Boston Mayor Tom Menino recently told the Herald that he opposes the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A’s plans to open in Boston because of the firm’s president’s suggestion that gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”
“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.
Menino isn’t alone. Northeastern University disinvited the group from opening on campus. In Chicago, an alderman is trying to stop the chain from opening there and there’s a similar effort underway in at least one California community. Even the Muppets aren’t happy about the company.
On the other hand blogger Dan Kennedy points out the reasons why it’s wrong for Menio to try and stop the chain (but has no problem with what happened at Northeastern, where he teaches and likely approves of the Muppets as well although he doesn’t mention it).
My gut reaction is that Menino is wrong. It seems to me that there wouldn’t be any end to this if government officials decided to approve or reject business licenses on the basis of their executives’ religious or political beliefs. There are First Amendment issues at stake as well. Can’t the head of a company say what he thinks without risking the wrath of the government?
What do you think? If Chick-fil-A wanted to open in Newton, would you want Mayor Setti Warren and/or the aldermen to take a stand?
Who among us doesn’t like the Muppets?
Greg, lest your readers think I have one standard for Northeastern and another for the city, my position is pretty simple: I objected to Northeastern’s inviting Chick-fil-A to set up shop on campus. I would also object if Mayor Menino suddenly had a change of heart and issued Chick-fil-A a gold-plated invitation. But the city can’t exclude a business that conforms with the zoning code merely on the basis of the business owners’ political beliefs.
Menino is smoking the same fruit loops as our alderman when they say no banks. Why do these elected officials think they can mandate to whom a properly zoned landlord can rent? Religion/State separation aside (in Menino’s case) — this is a very slippery slope that only big heads think they can navigate
I will not give Chick-fil-A my money, but I strongly object to banning stores from towns based on their political views. I think it’s fine for a private entity such as a university to say that they aren’t wanted there because they are contrary to the school’s values, but it is absolutely wrong for a city to have political litmus tests.
Can Menino or any other town official legally prevent them from opening?
I agree that I would never give this chain a penny of my money but I don’t know how you can reasonably (and legally) stop them from opening. Unless there are public safety conerns because of anticipated protests?
This is very slippery ground. I oppose just about all efforts by government (or private sources for that matter) to ban any kind of legitimate business because of political considerations. I just don’t shop at Walmart, Home Depot, Bank of America and some other food chains because of how their top leadership aggressively supports right wing causes and candidates. That’s a personal choice on my part, but I’d never try to get these banned in Newton for political reasons.
This is ridiculous. Should every political, religous, sexual persuasion have a black list of businesses whose owners, or executives, or managers, or key employees, or key contractors, or law firms, or accounting firms have views different from theirs? This is sick and only radical left-wing nut cases do these things, because they can’t defend their points of view logically. That’s why Occupy movement types break store windows, or start fires.
All of these things are a form of terrorism. Terrorism means that even if you can’t get your point across, you’ll make life so miserable for those who disagree with you that people will be afraid of you. It can be a bomb, it can be breaking windows, it can be boycotts, it can be pickets like at Clay Nissan. It’s immature, dangerous and reflective of sick people.
Nevertheless, it’s a free country and one may make a personal decision, like not to shop at this store. But for a city to demand adherence to the political beliefs of the mayor of the city, or even for a private entity like a university to do so should be illegal.
@ Barry
Talk about a slippery slope … are you really comparing peaceful protests and picketing to terrorism? Don’t you think that’s a pretty loose interpretation of the word?
End of the day, I agree with everyone else who says money talks. Let Chick-fil-A open, and give it all the same tools other potential businesses have at their disposal — I may personally never go in, and I may personally not agree with their philosophies, but that doesn’t
…but that doesn’t mean the business shouldn’t be given the chance to open, thrive, and bring jobs to otherwise jobless people. If the business fails, let it be on the merits (or lack thereof) of its business plan, not its moral philosophies; also, it’s hard not to fear the reverse of Menino’s example being possible now — I mean, theoretically, if the Mayor of Boston has the power to stop businesses from opening in the City limits because of moral philosophies, do other Mayors elsewhere have the power to prevent businesses that support gay rights from opening in their jurisdictions?
