Alderman of 1st Ward Proco "Joe" Moreno thinks Daily Show viewers are his path to glory... (zoning, restaurant)

[A2DAC1985]

Here's my 1/50th of a dollar:

While Americans are allowed to speak their mind, they are also afforded the opportunity to NOT say what they think. The owner of Chick-Fil-A is certainly entitled to think and feel whatever he wants/believes. I've got no beef with that. But speech has consequences, whether they are benign, malignant, or essentially neutral.

A lot of people knew that the restaurant was a Christian company, and I would think most people already assumed that the founder(s) of the company already had a Biblical take on gay marriage. I don't think anyone forced him to say what he did. It was his own free will to express the opinions he has.

And something like this has already happened:
jcpenney CEO on Ellen DeGeneres controversy - CBS News

But it's not really the same because JCPenny didn't come out and say they wanted Ellen BECAUSE she is gay. They wanted her for other reasons. I don't recall seeing anything that said she was their choice because of her sexuality. And people who espouse views similar to the heads of C-F-A got loud and wanted boycotts.

And for the comments I have read on the interwebs saying this wouldn't happen if it was a muslim owner with the same comments, I say, show me a muslim owner who has come out and declared their position on homosexuality publicly while tying that position into their business ethos.

Or how about a Jewish business owner saying he thinks the Pork Industry should be banned, are the defenders of the C-F-A statements and sentiments going to rally around the Jewish owner because his religion says it's wrong to eat pork? Better yet, is there a Jewish owner that offers a product/service to any and all races, colors, creeds that goes out of his way to state his religious opinions/beliefs in the public sphere?

For the Alderman, he has to suffer the consequences of his words/actions (if any). But it isn't unheard of for government to ban a business from opening up in a particular location, or opening up at all because of the beliefs of the owners.

No bars by schools!... even though the owner of the bar believes people over the age of 21 should be able to drink. The same holds true for liquor stores.

No strip clubs (somewhere)!... even though the owner of the club believes people over a certain age should be able to see naked people "entertaining" for money.

No official KKK social clubs in Chicago!... even though the owners of that business believe that white people should have a place to openly congregate and discuss their displeasure with people that aren't white and Christians.


While this is not as extreme as the other situations I posed, the business in question would open up and generate money for the owner, who would then, in turn, donate money to causes/organizations that seek to keep a segment of the population from having the same rights/tax credits/etc. that the rest of the population can enjoy.

If WWII was still going, I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't buy a VW Bug. Or a Toshiba TV.


Just some quick thoughts.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by lenniel

OK, fine. So let's say Chick-Fil-A brings 30 jobs to Logan Square, which we would all agree is good.

If the people of LS disagree with the CEO of CFA, then the place won't do well and will close shop.

But, just because Moreno disagrees with the CEO's religious belief, he's going to deny their permit? That's the Chicago way if I've ever seen it.

What do you think would happen if a gay person wanted to open a gay bar in a neighborhood and was denied because the Alderman believed homosexuality to be bad (in his opinion)? This is the same thing, just the other way around.

I agree a business should be OK to open any legitimate establishment where they want and pay (within reason). This case is a little worse. Let me state it this way, and the way I'm going to state hopefully you don't take it the wrong way because it's a more severe case.

Pretend you have a CEO who's said some things about Jews and said out loud he's a Nazi sympathizer. First amendment. Do you think there wouldn't be a huge uproar if the same guy tried to open up a business in a city like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, etc? I guarantee you there would be, and essentially this is much on the same page as that could be.


Not only that, but the Alderman is essentially saving their company from making a bad business investment. Chick Fil-A on Chicago Avenue works because it's fueled by people visiting town who are in the area. A lot of the traffic is by tourists. Get away from the tourist area, such as Logan Square, and you will see less of that, and more people not supporting certain business for political reasons, ESPECIALLY in a progressive area like Logan Square. CFA could probably get away with opening another location in the Loop or even Wrigleyville, but not a place like Logan Square or near it. Not many people are going to support it, certainly not as many as the Chicago Ave location or even close.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

The problem here is that this looks to me like it could be a First Amendment violation. When a business wants to set up shop in a neighborhood and seeks a zoning permit to do so (or requests a change in the zoning rules), the local government is by no means required to grant the request. It can deny the request for a variety of legimitate reasons.

