Soxbadger Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 It doesnt need to be traffic concerns. It can be that the community doesnt like CFA, that is entirely legal. Ill give an anecdote: I was working on a zoning project in a ward. The community refused to approve any zoning that would allow a Subway, but they were okay with Panera. That was absolutely okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 But he specifically cited a religious belief as the basis for denying the permit. Not his communities preference of one chain over another. That's unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 09:28 PM) But he specifically cited a religious belief as the basis for denying the permit. Not his communities preference of one chain over another. That's unconstitutional. That's not quite true. He cited Chick-Fil-A's promotion of discrimination against gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 That's not quite true. He cited Chick-Fil-A's promotion of discrimination against gay people. Which, according to the sexual harassment seminar we had to sit through at work, is completely legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 08:55 PM) Which, according to the sexual harassment seminar we had to sit through at work, is completely legal. Yes, it is. I'm just saying that the Alderman's justification is "Chick-Fil-A sucks because they promote anti-gay work", not "Chick-Fil-A sucks because it likes Christianity". If the standard for excuses needed to keep a business out is as small as people in this thread have said, I think he'll be alright. The problem with Chick-Fil-A is actions, not simply beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) But he specifically cited a religious belief as the basis for denying the permit. Not his communities preference of one chain over another. That's unconstitutional. Doesnt really matter, I could muck this case up so badly that it would be years before CFA would even come close to a zoning board. Chicago gives Alderman almost complete discretion in zoning, so all he has to do is say, "Well I thought the community would be against it and I dont approve zoning unless the community supports it." That no longer is an illegal reason, and its almost impossible to argue what he was actually thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 04:01 PM) Doesnt really matter, I could muck this case up so badly that it would be years before CFA would even come close to a zoning board. Chicago gives Alderman almost complete discretion in zoning, so all he has to do is say, "Well I thought the community would be against it and I dont approve zoning unless the community supports it." That no longer is an illegal reason, and its almost impossible to argue what he was actually thinking. He would get destroyed in his dep over his prior admissions. There's no backtrack to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Yeah there is: Can you explain what you meant in your statement? "Oh I meant that my community is against that and I misspoke, I should have been clearer but I wasnt thinking." Good luck trying to convince a jury that the Alderman wasnt looking out for his own interest, and that interest being keeping his community happy so he can get re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 "Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward." Yep, he really talks about traffic and the community in that crystal clear quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Where did I mention traffic? I dont even know what that reference is to. The quote who cares, I ask the follow up, what did you mean: "I meant that i couldnt support the permit because the community was so against his ignorance. Its not up to me, its up to the community, I am just the community's representative." It wouldnt be summary judgment, itd be a trial on the facts, thats years down the road at best. And CFA still would have to prove that but for his actions, they would have received a permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) Where did I mention traffic? I dont even know what that reference is to. The quote who cares, I ask the follow up, what did you mean: "I meant that i couldnt support the permit because the community was so against his ignorance. Its not up to me, its up to the community, I am just the community's representative." It wouldnt be summary judgment, itd be a trial on the facts, thats years down the road at best. And CFA still would have to prove that but for his actions, they would have received a permit. Traffic congestion was his supposed real justification for denying the permit, a bulls*** excuse he created after people started talking about how unconstituional his actions were. And you can get him to try and explain it, but no competent jury or judge will buy it. The guy flat out stated he denied the permit based on the remarks made by Chick Fil A. His motives for doing so - be it for votes or to do something his constituents want - is irrelevant. That simply cannot be a basis for his decision and it was. Unconstituional. There's no issue of fact there. And who cares if it takes forever (I don't think it would, federal cases move very quickly)? This is a PR battle Chick Fil A is going to win in the long run. Constitutional rights of free speech and the problem with government deciding things based on violations of constitutional rights is more of a concern than what some corporate executive thinks about gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Federal court is much quicker, but they are still going to give the City plenty of time to prepare their case. It just depends, the City would obviously file a motion to dismiss, then they would appeal it if they lose, that could be a year right there. Appeals take forever, even a simple one can take about 3-4 months before they even give out a briefing schedule or decide if they take the case. This is a PR battle Chick Fil A is going to win in the long run. Constitutional rights of free speech and the problem with government deciding things based on violations of constitutional rights is more of a concern than what some corporate executive thinks about gay marriage. Disagree here. The best thing for CFA is for this to go away. If you were the CEO of McDonalds you