Mayor of Boston is opposed to Chick-Fil-A in his City

[MobBoss]

Or god forbid slaughter/persecuate them?

Well, i guess it's okay if the majority decided it.

Dont you think using the word 'slaughter' a gross overstatement?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Okay, when I say "anti-SSM", I'm also talking about political contributions towards political groups that oppose SSM, not just the company's opinion on the matter.

Only these groups obviously do far more than being opposed to SSM. Why do you insist on ignoring it by trying to turn this into an issue strictly about SSM?

Also, that state pretty clearly shows that this is about politics, not traffic. If you read that statement and still think that this is primarily about traffic concerns, we might as well stop talking.

Did you not even bother to read Moreno's statement I posted above. He clearly stated that initially it was largely about traffic, but the more he corresponded with Chick-Fil-A the more disgusted he got with their blatant homophobia. What is so difficult to comprehend about this?

Not quite. Aldermanic Priviledge is something that is somewhat unique to Chicago. Zoning boards are more likey to be more independent entities, or go beyond one person. It would not be uncommon at all for the city (or whatever entity) to deny a permit based on traffic concerns. If that was really the case here, then the city would propose different sites nearby (I can think of a few off the top of my head), or ask that the developer change their plan to alievate traffic concerns (such as dropping the drive through, or building an outlet road).

Again, zoning boards make this sort of decisions all the time that have nothing to do with traffic. It has nothing to do with politics unique to Chicago. That is just utter nonsense.

Do we know that this proposed locaiton wouldn't be?

If it is, why is Moreno dealing directly with their CEO and top executives while nobody is mentioning a franchise owner who might quite likely not be near as homophobic like the other one apparently is?

And again, has Chick-Fil-A responded to Moreno's request regarding their hiring practices of people who are openly homosexual? Don't you find that a bit odd if they haven't?

 

[MobBoss]

I think Downtowns point makes a lot of sense. Its fairly disengenuous to say all the stuff about the owner and then claim your're denying them because of 'zoning'. I mean you can literally feel the 'wink and the nod' that goes with that claim.

Its not anything different than an employer firing someone for the color of their skin, their religion, or some other prohibited reason, and then making something up to make it appear legitimate.

 

[Flying Pig]

Dont you think using the word 'slaughter' a gross overstatement?

Yes: it's a pretty standard way of analysing a principle - take it to its logical extreme and see if you still like it. If it doesn't hold up like that, it needs some modification. Useless has demonstrated that 'if the people like it, a democracy should make it happen' isn't a good principle in that form.

I think Downtowns point makes a lot of sense. Its fairly disengenuous to say all the stuff about the owner and then claim your're denying them because of 'zoning'. I mean you can literally feel the 'wink and the nod' that goes with that claim.

Its not anything different than an employer firing someone for the color of their skin, their religion, or some other prohibited reason, and then making something up to make it appear legitimate.

Nope! It's totally unfair, very much against the Free Market, and a borderline abuse of power - but it's very satisfying to see the boot on the other foot when it comes to discrimination in America.

 

[downtown]

Sigh, I give up.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm with you DT. Most of those that are disagreeing at length don't live in Illinois/Chicago for the most part. They don't have to live daily life with the same degree of negative impacts from petty government abuse of power and corruption. All they really see here are people they don't like getting their "come-uppins." (I did say most.)

 

[Formaldehyde]

Much of the zoning decisions are highly discriminatory, especially to Muslims, minority housing and churches, lower income groups, and even faith-based substance abuse programs.

Jews against Islamophobia: “Zoning Discrimination” Violates Religious Freedom for Bridgewater (NJ) Muslims

AlFalah Center members have reached out to those neighbors with good‐faith concerns about changes to the neighborhood, to let them know how these concerns have been addressed. Yet the large and well organized opposition to this house of worship far exceeds the small number of residents who would in the wake of an extremely vocal opposition represented most notably by the Somerset County Tea Party. Since the campaign against their Center began, members of the local Muslim community have been alarmed to report threats, religious slurs, and public harassment.

