FB pic - letter from Mayor of Boston to Chik-Fil-A

[wawa]

Jul 25, 2012 14:50:20 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

Jul 25, 2012 14:43:33 GMT -5 wawa said:

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.

Did you read my first post on the topic? Cities prevent walmarts by clauses written into their zoning codes that allow for judgement calls. Typically it has to be a use that requires a special exception because a permitted use in that zone is usually a by right thing. But *generally* when a use is replacing a like use, and the zoning allows that use with no special requirements - then they can't really do a damn thing except slow the process down if they don't want their asses sued. They can nitpick the application in a million ways, but without something in the code that lets them do it they can't just flat out say no. In the example of a walmart in an urban area you'd probably have square footage caps that they could use to hold it up, parking requirements, height requirements, facade appearance requriements - all kinds of shit. Cities aren't built for big box stores and codes reflect that, so he probably had ammunition there.

A fast food restaurant? They buy up a BK going out of business and change the sign and there's probably not a damn thing the city can do about it despite his big talk.

But it's possible that the city of boston's code is written in such a way that the governor has a permanent loophole to push out anybody he doesn't like. I dunno, I've never worked in land development in Boston. But that is not typical.

ETA: Another possible way that it might be legal for him to shut them out, at least in the area they're specifically talking about - is if it's some sort of special development overlay. Those usually have boards that get to ixnay anything they don't like based on wishy-washy criteria. for all I know the entire boston city limits is like that though.

[eliseb0323]

Jul 25, 2012 15:06:46 GMT -5 cjoy said:

Jul 25, 2012 15:01:52 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

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?

Why are those the only two options?

They aren't if you are going to analyze how the owner of each business you support spends his money. You don't get paid depending on your personal opinions do you? You get paid depending on the quality of your work.

If CFA were discriminating against people based on religion, I would never go in their stores again. But to boycott them because the owner doesn't believe the same thing as I do, or to bar them from doing business because of their religious beliefs, is short-sighted and silly.

[pixy0stix]

Jul 25, 2012 15:17:14 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

If CFA were discriminating against people based on religion, I would never go in their stores again.

Squeeze me, what do you think they're doing? The discrimination is through the whole organization, and not just the owner. Someone is being shortsighted and silly here, and it's not the people who are spending their money elsewhere.

[jillboston]

I think a closer analogy to understand Mayor Menino's letter (btw be thankful folks that it was a letter and not his speaking torture of the English language - we call him "Mumbles" here) is the treatment of a company that directs its money to support -say - a proposed law outlawing interracial marriage or allowing discrimnation in the hiring of Jews. It is not just a "liberal" Mayor trying to beat up on a "conservative" company.

[jillboston]

ETA: Another possible way that it might be legal for him to shut them out, at least in the area they're specifically talking about - is if it's some sort of special development overlay. Those usually have boards that get to ixnay anything they don't like based on wishy-washy criteria. for all I know the entire boston city limits is like that though Read more: pandce.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=36362&page=2#ixzz21fU35PE5

The City of Boston is one giant overlay (or rather many, many overlays).
A million years ago I spent a lot of billable hours looking at the monstrosity that is the City of Boston Zoning Code.

[pixy0stix]

Jul 25, 2012 15:22:39 GMT -5 cjoy said:

Jul 25, 2012 15:19:22 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Squeeze me, what do you think they're doing? The discrimination is through the whole organization, and not just the owner. Someone is being shortsighted and silly here, and it's not the people who are spending their money elsewhere.

They're just making delicious sandwiches! Why won't you eat them, pixy?!

Because I don't find them that good. THERE! I said it! They make awful sandwiches.

[wawa]

Jul 25, 2012 15:28:29 GMT -5 jillboston said:

ETA: Another possible way that it might be legal for him to shut them out, at least in the area they're specifically talking about - is if it's some sort of special development overlay. Those usually have boards that get to ixnay anything they don't like based on wishy-washy criteria. for all I know the entire boston city limits is like that though Read more: pandce.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=36362&page=2#ixzz21fU35PE5

The City of Boston is one giant overlay (or rather many, many overlays).
A million years ago I spent a lot of billable hours looking at the monstrosity that is the City of Boston Zoning Code.

LOL, yeah, I suspected as much. Most of my zoning code experience is with county codes outside of DC. Those aren't exactly the boonies, but big cities are so much more complicated. Particularly when you start getting into redevelopment and revitalization areas and crapola like that.

