Alderman of 1st Ward Proco "Joe" Moreno thinks Daily Show viewers are his path to glory... (Wheaton: stations, baptist)

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

Sorry, you're not even close.

Ok. Are you going to explain to me why I'm wrong? Was the ACLU also wrong today when they said:

“When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination." The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz said, but noted that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage."

Legal eagles cry fowl over politicians' plans to block Chick-fil-A | Fox News


Was Mayor Manino of Boston wrong when he acknowledged today that he lacks the authority to allow Chik-Fil-A to open up based on the company's opposition to gay marriage?

Menino balks on Chick-fil-A flap - BostonHerald.com

[williepotatoes]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Yep, are we done now?

Gladly!

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

Ok. Are you going to explain to me why I'm wrong? Was the ACLU also wrong today when they said:

“When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination." The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz said, but noted that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage."

Legal eagles cry fowl over politicians' plans to block Chick-fil-A | Fox News


Was Mayor Manino of Boston wrong when he acknowledged today that he lacks the authority to allow Chik-Fil-A to open up based on the company's opposition to gay marriage?

Menino balks on Chick-fil-A flap - BostonHerald.com

The alderman has the authority to deny a zoning change

[williepotatoes]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

Ok. Are you going to explain to me why I'm wrong? Was the ACLU also wrong today when they said:

“When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination." The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz said, but noted that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage."

Legal eagles cry fowl over politicians' plans to block Chick-fil-A | Fox News


Was Mayor Manino of Boston wrong when he acknowledged today that he lacks the authority to allow Chik-Fil-A to open up based on the company's opposition to gay marriage?

Sorry Vlajos, I couldn't help myself.

Menino balks on Chick-fil-A flap - BostonHerald.com

Chick fil A has no right to build a restaurant where the law says no restaurants are allowed. Nobody can build a restaurant there. Not the Muslim Brotherhood, not the Scientologists and not any gay organization.

Sorry Vlajos, I just can't stop myself.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Your first two examples don't apply at all - the decision was obviously not based on race or religion. BTW - those aren't in the constitution, they're laws. Primarily the Civil Rights Act, which applies to individuals and religious institutions, NOT companies. The Mosque example has nothing to do with this case because religious institutions have special protections that do not apply to companies. In all of your examples you're applying individual rights to a company. It doesn't work that way.

Obviously, I know that this case doesn't involve race or religion. I'm using them as examples to show that although local politicians are given a lot of discretion in making governmental decisions such as this one (zoning), they are prohibited from using certain criteria when they make these decisions. One of those prohibited criteria is free speech; the others are race and religion. Yes, the examples are different and the constitutional provisions are different, but the principle remains the same: some things are so important (religion, free speech, equal protection) that the government is totally prohibited from using these criteria to make a decision.

Here are a few other important points.

1. Companies have First Amendment rights. Period. This explains why the government cannot tell The New York Times or Fox News (both corporations) what they can and cannot say. If The New York Times wants to run an editorial saying Mitt Romney is an idiot, the government cannot prohibit them from doing so.

2. The First Amendment Exists to Protect Us From the Government, Not From the Actions of Other Private Entities. Thus, if the owner of Chik-Fil-A says "I think marriage is between a man and a woman," the government cannot punish him for saying so. However, you (and other citizens and groups) are free to "punish" Chik-Fil-A if you want. You can choose not to spend your money there, organize boycotts against them, send them letters, organize a picket, go on the news and complain about them, etc. But you are not the government; Moreno, acting in his official capacity in deciding Chik-Fil-A's request, is the government.

3. There Are a Number of Different Ways That the Government Can "Punish" a Citizen; Punishment Doesn't Just Mean Criminal Prosecution. The government can punish you by charging you with a crime. But there are also a number of different ways they can punish you, like (1) denying your request for a zoning permit (Moreno example), (2) denying your request to hold a march through the town center (the KKK in Skokie), (3) make you use different water fountains or different schools (segregation), (4) deny your application to enroll in a state university, etc.

