Leave a Comment Gregory in Salt Lake City
Chick-fil-A Banned in Boston
July 23, 2012
By Matt Baume
A new salvo fired in the Defense of Marriage act, with a third case now petitioning the Supreme Court for review. The Democratic National Committee could make history by adding marriage equality to the official party platform. And the mayor of Boston lashes out at Chick-fil-a.
Yet another DOMA case is now headed for the US Supreme Court. This time it’s the case of Edith Windsor, who was married but taxed like a legal stranger when her wife died. That case has already seen DOMA ruled unconstitutional once by a district court judge in New York.
Ordinarily the next step would be an appeal, but Windsor’s lawyers want to skip that and go directly to the US Supreme Court. This makes the third case petitioning for review in the court’s next term. The other two are Gill in Massachusetts, and Golinski in California.
In addition, the Prop 8 proponents are expected to petition the court at some point in the next two months, making for a fourth marriage case. We’ll be keeping a close eye on all of the DOMA cases. And we’ll have a special episode of Marriage News Watch when the Prop 8 proponents file their petition.
Also on the horizon are big changes to the official Democratic party platform. According to Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, marriage equality may be in the party’s platform for the first time this year.
It’s not a done deal just yet: first the drafting committee has to meet, which happens next weekend in Minneapolis. Then there’s a final meeting in Detroit on August 10th to discuss the draft platform. And then it’s finalized at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte in early September.
And finally this week, there’s renewed outcry over Chick-fil-a’s stance on marriage equality. For years, the company has donated heavily to anti-gay organizations and events. Now the president of the chain has explicitly stated his opposition to providing protections for gay families.
In response, Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston has promised to block the company’s attempts to establish a store along the Freedom Trail in his city. No word yet on whether other municipalities will follow suit.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
26 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Bill S. | July 23, 2012 at 12:09 pm
This is in direct violation of the Free Speech Clause of the United States Constitution. Municipal business licensing schemes must be content neutral: you cannot deny a business license to operate purely because of the constitutionally protected speech that it engages in.
2.
Carpool Cookie | July 23, 2012 at 12:11 pm
"Banned in Boston" is an old-time American Tradition. It was the city with the toughest censorship standards, and the most Watch & Ward societies.
3.
_BK_ | July 23, 2012 at 12:13 pm
For all my opposition to Chick-Fil-A's actions, I just don't see how this is legal. Would this mean that conservative municipalities can ban LGBT-oriented or -accepting businesses?
4.
Carpool Cookie | July 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm
I don't know…city rules are different. First you might have to establish that the LGBT-oriented businesses discriminate.
My favorite part of the Mayor's quote is: "We're not going to have a company, Chick-fil-a or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail."
———————————————————————————————
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.
“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”
SEE Boston Herald: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg…
5.
Sagesse | July 23, 2012 at 12:53 pm
@
6.
Jamie | July 23, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Yeah, because FCC regulations are totally, "content neutral"
7.
Bill S. | July 23, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Obscenity is not protected under the Free Speech Clause. Advocating against gay marriage is.
8.
IA to CO | July 23, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Are you serious? Obscenity certainly is protected speech. Besides, you mean "content nuetral" like was used regarding the Mosque in Manhattan, right?
9.
Reformed | July 23, 2012 at 6:08 pm
While I would close down all chick fil a's, I don't get to do that. Boston shouldn't get to do that either. Just my opinion but will be looking for others. I certainly will not eat there, unless of course I just want an ice cream cone and can take up seating for 4 on a particularly busy day
. (maybe this Wednesday)
10.
Bill S. | July 23, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Obscenity is not protected speech: "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire.
Had the New York zoning board denied the "Ground Zero Mosque" purely because it was Muslim they would have violated the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.
