Chik-fil-a story: please clear some things up for me.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

I've only been able to read about it briefly, but I don't get a few things. Here's the story as I understand it, so please correct any details that have bearing on my outcome of my understanding.

1. Chik-fil-a CEO said stupid, ignorant shit about gay marriage and God.
2. Shit he said was bigoted and indefensible.
3. Mayors (SF, Boston, Chicago) thought it was bigoted and indefensible.
4. Said mayors said they would not allow Chik-fil-a in their city based on CEO's opinions/speech. This opinion was against what said cities stand for.
5. Protests against mayors' decisions but also to stand in solidarity with CEO's bigotry.

So here's where I need clarification. In no way shape or form am I comfortable with government regulating businesses based on a CEO's opinion. If said CEO said he would not serve a certain customer, then, obviously, clear legal problems. But this CEO's worst crime is being an asshole who hasn't actually instituted his assholish thoughts.

However, I understand progressives' protests against the protests against gay marriage.

So I am of two minds here: it's seems dangerous to allow the government to limit one's livelihood based on one's political/religious opinions (good lord, we here at DU, especially those of us in red-land 'Murika, don't want this). On the other hand, if the protesters are protesting those who are outside of chik-fil-a who are protesting "the gays," then I get it. Has the media gotten it? I don't think so. Or do some here support these mayors' actions? If you support the mayors' actions, you realize this cuts both ways, right? If I have a business and speak out for gay marriage, I could as easily be banned for my opinions.

Again, all of this is assuming chik-fil-a hasn't participated in discriminatory actions. As far as I know, and this is very little, the CEO expressed an opinion.

Thanks, all, for for your help.

[NYC_SKP]

1. But they HAVE participated in discriminatory actions and much more.

There was a little something about denying promotions to women to force them to become stay at home moms...

And...

Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm Gave Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2010

WinShape Is Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm. The WinShape Foundation is Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. WinShape has received a substantial amount of funding from Chick-fil-A: in 2010 alone, WinShape received $8,067,161 from Chick-fil-A Inc. [WinShape 2010, Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

WinShape Gave Over $1.9 Million To Anti-Gay Groups. In 2010, WinShape donated $1,974,380 to a number of anti-gay groups:

Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $247,500
New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000
Georgia Family Council: $2,500

http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

AND:

COMPANY FACTS

Groups and individuals supporting Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
• International Christian Concern, charity foundation
• Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink
• Wisconsin Family Action
• George Faught, OK Congressional candidate
• Rick Santorum, former US Senator from PA, and his Patriot Voices organization
• Rich Hudson, NC Congressional candidate
• Citizens United
• Wallbuilders, an evangelical Christian American history education organization
• Rep. Mick Mulvaney, SC 5th District , US Congress (R)
• Liberty Counsel, legal advocacy organization dedicated to religious freedom
• Project 21 – Conservative public policy group of African-Americans
• Denison Forum on Truth and Culture – Evangelical outreach of Dallas pastor Jim Denison
• Bob Vander Plaatz and The Family Leader, former IA gov candidate
• Concerned Women of America, nation’s largest women’s advocacy group
• Dave Weldon, former Congressman and candidate for US Senate from FL
• Family Research Council
• Rep Jeff Duncan, SC 3rd District, US Congress (R)
• CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education
• Dan Patrick, TX State Senator
• Rev. Billy Graham
• First Baptist Church of Dallas, Rev. Robert Jeffress
• Sarah Palin, former AK gov and former VP nominee

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/01/chick-fil-appreciation-day-brings-out-supporters-more-protestors/#ixzz22LHCgs3Q

Don't let it happen, DU. Fight Back!



Fuckers.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

5. Thanks for this.

No one has mentioned the stay-at-home moms thing, so I'll just assume that it's a non-issue in this fight, though certainly disconcerting.

To your second list: I'm just not seeing how it's relevant to the story at hand. All of these are contemptible enterprises, no doubt, but were I to start a fast-food chicken shop, my list would look identical but opposite. I'd hate to have mayors ban me over that.

So are the protests about these affiliations? Did the mayors cite your second list as a reason to ban Chik-fil-a? If they did, then I'd have to raise even more objections.

Look, would I give money to them? No. Do I think we should boycott/protest the company for your two lists? Yes. Do I want mayors banning them for either list? No--unless there is actionable reason to do so (i..e, the company has implemented their CEO's opinions).

Thanks for the info. Very helpful.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Do you remember Apartheid? Did you know that cities and counties divested for similar reasons?

I hope others read this, and that you see the similarities.

Cities and counties adopted policies, economic and other sanction to discourage apartheid because of the human rights violations committed by South Africa.

Support by Chick Fil A of the various organizations can easily be called supportive of human rights violations, supportive of bigotry and hatred.

Thus, it's not a stretch and is even the right thing to do, IMHO, for individuals and cities and counties to declare that unless and until their support for these hate groups ends, they shall not be supported and will, in fact, be sanctioned.

In the case of apartheid in South Africa, sanctions even reached the federal level of implementation.

States and cities

In addition to campuses, anti-apartheid activists found concerned and sympathetic legislators in cities and states. Several states and localities did pass legislation ordering the sale of such securities, most notably the city of San Francisco. The result was that "by the end of 1989 26 states, 22 counties and over 90 cities had taken some form of binding economic action against companies doing business in South Africa."[4] Many public pension funds connected to these local governments were legislated to disinvestment from South African companies. These local governments also exerted pressure via enacting selective purchasing policies, "whereby cities give preference in bidding on contracts for goods and services to those companies who do not do business in South Africa."[4]
Federal involvement

The activity at the state and city level set the stage for action at the federal level.
Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act
Main article: Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act

This began when the Senate and Congress presented Ronald Reagan with the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which had been introduced by Congressman Ronald Dellums, supported by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus in the House, and piloted through the House by Congressman Howard Wolpe, chairman of the House Africa Subcommittee. Ronald Reagan responded by using his veto, but surprisingly and, in testament to the strength of the anti-Apartheid movement, the Republican controlled Senate overrode his veto. Knight gives this description the act:

"The Act banned new U.S. investment in South Africa, sales to the police and military, and new bank loans, except for the purpose of trade. Specific measures against trade included the prohibition of the import of agricultural goods, textiles, shellfish, steel, iron, uranium and the products of state-owned corporations."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

14. Yes, but we have a constitution different from South Africa.

We allow stupid shit to be said and thought.

We allow boycotts and protests.

Hell, we allow libel and slander in this country.

But we don't allow the government to limit what we think or say. We allow the government to put a limit on our enacting of our opinions. If chik-fil-a has demonstrated actionable bigotry, then by all means. But we don't don't do pre-cognition crimes yet. And, really, my concern is for all of us on this board who don't live in happy little blue communities. Some of us make a living and express opinions in very red communities. If my local board shut me down for calling Repubs. ass-clown-shit-fuck-faces, and argued that I'd discriminate against serving them (without proof of my doing so), well, I think we know where we'd all stand.

That's right, we'd all hide my opinion because I use "ass-clown-shit-fuck-faces." But I kid.

I get your point, and I thank you for the historical reference. But it seems the U.S., for good or for ill, plays by different rules.

[NYC_SKP]

18. I think it's within the law for a community to prevent Chick a Fil from doing business there.

Whether or not it would pass the various court gauntlets and challenges is another matter.

But I do not think that it's unconstitutional or extra-constitutional.

"We reserve the right to refuse to do business with you."

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

19. I doubt this very much.

Especially after the CEO announced his reasons--primarily religious.

But, goodness, I've been wrong before.

[NYC_SKP]

21. Watch San Francisco. They'll do anything. There's no law against nudity.

And they aren't afraid of offending people on religious grounds.

