The ACLU is also stepping up on behalf of CFA and against the alderman:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26...al-experts-say/

This has actually come up before. You cannot deny a group access based on their speech.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Soci...llage_of_Skokie

 

that was 1) 1977 and 2) not about racial stuff, it was political. i understand given the time period, socialism was a big deal, but hate speech isn't protected.

yeah, the more i read up about it the more i'm realizing there's not much legal ground to stand on with these cases... it's just a shame, since i'm sure no one would think twice about boycotting or refusing a zoning permit to a company that actively and vocally supported the KKK or another anti-black group... what's the difference?

 

Because they don't deny it based on their speech. They find an alternate reason that is legal to deny a petition for.

Because they don't deny it based on their speech. They find an alternate reason that is legal to deny a petition for.

 

 

i'm saying if the situations were identical, but you substitute black for gay.

The ACLU is also stepping up on behalf of CFA and against the alderman:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26...al-experts-say/

 

Good for them.

i'm saying if the situations were identical, but you substitute black for gay.

 

So am I. You can't deny based on any of that stuff.

I really hope Chic fil A sues. They'd basically be guaranteed the permit if they wanted it. The Alderman's own statements make it clear that he denied it solely because of the gay marriage comments. Trying to cover himself with later statements won't help.

So am I. You can't deny based on any of that stuff.

but they would find a way to anyway because the whole country (minus the south) would be outraged as opposed to only 50% of people right now.

that was 1) 1977 and 2) not about racial stuff, it was political. i understand given the time period, socialism was a big deal, but hate speech isn't protected.

 

Dude, it was the NAZI party of the US. It wasn't about socialism, it was about jew-hating.

 

edit: it doesn't matter if it was 1977 or 1877. It was the SC ruling on what restrictions can be placed by governments based on unwanted speech. The answer is "very little." Hate speech isn't illegal. Speech calling for violence isn't even illegal.

Edited July 26, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Dude, it was the NAZI party of the US. It wasn't about socialism, it was about jew-hating.

honestly just looked at the title of the article. my bad.

Most Muslim sects don't give women the same rights as men. How many of them haven't been allowed to open mosques specifically because of said discrimination?

Don't forget that they also want to kill gay people. Chick Fil A may not LIKE them, but they sure don't want to kill them.

 

I miss my former alderman.

You honestly miss Proco Joe? One of, if not the, most corrupt machine politicians in the city. For a while I thought it wasn't the voters fault, that we were just excluded from actively participating in city government by the machine. But now, after seeing how supportive people get of even the worst offenders when they do just a tiny bit of f**-worshipping, I'm beginning to think we deserve what we get here

Elwood Blues... he's a Catholic.

 

 

Just stupid.

 

Alderman basically have complete discretion in Chicago for zoning. If he simply says "The community would not support CFA" he can deny it and its over.

It is simply incredible the reaction, on both sides, this has gotten.

I don't know why this blew up so much. This isn't new for them.

I don't know why this blew up so much. This isn't new for them.

 

This has been bugging me too. I get it that it's the first time he or anyone else so high up in the company has explicitly said stuff like this, but did anyone think this wasn't what Chik-Fil-A's view would be?

For those wondering about the possible legal ramifications, Volokh weighs in.

This has been bugging me too. I get it that it's the first time he or anyone else so high up in the company has explicitly said stuff like this, but did anyone think this wasn't what Chik-Fil-A's view would be?

It's been known that they donate to anti-gay groups for a while.

For those wondering about the possible legal ramifications, Volokh weighs in.

does he? that article just restates what the alderman has said... no ramifications from what i've seen.

does he? that article just restates what the alderman has said... no ramifications from what i've seen.

 

But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.

 

And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (and I don’t know what the rule is under Illinois law). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (if his statement is quoted in context), seem to either not know or not care about the law.

I'll go with not caring. He scores more brownie points for backing the LBGT community than he does infringing on the constitutional rights of a conservative-minded business owner.

Its problematic what the alderman did but Volokh doesnt have any understanding of the Chicago zoning/permit process. Alderman can deny a permit for basically any reason. If they really take it to court, the Alderman's defense will likely be "Oh I just meant that the community would never support such a business." It would be entirely legal and within the Alderman's power to do that. There are maybe 5 times that a permit has been granted against an Alderman's wishes.

Its problematic what the alderman did but Volokh doesnt have any understanding of the Chicago zoning/permit process. Alderman can deny a permit for basically any reason. If they really take it to court, the Alderman's defense will likely be "Oh I just meant that the community would never support such a business." It would be entirely legal and within the Alderman's power to do that. There are maybe 5 times that a permit has been granted against an Alderman's wishes.

 

Any jury or judge will see right through the "oh well I REALLY denied it because of traffic congestion concerns" argument given his very clear statements this week.