Chick-fil-a Support Day and Free Speech

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes, free speech indeed. Its just that, speech. The CEO expressed his views.

As far as I have read, the CEO did not ban gay people from working and eating at his restaurants. He just spoke his mind.

And nobody is closing down any CFA stores, or issuing bans - the mayors also utilized speech to condemn the CEO's bigotry.

The mayor is, of course, a state actor - but until an agency or actor takes action against CFA based on speech, no rights have been violated. Weird that the Religious Right would choose to posture on this event by decrying the posturing of others. Absurdity abounds.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

And nobody is closing down any CFA stores, or issuing bans - the mayors also utilized speech to condemn the CEO's bigotry.

The mayor is, of course, a state actor - but until an agency or actor takes action against CFA based on speech, no rights have been violated. Weird that the Religious Right would choose to posture on this event by decrying the posturing of others. Absurdity abounds.

Menino, in a letter on City of Boston letterhead addressed to Dan Cathy, said that he was angry they were looking for a location in Boston, there was no place for Chik-Fil-A on Boston's "Freedom Trail," that it would be an insult for them to be across from City Hall, and that Chik-Fil-A should back out of plans to locate there. No, it's not going as far as specifically saying he will block them from locating there, but I can see how many thought it was over the line for the mayor and comes uncomfortably close to such a suggestion on his part.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Menino, in a letter on City of Boston letterhead addressed to Dan Cathy, said that he was angry they were looking for a location in Boston, there was no place for Chik-Fil-A on Boston's "Freedom Trail," that it would be an insult for them to be across from City Hall, and that Chik-Fil-A should back out of plans to locate there. No, it's not going as far as specifically saying he will block them from locating there, but I can see how many thought it was over the line for the mayor and comes uncomfortably close to such a suggestion on his part.

I think it was pretty dumb (par for the course for Menino), but the statement seemed very particularly crafted to dodge any specific threats of agency action - I'll be first in line to drive the ACLU to file against him should [the City of Boston] actually take any action. I can't imagine that will happen though, there's zero way to justify that.

//edited for clarity

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think it was pretty dumb (par for the course for Menino), but the statement seemed very particularly crafted to dodge any specific threats of agency action - I'll be first in line to drive the ACLU to file against him should they actually take any action. I can't imagine that will happen though, there's zero way to justify that.

I don't think it will happen either; they surely know there's no way to justify it. But I can see how many (including the ACLU) thought it was uncomfortably close to the line.

And just in case I haven't been clear about it, the statements from mayors like Menino are the only conceivable ways that freedom of speech comes close to being at issue here. The idea that boycotts or criticisms somehow violate freedom of speech is ludicrous. (But not as ludicrous as Huckabee's "hate speech" allegation.)

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't think it will happen either; they surely know there's no way to justify it. But I can see how many (including the ACLU) thought it was uncomfortably close to the line.

Agreed - I think there's a "taste" element (or maybe even risk tolerance), and there's definitely a range of reasonable reactions to it (all of which think it's varying degrees of bad/silly).