A speech restriction that is not content-neutral (i.e. content-based) treats different thoughts, opinions, etc. differently specifically because of this content. A content-based speech restriction is presumptively invalid and subject to strict scrutiny. What we have here is a content-based speech restriction: business that advocate for gay marriage get different treatment by the City in terms of increasing the chances that their licensing application will be accepted. Businesses that advocate against gay marriage will have their license rejected on that basis alone. This is violative of the Free Speech Clause.
11.
Carpool Cookie | July 23, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Part of the problem the Mayor is referring to is that the property being considered for rental by "whatever the hell the name is" is on the Freedom Trail, a tourist attraction / red-brick-path that leads tourists through 16 historic sites downtown.
The Mayor/City Hall can deny business permits for any number of technical reasons. Since that chain is closed on Sundays, they may vote that Boston's tourist population is not served by a food vendor who's closed on weekends. Another jarring element being discussed is that the proposed rental site is opposite the the New England Holocaust Memorial. LGBTs were rounded up in WWII, and placing a business that uses its earnings to fund persecuting a minority group NOW across the street from Boston's City Hall, and The New England Holocaust Memorial, etc., isn't great city planning…
12.
Jamie | July 23, 2012 at 7:38 pm
San Francisco bans "chain restaurants" in a number of neighborhoods. You can't put an (otherwise legal) pot dispensary next to a school. You can't sell cigarettes in a store that also has a pharmacy. You can't use plastic bags if you have more than 3 stores in the area, You can't use foam for your take-out containers.
They can't stop Chick-fil-a from standing on the corner and screaming that gays don't deserve equal rights. Boston can ban Chick-fil-a from opening a restaurant because they discriminate against the citizens of Boston.
13.
EricKoszyk | July 23, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Actually, cities can deny permits for a lot of reasons. Quite a few fast food restaurants have been denied permits throughout the years. This is nothing new.
Feb 2012 — Mill Valley denies permit for Subway http://marinscope.com/articles/2012/02/29/mill_va…
July 23, 2012 — Sacramento City Council denies permit for McDonald's drive-thru http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/69690/Cit…
Feb 2012 — Wellfleet bans fast food restaurants and "formula stores" http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellfleet/topstories/x…
July 2008 — LA bans fast food restaurants in South LA http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/23/local/me-…
Oct 2011 — Boston blocks Walmart http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/10/0…
Apparently the mayor and planning commission can block businesses that do not reflect the views and the values of the city. Chick-fil-A fits that description, like it or not.
14.
Bill S. | July 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm
The reasons for those denials were not speech-related however. There has to be a reason other than "Chick-fil-A is against gay marriage" to deny a business license to operate.
Just imagine if the shoe were on the other foot: a pro-gay business is denied a license in Utah because they donate proceeds to AFER.
15.
Larry | July 23, 2012 at 8:35 pm
I'm torn. If Chick-fil-A banned gay people from eating there, that'd be cause to not let them in Boston. If they have a policy of not employing gay employees, that might violate Boston / Massachusetts equal rights laws and would justify banning them. If it's just that the company has different political views, I don't think they should be banned just for that.
If they do open up, maybe there could be a sit-in type protest. Have a bunch of gay couples go in the restaurant and make themselves known (politely).
16.
EricKoszyk | July 23, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Well I guess we are going to find out, though I doubt that Chick Fil A will attempt a lawsuit. It's a historical area and I doubt the city will ever let Chick Fil A (or McDonalds or Taco Bell) start a franchise there.
17.
Tony | July 23, 2012 at 9:54 pm
DOMA claims another victim. Sally Ride's partner of 27 year will not have access to any of the benefits that she would have had if "she" were a "he".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/23/1113014/…
18.
Joe P. | July 24, 2012 at 6:38 am
Bill your analysis is spot on, though it's been so long since a true "fighting words" case has been heard I am curious if that would still hold up with SCOTUS. Either way, it's irrelevant here as both Chick-Fil-A's donations and the President's words wouldn't really qualify.
