Skip to main content

View Diary: Chick-Fil-A : Bye-Bye (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did this violate their rights? (8+ / 0-)
    Because they couldn’t appeal the decision based on legal first amendment rights of the family that owns Chick-Fil-A, they appealed on the idea of the restaurant being a drive through (presently, the building is not outfitted with a drive through lane).    On Tuesday of last week, our City Council upheld the appeal, and Chick-Fil-A was denied their restaurant.
    Your diary "suggests" that they used the drive thru as a means to deny CFA the right to open their business, nit because a drive thru was unacceptable, but rather because is was a means to deny them their permit that would not violate their rights.  If this is true, it is not a win.  This kind of misuse of power is not acceptable in America and is much more likely to be used against progressive causes than for them.

    I hope the community will adjust its thinking if indeed denying the permit because of the Drive thru was just a way of accomplishing something otherwise not constitutionally permitted.

    •  There are many drive through denials in Bay Area (21+ / 0-)

      I am unfamiliar with this particular case but there are many fast food restaurants that get denied for a drive through lane near residential neighborhoods in the SF Bay Area. Residents typically object to the noise the late hours of business offered by these locations can cause. Some restaurants choose to open anyway and others look elsewhere.


      i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

      by bobinson on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:52:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  26 drive thrus, no denials. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib
        •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

          A Walgreen's wanted to open 4 blocks from my house with a drive-through.  It is a strip commercial shopping center with perhaps 15 small storefronts and a vacant site for a supermarket (closed because too small for current business model) otherwise in a residential area with a few office buildings nearby (fewer than 8).  They wanted to build a free-standing building on the corner of the parking lot.

          Their request for a drive-through open until midnight was denied, after their request for a 24 hour store with drive-through was denied.  They were allowed a drive-through-less building and required to close at 10 pm.

          I live the next town from Mountain View. I have been to the Sizzler that Chick-Fil-A had their eye on.  It's all of 2.5 miles from me.  There are apartments right next to it.

          Drive-throughs in residential areas are denied all the time.  There is no organized political opposition to Walgreen's that I know it.  There are objections to drive-throughs near where people live.

          In capitalist America, bank robs you!

          by madhaus on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 02:36:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  drive-throughs are noisy and they generate... (14+ / 0-)

        .... enormous clouds of air pollution that can exacerbate asthma and other conditions among neighbors.  

        That's good enough reason to deny a permit.

        And if Rat-Fil-Eh doesn't like it, they can go sue.  

        "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

        by G2geek on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:29:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Read the news article attached (16+ / 0-)

      The drive thru didn't comport with the General Plan for the city.

    •  fine, go lose. (13+ / 0-)

      Go ahead and bring tickle-feathers to an artillery battle and see how long you last.  

      That kind of nonsense is exactly how we lose.

      You'd better believe that our enemies don't sit around sympathizing with us: they do everything they can to crush us and they don't look back.

      And it's long overdue for us to do likewise when dealing with them.  

      We will have the luxury of sympathizing with the enemy after we've crushed them, defeated them, and left them whimpering in defeat with white surrender flags held high.

      And not ONE moment sooner.    

      "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

      by G2geek on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:27:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am a little uncomfortable (6+ / 0-)

      with the admission the drive-though reasoning was just pretext because the real reason was unconstutional.

      Pretexts are invented all the time to target minorities. See voter ID laws. See "you must be legally married to __."

      It isn't a tactic of right I like us to emulate, being sneaky and disengenuous.

      Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 08:59:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see no reason to bend over backwards to give (6+ / 0-)

        them a zoning variance; adding a drive-though is not a Constitutional right unless I missed where rat-fil-a was determined to be an oppressed minority.

        Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

        by Ian S on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 09:56:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  there's certainly a right not to be (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, noble experiment

          punished for unpopular speech.

          •  let's call it a community standard (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ex Con

            shall we?

            As in "community X has standards, and Chik-Fil-A is beneath them."

            Works for me.

            •  That's nuts (0+ / 0-)

              Let's call homosexuality "beneath our community standard" and not let gay people own businesses in our community.

              You do not get to decide what the community standard is anymore than I do or anyone else.  This is America.