dont want it to come out that the reason you couldnt get a permit was you didnt like a certain group. Its nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory if they fight the City and win. So much goodwill destroyed by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 11:13 PM) Federal court is much quicker, but they are still going to give the City plenty of time to prepare their case. It just depends, the City would obviously file a motion to dismiss, then they would appeal it if they lose, that could be a year right there. Appeals take forever, even a simple one can take about 3-4 months before they even give out a briefing schedule or decide if they take the case. Disagree here. The best thing for CFA is for this to go away. If you were the CEO of McDonalds you dont want it to come out that the reason you couldnt get a permit was you didnt like a certain group. Its nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory if they fight the City and win. So much goodwill destroyed by this. As opposed to all of the good will they have now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 What they do/say is in poor taste. Also as a business person, I'd say it's a poor business decision too. If I was a shareholder I'd be quite upset. Same thing if I was a franchise owner. In business you need to be vanilla as possible. No religion, no politics. Shoot I don't even share my sox love in certain cases to not offend cubs fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Its a great business move. Here we all are talking about Chick-Fil-A nonstop, its on our minds. Even the people who hate them for this stand are going by one and wondering how the f***ing chicken tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jul 28, 2012 -> 03:14 PM) Its a great business move. Here we all are talking about Chick-Fil-A nonstop, its on our minds. Even the people who hate them for this stand are going by one and wondering how the f***ing chicken tastes. no they wont. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jul 28, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) What they do/say is in poor taste. Also as a business person, I'd say it's a poor business decision too. If I was a shareholder I'd be quite upset. Same thing if I was a franchise owner. In business you need to be vanilla as possible. No religion, no politics. Shoot I don't even share my sox love in certain cases to not offend cubs fans. No shareholders. It is a privately held company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 no they wont. lol. This will go the way of #KONY2012 and all the other fads people love faking outrage over on the internet. Chick-Fil-A keeps on keeping on making tons of money despite a bunch of people (who've never eaten there before) 'boycotting' them, while the free publicity from this thing strengthens brand conciousness and gets more people in there to eat the sandwiches. Honestly, and this may come off a little hostile, but I'd rather live in a world with Chick-Fil-A where gays dont have rights than a world without Chick-Fil-A where gays do. Banning a fast-food restaurant that I enjoy has a much larger negative impact on my life than gays still not having the ability to marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jul 28, 2012 -> 09:33 PM) This will go the way of #KONY2012 and all the other fads people love faking outrage over on the internet. Chick-Fil-A keeps on keeping on making tons of money despite a bunch of people (who've never eaten there before) 'boycotting' them, while the free publicity from this thing strengthens brand conciousness and gets more people in there to eat the sandwiches. Honestly, and this may come off a little hostile, but I'd rather live in a world with Chick-Fil-A where gays dont have rights than a world without Chick-Fil-A where gays do. Banning a fast-food restaurant that I enjoy has a much larger negative impact on my life than gays still not having the ability to marry. that's beyond f***ed up. BEYOND f***ed up. honestly, and this may come off a little hostile, but people with attitudes like yours make me absolutely disgusted. I wish I could make a personal attack. I really do. Fortunately in another 15 years all the people who think like you in public office will be gone, and gays will have all the rights that straight people do. What you just said is the equivalent of "I'd rather live in a world with Chick-Fil-A where blacks dont have rights than a world without Chick-Fil-A where blacks do." You don't see anything wrong with that? Edited July 29, 2012 by Reddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jul 28, 2012 -> 09:33 PM) This will go the way of #KONY2012 and all the other fads people love faking outrage over on the internet. Chick-Fil-A keeps on keeping on making tons of money despite a bunch of people (who've never eaten there before) 'boycotting' them, while the free publicity from this thing strengthens brand conciousness and gets more people in there to eat the sandwiches. Honestly, and this may come off a little hostile, but I'd rather live in a world with Chick-Fil-A where gays dont have rights than a world without Chick-Fil-A where gays do. Banning a fast-food restaurant that I enjoy has a much larger negative impact on my life than gays still not having the ability to marry. What the f***ing hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) And also, the chicken is O.K. It's not God's gift to Earth as half it's consumers make it out to be. Edit: No pun intended. Edited July 29, 2012 by Quinarvy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2012 -> 12:49 AM) No shareholders. It is a privately held company. There's always shareholders even for private companies. My company of 10 employees has shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jul 29, 2012 -> 08:18 AM) There's always shareholders even for private companies. My company of 10 employees has shareholders. Either way, I doubt they are upset. It sounds like sales are up 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 29, 2012 -> 12:06 AM) What the f***ing hell? It's just duke being edgy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) It's just duke being edgy! it's duke being what's wrong with this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts