I am going to say something, which I believe will not be all too popular here on the Dailykos, (or maybe I am just scared and it may indeed be popular) but I actually agree with Glenn Greenwald’s latest article regarding Chicago and Chick-fil-A.
I was a little enthusiastic when Boston declared that Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston, and I even commented expressing this enthusiasm, in The Troubadour’s diary but then I realized I was wrong.
I was wrong because the government should not determine what speech and viewpoints are acceptable speech and viewpoints.
Now Glenn Greenwald is a gay man but even he finds this retribution against Chick-fil-A by Rahm Emanuel and the mayor of Boston wrong. He says:
Obviously, it’s perfectly legitimate for private citizens to decide not to patronize a business with executives who have such views (I’d likely refrain from doing so in this case). Beyond that, if a business is engaging in discriminatory hiring or service practices in violation of the law — refusing to hire gay employees or serve gay patrons in cities which have made sexual orientation discrimination illegal — then it is perfectly legitimate to take action against them.
But that is not the case here; the actions are purely in retribution against the views of the business’ top executive on the desirability of same-sex marriage:
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has said Chick-fil-A “doesn’t belong in Boston” because of [Chick-fil-A President Dan] Cathy’s discriminatory stance.
On Wednesday, the tag team of Emanuel and Moreno joined the chorus, citing Cathy’s anti-gay views.
http://www.salon.com/...
Businesses should not be punished for their owners or CEO’s holding controversial views. Such a stance leads to a slippery slope and if we are consistent then practically all business in America will cease to exist in various cities (Greenwald shows us how soon).
But first Greenwald goes on to note that Chick-fil-A is not doing anything illegal:
As my Salon colleague Mary Elizabeth Williams noted when writing about the controversy in Boston: “Aside from the fact that Chick-fil-A is always closed on Sunday, there’s no evidence those beliefs have been institutionalized in any way. There’s no record of refusing service to gay patrons, or unfair hiring practices, or a hostile work environment.” Indeed, Joe Moreno, the Chicago alderman who represents a “hipster ward” and who initially blocked the business’ expansion, made clear that he was motivated not by any alleged discriminatory business practices but solely by “bigoted, homophobic comments”: namely, the Chick-fil-A President’s view that the Bible mandates marriages be between men and women only. And as Williams noted, the company oversees a “foundation that’s contributed financially to” numerous right-wing groups: Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, among others.
Now here is the slippery-slope that comes with banning Chick-Fil-A
If you support what Emanuel is doing here, then you should be equally supportive of a Mayor in Texas or a Governor in Idaho who blocks businesses from opening if they are run by those who support same-sex marriage — or who oppose American wars, or who support reproductive rights, or who favor single-payer health care, or which donates to LGBT groups and Planned Parenthood, on the ground that such views are offensive to Christian or conservative residents. You can’t cheer when political officials punish the expression of views you dislike and then expect to be taken seriously when you wrap yourself in the banner of free speech in order to protest state punishment of views you like and share. Free speech rights means that government officials are barred from creating lists of approved and disapproved political ideas and then using the power of the state to enforce those preferences.
That’s really not the kind of America I want to live in. Government should not determine which type of speech and viewpoints are acceptable or mainstream. Chick-Fil-A is not doing anything illegal by being bigoted. Bigotry and hate-speech are protected for the most part by the U.S. Constitution.
Boston Globe editorial agrees with me:
But which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.
Chick-fil-A must follow all state and city laws. If the restaurant chain denied service to gay patrons or refused to hire gay employees, Menino’s outrage would be fitting. And the company should be held to its statement that it strives to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.” But beyond the fact that Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays, the religious beliefs of the company’s top executive don’t appear to control its operations.
http://articles.boston.com/...
Thankfully Rahm Emanuel relented from his words under pressure.
Free Speech and Free Thought are only good if we protect the speech and thoughts we don't like.
8:07 PM PT: GG has updated his piece numerous times. For the sake of clarification here is one update:
"The uproar over all of this today seems to have produced some positive movement. In Boston, Mayor Menino now acknowledges that his planned actions would violate the rights of the restaurant chain, and thus “backed away from a threat to actively block the fast-food chain from setting up shop in the city,” saying: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.”"