The only possible exception I could see here is that I believe MA has anti-discrimination laws that protect homosexuals. If Chick-Fil-A were shown to be discriminating against homosexual employees or customers or treating married homosexuals (legal in MA obviously) different than married heterosexuals it would be fine to deny them a building permit or what have you on the basis of said legal violation. Such actions would not be protected speech. I don't know that they do discriminate, I'm just throwing it out there as a hypothetical. And really, as much as I am in favor of making gay marriage being legal, Chick-Fil-A actually practicing discrimination is the only reason for which I would be in favor of the city of Boston taking action against them. I am opposed to censorship of speech no mater the opinion.
Also, as an aside, I would say that there's always ways for a municipality to give a business owner a hard time without outwardly doing something that would violate free speech rights. Heck, if they found a viable,legitimate public use for the space that Chick-Fil-A is looking to buy (assuming they haven't already) eminent domain would certainly be effective if they wanted to take it that far. Even if Chick-Fil-A has already bought a site, as long as the use for which it is being taken is legitimately a public use I don't know of any case where the courts cared why the municipality chose the particular location that it did. Again, not sure that the Mayor would take it that far, but my point is that there are always ways even if it is problematic.
19.
EricKoszyk | July 24, 2012 at 7:29 am
What I actually think is happening is that the city was never going to allow Chik Filla or any fast food restaurant into that location (it's in a historic district near the "Freedom Trail" and the Holocaust Museum).
Regardless of what the actual stated legal reasons for denying the zoning permits are, the mayor decided to fight back against the homophobic company by making a very public announcement against the company.
And why not! Being mayor of Boston, it is not going to hurt him politically at all and he probably truly despises the bigotry espoused by the company (I'm sure he has plenty of married gay friends).
I say bravo to the mayor and well played! It's about time we come out swinging against these homophobic religious zealots.
I doubt that Chick-Filla ever comes to Boston. I'm sure they will want to avoid the negative publicity and they will slink away.
20.
New | July 24, 2012 at 8:07 am
There is a big difference between "LGBT-oriented or -accepting businesses" and the ridiculous anti-gay propaganda. Gay-friendly business do not make personal attacks on straight people, do not demonize and exclude entire communities because of their destructive and sinful "HETEROSEXUAL lifestyle". Even the KKK learned how to use their free speech to still defend what they believe in, without demonizing other races. Chick-Fil-o-Hate didn't learn that strategy yet. Can I use my free speech to mention that I think that as a business, they are plain IDIOTS?
21.
Mark B. | July 24, 2012 at 10:15 am
<img src="http://www.mynewcarquote.us/ikea/is.jpg"/> Chic-fil-A is just ridiculous in my opinion.<img src="http://www.mynewcarquote.us/xbox/vi.jpg"/>
22.
davep | July 24, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Wow, I had not known that Sally Ride was in a long term same sex relationship. I hope her widow is willing to speak up about the disgraceful way the federal government is treating her, and treating the memory of such an amazing and inspiring hero, due to DOMA. This could do a LOT of good when it hits the mainstream media.
23.
fiona64 | July 24, 2012 at 12:30 pm
In Mountain View, the citizens are working to block Chick-Fil-A coming in because the site they want for a drive-through is in the middle of a very busy street with heavy bicycle traffic (and bicycle lanes). The argument is one of zoning, as it represents a threat to public safety to have a drive-through at that particular location. IIRC, the hearing is later this week.
24.
Sagesse | July 24, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Does anyone know if they were married? If not, is there any benefit entitlement that DOMA denies?
25.
IA to CO | July 27, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Not sure how your quote in any way states that obscenity is not protected. By your 'logic' and interpretation any religious speech that I happen to find offensive is not protected.
26.
Mike in Baltimore | July 28, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Except by not opening on Sundays, CFA is showing discrimination to anyone who does not observe Sunday as 'the Sabbath'.
I'd start listing affected people, but I'd probably leave out many. even if I had unlimited space to write, so I won't even start.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.