[Iminicus]

In a July 16th news post on Baptist Press, the CEO of Chick- fil- A, Dan Cathy, is quoted as such:

QUOTE

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove. "That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries," Cathy added. Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position. "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. "We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

Emphasis added.

This was morphed byCNN on July 19th.

QUOTE

"Guilty as charged,", Cathy said when asked about his company's support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.

Emphasis Added.

This then blew up when BostonBoston Mayor Thomas Menino sent a letter deriding Dan Cathy:

QUOTE

"In recent days you said Chick-fil-A opposes same-sex marriage, and said the generation that supports it has an 'arrogant attitude,'" Menino wrote in the letter, dated July 20 and addressed to Cathy at Chick-fil-A's Atlanta headquarters. "Now - incredibly - your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston."

Emphasis Added.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also derided Dan Cathy:

QUOTE

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,”

On July 24th, Eliot Spitzer commented on it:

QUOTE

Then I found out the company, according to the LGBT group Equality Matters, has donated millions of dollars to groups that oppose gay rights, and Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, told a Baptist newspaper that he supported the "biblical" definition of family. That’s why former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas has asked that folks who share the company's principles stop by a Chick-fil-A on Aug. 1 to show support for the company's conservative values.

Tiffany Hsu of the LA Times wades into the debate:

QUOTE

A report from LGBT advocacy group Equality Matters concluded that Chick-fil-A donated more than $3 million between 2003 and 2009 to Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. In 2010 alone, the company gave nearly $2 million to such causes, according to the report. In Los Feliz, similar donations from the new owner of a beloved local health food store also stirred controversy this fall. After Peter Lassen bought the neighborhood Nature Mart, many shoppers began to picket and boycott the business. Blogger Howie Klein summed up the reaction in a post, accusing Lassen, a Mormon, of donating tens of thousands of dollars toward “the anti-gay jihad.” The post, however, also quotes Lassen’s niece defending the business: "We have a lot a gay and lesbian customers. We have nothing against them. To us, it is a moral issue, not a civil issue.”

Emphasis Added.

I detail all of that because both Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino has alluded to/straight out said that they would bar Chick- Fil- A from opening premises in their respective cities. If you click on any of the links to the source material, you will notice the first link is the story from Baptist Press. I read the whole thing and not once in it does Dan Ctahy explicitly state that he doesn't support gay marriage. He says, '"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit'

The first mention I can find of Dan Cathy being against gay marriage is from CNN, but this is besides the point.

What I see in this whole debacle is Dan Cathy using his Freedom of Speech to say how he and his business is run. Chick- Fil- A is a privately owned, family business founded on the Biblical values of Dan Cathy's father and family. Therefore, are the Cathys' not entitled to their opinion on such a subject without facing bans from potential areas of success? Yes, the people have a right to boycott Chick- Fil- A for Dan Cathy's views, which don't mention gay marriage at all.

Ignoring the legal consequences for the moment, aren't Mayor Emanuel and Mayor Menino out of order? They weren't speaking as private citizens, unlike Dan Cathy was in the article, they were speaking as the Mayors of their respective cities. As such, they were/are trying to use political power to influence how a private company is run and they are saying that to own and operate a business in Chicago or Boston, you not only have to meet the standard criteria but also you have to meet the personal opinions and beliefs of either Mayor. This screams of abuse, not sure if power or some other kind, but it doesn't sound like something a Mayor should be saying.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support their right to disagree with Dan, as well as supporting his right to his opinion. What I don't agree with is the way they tried to coerce how a business operates and the way they have disregarded the law of the land. Speaking of the law...

QUOTE

But Menino clarified his view Thursday, saying that it would not be within his power to take any steps to prevent the business from establishing a franchise in the city and that he could not deny permits to the company. His only recourse, he said, is expressing his disapproval.

Source: Boston Globe

It seems, Mayor Menino has backpedaled. This is undoubtedly due to some City lawyer telling him what powers he has as Mayor. I can't find anything on Mayor Emanuel backing down, however, I did find this article:

QUOTE

But barring the popular fast-food restaurant over the personal views of Cathy is an “open and shut” discrimination case, legal scholars told FoxNews.com. “The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

Emphasis Added.

Source: Fox News

I couldn't find a direct link on the ACLU website, unfortunately.


Do you agree with both Mayor Emanuel and Mayor Menino, in relation to banning a business? Or do you think that they over stepped the mark?


Boston Herald Article on Menino is legal trouble
SF Gate Article

Two additional articles for you to read.

