Can They Do That?
The Chicago Tribune reports that a city alderman, Joe Moreno, plans to block Chick-fil-a from opening a store in his district in Chicago because the alderman doesn't agree with opinions the company's president, Dan Cathy, expressed about same sex marriage in an interview. Putting aside the content of Cathy's opinions, can government officials really just decide to prevent businesses from operating in a city because the officials don't like those particular businesses?
I understand, of course, that businesses require various licenses and permits to operate, but I was under the impression that those licensing and permitting processes had to be conducted to advance some specific public purpose -- a public purpose defined in the law establishing the licensing or permitting process, and not just some commissar's assertion of a public purpose made up ad hoc --but I'm not a lawyer, perhaps I'm just wrong about that.
Mayor Emanuel is backing-up the alderman saying "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." Well so what? Does one have to agree with Mayor and neighborhood aldermen on matters of philosophy to operate a business in Chicago? Apparently so. The article also reports that the alderman had "block[ed] plans for a Wal-Mart in his ward, saying he had issues with the property owner and that Wal-Mart was not 'a perfect fit for the area.'"
This is an abuse of power.
- Comment (62)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Can They Do That?
I agree, this is not only an abuse of power, but an incredibly blatant example. Can you imagine the founders reaction to this? A government official refuses to grant a permit because the owner of the business believes the tenets found in the Bible? Even the most Deist among them (Franklin? Jefferson?) would be incredulous.
Given the reputation of Chicago pols, not to mention the murder rate in that city, was anything ever more bleedin' obvious. Talk about condemned out of your own mouth.
Jun '10
Re: Can They Do That?
Like he cares.... He's just getting on the record, to make fundraising easier. It's not like these guys ever follow through on anything.
Oct '10
Re: Can They Do That?
Back in prehistoric times, that is before 1965, porno shops and sleaze bars were blocked by communities from opening in neighborhoods. They expressed their community standards by using the zoning and licensing laws. The Warren Supreme Court disagreed and ultimately disallowed these sorts of restrictions as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of expression.
Now, however, the pretense that the supremes are about Constitutional issues is over, and it is about supporting the views of the current zeitgeist, that the political class no longer lead, they rule.
As such, they can do any damn thing they want.
Dec '10
Re: Can They Do That?
Severely Ltd.: I agree, this is not only an abuse of power, but an incredibly blatant example. Can you imagine the founders reaction to this? A government official refuses to grant a permit because the owner of the business believes the tenets found in the Bible? Even the most Deist among them (Franklin? Jefferson?) would be incredulous.
Given the reputation of Chicago pols, not to mention the murder rate in that city, was anything ever more bleedin' obvious. Talk about condemned out of your own mouth. · 4 minutes ago
I could see the founders going the other way and denying a place to someone who didn't hold to faith of some sort.
May '12
Re: Can They Do That?
The King Prawn
Severely Ltd.: I agree, this is not only an abuse of power, but an incredibly blatant example. Can you imagine the founders reaction to this? A government official refuses to grant a permit because the owner of the business believes the tenets found in the Bible? Even the most Deist among them (Franklin? Jefferson?) would be incredulous.
Given the reputation of Chicago pols, not to mention the murder rate in that city, was anything ever more bleedin' obvious. Talk about condemned out of your own mouth. · 4 minutes ago
I could see the founders going the other way and denying a place to someone who didn't hold to faith of some sort. · 1 minute ago
Define 'Founders'. If we are referring to those that wrote the Constitution I suspect they wouldn't have much to say on the issue. The federal government was intended to be a very limited entity restrained from meddling in local affairs.
Sep '10
Re: Can They Do That?
True. But my objection isn't merely that free exercise of religion is protected by the constitution (which it is), it's the lawless and arbitrary exercise of power.
Suppose the alderman had blocked Wal-Mart because he didn't like their selection of fabric softener. Fabric softening isn't a Constitutionally protected activity, but the alderman still shouldn't be able to block a company on those grounds absent some law specifically spelling out exactly what the fabric softener selection requirements are for a store. What Moreno and Emanuel are doing is government by men, not laws.
Edited on July 26, 2012 at 3:50pmApr '11
Re: Can They Do That?
I'm not sure if someone has linked this before but this came up on one of my Facebook news feeds. Basically, the Mayor of Boston is saying that there is no place for Chick-fil-A there in a pretty arrogant letter. I find this whole business disgraceful and stupid.
Dec '10
Re: Can They Do That?
BrentB67
The King Prawn
I could see the founders going the other way and denying a place to someone who didn't hold to faith of some sort. · 1 minute ago
Define 'Founders'. If we are referring to those that wrote the Constitution I suspect they wouldn't have much to say on the issue. The federal government was intended to be a very limited entity restrained from meddling in local affairs. · 49 minutes ago
Federally, I agree. On the local level, polities where much stricter than they are today. There were even laws that caused the forfeit of property if the owners did not make profitable use of it. Connecticut went so far as to authorize taking of private property if the local assembly didn't think the owner was being productive enough with it. That would be akin to taking a Chick-Fil-A and turning it over to McDonalds so it would serve more customers.
