I don't have time to Google an image to paste here, but just saw on my feed the Mayor of Boston sending a letter to Chik-Fil-A they're not welcome in Boston due to their stance on gay marriage. Pretty cool, I thought ;D
Post by rosiedozie on Jul 25, 2012 14:05:48 GMT -5
How is that legal?
I'm certainly not going to give CFA any of my money going forward, but I don't understand how you could deny a business license/permit/whatever they need from the city based on this.
I think the idea of cities denying business permits because they don't like the politics of the business executives is pretty scary.
I have to agree with this.
During the civil rights era businesses were allowed to continue. Rather it's up to the citizens whether or not they want to patronize such establishments.
Post by eliseb0323 on Jul 25, 2012 14:12:55 GMT -5
Not Cool. There is no legal reason to keep CFA from doing business in Boston. If people choose not to eat their food and their business fails, that's another story. CFA can give their money to whoever they want, just like you can.
This whole nonsense of food (CFA, oreos, etc.) taking sides on a political issue is just getting stupid. Eating oreos doesn't make you morally superior to people eating CFA waffle fries.
This whole nonsense of food (CFA, oreos, etc.) taking sides on a political issue is just getting stupid. Eating oreos doesn't make you morally superior to people eating CFA waffle fries.
It's not about food. It's about companies using money, sometimes in the $millions, to influence politics. Money they made off of us. It doesn't make us morally superior necessarily. I don't feel superior for eating an Oreo. However, I do feel superior to bigots, so choosing to give my money to a company that works and stands for equality does make me feel superior.
Huh, I didn't take the time to think of the legality of it, but I've heard of other businesses not being allowed to establish in other towns (although it was due to a current business in place that held a lot of power with the city). I didn't think this would be any different in denying permits and whatnot. Anyway, thought it was interesting.
This whole nonsense of food (CFA, oreos, etc.) taking sides on a political issue is just getting stupid. Eating oreos doesn't make you morally superior to people eating CFA waffle fries.
annnnnnnnd... we're back to, "Why do anything?"
FTR, I ate a bag of oreos yesterday while polishing my halo.
This whole nonsense of food (CFA, oreos, etc.) taking sides on a political issue is just getting stupid. Eating oreos doesn't make you morally superior to people eating CFA waffle fries.
annnnnnnnd... we're back to, "Why do anything?"
FTR, I ate a bag of oreos yesterday while polishing my halo.
If this is coming from a collective citizen standpoint, though, I can see blocking certain businesses.
If CFA has policies or business practices that are discriminatory, then this is what should be addressed. Not what they chose to do with their profits. Do they discriminate in hiring? Refuse to serve certain people? Those are reasons to deny them businesses licenses. Not because you disagree with the groups they support with their profits.
If this is coming from a collective citizen standpoint, though, I can see blocking certain businesses.
If CFA has policies or business practices that are discriminatory, then this is what should be addressed. Not what they chose to do with their profits. Do they discriminate in hiring? Refuse to serve certain people? Those are reasons to deny them businesses licenses. Not because you disagree with the groups they support with their profits.
There are rumblings that they do discriminate in their hiring practices, though. Granted, it's not proven.
I see this as nothing different that communities blocking Walmart stores. If a community does not want a business, they should have a say as to what goes into their community.
Or Medical MJ dispensaries in states where MJ is legal.
I see this as nothing different that communities blocking Walmart stores. If a community does not want a business, they should have a say as to what goes into their community.
I think it's different though. When people oppose Walmart, it's because of their business practices and the impact those practices might have on the immediate community. Walmarts increase traffic, they undercut local businesses or don't pay a living wage or whatever.
But with CFA, this is not about anything they do during business hours and the impact that might have on the community, it's about extracurriculars.
I don't see the big deal honestly. Do you really think if a controversial company with a clear liberal agenda wanted to set up shop in a small, religious community that they wouldn't at least try to stop it? And would it be such a travesty if they did? Boston has awesome food. They'll do just fine without overrated greasy chicken sandwiches.
I guess I'm just bombarded with OMG poor Chik Fil A from my circle that I'm just over hearing about "their" rights. This was just posted to my FB. I edited out the names. So now boycotting is bullying? You've got to be kidding me.
Boycott = bullying.
Like · · about an hour ago via mobile · 5 people like this.
Proudly had Chic-fil-a twice today!
about an hour ago · Like · 1
I will be driving the 2 hours or so it takes to get to my closest Chic-fil-a
FTR, I ate a bag of oreos yesterday while polishing my halo.
were you using a handtowel you bought at JCPenny?
Meh, I can disagree with someone on their politics and still appreciate that they make a delicious fried potato thingy. And I can like that the people who make oreos can put together a lovely rainbow graphic to salute tolerance and still not eat their blood-sugar raising treats. There is no reason that we have to figure out where the makers of our food stand on current political issues before we eat a meal -- there is enough nonsense dividing our society that we don't need to take sides over snack foods.
Cities and town are not obligated to grant business licenses or permits to anyone who applies, are they? What are the rules/laws on this?
I think it depends on how they are written, but most things I've run across are shall issue type situations. You fill out all the paperwork, you meet all the requirements, you pay the fees, you get your permit.
There's no value based judgement portion of the proceedings.