@Barry Cohen – Boycott = terrorism Huh???
I thought that was part of free market capitalism. If I choose not to do business with a corporation for whatever reason (bad service, shady business practices, political actions that are anathema to me, etc) and I urge other to do the same – that’s just exercising my rights as a consumer.
Using our purchasing power as consumers is an essential part of the free market and has nothing to with breaking windows, starting fires or terrorism. Otherwise the market is only free for the sellers not the buyers.
Jerry, as I said, one is free to make a personal decision to not do business somewhere for any reason. It just strikes me that one should do it for the other reasons you stated, like shady business practices, bad service, etc., but not for political reasons. Politics should be settled in the political arena. Not only do we have a system of “free market capitalism”, which has to do with how products get to the marketplace, but we have a democratic or representative political system that involves elections and legislators and that’s where we settle our political differences.
Nevertheless, for Menino to use his office to take revenge on someone who doesn’t share his support of the GLBT community is not right. There’s nothing axiomatic about acceptance of these lifestyles. It’s a matter of point of view. If the business generally violates some law or statute relating to this, then Menino has a right to get involved. But differences of opinion? No. He should stay out.
If Barry is right that Menino is being playing hardball with his GBLS support, how is this consistent with someone that’s a proud catholic? Words, words, words….politics, politics. politics…and the beat goes on
Barry-If you don’t want to include the owner’s political positions in your consumer decisions, then fine, don’t. However, it does seem like a stretch to say that other people should do the same.
Hoss- Speaking as a Catholic, I believe that Menino is living the values of the Church. Whether his religious values should enter the political arena is another matter for discussion, but please – don’t confuse Catholics with the bishops, cardinals, and pope.
As an aside, I wouldn’t want the Mayor or BOA to regulate who opens a business in the city.
Keep in mind, folks, that Menino is saying that Chick-Fil-A should withdraw their application for a location (or locations) in Boston NOT that he is going to ban or block them from doing so. Yes, he is throwing his hat in with a certain viewpoint, but he is not using his political office to effect any kind of legal change.
Jane — As a former catholic, I don’t remember any sermon about those nasty southern baptists. So where is he coming from?
Jane,
It’s late, but I’ll reply. Consumers can make decisions however they like. It’s a free country. I just think that it’s unwise to check every business-owner’s politicical credentials before buying from his business. And irrelevant. I believe in settling political issues politically.
And, as I said to Ted Hess-Mahan in another blog, I think that someone who follows the New Testament would not support GLBT lifestyles. At the risk of being redundant, I’ll quote your scripture
Romans 1:26-27
In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV), Paul writes
“ For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
Arsenokoitēs
The Greek word arsenokoitēs appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
“ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
So, how is Menino “living the values of the Church”? He may be living the values of Catholics who don’t like what the Church teaches, but he isn’t living the values of the Church.
Barry,
You continue to support your views with scripture, which is not the law of our land. You justify your prejudice though a particular religious platform. While it is your right to practice your religion in the USA, it doesn’t mean that our economy should abide by your rules. In America, your views against gays are no more important than the Muslim belief that woman need be covered and silent. You are both oppressive, no matter the reason.
Hoss-I really have no idea where Mayor Menino’s is coming from on this subject. My point is that he’s not violating his religious values when he supports the LGBT community. Whether his political opinions should influence who can procure a license to operate a business is another matter.
If you actually read Mayor Menino’s letter, he does not actually say he can or will prevent Chick-fil-A from locating in Boston. Nor can he. In Hurley v. v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Boston could not use Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws to require a private organization to include an LGBT organization in the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade based on the First Amendment free speech guarantees. In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Souter, the Court said that “[d]isapproval of a private speaker’s statement does not legitimize use of the Commonwealth’s power to compel the speaker to alter the message by including one more acceptable to others.”