              Thank you for concisely demonstrating the very kind of prejudiced behavior that denying Chik-fil-A a permit involves.

              To those who would argue the merits of not permitting drive thrus, please not that in my original post, I was quite clear  that my only objection was if it was used as a pretext for denying them the permit.  If there was a legitimate community interest in denying a DT variance, I have no objection to what happened.  But the diarist certainly implied otherwise.

          •  So, we must provide zoning variances... (0+ / 0-)

            to accommodate unpopular speech?

            Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

            by Ian S on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 04:06:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, but we must not discriminate... (0+ / 0-)

              Government must not discriminate in the granting of those variances because of an applicants exercise of their Constitutional rights.

              How would you feel if a Republican controlled local government started denying zoning variances to all registered Democrats?

              We have the right to be treated equally by our government until we do something that society has deemed to deny us that (such as commit a felony).  By definition, exercising a Constitutional Right, is not an action that society has deemed worthy of taking away our right to equal treatment.

      •  I have no problem with it. (4+ / 0-)

        They got Al Capone on Tax Evasion charges.  Sometimes, in the absence of real laws, one must find alternative ways to combat evil, legally.  Besides being a horrible bad-for-you chain, they are a fundy front for opposing equal rights for all.  I can live with this decision, no matter the reasoning.

        •  Not apples to apples (0+ / 0-)

          Al Capone really committed tax evasion.  That was the case they were able to make.

          If Chik-Fil-A were denied the permit on the basis of a Drive-thru being undesirable for the neighborhood (and such determination was consistent with past applications), then it would be the equivalent of the Capone example.

          But the diarist strongly implies the denial was not on its own merits but was rather seen as a way to accomplish discrimination without triggering First Amendment rights.   If this was the case, it would be like convicting Al Capone for a crime he DID NOT commit and then saying that was OK because look at all the crimes he committed for which we can't gather enough evidence.  That reasoning is unacceptable in a free America.

      •  war sucks but some times you have to fight. (0+ / 0-)

        Do you think for one minute that the owners of Rat-Fil-Eh wouldn't crush you like a bug if they had the chance?

        Speaking of "you must be legally married," but only to someone of the opposite sex.

        So what do you do with an implacable enemy?  Bring a tickle-feather to an artillery battle and get slaughtered?

        Hell no.

        Sneaky or not, here we come!  

        And it's hardly disingenuous to use every legal means at our disposal.

        I would object vigorously if anyone here suggested shooting or poisoning the owners of Rat-Fil-Eh.  (Aside from which, if they're eating their own fare, they're doing a good job of poisoning themselves!)

        But as for waging "lawfare," I'm all for it.  Tie them up, tie them down, make them spend so much money it impacts their quarterly reports for years.  Boycott them, gray-op them ("eek a mouse!" in a restaurant works wonders;-), and use every other nonviolent means possible to drive them out of business and into the welcoming arms of bankruptcy court.

        The time to have any sympathy whatsoever for an enemy, is after they've been so defeated they can't even squirm.

        "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

        by G2geek on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 11:45:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "The ends always justifies the means." (0+ / 0-)

          I know you and I have gone around on that one more than a few times.

          Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

          by Scott Wooledge on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 07:49:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not every end, and not every means. (0+ / 0-)

            Violence is only justified in defense of self or innocent others, individually and collectively.  The goal of military warfare is to protect one's country by defeating an aggressor and deterring potential future aggressors.  

            But politics is war by nonviolent means.

            And where the ends are to prevent a hate-monger empire from spreading its tentacles into progressive turf and harvesting money from progressive communities, "lawfare" is a legitimate means to use.

            You can be quite sure that Republicans don't sit around debating means and ends.  

            Debating means and ends is a luxury we will be able to afford once the White House and both houses of Congress are firmly in Democratic hands, and the Supreme Court is back to a lineup that looks more like the Warren court.  At that point I'll be glad to entertain notions of treating our adversaries with velvet gloves rather than boxing gloves.  

            "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

            by G2geek on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 09:14:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm more libertarian (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek

              and believe in "I disagree with what you say, but will fight for your right to say it."

              Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

              by Scott Wooledge on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 10:32:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  that's a legitimate position to hold... (0+ / 0-)

                ... and I also held it until the outcomes of 2000 and 2004 forced me to reconsider it.  In the face of adversaries who are willing and able to go so far as brazenly interfering with elections, and who have no morals, ethics, or scruples whatsoever, and in the face of the disasters of the Bush years, including the economic crash, there's far too much at stake to give even a millimeter.  

                And given the underlying trends (population overshoot of resources is the key driver globally, with climate change as its most dangerous outcome) we can expect inter-group competition to increase at all levels.  In other words, it's only going to get worse.

                I'd love to live in a world where good sportsmanship is what counts, and everyone plays by the rules.  

                What we have now is a world in which the rules have broken, and "get away with what you can" has become the new normal.  It frankly disgusts me.  

                But reality is what it is, and in the new reality, new strategies and tactics are called for.

                Our first goal once we achieve the kind of power needed to enforce it, has to be to put the rules back in charge of the game.  But there's a long distance between here and there, and innumerable battles to win first.  

                "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

                by G2geek on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 01:22:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  If the right breaks all the rules... (0+ / 0-)

          and we respond by throwing the rules out, then we will end up with a country that has no rules.  We must defeat them by enforcing the rules, not by breaking them.

      •  Do you live next to a Drive-Thru? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt, MazeDancer, MaikeH

        They suck - lots of cars queued up, with engines running, sometimes radios blaring.  The squak box of the drive through speakers are pretty loud too.

        I've worked this, and lived near one (when I was in an apartment in college).  I hated both times.  

        Drive-throughs are costly to their neighborhoods - let Chick-Fil-A serve food in a reasonable manner like most other establishments.  If they can't make it work without the drive-through, maybe it's best if they're not situated there.

        On a side note, fast food restaurants in general are magnets for crime.  A Taco Bell somewhat near our house was shut down a year ago because of repeated robberies.  Building is now a daycare (weird, but hey -whatever works for the daycare folks).  That and all those wrappers strewn across the sidewalk on that street... don't miss the taco bell.

        --
        Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

        by sacrelicious on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 12:46:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Chicago teachers' strike (0+ / 0-)
        A number of serious issues face Chicago public schools that could not be legally addressed in the strike, such as the lack of social workers in the district, rising class sizes and school closures, according to Lewis. The school district also faces a $1-billion budget deficit this year, according to the Chicago Tribune.
        from here

        But they could strike on pay issues, so they did, to be able to call attention to their concerns.  

    •  Opening a business isn't a right. (0+ / 0-)

      You'll notice you need all sorts of things to open a business...money or a loan approval, ect.  Speaking freely is a right.  Voting is a right.  No rights were violated here.

      •  if approval were withheld because the city (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, noble experiment

        doesn't like the owner's speech, then the first amendment was violated.

        •  Was it? (0+ / 0-)

          It wasn't just the owner's speech.  It was the owner's ACTIONS.  The owner gave money to causes that worked against marriage equlity and promoted homophobia.  That goes against our community standards, directly.

          In capitalist America, bank robs you!

          by madhaus on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 02:41:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actions are the same as speech (0+ / 0-)

            You have the right to support the causes you believe in through speech, demonstration, financial support or any other means that does not break the law.  And you have the right for GOVERNMENT not to discriminate agianst you for doing so.

            According to your logic, if I donate money to the Democratic party I am not protected from my heavily Republican local government from denying me a business license.  Is that really the America you live in?

            •  It obviously is. Look at whether abortion clinics (0+ / 0-)

              can get a license from authorities in Kansas.

              Or look at whether the NSA is going to hire someone if they're outspoken in favor of medical marijuana.

              •  Wow, those are two pretty extreme examples (0+ / 0-)

                Hard to put that on par with denying a license to a restaurant company.  But, for sure, both of those examples are unacceptable uses of government power as well.

                I guess the question is, if you are bothered by your two examples above, why are you not equally bothered by the implied discrimination against Chik-Fil-A?

                We should be outraged against ALL government discrimination, not just the ones that discriminate against people who support causes we believe in.

                A right is only secure if it is freely enjoyed by all.