[WillowTree]

23. "We reserve the right to refuse to do business with you." Ah yes....

...I recall signs like that when I was growing up in the South. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It brings back the good old days of segregation and the back of the bus.

And yes, such things have been ruled unconstitutional.

[NYC_SKP]

24. Apples oranges, my friend.

The ostensible complaint against Chick a Fil, inc., would be that they contribute to organizations that oppose equal treatment of citizens before the law, not one of their religious beliefs (even though Chick a Fil's owner would argue that point).

Thus, it is a leg to stand on.

There is no parallel to the deep south and segregation.

Nope.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

25. But contributing is not the same as discrimination, right?

Are there any legal precedents that allow for contributions to act as discriminatory actions by a business?

Please give me a link. I'd be interested.

[WillowTree]

28. Me too.

Make that.......Are there any legal precedents that allow for otherwise completely legal contributions to act as discriminatory actions by a business?

[NYC_SKP]

31. None of which I am aware, however there are outstanding examples of discrimination.

I did a few searches and didn't come up with any links, sorry. It might be that it's been done but not documented, or I can't search very effectively.

But if we set aside the contributions aspect and look instead at cases of (alleged) discrimination, there would IMHO be grounds for a municipality like SF to say fuck off with your application for a business license.

And if they didn't do it overtly, they could sure as hell do it covertly.

Small governments and large work (or don't work) with various business entities and figures largely around personalities and attitudes. Laws and rules actually take a back seat in our country. And that's nothing new.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

36. "And if they didn't do it overtly, they could sure as hell do it covertly."

This may be fine if you live in a blue area (though I shudder at this thought), but where I live, I'd be fucking screaming about the constitution and having every fucking lawyer I know come to my defense.

I don't mean this comment as an attack on you AT ALL. I get what you're saying. But, man, for those of us who live with mouth-breathers, this shit scares me. I'd hate to see what my mayor would ban.
h
I just peed myself. (no smiley for this; Skinner, can you help us out with this--smiley peeing on himself? Thanks.)

Good convo., NYC_SKP. Thanks.

[RedStateLiberal]

2. The CEO's opinions isn't what this is really about.

It's about the millions of dollars he donates to anti-gay hate groups. That's the part almost every media story on this is leaving out.

Look into the hate groups and what they've supported and you'll see this isn't just a freedom of speech issue.

I don't feel comfortable with government regulating business based on a CEO's opinion either, but if they're financially supporting hate groups then that's a problem. Should the government regulate based on that? I'm not sure but I am sure I don't like it one bit.

Edited to add: This article makes my point for me:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

11. Thanks for the article.

A good read.

But I don't know that an argument has actually been made that a government entity should stop chik-fil-a from operating.

Here's the article's fudge: "If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law."

It's a bit of slight of hand. The stay-at-home-mom issue (which I was not aware of until I posted) is really not part of the mayors' complaint--at least not where I've read. So the author of the article above conveniently conflates the two--one that has legal legs and one that does not (at least not now--since stupid non-actionable opinions are not a crime).

Again, protesting the dumbshits from the left is a no-brainer. But I think the mayors were wrong. As leftists we don't want this happening to us.

I imagine most of the protesters there weren't really protesting first amendment rights but were protesting against the LGBT community.

[RedStateLiberal]

20. My point had nothing to do with...

... whether a government should stop chick-fil-a from operating. I even wrote that I'm not sure if they should or not.

My point was the narrative that many in the media (and you) set up is a false one. It's not about what was said or the CEO's opinions. It's about financially supporting hate groups that think you can "pray away" gay and promote even worse anti-gay discrimination.

I, and others, thought that was important to point out so I hope you take that into consideration.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

22. Yes, sorry, I wasn't clear.

I understand why we're protesting the protesters with regards to their discriminatory opinions/actions.

But I just wasn't completely aware why in our protests we'd want to affirm the mayors' decisions. That would seem disastrous for progressives across the country.