Don’t get me wrong. I agree with Mayor Menino’s sentiment, and he too has a constitutional right to free speech. But there is a double-edged irony in opposing the opening of a business on Boston’s Freedom Trail because its CEO exercises his constitutionally protected freedom of speech to oppose the right of same sex couples to marry, which is a right that is constitutionally protected in Massachusetts. While Mayor Menino’s letter carries with it an implicit threat, it is not one he is likely to carry through on, although there are certainly many procedural and administrative obstacles he could throw in Chick-fil-A’s way. Whether such action would be unconstitutional would require a fact specific inquiry.
There are a whole lot of other reasons to be opposed to Chick-fil-A opening in Newton. It is a national franchise that has a competitive advantage over local businesses. Indeed, when Panera was seeking a special permit to open in Newton Centre, the aldermen received many emails and letters expressing opposition because it was a big corporation competing with local restaurateurs. Newton’s zoning ordinance also discourages fast food and drive-thru restaurants, which increase traffic and congestion and make village centers less pedestrian friendly.
All that said, there is nothing unlawful about private citizens boycotting a business which sends a message they do not agree with. If I were in Mayor Menino’s place, I would be applauding The Jim Henson Company and the Muppets and urging customers not to do business with Chick-fil-A. If Miss Piggy can marry Kermit the Frog, why not same-sex couples?
@Barry, since you used my name in vain, allow me to respond.
In the Gospels (translation: “good news”) there is not a mention of homosexuality and Jesus never said a word against it.
As for the other isolated references you cite, I am no more likely to follow them than I am to insist upon enforcement of some of the other edicts in the Bible:
Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12).
Kill Witches (Exodus 22:17)
Kill Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
Kill Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27)
Death to Children Who Fight with Dad (Exodus 21:15)
Death to Children Who Curse Their Parents (Proverbs 20:20; Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death to Adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)
Death to Fornicators (Leviticus 21:9)
Death to Followers of Other Religions (Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
Kill all Nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Kill the False Prophets (Zechariah 13:3; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20-22)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
Death to Blasphemers (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Infidels and Gays Should Die (Romans 1:24-32)
Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle (Numbers 1:48-51)
Kill People who Work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15)
The Bible has been invoked to justify both unspoken good and unspeakable evil. The same Bible you use to condemn homosexuality today was used to condemn Jews to death by auto da fe (translation: “act of faith”) during the Spanish Inquisition. Do you really want to go there?
Ted, when you throw out everything you don’t like in a religion, and don’t listen to the scholars of that religion, you really don’t believe in the religion. You believe in what you want to and use your religion incorrectly to justify your beliefs.
The things you cite tell us what is important. Your OT citations are saying that it is wrong to work on the Sabbath, to be an adulterer, to be a blasphemer, to be a witch, to be a homosexual, etc. I don’t think these are bad values. Punishments are administered by a system of courts of learned scholars, and only where that court has accepted legitimacy. Often “death” as a punishment means “death at the hands of Heaven”, meaning it’s a core belief that a violator will receive his punishment not from the court.
I’d also say that if you lived in a society that for the most part accepted these values, you’d be pretty annoyed at people who advocate against them. That’s why you and your moronic ally Kim keep attacking me as a “bigot”. Your core non-Christian beliefs are being questioned. You can’t “kill” me physically, but you can attempt to “kill” my reputation by accusing me of prejudice and bigotry. And, contrary to what that moron Kim keeps saying, I don’t use religion to “justify bigotry”, I like religion which supports beliefs I have anyway.
As an attorney, Ted, you should understand that any legal system doesn’t stand solely on it’s starting constitution. The US has a huge body of legislation, regulation, and case law that clarifies what the Constitution means or allows. There’s a similar huge body of commentary on the Old Testament. You ignore that in your ridiculing of Scripture.