Appendix:

Baptist Press Article
CNN Article
Reuters Article
Sun Times Article
Eliot Spitzer Opinion Piece
LA Times Article
Boston Globe Article
Fox News Article



[Side Note] I have tried to gather articles from sources other than Fox News, knowing the disdain many on this forum have for that source. I have also not linked to opinion pieces by many conservatives. This topic isn't about my political beliefs or your political beliefs, so please don't go there. [/side note]


This post has been edited by Iminicus on Friday, Jul 27 2012, 10:48

[Chunkyman]

They are overstepping their authority immensely if they take any action to try and stop them from opening a restaurant. Using the power of government to punish people for their opinions is anti-free speech.

If you don't like the owners, don't eat there. This is a peaceful method that doesn't involve trampling on freedom of speech or acting like a dictator.

[K^2]

This doesn't even matter. Ultimately, who misquoted whom and for what reason is irrelevant. The point of tension is gay marriage again. And that's just absurd. This country has been riding the "Separation of Church and State, but hey, we didn't mean Marriage," line for way too long. You can't have religious marriage recognized by a secular state and not run into a clusterf*ck of problems.

Step 1: State should stop recognizing marriage as far as any legal benefits go.
Step 2: State should migrate all these rights and benefits over to civil union, which is already defined in most jurisdictions.
Step 3: Grandfather all pre-existing marriages into civil unions.
Step 4: Church can decide what they want to define as marriage and who can and cannot marry.
Step 5: State establishes the requirements for civil unions that are based on actual social realities and not compatibility of genitalia.

Naturally most people will continue to have a religious marriage, and that's fine. It can all be done in the same day, since the civil union part of it is just a stamp in the license anyways. It's just that it'd need to be stamped/signed by notary public, rather than anyone who claims to be a minister. People will probably end up still referring to civil union as marriage in common speech, like they already do in most civilized countries out there.

If we get this done, then we don't have to worry about somebody promoting traditional family values. There is nothing wrong with the concept. It doesn't work for everybody, but promoting it doesn't harm anyone's interests. It's only when everybody is on the verge of exploding with rage over disagreement on what is and isn't marriage that people get upset over such things.

[lil weasel]

Considering that the Bible has mention of Polygamy as an accepted family ‘unit’, and the Religious seem to damn that, too. Let any marriage agreement stand as valid as long as the requirements of keeping the family together stands. Why condemn what should be the province of a GOD figure. I’m sure that GOD will sort it out in its own time.

Maybe, removing the option of Divorce from Religious marriages might change a few minds.
(i.e. Allow Divorce only in Civil Marriage.)

The Religious minded are the most dangerous people in the world.

[Irviding]

I don't agree with banning the chick fil a restaurants (great food, to be honest I didn't even know we had it in NY, I had only seen it down south where I live now) but that is the prerogative of the people of each of these cities. San Fransisco, Chicago, and Boston mayors/councils want to not allow them to operate in those cities, that's fine. It's not unconstitutional, and those who claim as such have no understanding of the law. If a city does not want to license someone to operate in its boundaries, then it is fully empowered to do so. For example, payday loans are illegal in New Jersey, does that mean payday lenders can claim their constitutional rights were violated? No. Get over it and recognize that the people of these cities have spoken.

[Adept]

I think you may have a valid point Irviding but isn't the most ethically correct thing to do would be to allow them to open in a city a see if the people of the city really don't want them there by not eating at their establishment? If it has to do with sanitary conditions then that would be a different point I think, but just because the owners have an opinion(popular among many people in the country) on a political and "moral" issue does that mean they should be punished for it with a hypothetical population mandate? Meaning the people have spoken when the government is the one that made the decision? I'm sure you know more about the law than I do so this is truly a question of your opinion and knowledge of the the law. By the way, I don't agree with the owners opinion. I think gay marriage should be legal. Weed as well. Damn fascists.

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (Irviding@Friday @ Jul 27 2012, 10:54)

I don't agree with banning the chick fil a restaurants (great food, to be honest I didn't even know we had it in NY, I had only seen it down south where I live now) but that is the prerogative of the people of each of these cities. San Fransisco, Chicago, and Boston mayors/councils want to not allow them to operate in those cities, that's fine. It's not unconstitutional, and those who claim as such have no understanding of the law.

