John Kass weighs in on the controversy over denying a zoning permit to Chick-Fil-A on the basis of the chain’s owners expressed beliefs:
So if a business owner makes public his personal views, it won’t be the public that decides whether to patronize the establishment. Instead, politicians will decide for us and swing the government hammer to knock the business down.
The message from Chicago’s City Hall is simple: Speak out of turn and we’ll crush you. And if you think that the Bible should inform you, then you’re nothing but a bigot who deserves to be crushed.
Personally, I’m ambivalent on the gay marriage issue. The libertarian in me says people should swing the way they want to swing. The Christian in me is informed by the Bible and my church, which define marriage in the traditional way. But my Christianity also tells me to love thy neighbor, baby, and to remove the beam from my own eye before worrying about the splinter in my neighbor’s eye.
Kass’s view expressed here is much my own.
I am dismayed by the ongoing discussion of this subject. There is no ambiguity or gray area on the illegality of the alderman’s actions. There is abundant case law rejecting the power of officials to deny permits based on the petitioner’s prior speech.
If you disapprove of the views articulated by the owner of a fast food chain, by all means do not patronize the chain. By what right do you deny him to what, in the absence of those views, would otherwise be perfectly acceptable? I find the eagerness of people to use the power of government to punish people with whom they disagree politically far more frightening than the views they’re condemning.
In a more humorous vein, I never thought we’d be able to re-purpose Oscar Wilde’s wisecrack about fox-hunting: the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. Clearly, I was wrong.
Most concede, reluctantly, the point that government officials can’t or shouldn’t discriminate in this way. Over at OTB the conversation is more about how evil the “bigots” are, especially the “ignorant” Christians.
Moreno has reiterated his intention of blackballing Chick-Fil-A. Emanuel is worriedly trying to thread the needle by attempting to distinguish between what he said and, presumably, what he should have said. It isn’t working. If he were Bill Clinton he might make it work but he’s no Bill Clinton.
Simply put, I think there are way too many would-be Stalinists out there.
Andy
Despite repeated promises to skip commenting over there I’ve “fallen off the wagon” a couple times. It’s just become ridiculous over ther.
Anyway, as anyone should know by now my objections to government really come down to three: first, in most venues they are a less efficient mechanism than the private sector, and should be utilized only when the task simply cannot be handled privately (think the military, or perhaps long term basic research)’ second, the arrogance and heavy hand of power corrupts, and so expanded scope means expanded infringement upon our liberties, and three, well intentioned programs and motives almost inevitably cease to help those the politicians claim to desire to help, and the governments regulatory and revenue generating functions go to help the connected, and the proverbial little guy gets left asking “what happened?”
Chic fil a is a classic case in point on the second.
@Andy, there is only one person whose civil rights are being violated, and I don’t sense that 90% of the OTB comment threads gives a crap. At least one of the most frequent commentors (order of Mantodea) supports it.
@Dave, I’ve never been to a Chick-Fil-A, and its unlikely I ever will since I have probably been to one fried chicken fast-food restaurant in the last ten years (the original KFC in North Corbin, KY) But my sense is that the people most upset about the chain are similarly not situated to launch a succesful boycott. I think this frustration is part of the source of the lurch towards mob rule (i.e. dispensing with the rule of law for standards of the community).
PD Shaw,
I get your point, but when pressed, most reluctantly agree that politicians shouldn’t use things like business licenses in the manner described. You’re right that isn’t a conversation they want to have.
Drew,
I’m pretty libertarian when it comes to government intrusion into social issues and consensual activities.
The learning curve for me over at OTB is to keep one’s awareness vaccinations current as to the intransigent POVs that exist and grow, especially in the world of the social progressive. SSM has now been indelibly established as a civil right in that crowd, therefore validating slurs of ‘bigot’ or ‘racist,’ conferred onto others disagreeing with them. Consequently, anytime you want to glide over the substance of an issue they reach for these invectives, and you’re instantly insured to have a scintillating discussion, full of righteous posturing, but devoid of reasonableness or objective sensibilities.
What I find most disconcerting, though, about denying a restaurant owner a permit because of a position expressed/taken on a social issue, is the possible trajectory this takes our country. If donating money to causes, standing by one’s own religious teachings/convictions, becomes grounds for punitive repercussions from government entities, what’s next? For social progressives, it seems they don’t care as long as the core of their belief system is gratified. However, wonder if a gay owner, expressing support for SSM, wanted to open a restaurant in an area which was against SSM. Does this mean a government official would then have free reign to not grant this owner a permit to operate a business too?
This has nothing to do with SSM. This has everything to do with outlawing the political opposition. Rahmbo is quick to jump into bed with bigots far worse than those running Chick-fil-A, as is the mayor of Boston. They quick to jump into bed with those espousing THE SAME “bigotry” they claim to oppose. They themselves supported this “bigotry” in the recent past.
This is all about hating evangelical white Christians, and anyone that might be easily confused for them. When you look at it that way there is no hypocrisy from siding with Muslims (Black or otherwise) who also hate Teh Gays, or anyone else.
However, wonder if a gay owner, expressing support for SSM, wanted to open a restaurant in an area which was against SSM. Does this mean a government official would then have free reign to not grant this owner a permit to operate a business too?
Of course not. In that case the person denying the permit is to be ruined for not bowing down to the Stalinists. There is no reciprocity here, this is all about outlawing any thought not approved by the Democratic Party elites. The end goal is to have everyone worship the Democratic Party and its duly appointed leaders. Everyone else is a criminal.
There is no reciprocity here, this is all about outlawing any thought not approved by the Democratic Party elites.
And don’t bother mentioning that the elites keep changing their minds about what is approved thought. We have always be at war with Eurasia.