That’s why I am a UU, Barry. I do not ridicule anyone’s Scripture. I believe Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God. But I believe in his teachings, and, try as you may, you cannot say that Jesus taught us to condemn homosexuality.
You also seem to be parsing the Bible in the same way you decry in others. You are basically saying that all of things that the Bible says should be punished by death shouldn’t really be punished by death. But the Bible really does say “kill” certain sinners, not that those who sin will suffer death by the hand of God or Heaven. To borrow your words:
Nor can you refute the fact that throughout the centuries, political and religious leaders have used the same Scripture to justify execution of non-believers and others. This nation’s founders, aware of that history, possessed the wisdom to adopt a Bill of Rights that protected the free exercise of religion while prohibiting the establishment thereof. All in all, a pretty good thing.
Ted, contrary to “try as you may, you cannot say that Jesus taught us to condemn homosexuality”, all I said was that by being silent himself on the issue, as you claim, he is not implicitly approving it, but the Bible that results presumably from his teachings as recorded by others does condemn it.
Well, Barry, there again it is a matter of interpretation. Jesus’ teachings are in the canonical Gospels of his apostles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are other gospels as well, but not all religions nor all Christian denominations accept all or even part of these non-canonical gospels. Among Christian denominations, there is a wide range of interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, from the literal, absolutist view to the liberal, analogical view. That is what makes them all different religions and denominations. And in the four canonical gospels you will not find a word against homosexuality.
Moreover, when in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says to love others as you love yourselves, love your enemies, and judge not that you be not judged, and scolds those who complain about the splinter in their brother’s eye while ignoring the log in their own, he was rejecting a lot of that condemning of others that goes on in the rest of the Bible. So it is not clear to me that Jesus would approve of your interpretation of the Bible, implicitly or otherwise.
All of which goes to show why there should be separation of church and state.
Ted Hess-Mahan — In the analysis of the power of Menino, we need to consider what will happen to the developer or landlord that might come to agreement with Chik Fil A. That would not be pretty. (I’m also sorry that you feel that estiblished businesses can influence their business neighbors and competition in the way you described — you’re letting them decide what I have for lunch and at what price level — bad, but off topic…)
@Hoss, I voted for the Panera special permit, so the corporate franchise was not dispositive for me. I always take the views of constituents into consideration, but exercise my independent judgment in coming to a decision. But, when granting a special permit, it is worth taking into account whether a particular use will have a negative impact on the neighborhood and the city. Indeed, in order to grant special permits the board has broad discretion to find whether a particular use is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Fast food restaurants in particular can be bad for village centers. I supported a special permit for Panera in Newton Centre in part because they provided a pleasant place to sit and eat and socialize. It hasn’t replaced Johnny’s as a place to meet and network, but it does offer another venue. And even the owners of Johnny’s now admit that since it opened, business has improved for everyone in Newton Centre.
The proliferation of one type of use or another to the exclusion of others can have a dramatic negative impact on the economic vitality of a village center, pedestrian mobility, etc. It is one of the reasons I would like to require a special permit to locate a bank in a first floor retail space in village centers where we have more than enough of them (Newton Centre has more than enough banks, while Nonantum could probably use more). And it isn’t the price of the food or service, it is the fact that well-heeled corporations can drive out other businesses that cannot pay the same high rents. And drive-thrus are anathema to pedestrians and bicycles. No one is going to get out of their car and spend any time in a village center shopping, browsing or going to a movie if they can stay in their cars and supersize their corpulent selves with empty calories.
This is not a problem confined to Newton’s villages; every downtown in every small city in the country suffers from having too many national retailers and franchises and not enough locally owned businesses. If you want to kill off our village centers, then by all means, allow every fast food, retail chain and big bank in. It will look just like every commercial strip in every city and town across the country. Yuk.