[secretlyevil]

Jul 25, 2012 14:05:43 GMT -5 y4m said:

I think the idea of cities denying business permits because they don't like the politics of the business executives is pretty scary.

I agree. If they were asking people their sexual preference before serving that would be one thing...

This is why companies should stay out of politics. Personal preferences is one thing but companies shouldn't have anything to do with politics (not donating money, etc.)

[mominatrix]

The letter has nothing to do with denying licenses... It's basically the mayor saying that, because of these positions he ”urge” CFA to back off from plans to locate in boston.

...that's the strongest the letter gets.

CFA..took public positions that contravene the law in Massachusetts. This is a ramification of that action.

..via mobile.

[heightsyankee]

Jul 25, 2012 15:16:28 GMT -5 wawa said:

ETA: Another possible way that it might be legal for him to shut them out, at least in the area they're specifically talking about - is if it's some sort of special development overlay. Those usually have boards that get to ixnay anything they don't like based on wishy-washy criteria. for all I know the entire boston city limits is like that though.

Boston has a lot of protections in place due to historic ordinances and such. I am willing to bet that Manino will exploit some kind of development control, not just deny based on personal opinion.

[bqbride]

Jul 25, 2012 14:05:43 GMT -5 y4m said:

I think the idea of cities denying business permits because they don't like the politics of the business executives is pretty scary.

It isn't politics. It's bigotry. Would you feel differently if a city denied permits to a business that didn't allow black people in their restaurants? Or donated money to groups that persecuted Jewish people, or to the KKK?

[y4m]

Jul 25, 2012 15:59:32 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

The letter has nothing to do with denying licenses... It's basically the mayor saying that, because of these positions he ”urge” CFA to back off from plans to locate in boston.

...that's the strongest the letter gets.

He's also quoted in the Boston Herald saying "If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."

www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061147182&srvc=home&position=emailed

[bqbride]

Jul 25, 2012 15:22:05 GMT -5 jillboston said:

I think a closer analogy to understand Mayor Menino's letter (btw be thankful folks that it was a letter and not his speaking torture of the English language - we call him "Mumbles" here) is the treatment of a company that directs its money to support -say - a proposed law outlawing interracial marriage or allowing discrimnation in the hiring of Jews. It is not just a "liberal" Mayor trying to beat up on a "conservative" company.

THANK YOU for saying this so much more eloquently than I have been able to. I am sick of such blatant bigotry being considered an accepted "political view." It isn't a political view, it's a human and civil rights issue. All opinions are not created equal. Some are just disgusting and wrong, with no merit at all. Including the one that homosexuals are a lower life form and are undeserving of the same rights and privileges as the rest of society.

[wawa]

Jul 25, 2012 16:04:26 GMT -5 @bqbride said:

Jul 25, 2012 14:05:43 GMT -5 y4m said:

I think the idea of cities denying business permits because they don't like the politics of the business executives is pretty scary.

It isn't politics. It's bigotry. Would you feel differently if a city denied permits to a business that didn't allow black people in their restaurants? Or donated money to groups that persecuted Jewish people, or to the KKK?

I'm not y4m, but no, I wouldn't feel differently if we were talking about people who publicly donated money to the KKK as long as they were law abiding in their hiring practices and whatever public accomodation rules applied to their business.

bigots suck.
I like gay marriage.

But I don't like the idea of a gov't being run in such a way that only people who the governor agrees with can get their permits. We're just lucky in this case the gov in question is a non-gay-hating dude. What if he were an asswipe promising to block gay-owned businesses or anybody who donated to GLAAD? (well...and if this were a state where sexual orientation wasn't a protected class)

I'm not totally opposed to the wording of what he said in his letter. He pretty much just asked them to go away. I would be upset if he actually did follow through and blocked their applications based on frivelous causes because he doesn't like their donation record. If they can be shown to have actually discriminated in hiring or service I'll change my tune.

Oh and...I don't eat there either. But I still think this could be crossing the line.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2012 16:09:21 GMT -5 @bqbride said:

Jul 25, 2012 15:22:05 GMT -5 jillboston said:

I think a closer analogy to understand Mayor Menino's letter (btw be thankful folks that it was a letter and not his speaking torture of the English language - we call him "Mumbles" here) is the treatment of a company that directs its money to support -say - a proposed law outlawing interracial marriage or allowing discrimnation in the hiring of Jews. It is not just a "liberal" Mayor trying to beat up on a "conservative" company.