They can't ban the company because of what the CEO said, that goes against the First Amendment. Chicago and Boston want to ban a business because of words spoken by the CEO. That can't be allowed. Otherwise, anything a CEO says could be used against them expanding into other territories. Also, if Chick- Fil- A applies for and doesn't receive the permits, the reason of 'We don't like your stance on Gay Marriage' won't be held up in any court of the land. Therefore, there is no reasonable way they can ban Chick- Fil- A. They can make it hard for them to open, but that also brings about legal challenges to the City, thus wasting City Resources.

QUOTE (Irviding@Friday @ Jul 27 2012, 10:54)

If a city does not want to license someone to operate in its boundaries, then it is fully empowered to do so. For example, payday loans are illegal in New Jersey, does that mean payday lenders can claim their constitutional rights were violated? No. Get over it and recognize that the people of these cities have spoken.

QUOTE (Payday Loans in the US)

The following states have made payday loans illegal:     Arizona     Arkansas     Connecticut     Georgia     Maine     Maryland     Massachusetts (not strictly illegal but highly regulated[5])     New Hampshire     New Jersey     New York[6]     North Carolina     Pennsylvania     Vermont     West Virginia [1]

New Jersey isn't the only state that bans them. I can't find the law relating to Payday Loans in New Jersey, but I don't see how that is relevant to banning a business due to the remarks of the CEO. What I have found suggests it is related to Usury Laws in New Jersey.

QUOTE (EHow: Payday Loans in New Jersey)

Usury Laws Usury is an excessive or unlawful rate of interest. New Jersey's usury laws cap interest at 30 percent per annum. A payday loan can have interest of 250 to 600 percent per annum. Therefore, a payday lender cannot operate in New Jersey because its interest rates would far exceed the limits set by the state.

QUOTE (Payday Loans in the US)

Some federal banking regulators and legislators seek to restrict or prohibit the loans not just for military personnel, but for all borrowers,[11] because the high costs are viewed as a financial drain on the working and lower-middle class populations who are the primary borrowers.

It seems that 'federal banking regulators and legislators' are also seeking to ban payday loans to borrowers. But it still has nothing to do with Chicago and Boston banning a company due to the words of the CEO.

Irviding, I am now asking you to explain the relation to Payday Loans being banned in 14 states due to them breaking Usury Laws and two cities banning a business because of remarks made? Your argument so far is based on nothing, no substance, no facts, no laws saying they can.

QUOTE (Irividing@Friday @ Jul 27 2012, 10:54)

San Fransisco, Chicago, and Boston mayors/councils want to not allow them to operate in those cities, that's fine. It's not unconstitutional, and those who claim as such have no understanding of the law.

Yet, the ACLU has spoken out against this on behalf of Chick- Fil - A.

QUOTE

Blogger and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh gives the most detailed argument we've seen that both Moreno and Menino would be violating the First Amendment, saying that the federal precedent on these issues is unambiguous. He points to Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, a 1996 Supreme Court case ruling on whether a county board had the right to terminate a man's trash hauling contract because he'd often criticized the board in the local newspaper. The trash hauler won. Volokh writes:     [D]enying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation ... And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (and I don't know what the rule is under Illinois law). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights.

QUOTE (BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS @ WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KANSAS v. UMBEHR)

Held: The First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination or prevention of automatic renewal of at will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of the freedom of speech, and the Pickering balancing test, adjusted to weigh the government's interests as contractor rather than as employer, determines the extent of that protection. Pp. 4-17.

QUOTE (42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights)

This preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code. Those using the USC Prelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO (Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS (a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available. Current through Pub. L. 112-123. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Source: The Atlantic Wire

Also, isn't it hypocritical of Rahm Emanuel to say that Chick- Fil- A isn't allowed in Chicago because of the CEO's stance on gay marriage, yet,

QUOTE

Yet Emanuel had no problem helping Barack Obama to attain the most powerful office in America while Obama was against gay marriage, a position the president clung to until this year.

Source: The Atlantic



Appendix:

PayDay Loans: US
Payday Loans in the US
Payday Loan Info: New Jersey
EHow: Payday Loans in New Jersey
The Atlantic: Rahm Emanuel Article
Fow News Article
The Atlantic Wire Article
Supreme Court Ruling on Wabaunsee County v Umbehr
U.S. Code Classification Tables
GPO
THOMAS
112-123.
(See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Edited:
Cleaned up quote box on first Irviding quote.
Removed URLs from {Quote=}
Removed floating '-A.' and placed at the end of 'Chick- Fil- A.'
Added Supreme Court Ruling
Added 42 USC 1983
Added Respective Sources


This post has been edited by Iminicus on Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 02:58

