Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: ACLU: Blocking Chick-fil-A unconstitutional Viewpoint Discrimination [View all]Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)4. Hmmmm. Good point. I suppose that's true. nt
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
162 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
ACLU: Blocking Chick-fil-A unconstitutional Viewpoint Discrimination [View all]
cthulu2016
Jul 2012
OP
This is very inaccuate information. Chick fil A Corporation retains ownership of all locations
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#143
The first three points are not matters of fact, they are simply not true in most States
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#132
But in a majority of States it is legal to discriminate against gay people in employment and
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#131
The point is that the franchisee knew going in that CfA was religiously oriented..
Fumesucker
Jul 2012
#127
Franchisees of Chick fil A are not owners, they are operators with zero equity share.
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#145
Not sure where you're getting your information. There's already at least one Chick-fil-a in Chicago
WillowTree
Jul 2012
#16
They want a zoning variance to build a parking lot next door to a second, but won't sign
Bolo Boffin
Jul 2012
#38
Me: "They also lied to Moreno's face for nine months about their discriminatory practices"
Bolo Boffin
Jul 2012
#93
Damn, I showed you the quote that backed up what I said and you're still insisting I'm wrong.
Bolo Boffin
Jul 2012
#156
But they can't zone against one fast food establishment when they allow others.
WillowTree
Jul 2012
#24
Then, do you support those who objected to the building of the Mosque in NYC?
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#30
The question is how much should Government interfere in private matters, business or otherwise.
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#36
Seems to be coming along fine. They opened for business in September of last year
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#116
I agree with your last sentence and raised that question in the case of the Church that refused
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#31
If it was his 'beliefs' we'd not even know them. It is about his public statements and press
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#134
Yep and he is free to it. The other poster claimed it was his 'belifes' not his speech that
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#146
This is not about blocking a business from entering the marketplace based on zoning, environmental,
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#43
"because of the personal view points of the owner." When that owner's lawyers had lied
Bolo Boffin
Jul 2012
#46
Funny that Morena, Rahm, et. al., forgot to mention that they intended to block
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#58
That's Moreno's point, Luminous. He brought up their bigotry again and again.
Bolo Boffin
Jul 2012
#61
I haven't read anything from Greenwald about this case. Discrimination is a legitimate reason to
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#65
Starbuck's doesn't have the record of supporting anti-human rights organizations
Bolo Boffin
Jul 2012
#119
I'll grant you your example of ONE franchisee being sued for apparent gender discrimination.
WillowTree
Jul 2012
#64
WillowTree is not defending Chick-fil-a. Willow tree is defending the First Amendment.
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#83
Retaliation for speech is a violation of a person's Constitutional rights.
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#82
Your reiterated assertion that a business is not a person is wrong, both legally and as bad policy.
Jim Lane
Jul 2012
#88
So, you'd support the decision of a locality to withhold permits because the owner
TheKentuckian
Jul 2012
#129
The Constitution promies equal protection under the law and yet millions of us are not allowed
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#136
So, you are saying that this talk of blocking Chick-fil-a is just a misunderstanding
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#40
So looking forward to you supporting a business being banned by a right-wing mayor for
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#45
Actually, zoning laws apply to manufacturing, restaurants, liquor stores, churches, etc.
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#63
This issue is not about business practices but about the personal speech.
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#54
Your patronizing KFC instead of Chick-fil-a does not prevent Chick-fil-a from doing business.
WillowTree
Jul 2012
#67
Huh? That is simply not true. A city cannot block the license of a corner grocer who is Muslim then
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#73
Even Moreno doesn't make that claim. He claims that they were making progress until Cathy's
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#86
Bullshit. The nine months of supposed progress was shown to be a lie by Cathy.
Bolo Boffin
Jul 2012
#96
I got $5 million of ways they discriminate against the LGBT community with corporate money.
Bolo Boffin
Jul 2012
#97
Forbes Magazine, July 2007: Chick-fil-A has been sued 12 times since 1988.
Bolo Boffin
Jul 2012
#102
I am so looking forward to you defending any rightwing mayor that suggests
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#75
This is a red meat issue for RWers. I don't know why the left is walking into the trap.
Monk06
Jul 2012
#71
Here's how you get 'em--you persuade a bunch of gay or gay-friendly or non-religious people
MADem
Jul 2012
#106
Franchisees of Chick fil A are not owners, they are operators with zero equity share.
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#148
Sue them for what? In most States, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#138
Everyone loves the ACLU until they defend the rights of unpopular people (nt)
Nye Bevan
Jul 2012
#121
Hard for me to buy that a very wealthy CEO with full rights is 'unpopular' while the minority group
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#137
The public doesn't have to and shouldn't. The law is a different matter.
TheKentuckian
Jul 2012
#135
And how easy it is to clearly state that what the government is not allowed to do is not the
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2012
#141