government?

However, the fact that they actively donate to not just anti-gay marriage groups, but anti-gay groups is what concerns me. One of the groups CFA gives their money to is a certified hate group. I don't care if a company is opposed to gay marriage, they can have that view, just as much as I can have the view that gay marriage should be legal. But when you take it to the point where said company is donating large sums of money to hate groups...well, that's where I draw the line.

That said, I don't think CFA should be denied opening their own restaurant based on their views.

I'm not actually that bothered that their CEO doesn't think gay people should be allowed to get married, the issue for me is that he uses his company's proceeds to donate millions of dollars to homophobic lobbying groups who are trying to inflict their prejudices on the homosexual population of America. His opinion is offensive and bigoted, yes, but if he kept it to himself it wouldn't be hurting anyone.

This guy should be allowed to open a restaurant wherever he likes, he has the right to do that. But he shouldn't be allowed to give money to fund hate groups.

I'm not against vigilante justice or justice of a similar nature, so I don't have a problem with CFA being discriminated against.

CFA has never donated a penny to any hate group. The groups that they have given money to that have been labeled "hate groups" by groups like the Souther Poverty Law Center, and other pro-homosexual-agenda groups are not hate groups by any general definition.

Originally Posted by wiki

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), hate groups' "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."[1]

That's a pretty solid definition. Hatred, malice, hostility, violence. Not a single group that CFA has ever donated money to hates homosexuals. They are not hate groups.

I disagree with CFA's position on the legality of gay marriage as much as any of you guys, but they absolutely have not donated money to hate groups.

[edit]
And obviously, every individual citizen of the United States has the right to take their business where they please, but our government does not have the right to deny services to Christian businesses based on their political or religious positions. Its all fun and games till local governments start denying pro-homosexual businesses zoning permits because of their political and religious views.

Originally Posted by mattj

CFA has never donated a penny to any hate group. The groups that they have given money to that have been labeled "hate groups" by groups like the Souther Poverty Law Center, and other pro-homosexual-agenda groups are not hate groups by any general definition.That's a pretty solid definition. Hatred, malice, hostility, violence. Not a single group that CFA has ever donated money to hates homosexuals. They are not hate groups.

I disagree with CFA's position on the legality of gay marriage as much as any of you guys, but they absolutely have not donated money to hate groups.

As quoted by this article:

1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.

And this one:

The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its propagation of known falsehoods about the LGBT community. For example, president Tony Perkins has a long history of false and inflammatory attacks, such as claiming that pedophilia is a "homosexual problem." [Washington Times, 11/24/10; SPLC, accessed 6/27/12]

I don't know, that sounds pretty hateful to me.

Really now? Propagating known falsehoods makes you a hate group? I guess NPR and MSNBC are hate groups for propagating known falsehoods.

No. Hating people makes you a hate group. And none of the organizations CFA has donated money to hate gays. Not a single one of them. I don't give a crap that the SPLC has labeled them a hate group. Opposing homosexuality, either morally or legally does not make a group a hate group.

CFA has not donated money to the KKK or some neonazi group. They have donated money to groups that seek to protect traditional marriage and rehabilitate people who do not wish to be gay. Feel free to disagree with that all you want. Take your business elsewhere if you wish. But those groups do not meet any definition of "hate group" other than the SPLC's personal definition of "hate group", which if applied to itself and many other organizations they'd find themselves labeled hate groups too.

Originally Posted by mattj

Really now? Propagating known falsehoods makes you a hate group? I guess NPR and MSNBC are hate groups for propagating known falsehoods.

No. Hating people makes you a hate group. And none of the organizations CFA has donated money to hate gays. Not a single one of them. I don't give a crap that the SPLC has labeled them a hate group. Opposing homosexuality, either morally or legally does not make a group a hate group.

CFA has not donated money to the KKK or some neonazi group. They have donated money to groups that seek to protect traditional marriage and rehabilitate people who do not wish to be gay. Feel free to disagree with that all you want. Take your business elsewhere if you wish. But those groups do not meet any definition of "hate group" other than the SPLC's personal definition of "hate group", which if applied to itself and many other organizations they'd find themselves labeled hate groups too.

Calm down, please. I don't like your hostility.

Whether you personally disagree with me or not, it doesn't matter, there is no denying saying things like "gays should be exported out of America" or "pedophilia is a homosexual problem" denotes a pretty hateful way of thinking - false or not. The fact that there are people who believe such falsehoods, as propagated by these groups, should at least say something. I agree that a group saying somerthing hateful and DOING something hateful are different, but think of it this way:

Would you still say "they aren't a hate group!" if such statements were directed at blacks or Christians?

"I think all blacks should be exported from America." Or "Pedophilia is a Christian problem." Why is it that such statements aren't recognized as hateful ONLY when applied to gays? If such companies were saying such things about blacks, people would be rioting in the streets. Would you say the same if a group was advocating we put all black people in jail for being black? Because that is exactly what those groups are advocating, only not based on race, but by sexuality.