[lil weasel]

to my knowledge:
Connecticut has its own set of “small loan laws”, which help regulate the relationships between borrowers and lenders. In Connecticut there are no caps on interest fees: a lender may charge as much interest as a borrower is willing to pay. While there are other standards lenders must adhere to base on these small loan laws, in general one can expect to pay very high interest rates for payday loans in this state.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

They can't ban the company because of what the CEO said, that goes against the First Amendment. Chicago and Boston want to ban a business because of words spoken by the CEO. That can't be allowed. Otherwise, anything a CEO says could be used against them expanding into other territories. Also, if Chick- Fil- A applies for and doesn't receive the permits, the reason of 'We don't like your stance on Gay Marriage' won't be held up in any court of the land. Therefore, there is no reasonable way they can ban Chick- Fil- A. They can make it hard for them to open, but that also brings about legal challenges to the City, thus wasting City Resources.

No, it doesn't. They can not license that chain to operate in their boundaries for whatever reason they want. If they want to say that all the chick fil a restaurants have too much fat content and therefore are banned, they can do that too. The issue in the case you cited is not relevant to this, i.e. we aren't talking about a case of a political dissident being attacked by a corrupt county council for attacking them. If this is ever appealed to a court, they will rule on the side of the cities. Why do you think Mike Bloomberg in NY is allowed to restrict restaurants from selling big cups of soda? Is that a violation of their freedom of speech? No. It's within his prerogative to decide what stores can operate in his city. It's not clear in this case as it was in the one you cited. Like I said, I'm happy that my city did not ban them because I don't agree with banning restaurants over the opinions of their owners. That said, if that is what the people of Chicago, Boston, and San Fransisco want (the latter most certainly) then they are fully within their privileges to do that.

As for payday loans and usury laws, I was simply making a parallel. It is illegal in NY too, though in NY it is explicitly illegal to make a payday loan, not because of usury laws. The parallel was to demonstrate that localities can make their own laws based on the opinions and conditions of people they represent.

This post has been edited by Irviding on Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 03:00

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Friday, Jul 27 2012, 18:57)

QUOTE They can't ban the company because of what the CEO said, that goes against the First Amendment. Chicago and Boston want to ban a business because of words spoken by the CEO. That can't be allowed. Otherwise, anything a CEO says could be used against them expanding into other territories. Also, if Chick- Fil- A applies for and doesn't receive the permits, the reason of 'We don't like your stance on Gay Marriage' won't be held up in any court of the land. Therefore, there is no reasonable way they can ban Chick- Fil- A. They can make it hard for them to open, but that also brings about legal challenges to the City, thus wasting City Resources. No, it doesn't. They can not license that chain to operate in their boundaries for whatever reason they want. The issue in the case you cited is not relevant to this, i.e. we aren't talking about a case of a political dissident. If this is ever appealed to a court, they will rule on the side of the cities. Why do you think Mike Bloomberg in NY is allowed to restrict restaurants from selling big cups of soda? Is that a violation of their freedom of speech? No. It's not clear in this case as it was in the one you cited. Like I said, I'm happy that my city did not ban them because I don't agree with banning restaurants over the opinions of their owners. That said, if that is what the people of Chicago, Boston, and San Fransisco want (the latter most certainly) then they are fully within their privileges to do that. As for payday loans and usury laws, I was simply making a parallel. It is illegal in NY too, though in NY it is explicitly illegal to make a payday loan, not because of usury laws

You still are yet to cite any sources saying that they can ban them over what Dan Cathy said. And you continue to bring in irrelevant things. Mayor Bloomberg and the Soada ban aren't relevant, neither are bans against Payday loans. We are talking about banning a business on what its CEO said. I have cited a Supreme Court ruling backing up my argument that they cannot ban Chick- Fil- A for what the CEO said. The UCLA is also citing and saying the same thing.

Also, it should be up to the PEOPLE of Chicago, Boston, San Fransisco to determine if they want Chick- Fil- A, not the Mayors. The Mayor can't simply ban a business. They don't have that power. They also can't hinder the applications for approval without Legal challenges from said business. If the people of those cities don't want Chick- Fil- A, they can vote with their money and not buy food there.

QUOTE (Irividing@Friday @ Jul 27 2012, 18:57)

The parallel was to demonstrate that localities can make their own laws based on the opinions and conditions of people they represent.