                •  I'm not saying it's a good thing. Rather, (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm saying it's legal.  

                  If you want to know how I feel about it...well...I just don't care.  On the range of moral outrages this falls so far below my radar that it might as well be a fart on a greyhound bus.  My outrage ran out somewhere between the kids killed abroad by drone bombs and people in this country dying because they don't have what plenty of people here have in plenty to give.  

                  •  It's not legal. (0+ / 0-)

                    If the exclusion of Chik-Fil-A is based on exercise of free speech then it is illegal.  And the First Amendment must be zealously guarded, for if we lose that we lose one of the essential tools for speaking out against the things you list above that do cause you moral outrage.

                    There is absolutely no reason you cannot be upset by more than one thing at once.  As Obama tells us, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time".

                    But I will grant you that your items certainly carry greater import than the singular issue of CHIk-Fil-A opening a restaurant.  Which is why I am confused that you started this conversation with something as inconsequential as the NSA not hiring people who support medical marijuana laws.  It's not like there's any great issue at stake there.

                    Anyway, essentially we're on the same side here.  We both want to eliminate illegal discrimination (whether by individuals or companies against gay folks or by government agianst a company exercising its first amendment rights).  I don't have any argument with you fighting to do that in the areas where you have passion, just as I hope you would support me in the areas where I have it.  For the record, I stopped my frequent visits to CFA as a result of their stance, which I find reprehensible.  But that doesn't mean I want government to be able to act against them.

                    •  I actually don't support corporate speech at all. (0+ / 0-)

                      I feel it does a disservice to democracy as a process and institution by giving an out-sized voice to management.  Every dollar management spends directly on some political cause is another dollar the employees can't donate to the cause of their choice.  

                      Entities like The Sierra Club, or Focus on the Family for that matter, which were founded based on membership and whose entire mission is geared towards advocacy, I consider fundamentally different and thus legitimate.

                      And if you want me to lay my freedom on the line to protest these so called 'free speech zones' I'm on board.  

                      I consider free speech a more nuanced subject when capitalism comes to play a strong role in its expression.  In the case of corporate speech in the form of donations to advocacy groups, every dollar spent by the company literally deprives their employees as a group of that same dollar's worth of speech.  Same goes for campaign finance.  When one party can outspend the other, it's not just a matter of being able to afford more commercials.  The richer entity can actually drive up the cost of commercials with their business, literally depriving the other party of speech they'd otherwise be able to afford.  You can easily have free speech where a vast majority of people have no voice at all.  So when I decide free speech is a concern as a necessary part of a democratic political process I must also decide equal speech is a concern, and a balance that tries to maximize each in the context of maximizing the other is an ideal.  And as far as I'm concerned that means removing capitalism from the equation, as best we are able.

                      •  Picking winners and losers (0+ / 0-)

                        Let's not broaden this discussion.  It's really pretty simple.  Government officials should not be picking winners and losers based upon the political positions of those that come before them (whether companies, individuals, or any other entity they exercise authority over).  Not much else to say beyond that.

                        •  Nor should they on gender or sexual orientation. (0+ / 0-)

                          I don't feel I was broadening the discussion by talking about the context, nor do I think we have an audience here...it's just you and me.  If you choose to disengage, that's your prerogative.  I consider context very important.  One right taken often serves to deprive those of another.  By applying rules rigidly in isolation of context, we can easily do a disservice to the principle behind the rule, or to another we hold dearly.

                          So no.  Not simple.  Never ever simple.

        •  Free speech only guarantees that someone (0+ / 0-)

          can speak, not that they'll be immune to all consequences of that speech.  People get fired for what they say, people get hired on the basis of what they say, and permits of all kinds are confirmed or denied based on what people say.  If, for instance, someone donated to a foundation that paid to defend various industrialists against court cases based on environmental regulations, a community might decide it's not in the community's interest to allow him to open or run some facility where improperly handled waste products can poison the local watershed.  

          The SF bay area has a clear interest, as do all places, in ensuring the health and safety of its citizens.  Gay rights may be a step further in the cause-effect chain than the watershed, but a rejection in both cases is founded on the same principle.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site