The status quo is that they are NOT allowed to open at that location due to a number of very legitimate reasons (too many businesses of the same type and traffic concerns being the main ones). There has been an ongoing discussion for nearly a year about these concerns. Businesses are not protected in the same way that religions are, and the discrimination in the Tenn case was incredibly blatant. There's no equivalence between the two cases.

[chicagobear]

Originally Posted by lenniel

What do you think would happen if a gay person wanted to open a gay bar in a neighborhood and was denied because the Alderman believed homosexuality to be bad (in his opinion)? This is the same thing, just the other way around.

Exactly. I hope the they go to court and win.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Attrill

The status quo is that they are NOT allowed to open at that location due to a number of very legitimate reasons (too many businesses of the same type and traffic concerns being the main ones). There has been an ongoing discussion for nearly a year about these concerns. Businesses are not protected in the same way that religions are, and the discrimination in the Tenn case was incredibly blatant. There's no equivalence between the two cases.

Well, I agree that there's not a perfect equivalence. The Tennessee mosque case was definitely more blatant and it is a freedom of religion case, whereas Moreno's comments on Chick-Fil-A involve freedom of speech. But both are protected by the First Amendment and in both circumstances the government is required to be viewpoint neutral. In other words, governments cannot discriminate against a party -- that is, make a negative decision -- simply based on that party's point of view. See Texas v. Johnson (1989) ("If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.").

As you note, before today, it sounds like there were a variety of legitimate reasons for denying Chick-Fil-A the ability to open up a restaurant in this particular location. And the Constitution allows for that. State and local governments are free to make zoning decisions based on a number of legitimate reasons, such as aesthetic reasons, to improve urban life, to lessen traffic and noise, to reduce crime and improve safety, etc. But if a zoning decision is going to be made on the basis of a party's viewpoint, then the First Amendment's free speech clause comes into play.

You claim that there are a number of legitimate reasons for rejecting Chick-Fil-A, which I don't disagree with. But that is not what Joe Moreno is saying right now. Per the Chicago Tribune article, he is not allowing Chick-Fil-A into the neighborhood because of the restaurant's views on gay marriage. This is pure viewpoint discrimination and it is unconstitutional. Chick-Fil-A's views on gays and gay marriage may be odious (I find them to be), but the company and/or its owners are free to hold and espouse those views without being punished by the government.

[Vlajos]

I don't think Chicago doesn't need more chain restaurants.

[aragx6]

Religion is a protected class so the mosque argument is quite different. Being anti-gay is not a protected class, and it's increasingly difficult to make the case that that's a Christian value when so many Christian churches embrace everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

[jonnynonos]

Should businesses that support abortion or pro life causes be thrown out?

Should businesses that send money to Israeli or Palestinian groups be thrown out?

Should businesses that support democrats or republicans, and by proxy have an impact on all of the above issues including gay marriage, be thrown out?

Again, I don't have a problem with the alderman doing what he is doing as it appears he is well within his legal rights, I just think it is logically incoherent and hypocritical.

You could argue that it is largely a symbolic gesture, though, and I get that. In that case it is up to his constituents to decide if they support him or not.

[chicagobear]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

You could argue that it is largely a symbolic gesture, though, and I get that. In that case it is up to his constituents to decide if they support him or not.

It is certainly not a symbolic gesture if it means the restaurant can't be opened because of the religious beliefs of the owner.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by chicagobear

It is certainly not a symbolic gesture if it means the restaurant can't be opened because of the religious beliefs of the owner.

If he is breaking the law I am fairly certain Chick Fil A has deep enough pockets to sue him and the city into oblivion.