Again, that's why I said I'm of two minds here: I most certainly don't support the mayors' decisions (as I understand them), but I do understand protesting discrimination, even at the level of speech/thought. If they have a thought, I have the right to tell them that it's stupid.

I'm dense, so please write slowly.

[hughee99]

27. How do you define a "hate group"?

Would you consider a group that advocates against what you believe are someone's civil rights a hate group?

[RedStateLiberal]

34. Read the article I posted from HuffPost.

It gives clear examples of how Chick-fil-a supports hate groups.

The graphic posted below by Tx4obama has more examples.

It's not just about being against a group that advocates against what I believe are someone's civil rights. It's about what they advocate for specifically including "exporting" gays from America and "praying away the gay". Often children are subjected to that kind of so-called "therapy" which every major mental health organization has confirmed is unhealthy.

[hughee99]

42. I completely agree with you on these groups,

but I'm wondering if I'd think the same way if a repuke mayor was making the same argument that they don't want business X because they donate to groups that "advocate for the killing of unborn children" (or however they're wording their argument now).

Even though in this case I agree with politicians I think it's much better in the long run to keep businesses out of the communities by getting the people of those communities to threaten not to support them rather than having a politician make such a promise. In Boston, I believe Mayor Menino initially threatened to take action to block Chick-fil-a, but has since backed off that saying he can't actively block it. The points you bring up are great points, but IMHO it's better to make that case to the people rather than elected officials.

[RedStateLiberal]

45. I haven't taken a stance on government intervention.

I'm more concerened that the narrative is getting spun (mostly by the right) that this is a freedom of speech issue when it is clearly not just about a the owner's opinions. I doubt that many of people who went out in support of Chick-fil-a know that their money is going to hate groups.

Until they have evidence of discrimination by a company, government officials probably shouldn't keep out businesses for the reasons you described. You're right it's better to let people decide but I'm guessing that a company that supports such hate groups probably has engaged in discrimination and it just hasn't come to light yet. I have no problem with politicians voicing their opinions on what kind of businesses they want to have in their communities but they are still bound by law.

[hughee99]

47. I complete agree. I'm not against a politician saying something about such a business

but I'm not in favor of them trying to legally block a business without some evidence of discrimination in the business itself. Ideally, if the information gets out to the people and they take action, the business will be effectively shut out.

[randome]

3. Municipalities prevent the Ku Klux Klan from doing things all the time.

Yet no one wants to whine about their rights being violated.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

7. Because they enact their policies illegally (assuming they are business owners).

[randome]

26. I don't understand.

I'm talking about the KKK trying to adopt highway stretches. They are turned away all the time. The KKK is not illegal so why are their free speech rights abrogated?

I'm not saying this in defense of the KKK. I'm saying that we do 'discriminate' against organizations that promote hatred and exclusiveness so why not 'discriminate' against Chick-Fil-A?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

29. Right, but . . .

a member of the KKK could own a Dollar General Store who serves EVERYONE in his community, and the mayor could not shut him down as long as he enacts NO discriminatory policy.

Do we agree on this?

Now, the one thing I didn't mention because of all sorts of gray areas is actionable "intimidation" under the law, because this comes very close to speech laws and has few concrete precedents that would fit in this case (again, that I know of, and I know little).

[Lex]

33. No city has actually kept them out anyway.

A mayor or two has said Chic Fil A isn't welcome in their city because they are bigots, just like saying 'the Klan's not welcome here' and that's a far cry from anyone turning down an applied-for permit.

Has Chic Fil A done anything but whine? Have they've been turned down for a permit or anything of the sort? NO.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

39. I think my post #32 applies.

But, yeah, you're right. But maybe just ahead of the game.

[randome]

37. So when money is involved -i.e. a business- free speech rights are defended to the utmost.

But free speech on its own -as in the KKK wanting to adopt a stretch of highway- is not.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to find my way around these apparent contradictions.