Mar '11
Re: Can They Do That?
When my city got a Chick-fil-A there were lines around the building. If the company is not trying to be the next McDonald's (with multiple sites in every city and stores in lots of small towns) then this is really a non-issue to the business.
I mean really high regulation, high labor cost cities don't want a medium sized fast food chain. Chick-fil-A can do just fine on a higher profit margin avoiding these large urban nightmares. "Red States" would thank the business for creating jobs.
Apr '12
Re: Can They Do That?
They will have to pry my cold dead hands from a spicy chicken biscuit...thank goodness I reside in the intolerant Southeast.
Apr '11
Re: Can They Do That?
This, is Chicago politics. Obama, is Chicago politics. This, is Obama.
Welcome to the New World Order. If you'll take a number Big Brother will be with you in a moment. -- George Orwell becomes more prophetic every day.
Mar '11
Re: Can They Do That?
If Chic-fil-a values are not chicago values, then there's no problem fo rthe left. The business will fail. Either Chic-fil-a values ARE Chicago values, or the general popultion doesn't give a flying rip either way. The left wants democracy? Then let people vote with their dollars. I would really like this alderman to explain what he believes it means to live in a free society.
Feb '11
Re: Can They Do That?
The mayors of Boston and Chicago are acting like the fascist thugs they are. That they do this is not surprising, it's a dog-bits-man story. It is entertaining to see Menino missing the overwhelming irony in saying Boston is an open city, so it doesn't have a place for anyone who doesn't follow his narrow worldview. Rahm is failing as Chicago's mayor in the most important way, law-and-order. So he's flailing around to keep the peasants distracted.
These mayors are perfect exemplars of high-level provincial Democrat apparatchiks, and they illustrate perfectly that there is no room for Judeo-Christian values in the modern Democrat-Fascist Machine.
Having said that, I don't get too worked up over it. If they want to be asses, they serve as good object lessons and we can respond in kind. Besides, there are plenty of municipalities, especially in the more prosperous suburbs of both Boston and Chicago who will not be such braying donkeys to Chick-Fil-A.
Freedom of Speech is the petard upon with Rahm and Menino hoist themselves.
Re: Can They Do That?
It is blatantly unconstitutional for an elected official to punish someone for their religious views. More on that here and here.
So it's an open and shut case against these political thugs. However, the effect is still accomplished.
In the grand bargain where people agree to redefine marriage in exchange for having their own views respected ... one side seems to take tolerance a bit more seriously than the other.
And if the fight is over whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions and polygamy and other stuff or whether to permit people to agree with the Bible about what marriage is or face government penalties ... yikes. Are we sure that strongly discouraging -- with government force, no less! -- the expression of traditional Christian views on sex is worth it? For what, again? For destroying societal support for traditional family and the norms that accompany it?
This should end well.
Mar '11
Re: Can They Do That?
This can really be added to most of Democratic Memes lately that are simply discussed to "rally the base".
I can not believe that most people in the Country care about the politics of the owner of a fast food restaurant.
Re: Can They Do That?
"Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." ...may it ever be so. Come to think of it, they aren't Hell's values either, though that may be redundant.
Mar '11
Re: Can They Do That?
Ultimately I believe that if the Restaurant really wants to open in these cities they have a cause of action and can go to court. The City would have to argue that the religiousness views of the owner are a reason to exclude the business.
Boston and Chicago both each have at least 6 Catholic Hospitals. Should they be asked to leave as not meeting the Cities' values?
May '12
Re: Can They Do That?
I see you've never heard of Chicago.
Chicago is a large city on the shore of Lake Michigan, started as a trading center and later a strategic military post named Fort Dearborn. During the mid-1800s it's central location in the rapidly expanding nation, along with the advent of the railroad industry, allowed it to grow at an amazing rate.
It gained a reputation as a city of incredible opportunity as well as bald-faced corruption. Meat packing, a chief industry, drew hundreds of thousands of Irish, German, Polish, and Italian immigrants. This working class backbone made it a frontline for labor organizers.
Politicians gained power by exercising extensive patronage favors to the various immigrant communities and a culture of big promises and grandiose rhetoric by it's politicians gained the city the nickname, "The Windy City" in honor of all the "hot air" spewed by the cities ruling class.
The patronage system reached its height under the administration of Richard J. Daley who ruled the city for decades and who is often credited with giving the presidency to John Kennedy through the election fraud his underlings performed on Kennedy's behalf.
Edited on July 26, 2012 at 5:25pmMay '10
Re: Can They Do That?
I'm afraid the political grandstanding of this type looks an awful lot like the Nuremberg laws or the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses, only in this case it's applied to Christians. The totalitarianism of the sexual revolution.
Apr '11
Re: Can They Do That?
And via Rahm it's linked to the feds. I don't hold out much hope for this being helpful in Illinois politics this cycle (although I'd be happy to be corrected), but it seems like a perfect match for linking with the HHS mandate. Both are clear statements that it is offensive for Christians to run businesses without shedding their faith and that they should be prohibited or financially sanctioned for doing so.