Show me a source of people in Chicago, Boston or San Francisco calling for the banning of Chick- Fil- A, not the Mayors or Ombudsmen or an Alderman but people of the cities that don't have any positions of power. Please, show me because this is where your argument rests and it isn't resting very well. So far, we have the Mayors calling for the ban, not people. The Mayors, people of power, who I have shown to you can't do this. I then backed it up with a Supreme Court ruling that people in power cannot hinder a business because they disagree with the speech of the people involved with the business.

QUOTE

The First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination or prevention of automatic renewal of at will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of the freedom of speech,

That applies to business setting up in a county or city too.

So, I have legal rulings, you have nothing.

This post has been edited by Iminicus on Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 03:07

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 02:57)

If that is what the people of Chicago, Boston, and San Fransisco want (the latter most certainly) then they are fully within their privileges to do that.

Besides the trouble I have with 51% telling the other 49% (or whatever the percents may be) what restaurants they're allowed to eat at in the city, there is no good reason to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening restaurants there. If you don't like it, don't eat there. Trying to prevent everyone else from eating there too is asinine.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

You still are yet to cite any sources saying that they can ban them over what Dan Cathy said. And you continue to bring in irrelevant things. Mayor Bloomberg and the Soada ban aren't relevant, neither are bans against Payday loans. We are talking about banning a business on what its CEO said. I have cited a Supreme Court ruling backing up my argument that they cannot ban Chick- Fil- A for what the CEO said. The UCLA is also citing and saying the same thing. Also, it should be up to the PEOPLE of Chicago, Boston, San Fransisco to determine if they want Chick- Fil- A, not the Mayors. The Mayor can't simply ban a business. They don't have that power. They also can't hinder the applications for approval without Legal challenges from said business. If the people of those cities don't want Chick- Fil- A, they can vote with their money and not buy food there.

Yes, the mayor can as can the council which the mayor is the head of in most cities. I have explained to you why the supreme court case you cited is irrelevant. What this comes down to is, it doesn't matter why they banned them. The case you cited would be laughed out if attempted to be used as stare decisis in a case with these chick fil a things. As I said, the case you brought up is about a political dissident's business being shut down by a tyrannical county board. In this case, you're talking about a mayor and city council making the decision to get rid of a restaurant that they don't believe fits in their city. Like payday loans, which were made illegal at the behest of legislatures and governors who thought they were wrong for their state, these chick fil a restaurants were banned because these mayors and councilmembers did not believe they belonged in their city. As a mayor, you are fully within every legal right to decide what businesses can operate in your city. You can license and unlicense them whenever the f*ck you want. Like I said, I don't agree with the decision. But I'm not going to sit here and say it was unconstitutional to do so because it's not. If this goes to trial, all the city has to do is claim that they are exercising their discretion in deciding who can/cannot operate in their boundaries. Your supreme court case is about as relevant as me trying to use McCollough v Maryland to argue that we need to break up banks.



Chunkyman, I don't know where you're from, but I'm telling you right now that in those cities, it sure as hell ain't 51 49 on this view.

This post has been edited by Irviding on Saturday, Jul 28 2012, 03:11

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Friday, Jul 27 2012, 19:08)

QUOTE You still are yet to cite any sources saying that they can ban them over what Dan Cathy said. And you continue to bring in irrelevant things. Mayor Bloomberg and the Soada ban aren't relevant, neither are bans against Payday loans. We are talking about banning a business on what its CEO said. I have cited a Supreme Court ruling backing up my argument that they cannot ban Chick- Fil- A for what the CEO said. The UCLA is also citing and saying the same thing. Also, it should be up to the PEOPLE of Chicago, Boston, San Fransisco to determine if they want Chick- Fil- A, not the Mayors. The Mayor can't simply ban a business. They don't have that power. They also can't hinder the applications for approval without Legal challenges from said business. If the people of those cities don't want Chick- Fil- A, they can vote with their money and not buy food there. Yes, the mayor can as can the council which the mayor is the head of in most cities. I have explained to you why the supreme court case you cited is irrelevant. What this comes down to is, it doesn't matter why they banned them. The case you cited would be laughed out if attempted to be used as stare decisis in a case with these chick fil a things. As I said, the case you brought up is about a political dissident's business being shut down by a tyrannical county board. In this case, you're talking about a mayor and city council making the decision to get rid of a restaurant that they don't agree with the views of. As a mayor, you are fully within every legal right to decide what businesses can operate in your city. You can license and unlicense them whenever the f*ck you want. Like I said, I don't agree with the decision. But I'm not going to sit here and say it was unconstitutional to do so because it's not. Chunkyman, I don't know where you're from, but I'm telling you right now that in those cities, it sure as hell ain't 51 49 on this view.