[arely staircase]

4. those are not mutually exclusive positions

one can easily agree with the ACLU that those city officials cannot in fact prevent the from opening and stiill refuse to go there , discourage their friends from going there, protest the place in all the ways that one may do it in an open society. They can especially draw attention to the fact that this owner did much more that make biggotedstatements. He also gives lots of money for organizations that support the oppression by.denial of rights here and outright murder in Africa.

[Tx4obama]

6. Here ya go

[TalkingDog]

8. The bigoted speech was just the trigger for wider exposure of the donation of company

profits to anti-gay organizations and causes.

One, the Family Research Council, paid two representatives $25,000 to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda's plan to execute homosexuals.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/06/christian-love-family-research-council.html

So, no matter what anybody says, it's only minimally about what Cathy said, it's mostly about who he supports using profits from his business.

If he wanted to use his own salary....well, that's his business.

[quinnox]

9. probably why there has been so much blow-back

To a lot of "John Doe" average citizens, it appeared some were attempting to censor or deny the CEO his right to say his opinion, which obviously in America, that will get a big reaction, since we are used to freedom of speech and the dude is entitled to his opinion, as well as to speak his opinion. IMHO, this was one main reason many people turned out to go to the place to eat, they thought the guy was getting censored or something.

[WillowTree]

10. Some here, myself included, fully support...

....boycotts for those individuals and/or grouops offended by the CEO's opinions and the organizations that he chooses to support.

Letting governmental entities, be they federal, state or local, determine who gets a business license for an entirely legal business based on those things would set a very dangerous prescident and some here, myself included, think that would be a seriously bad idea indeed.

[Luminous Animal]

13. For the record, SF Mayor did not say that Chick-fil-a would not be allowed in the city...

And I don't think Rahm in Chicago said that either. An alderman (Moreno) did explicitly state that he would not sign off on allowing Chick-fil-a in his district based solely on Cathy's comments. I am unfamiliar with the facts with Boston's mayor.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

15. Link?

I's appreciate it. God forbid I do ANY due diligence. It's Friday and I'm lazy.

[Luminous Animal]

16. I'm heading off to my favorite bar but I'll happily supply links in the AM.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

17. Enjoy.

Thanks.

[Lex]

30. Has any city ACTUALLY kept them out?

No.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

32. No.

But that's the very reason various groups are protesting: to make their voices heard--so that they are either kept out or allowed to in. My question was predicated upon the desires of the the various protests.

So, no, nothing has been done. No rights have been violated. Maybe it was just political posturing all around. Maybe it was a test to see who could gain a point or two with the voters. On this point, I think maybe we could have picked a better, clearer framing of the issue. Maybe this is why I wanted all of this clarified.

Thanks for the comment; you brought some clarity to my thought.

[Lex]

35. Posturing.

I think that's a good way to put it.

I think most people supporting Chick Fil A were just happy to have ONE company say something publicly aimed squarely against gay marriage. It got them excited so they all flocked to have a chicken sandwich. And I think a lot of people think their right to say anything means they are exempt from the criticism that gets rained down on them too.

[tf.gray]

38. Come over to the Dark Side

Eat at Panera's, they donate to the community Food Bank.

[DainBramaged]

40. Chik-fil-a 'CEO' Dan Cathy is not CEO, he is COO

S. Truett Cathy, Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Dan T. Cathy, President and Chief Operating Officer
Donald M. "Bubba" Cathy, Executive Vice President and Dwarf House President


http://www.cathyfamily.com/

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

41. Thank you.

[Nye Bevan]

43. The ACLU agrees with you.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/07/boston-mayor-backs-off-chick-fil-a-aclu-warns-politicians-to-avoid-threats/

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

44. Thanks for the link.

And thank you, ACLU.

"The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz noted, but said 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.”

And there we go.

[Zax2me]

46. Fascism is evil - unless you agree with it

The story in a nutshell.