Which brings me to this point. You say:

Originally Posted by Attrill

Your third example, free speech, is completely off base. No one is infringing in any way on the CEO's freedom to say whatever he wants, his statements are simply being used to gain a better understanding of his company's policies. The 1st Amendment in no way insulates people (or companies for that matter) from the fallout of what they say.

Yes, it does actually. The entire point of the First Amendment is just that: to allow people to feel free to speak their mind without having to fear government reprisal. So if I say, "I think the War on Drugs is a failure and the politicians who support it are idiots," the government cannot punish me for saying this. It can't throw me in jail, write me a ticket, deny me a zoning permit, deny my application to march through the street, deny me welfare benefits, reject my application to enroll in a state university, etc.

The owner of Chik-Fil-A has a right to voice his opinions without having the government punish him for his views. You and the rest of society are free to punish him, which is how this should work: you fight bad ideas or bad speech with more speech, not by squelching the speech you don't like.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

Chick fil A has no right to build a restaurant where the law says no restaurants are allowed. Nobody can build a restaurant there. Not the Muslim Brotherhood, not the Scientologists and not any gay organization.

Sorry Vlajos, I just can't stop myself.

No problem, it's comical.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

Chick fil A has no right to build a restaurant where the law says no restaurants are allowed. Nobody can build a restaurant there. Not the Muslim Brotherhood, not the Scientologists and not any gay organization.

You've made an interesting point. If there was a zoning law that stated flatly "Absolutely no fast food restaurants are allowed in Area One," that would be fine. And you would be 100% right. It doesn't matter who applies to change the law, whether it be Chik-Fil-A, Los Pollos Hermanos, the Muslim Brotherhood, McDonald's, etc., the result would be the same. The city or zoning administrator would just point to the zoning law that says "no fast food restaurants in Area One." End of story.

The problem here is that there is a process whereby politicians are given discretion to make a decision on whether to issue a zoning permit, or to allow a request for a zoning variance. Once the government administrator has some discretion, he can't use that discretion in a constitutionally unlawful manner.

So there is a blanket rule stating "Absolutely no fast food restaurants are allowed in Area One," and the proprietor of Los Pollos Hermanos applies to be an exception of this rule, it is totally kosher if the city just points to the rule and says, "Dude, according to our rule, absolutely no fast food restaurants are allowed in Area One." I have no problem with this.

But of course that's not what happened here. Moreno (actually the City Council) has a lot of discretion to change the rules if he wants to allow Chik-Fil-A to open up in Logan Square. Once he has this discretion (decision-making power), he can't then use it in a constitutionally unlawful manner. By his own words (read his Op-Ed in today's Chicago Tribune), he stated the he will block Chik-Fil-A's attempt to open up on Elston based on the owner's ignorance (on gay marriage). This he cannot do. (And since I feel people are having trouble grasping the free speech issue, I use other examples like race. Once Moreno is given discretion to allow or not allow a restaurant in his neighborhood -- which is the essence of zoning -- he cannot make that decision based on the race of the applicant. I'm sure you have to agree with at least that?)

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

The alderman has the authority to deny a zoning change

You are right. He just can't do it for an unconstitutional reason. So saying "no" to the request because it's bad for aesthetics or will lead to increased traffic, he's fine. Saying "no" to the request because he doesn't like the race of the owner or the owner's views on gay marriage, that violates the Constitution.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

You are right. He just can't do it for an unconstitutional reason. So saying "no" to the request because it's bad for aesthetics or will lead to increased traffic, he's fine. Saying "no" to the request because he doesn't like the race of the owner or the owner's views on gay marriage, that violates the Constitution.

Sort of, he can just say no to changing zoning.

[dewthedru]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Sort of, he can just say no to changing zoning.

Agreed. But the problem is that he didn't. He used the religious and political ideology of CF as the reason for denying it. Going to be hard to unring that bell.