Why do we support it? Because we are all equal. You are no different than I am. I am sure you have heard the speech a hundred times about all of us being equal, and in reality we really are. This is also about the principle of it. I cannot support a chain that does not support same sex marriage, because we are all entitled to love and happiness, not matter our gender.
However, based on our Constitution, we are all equally entitled to free speech. This is the beauty of our country. There is no filter for consideration on others feelings and emotions. So we can say whatever we want. Again, it is the principle of the matter. We are not different from each other and this country enables all of us to be equal. So WHYNOT treat each other as equal? Think about it and just do it!
For more information, read this article presented by CNN:
Chick-fil-A and free speech
updated 6:00 PM EDT, Mon July 30, 2012
Mayor Thomas Menino has objected to Chick-fil-A locating in Boston because of its CEO's views on same-sex marriage.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Marc J. Randazza: Dustup over Chick-fil-A shows confusion over First Amendment
- After CEO's remarks on same-sex marriage, some politicians said business unwelcome
- Randazza: Politicians can't deny permits to block free speech but have other recourse
- He says pols should have and express opinions but can't give them the force of law
Editor's note: Marc J.
Randazza is a Las Vegas-based First Amendment attorney. He is licensed
to practice in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada.
He is the editor of the law blog, The Legal Satyricon.
(CNN) -- Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, proudly proclaimed his opposition to marriage equality and
drew flak from politicians and citizens nationwide, who said Cathy's
position made the chain unwelcome on their turf. Some of the
condemnation crossed the line, offending the First Amendment. Some did
not. Many don't understand where the line is, and now a population
already sharply divided over same-sex marriage is collectively less
informed about the First Amendment.
The First Amendment
protects you from government action suppressing your right to free
speech. It does not protect you from private individuals' negative
reaction to your speech. As an extreme example: In my younger and more
impulsive days, I punched out a guy who offended my then-girlfriend (now
wife). He said he was exercising his First Amendment rights. I agreed
and told him that I would defend him if the government messed with him,
but the First Amendment didn't protect him from a private punch. I broke
a few laws that day, but I didn't violate the First Amendment.
Similarly, the First
Amendment does not protect you from criticism. Sarah Palin infamously
took us all back a few steps by ignorantly criticizing the media for its
negative commenting on her views. She said, "I don't know what the
future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and
our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream
media." This statement is utterly wrong. The First Amendment does not
protect you from scrutiny or criticism by the media or others.
Marc J. Randazza
Therefore, those claiming
that the private calls to boycott Chick-fil-A have any First Amendment
implications are wrong. Cathy put his thoughts into the marketplace of
ideas, where they may be bought or rejected. He has no First Amendment
right to our approval, or to our money for his sandwiches.
But can cities use zoning to combat unpopular speech?
Unfortunately, when we chip away at the First Amendment, unpleasant unintended consequences are not far behind. In Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc.,
the Supreme Court allowed municipalities to use zoning to regulate
strip clubs and adult bookstores to combat their "adverse secondary
effects."
Blocking construction of Chick-fil-A
In other words, a city
can't ban adult bookstores because it doesn't like the books it sells.
The city can effectively ban them by claiming it is doing so to prevent
litter, traffic, lowered property values or other secondary effects it
claims the business may cause (and needs scant evidence to support the
regulation).
Over the years, courts
expanded the doctrine to be virtually limitless. Now a city need only
mouth the words "adverse secondary effects" when enacting a regulation,
and for the most part, courts will uphold it -- even though everyone
knows the real reason is that the city doesn't like the books and movies
that the store sells.
When municipalities are
told for years they can make up zoning or other regulatory issues to
make an end run around the First Amendment, is it any surprise that they
would look to zoning obstacles to stop Chick-fil-A from coming into
town because they don't like the CEO's views on same-sex marriage?
Some cities responded to Cathy's statements with proper deference to the First Amendment, but others have not.
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino initially said, "If they need licenses in
the city, it will be very difficult. ..." After considering the issue,
though -- and probably talking with his attorneys -- Menino acknowledged he did not have the power to block the chain from operating in Boston.
In contrast, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno went further,
saying he would work to block any Chick-fil-A in his ward. Moreno
defended his view by saying, "You have the right to say what you want to
say, but zoning is not a right." He then took a page out of the
"adverse secondary effects" doctrine playbook by saying he had concerns
about increased traffic in the area. So far, Moreno has not backed down.
These statements clearly
raise First Amendment issues. A city can't deny permits because it
disapproves of the owner's exercise of his First Amendment rights. Both
Menino and Moreno were dead wrong even to claim they would do so. That
crosses the line between simply speaking out and abusing government
power.
Menino's critics are
right about his initial misuse of zoning law being a violation of the
First Amendment, but after backing down on his threats, the mayor
maintained he did not welcome Chick-fil-A in Boston.
He was within his rights
to do so -- expressing his own opinion, both personally and as mayor.
In a letter to the chain, he wrote: "When Massachusetts became the first
state in the country to recognize equal marriage rights, I personally
stood on City Hall Plaza to greet same-sex couples coming here to be
married," he added. "It would be an insult to them and to our city's
long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick-fil-A across the
street from that spot."
As mayor of Boston,
Menino has a First Amendment right, and perhaps even a duty, to express
his views, as all political figures do. They have a position that gives
them a platform to speak out, and be heard, on matters of public
concern. Rick Santorum had a right to say that a mosque shouldn't be built in Lower Manhattan.
A mayor in a less
enlightened city has a right to say that Chick-fil-A is especially
welcome, just as he might want to say that Starbucks is not welcome
because it gives benefits to same-sex couples. A city council member has
a right to say that "my district doesn't want an adult bookstore," and
Menino has a right to say that Boston does not welcome a business run by someone who is prejudiced. As long as they do not then try and give their views the force of law, they are within bounds.
And if their constituents disagree with their views, then they use the political process to cure the problem.
Politicians' rights,
however, do not bleed over into using their official power to deny a
business its fair due because of its, or its CEO's, exercise of our
cherished First Amendment rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment