Alderman of 1st Ward Proco "Joe" Moreno thinks Daily Show viewers are his path to glory... (Chicago: home, legal)

[Chi-town Native]

I confess I haven't read everything on this, but is Moreno making the argument that the chain routinely discriminates against it's LGBT employees?

That would be cause for intervening, but if it's just the off-the-cuff remarks of the owner, you'd need to take the Cubs back from the Rickett's family to be consistent.

[aragx6]

Completely tangential? Definitely. But this is damn hilarious:

Did Chick-fil-A Pretend to Be a Teenage Girl on Facebook?

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

I can't understand how someone could have so much time, that they would care about all this.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I confess I haven't read everything on this, but is Moreno making the argument that the chain routinely discriminates against it's LGBT employees?

Nope. He is not making that allegation and I haven't seen anyone make it. I think Chik-Fil-A itself has said that it does not discriminate against customers or employees on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. This makes sense. Many states, including Illinois I believe, have laws against discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Chik-Fil-A would open itself up to endless lawsuits if it was actually discriminating against gays.

Which means that Moreno is discriminating against Chik-Fil-A on the basis of the owner's views on gays and gay marriage, which is absolutely unconstitutional. Under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the government cannot discriminate against parties on the basis of their views (it has to remain viewpoint neutral).

[Vlajos]

I think I like Proco now. It's a chain chicken sandwich restaurant.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

Nope. He is not making that allegation and I haven't seen anyone make it. I think Chik-Fil-A itself has said that it does not discriminate against customers or employees on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. This makes sense. Many states, including Illinois I believe, have laws against discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Chik-Fil-A would open itself up to endless lawsuits if it was actually discriminating against gays.

Which means that Moreno is discriminating against Chik-Fil-A on the basis of the owner's views on gays and gay marriage, which is absolutely unconstitutional. Under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the government cannot discriminate against parties on the basis of their views (it has to remain viewpoint neutral).

I read more - they have no prayer, as right or wrong, they need a zoning change that they have no constitutional right to.

Furthermore, Moreno can safely fall back on the reality that that stretch IS an urban planning disaster, it does not need another high-volume chain restaurant which also likely wants a drive through.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I think I like Proco now. It's a chain chicken sandwich restaurant.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I read more - they have no prayer, as right or wrong, they need a zoning change that they have no constitutional right to.

Furthermore, Moreno can safely fall back on the reality that that stretch IS an urban planning disaster, it does not need another high-volume chain restaurant which also likely wants a drive through.

Sure - no one has a constitutional right to a change in zoning laws. Everyone does, however, have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their views by the government. That basic rule also applies to zoning decisions. If a local government is going to make restaurants apply for a zoning permit before being able to open up shop, the government can't then making zoning decisions on the basis of the applicant's views.

I'm fine with an alderman or zoning board denying a zoning request for a legitimate reason (and there are plenty of them). I'm not cool with an alderman denying a zoning request for an unconstitutional reason, whether it be because of dislike of religion (the TN mosque example) or dislike of views on gay marriage (Moreno).

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

Sure - no one has a constitutional right to a change in zoning laws. Everyone does, however, have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their views by the government. That basic rule also applies to zoning decisions. If a local government is going to make restaurants apply for a zoning permit before being able to open up shop, the government can't then making zoning decisions on the basis of the applicant's views.

I'm fine with an alderman or zoning board denying a zoning request for a legitimate reason (and there are plenty of them). I'm not cool with an alderman denying a zoning request for an unconstitutional reason, whether it be because of dislike of religion (the TN mosque example) or dislike of views on gay marriage (Moreno).

Me too, we don't need a drive through chain chicken sandwich restaurant here.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

Sure - no one has a constitutional right to a change in zoning laws. Everyone does, however, have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their views by the government. That basic rule also applies to zoning decisions. If a local government is going to make restaurants apply for a zoning permit before being able to open up shop, the government can't then making zoning decisions on the basis of the applicant's views.

I'm fine with an alderman or zoning board denying a zoning request for a legitimate reason (and there are plenty of them). I'm not cool with an alderman denying a zoning request for an unconstitutional reason, whether it be because of dislike of religion (the TN mosque example) or dislike of views on gay marriage (Moreno).

Why assume Moreno doesn't dislike both their politics and their store's potential impact on Elston?

Lord knows most of us here seem to feel that way...

The burden is on the applicant to show why a zoning variance/change is better for the neighborhood. Moreno doesn't legally need to do anything except not go out of his way to give the proposal his stamp of approval.