THANK YOU for saying this so much more eloquently than I have been able to. I am sick of such blatant bigotry being considered an accepted "political view." It isn't a political view, it's a human and civil rights issue. All opinions are not created equal. Some are just disgusting and wrong, with no merit at all. Including the one that homosexuals are a lower life form and are undeserving of the same rights and privileges as the rest of society.

:Y:

My view-- when you actively donate money (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) and resources to hate groups with the goal of denying a group of people in a protected class their basic civil rights, you are engaging in discrimination yourself. CFA should not get a "free speech" pass.

And sexual orientation is a protected class in MA.

I am very interested to see how this plays out.

[wawa]

bqb - Do you also think that racist stores with KKK signs should be zoned out of existance?

I find them repugnant in the extreme, and I'd have to hold my nose real hard to sign any paperwork allowing them to exist - but I don't think it's right to deny them the chance to do business with their fellow useless puss sacks pretending to be human beings.

[Michelle]

I agree with Wawa, and I agree with y4m that it is a scary idea.

I am not eating at CFA. I cannot give them money when I know a portion of my money will go toward organizations who are continuing to oppress gays and their rights.

But barring any letter of the law that allows him to do so, M is abusing his power to say that they will have a hard time getting permits to open stores because of their position on the issue.

The company has a non-discrimination policy. Contributing profits to organizations who advocate a certain belief or position that in effect is discriminatory is not the same thing as actively discriminating.

In Texas, CFA doesn't have to hire any GLBT employees because they aren't protected by Title Vii of the CRA and there is no state protection for them. As long as they comply with the law in locations where there ARE protections they are not actively discriminating.

So absent any evidence of active discrimination (under both the disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions of the law), it would be an abuse of power not to grant the permit on that basis alone.

I wouldn't want the reverse to happen (that GLAAD wouldn't be permitted by a conservative mayor to set up an office somewhere, or that the muppets would be forbidden to perform at a city theatre because Jim Henson group supported GLAAD).

[sporklemotion]

Jul 25, 2012 15:01:52 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

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?

It depends on how differently we see it. To me, this is a big dividing line-- it's not like we like different sports teams or have different views about boxers vs. briefs. Knowing what Cathy does with the money, I'd rather not pass it along to him.

In any event, I can't get a read on what, if anything, Menino actually plans to do because, as PP noted, the letter just urges CFA to stay out of Boston and says nothing about throwing up red tape. Personally, I have no problem with that, because I feel like he's just taking a strong public stand in favor of gay marriage. I can see the argument that he may be overstepping his role if he blocks it, but I wonder if he's just trying to rally support in the community for doing so, which they have a right to do. I'm holding off judgment on it until he actually does something to block them.
I love that such a high-profile politician has taken such a strong and unequivocal stand in favor of gay marriage and against discrimination, and that he's not backing down even after some criticism.

[mominatrix]

Jul 25, 2012 16:37:34 GMT -5 Michelle said:

In Texas, CFA doesn't have to hire any GLBT employees because they aren't protected by Title Vii of the CRA and there is no state protection for them. As long as they comply with the law in locations where there ARE protections they are not actively discriminating.

Um. No.
They are actively discriminating in Texas, it's just that it's not against the law there for them to discriminate there.

It's like saying that companies - lots of them - treat their offshore manufacturing employees like complete garbage, and we don't like it. Just because it's legal to treat people like crap in China, doesn't mean it's moral here.

..via mobile.

[Michelle]

Jul 25, 2012 16:46:08 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Jul 25, 2012 16:37:34 GMT -5 Michelle said:

In Texas, CFA doesn't have to hire any GLBT employees because they aren't protected by Title Vii of the CRA and there is no state protection for them. As long as they comply with the law in locations where there ARE protections they are not actively discriminating.

Um. No.
They are actively discriminating in Texas, it's just that it's not against the law there for them to discriminate there.

It's like saying that companies - lots of them - treat their offshore manufacturing employees like complete garbage, and we don't like it. Just because it's legal to treat people like crap in China, doesn't mean it's moral here.

..via mobile.

Touche - "illegally discriminating." But my initial premise still holds that it's a scary proposition and I wouldn't want it the other way around.

And FTR - there are two gay guys who work (or worked the last time I was there) at the CFA I most frequented, so it is also a huge assumption to say that all stores in texas factually illegally discriminate against GLBT community members.