City Zoning Discrimination

Institutionalized Discrimination in City Zoning

We are finding that it is common practice for governments of small and medium-sized towns to use their powers of annexation, zoning, provision of infrastructure and public services, long-term planning, and maximization of tax base to exclude minority and low-income communities from full participation in the town’s benefits and governance. City boundaries are being selectively drawn to include new, wealthier subdivisions (“cherry picking&#8221 while keeping older, minority, and lower-income communities outside the boundaries. In this way, the governments are seeking to build a tax base at the expense of building a community. This practice may create minority “islands,” surrounded by town but excluded from participation. We have developed a program based on Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to aid minority and low-income communities which have been excluded from their local towns.

New York City Suburb Accused of Discriminatory Zoning Practices

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. – A suburban New York City county is taking some heat after the federal government Friday asked a judge to force the county to provide information about local zoning practices that might be racially discriminatory.

The motion by the U.S. attorney's office stems from a 3-year-old settlement of a lawsuit over racial patterns in housing. The settlement required Westchester, a suburban county just north of New York City, to build 750 units, mostly in heavily-white areas, and market them to non-whites.

The motion accuses Westchester of failing to do that analysis properly. The county has issued two reports — the government rejected the first one earlier this year — asserting that because multifamily housing is permitted somewhere in every municipality, there are no such barriers.

The federal monitor on the case, James Johnson, said in court papers Friday that the county's report "failed to provide a legal basis, facts or analysis that would adequately support its conclusion that exclusionary zoning did not exist."

ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American Baptist Church

PITTSBURGH - Acting on behalf of a local congregation, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit charging illegal race and religious discrimination in town officials' refusal to issue a zoning permit to a predominantly African-American church.

Witold Walczak, Executive Director of the ACLU's Pittsburgh chapter and one of the attorneys for the church, said his group agreed to take on the case because discrimination by local land-use officials against small and unpopular religious groups is a widespread problem.

"Minority churches and religions have historically suffered discrimination by local land-use boards," he said. "The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed unanimously by Congress in 2000, was designed to correct this problem and applies squarely to this case."

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CLOSES RELIGIOUS ZONING DISCRIMINATION INVESTIGATION OF BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

The investigation was opened in January 2003 pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) after the township prevented a religious assembly, the Beaver Assembly of God, from expanding its church. The Brighton zoning code permitted houses of worship as a conditional use, but required them to satisfy a minimum lot size requirement of five acres. The Beaver Assembly of God’s church, which it had used since the early 1970's, occupied a 1.25 acre parcel. Having outgrown its facility, the church purchased an adjoining two acre lot and sought to build a larger church. Its zoning application was rejected pursuant to the five acre minimum requirement.

RLUIPA prohibits municipalities from treating religious assemblies less equally than non-religious assemblies. Under the same zoning code, non-religious uses with similar traffic and noise burdens, including assembly halls, fraternal organizations, and even adult movie theaters and cabarets, faced no such minimum acreage requirement. In January 2003, the church sued under RLUIPA, and the Department opened its investigation, seeking documents and information from the township.

The township subsequently amended its ordinance, eliminating the five acre requirement and creating a zone in which houses of worship are permitted as of right. The township also agreed to permit the church to proceed with construction on its property. In light of these developments, the Department of Justice has decided to close its investigation.

“Nothing justifies zoning laws that make it harder for people to assemble for religious exercise than for secular purposes such as civic meetings, fraternal gatherings, or movie-going, let alone adult entertainment,” said R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “We commend Brighton Township for recognizing the discrimination written into its zoning code, and for promptly correcting it.”

 

[warpus]

The U.S. is one of the only western countries that doesn't have a federally mandated law that makes it a crime to discriminate based on sexual orientation, right?

With that in mind, I don't mind it when regular citizens and community leaders say: No, that sort of discrimination is wrong, your business isn't welcome in our community.