Most of the time when communities manage to shut out a Walmart or the link it's because there is a special exception permit required that calls for community involvement in the decision making process, or allows a certain amount of leeway to the county/city/whatever board. That kind of stuff is written into zoning codes.
But for the most part if say...Chick Fil A bought an existing Fast food location and converted it to a chick fil a without any big changes (no new drivethrough, no change in access, no change in the size of the signage, etc) then there really is no good grounds to balk them without risking a lawsuit.
(though I'm saying all this based on my experience with my local area. Other areas may be totally different)
Cities and town are not obligated to grant business licenses or permits to anyone who applies, are they? What are the rules/laws on this?
Without looking for any info on my google machine, I would have to say that if they had to grant all permits, the permit process would be moot.
Um, what? they have to grant all permits that meet their requirements and pay the fees. That's not like handing them out as halloween treats. Somebody at the county offices can't look at me and decide they don't like my face and just refuse me a permit if my paperwork is in order.
Meh, I can disagree with someone on their politics and still appreciate that they make a delicious fried potato thingy. And I can like that the people who make oreos can put together a lovely rainbow graphic to salute tolerance and still not eat their blood-sugar raising treats. There is no reason that we have to figure out where the makers of our food stand on current political issues before we eat a meal -- there is enough nonsense dividing our society that we don't need to take sides over snack foods.
Considering they made over $2 million in donations to organizations that I do not, and have never, supported in the least bit. I would say that is enough for me not to fuel their politics.
Cities and town are not obligated to grant business licenses or permits to anyone who applies, are they? What are the rules/laws on this?
Sure, but wouldn't it be discriminatory if the Mayor of some town somewhere in the Bible belt said he wouldn't grant businesses licenses to a restaurant owned by people who openly champion gay marriage?
If they are shown to have discrimentory hiring practices I could definitely see where that could be ground for denying them a permit though. especially since I assume orientation is a protected class in MA.
They'd have to show that though, and I don't think it's been proven.
Without looking for any info on my google machine, I would have to say that if they had to grant all permits, the permit process would be moot.
Um, what? they have to grant all permits that meet their requirements and pay the fees. That's not like handing them out as halloween treats. Somebody at the county offices can't look at me and decide they don't like my face and just refuse me a permit if my paperwork is in order.
I don't think so, though. That's how cities prevent Walmarts and other businesses they feel will be detrimental to the community from opening. As a state, the 1st state, to recognize same sex marriage, I can see how they could make an argument that CFA will be detrimental to the community.
And frankly no one was upset when Menino swore to block WM.
Meh, I can disagree with someone on their politics and still appreciate that they make a delicious fried potato thingy. And I can like that the people who make oreos can put together a lovely rainbow graphic to salute tolerance and still not eat their blood-sugar raising treats. There is no reason that we have to figure out where the makers of our food stand on current political issues before we eat a meal -- there is enough nonsense dividing our society that we don't need to take sides over snack foods.
Considering they made over $2 million in donations to organizations that I do not, and have never, supported in the least bit. I would say that is enough for me not to fuel their politics.
I'M not making it political, THEY are.
No, they are using their profits as they see fit. They aren't refusing to serve you because you disagree with their political views -- that would be THEM making it political. They don't claim to have a say in what you do with your money -- you want to have a say in what they do with theirs.
No, they are using their profits as they see fit. They aren't refusing to serve you because you disagree with their political views -- that would be THEM making it political. They don't claim to have a say in what you do with your money -- you want to have a say in what they do with theirs.
Money that I gave them.
However, if we're going with your argument, then why do you care if anyone eats there or not? My money, my decision.
No, they are using their profits as they see fit. They aren't refusing to serve you because you disagree with their political views -- that would be THEM making it political. They don't claim to have a say in what you do with your money -- you want to have a say in what they do with theirs.
Money that I gave them.
However, if we're going with your argument, then why do you care if anyone eats there or not? My money, my decision.
No one is arguing with your right to spend or withhold money from a business based on its political views. But here we are talking about a local government taking away your right to make those decisions for yourself by making that decision for you based on the government's own political views.
No, they are using their profits as they see fit. They aren't refusing to serve you because you disagree with their political views -- that would be THEM making it political. They don't claim to have a say in what you do with your money -- you want to have a say in what they do with theirs.
Money that I gave them.
However, if we're going with your argument, then why do you care if anyone eats there or not? My money, my decision.
Did the people who gave you your money analyze your political views before paying you? I don't care what people do with their money. Consumers are free to spend on whatever they want, but businesses are free to spend their profits however they wish too. I think it's a silly thing to take sides on. Would you rather spend money on a crappy sandwich made by people whose politics you agree with, or a good sandwich made by a restaurant owned by people you don't see eye-to-eye with? If I were to eat at CFA, it would be because I like their food, not because I agree with their values. And if I don't eat oreos, it doesn't mean I don't like gay people, it simply means I don't like oreos.
However, if we're going with your argument, then why do you care if anyone eats there or not? My money, my decision.
No one is arguing with your right to spend or withhold money from a business based on its political views. But here we are talking about a local government taking away your right to make those decisions for yourself by making that decision for you based on the government's own political views.
y4m - there's a different argument going on in this thread. Apparently elise doesn't agree that withholding your money from an organization you don't agree with is a wise thing to do, because they make delicious sandwiches.