No you haven't. You haven't told me where the Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant. You haven't said anything to the degree. You are simply stating your opinion, with no substance.

Please show me sources that back your argument up, Irviding. Until, then you have nothing to stand on.

[Irviding]

Yes, I did show you why it's irrelevant. Please re-read my post.

QUOTE (Me)

The case you cited would be laughed out if attempted to be used as stare decisis in a case with these chick fil a things. As I said, the case you brought up is about a political dissident's business being shut down by a tyrannical county board.

[Iminicus]

QUOTE

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino repeated today that he doesn’t want Chick-fil-A in Boston, but he backed away from a threat to actively block the fast-food chain from setting up shop in the city. “I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” Menino said, referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage.

Boston Herald

That is Mayor Menino backing down from his ban. Why would he back down if he can't ban them, Irviding? Because there is a legal precedent saying that HE CAN'T DO IT. And that legal precedent is the Supreme Court ruling I have linked.

Did you even read anything I have linked, quoted, posted?

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Iminicus @ Friday, Jul 27 2012, 23:13)

QUOTE Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino repeated today that he doesn’t want Chick-fil-A in Boston, but he backed away from a threat to actively block the fast-food chain from setting up shop in the city. “I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” Menino said, referring to company president Dan Cathy, who drew the mayor’s wrath by going public with his views against same-sex marriage. Boston Herald That is Mayor Menino backing down from his ban. Why would he back down if he can't ban them, Irviding? Because there is a legal precedent saying that HE CAN'T DO IT. And that legal precedent is the Supreme Court ruling I have linked. Did you even read anything I have linked, quoted, posted?

He's backing down because he (like myself) probably realizes that what he would be doing is ridiculous. If you read more into it, you'd notice that the mayor felt uncomfortable denying permits to chick fil a like they are going to do in Chicago. It's not unconstitutional. They are within their authority to deny permits to whoever they want. The mayor did not back down because of a lack of legal power to do it nor becuase of a fear of legal repercussion. He backed down because he realized it was ridiculous (like I think it is).

[Adept]

I'm still curious about what state legal statute exists that give mayor/city council members the legal authority to decide what businesses can operate in a city based on the personal political views of executives of a certain company. I've never heard of such a thing and would be amazed to know it exists in the land of the free market enterprise.

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (Adept @ Friday, Jul 27 2012, 19:30)

I'm still curious about what state legal statute exists that give mayor/city council members the legal authority to decide what businesses can operate in a city based on the personal political views of executives of a certain company. I've never heard of such a thing and would be amazed to know it exists in the land of the free market enterprise.

I can't find anything saying they have the right and Irviding isn't very forth coming with such a statute to support his argument.

[Irviding]

It's not a statute. It's how governance works. Mayors/councils issue permits for businesses to operate in their boundaries. In my view, it's morally wrong and frankly stupid to do that to a company because of its owners beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that it is within their authority as mayors.

[Iminicus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Friday, Jul 27 2012, 20:11)

It's not a statute. It's how governance works. Mayors/councils issue permits for businesses to operate in their boundaries. In my view, it's morally wrong and frankly stupid to do that to a company because of its owners beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that it is within their authority as mayors.

Mayors don't have that power, the Council does.

QUOTE

A mayor is an elected person who serves as the head of a city’s government. He or she has many responsibilities and follows a goal of making that city a great place for its residents to live.  Mayors decide how to spend money on local programs, construction projects, parks, city streets, and other things. At city council meetings, where local officers discuss current and upcoming plans for their areas, the mayor listens to everything and has the power to vote on which plans should be put into practice.  A mayor is also responsible for making sure that city services, such as the fire department and police department, work well and are helping everyone who needs assistance.

Source:What Can Mayors Do

EHow: Duties and Responsibilities
No mention of the power to veto permits for businesses.

EHow: Mayor's Duties
No mention of the power to veto permits for businesses.

Mayoralty in the United States

Mayor-Council Government in the United States

Google Search: Can a mayor veto business permits?

Irviding, where is your evidence? I can't find anything backing up that a Mayor, not the council, can veto or even grant business permits.

Licensing and Permits, Boston
Resturant Permitting: Boston

Nowhere does it say the Mayor has final approval of any permits, applications, etc.

So, I shall ask again, Irviding, please show me where a Mayor has the power to ban a business, veto a business permit or deny a permit.

Since, you can't seem to do that. I have to assume you don't know what you are talking about. However, you are always welcome to put forth a rebuttal with supporting evidence.