Then again I haven't been following the discussion at all, too busy

 

[Farm Boy]

I was under the impression Title VII was employed to prohibit discrimination based on homosexuality in employment and service, which Chick-Fil-A complies with.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So it is your opinion that it has been illegal to discriminate against and even persecute homosexuals since 1964? That the US military, Salvation Army, Boy Scouts, and apparently Chick-Fil-A are, or have been, violating federal law by doing so? That all these people who have been advocating sodomy laws which were finally found to be unconstitutional less than 10 years ago, SSM, DADT, and even more draconian measures against gays in the military before that, are criminals?

http://www.employmentlawmatters.net...eotyping-claim-is-cognizable-under-title-vii/

Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would extend Title VII protection to claims of sexual orientation discrimination. However, under Title VII, an employee may raise a claim of gender discrimination if that individual can demonstrate that an harasser was acting to punish the employee’s noncompliance with gender stereotypes. The 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed the claim of a self-described “effeminate man” to move forward to a jury trial, on the basis that the plaintiff presented evidence that his co-workers harassed him because of his non-compliance with male-associated stereotypes. Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, Inc., 3d Cir., No. 07-3997, August 28, 2009.

 

[Farm Boy]

Certainly the courts never reevaluate the applications of a law. It would be <snicker> unprecedented!

 

[downtown]

Title VII does not extend to homosexuals. I believe there are 28 states that do not have a specific protection for workplace discrimination against gays, although specific cities or counties in those states may. For example, Utah does not have a statewide protection, but Salt Lake County does.

 

[DroopyTofu]

The U.S. is one of the only western countries that doesn't have a federally mandated law that makes it a crime to discriminate based on sexual orientation, right?

With that in mind, I don't mind it when regular citizens and community leaders say: No, that sort of discrimination is wrong, your business isn't welcome in our community.

Then again I haven't been following the discussion at all, too busy

Except for one charge 10 years ago, there has been no evidence that Chick-Fil-A has discriminated against gays. They just donated to charities that the political leaders in these areas dislike. Also, their CEO exercised freedom of speech.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm sure it is just a matter of time before the CEO responds to Moreno's email requesting details regarding how they openly welcome and embrace homosexuals who openly express their sexual preferences as executives, managers, and employees in their company. Of course, they may have to openly pray to Jesus first...

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't think anyone is objecting their freedom to speak, or donate to charity.

The objection is targeted at the persecution of non-heterosexuals, and the donations that are geared towards limiting their rights. And the objection is being carried out by politicians who are speaking, and customers who are not buying.

Gee, it's almost like freedom. Freedom for everyone except gay people.

 

[JollyRoger]

Also, their CEO exercised freedom of speech.

As have the alderman and mayor.

 

[Farm Boy]

Title VII does not extend to homosexuals. I believe there are 28 states that do not have a specific protection for workplace discrimination against gays, although specific cities or counties in those states may. For example, Utah does not have a statewide protection, but Salt Lake County does.

Ok, I remember parts now. I depends which federal court you are in. I don't think the SCOTUS has weighed in directly on this but some subdivisions have.

 

[Formaldehyde]

After all, it has only been nearly 50 years now while Congress continues to refuse to extend these rights to homosexuals.

 

[MobBoss]

Nope! It's totally unfair, very much against the Free Market, and a borderline abuse of power - but it's very satisfying to see the boot on the other foot when it comes to discrimination in America.

Except that the corporation itself has a pretty clean record of not being discriminatory.

The U.S. is one of the only western countries that doesn't have a federally mandated law that makes it a crime to discriminate based on sexual orientation, right?

With that in mind, I don't mind it when regular citizens and community leaders say: No, that sort of discrimination is wrong, your business isn't welcome in our community.

Then again I haven't been following the discussion at all, too busy

Except, again...the business doesnt discriminate in its practices. I'm not entirely sure how people cant seem to get that fact into their head - all the seem to concentrate on is the personal opinion of one man. This corporation is more than just one man, right?

Gee, it's almost like freedom. Freedom for everyone except gay people.

I'm sure gay people are free to eat Chic-Fil-A all they want, or even work there. What more freedom do you want? Oh, I know, to punish people for having a different opinion than you. Got it. Very tolerant of you.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Except, again...the business doesnt discriminate in its practices. I'm not entirely sure how people cant seem to get that fact into their head - all the seem to concentrate on is the personal opinion of one man. This corporation is more than just one man, right?

Your point is moot. A locally elected official has the right to use zoning laws and other duly-given powers to refuse the expansion of a business that is against the values of a district. The owner of the business decided to open his mouth, now he's paying for it.

A sex shop would go against the values of most small towns, that's why they often get pushed out to unincorporated areas along highways. A business owner makes hate speech - then his business can be pushed out of the district. Why is this so hard to get in your head.