[basilosaurus]

So, he's basically saying that those aren't the values that his city holds, and he's trying to warn them off from applying for permits. What's actually illegal about that? If CFA really wants to be there, I'm sure they could apply and take on the fight, and the city would lose. I really see this as nothing more than stating a political stance, not taking real action. Politicians bloviating isn't exactly a knew concept.

[mominatrix]

Jul 25, 2012 16:58:58 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Jul 25, 2012 16:46:08 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Um. No.
They are actively discriminating in Texas, it's just that it's not against the law there for them to discriminate there.

It's like saying that companies - lots of them - treat their offshore manufacturing employees like complete garbage, and we don't like it. Just because it's legal to treat people like crap in China, doesn't mean it's moral here.

..via mobile.

Touche - "illegally discriminating." But my initial premise still holds that it's a scary proposition and I wouldn't want it the other way around.

And FTR - there are two gay guys who work (or worked the last time I was there) at the CFA I most frequented, so it is also a huge assumption to say that all stores in texas factually illegally discriminate against GLBT community members.

Talk about assumptions

..via mobile.

[Michelle]

Jul 25, 2012 17:07:11 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Jul 25, 2012 16:58:58 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Touche - "illegally discriminating." But my initial premise still holds that it's a scary proposition and I wouldn't want it the other way around.

And FTR - there are two gay guys who work (or worked the last time I was there) at the CFA I most frequented, so it is also a huge assumption to say that all stores in texas factually illegally discriminate against GLBT community members.

Talk about assumptions

..via mobile.

What part is the assumption? That the two guys are gay? Some people are open about their orientation. I'm not judging them negatively or even defending CFA's CEO's position on where they send their profits so I'm not sure what your issue is.

I think the boston consumers would send a clear message about whether CFA is welcome in their community or not.

Just because I don't like any politician threatening an abuse of power because of a difference in political beliefs doesn't mean I'm all rah-rah CFA either.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2012 17:14:59 GMT -5 Michelle said:

I think the boston consumers would send a clear message about whether CFA is welcome in their community or not.

Problem with this is that there are a lot of visitors in a city like Boston, which houses many universities. CFA may not be welcomed by the residents, but that doesn't mean it will do poorly.

[Deleted]

Its a strange world, where a private business can use the money it makes to influence public opinion, but a public figure cant use public opinion to influence private business.

[gault]

He's not doing anything legal about Chick-fil-A having a restaurant in Boston. He's saying the citizens don't want you here, and we strongly urge that you rethink putting a branch in our city. Not barring them, not prohibiting them... just saying dude, you're wrong, and our laws protect the people you discriminate against. No bueno, slap on the wrist.

[y4m]

Jul 25, 2012 17:23:21 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Its a strange world, where a private business can use the money it makes to influence public opinion, but a public figure cant use public opinion to influence private business.

There is a world of difference between using public opinion to influence private business and manipulating business permits to do so.

[Michelle]

Jul 25, 2012 17:23:21 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Its a strange world, where a private business can use the money it makes to influence public opinion, but a public figure cant use public opinion to influence private business.

Interesting comment.

I don't have a problem with a mayor who says, "We are leading the nation in inclusion. As far as I'm concerned, CFA is not welcome in Boston." ::and the crowd goes wild::

I do have a problem with the whole threatening to not grant permits. that's the only part I have a problem with.

I like that he took a stand and shared his beliefs.

Houston's Mayor Parker makes pro GLBT comments all the time with great influence. She never threatens to use power to block something - she smiles and says she is confident [insert bigoted issue] isn't the direction her community is taking/wants to take and is proud of them for it. [eta] This is the way I would have preferred that he address the issue. Then the Rah-Rah CFA wouldn't have anything to criticize and his comments could be simply celebrated by those promoting inclusion.

[imoan]

So CFA allows teh gayz to make $7/hr working in a hot, greasy kitchen. Totally makes up for them donating millions to organizations to try to actively make sure those two token gay guys never get to marry the person they love like you and I got to do!

[Michelle]

Jul 25, 2012 21:26:03 GMT -5 imoan said:

So CFA allows teh gayz to make $7/hr working in a hot, greasy kitchen. Totally makes up for them donating millions to organizations to try to actively make sure those two token gay guys never get to marry the person they love like you and I got to do!

Yeah... that is exactly what anyone said or remotely implied in this thread.