A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A's plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain's top executive vocally opposes gay marriage.We've been talking a lot about Chicago politics here lately and what Moreno is doing here is a classic example of the arcane way things work in Chicago. An alderman, should he choose to do so, can act as a bit of a divine right monarch. Not surprisingly, they all do. And City Hall usually lets them get by with it, so long as they toe the line on the things that really matter to City Hall at the time:
Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A's effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy's remarks last week that he was "guilty as charged" for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
"If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don't want you in the 1st Ward," Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday.
Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy's "bigoted, homophobic comments" in a proposed opinion page piece that an aide also sent to Tribune reporters. "Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward."
Moreno is relying on a rarely violated Chicago tradition known as aldermanic privilege, which dictates that City Council members defer to the opinion of the ward alderman on local issues. Last year Moreno wielded that weapon to block plans for a Wal-Mart in his ward, saying he had issues with the property owner and that Wal-Mart was not "a perfect fit for the area."Mayor Rahm Emanuel backs up Moreno:
"Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values," the mayor said in a statement when asked about Moreno's decision. "They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty."How so? Well, let's look at what Dan Cathy actually said:
“We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, “There is no such thing as a Christian business.”
“That got my attention,” Cathy said. Roach went on to say, “Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me.”
“In that spirit … [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are,” Cathy added. “But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us.”
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 very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
Except in Chicago, apparently.
There is no shortage of chicken purveyors in the Chicago area, of course. Sometimes you get more than chicken, too, but we'll leave that aside. The larger issue here isn't even the institutional corruption of Chicago politics, although that plays a role. Here's the question you need to ask yourself -- look again at what Cathy says and compare it to what Moreno is alleging. Is it clear to you that Chick-fil-A is actually discriminating against gays? I would wager that any gay person could walk into a Chick-fil-A anywhere in the country and get served with a smile. Chick-fil-A isn't really about doing anything other than serving chicken sandwiches. The politics here are all from Moreno and Emanuel, not from Cathy. Not surprising, since that's what they do. But let's be honest about it. The larger issue is that Ald. Moreno is essentially denying Chick-fil-A an opportunity to operate because they haven't got their mind right on a particular issue. Elizabeth "Anchoress" Scalia sums up the matter well:
This is not about being “right” or “wrong” on an issue. This is about menacing and bullying people into conforming or paying the price. It’s about the bastardization of the word “tolerace” in our society, to the point where the word no longer means “live and let live” or “let people be who they are”; the word has become distorted in a very unhealthy way. Someone’s a bigot? Let him be a bigot; like it or not, a man is entitled to his damn bigotry. Someone’s a curmudgeon? Let him be a curmudgeon. Someone’s a misogynist (or, conversely, a male-hater?) let them be! People are entitled to be who they are — just as a church is entitled to be what it is — free of government compulsion to be what they are not. We cannot “make” people be more loving. We cannot “legislate” kindness. A bigot, or a hater (of any sort) will eventually find himself standing alone, will have to figure things out for himself. Or, not.
If people are no longer entitled to their own opinions, or to think what they think, then we are not free people, at all. Period. Full stop. That’s a fundamental as it gets.
Now I wouldn't expect Chick-fil-A to back down on their values. They have given up a lot of business over the years by closing their restaurants on Sundays. And given the screwed up value system that Chicago has, I'm guessing that Cathy would wear the claim of Rahm Emanuel that his company doesn't have "Chicago values" as a badge of honor. It's the difference between chicken and something else.
40 comments:
Is it in the gay community's best long term interests to 'benefit' from the bullying of an unpopular group?
(The same question could have been asked to traditionalists a few generations ago.)
In my estimation Chicago is doing Chik-Fila a favor. Rather than being forced to bow down to patronage and graft that comes with Chicago, they can move on to Plan B for their expansion. My guess is that their stances gain them more business than it costs them.
Chicago doesn't seem to need chicken, or at least chicken that doesn't come with a little payola, and if voters accept that corrupt system then that's their right as well. We reap what we sew in this world. The only problem is that payola sources are drying up, while the need for said payola are increasing. How long can an untenable system last, a question that can be asked of Chicago, and the world beyond.
Looks like it's time for Chik-fil-a to go to the first ring suburbs and further reduce Chicago's property, payroll, and sales tax revenue, just like the big box stores.
The issue people have with CFA is not what Dan Cathy said. It is who the WinShape foundation gives money to...organizations that actively lobby against marriage equality.
My guess is that their stances gain them more business than it costs them.
Having grown up in the heart of CFA country (and had my first job at one owned by Dan Cathy) I can say that this is almost certainly true.
What makes CFA highly successful in some regions makes it non-exist ant in others. Kind of like the Republican party.
I have no faith at all that CFA won't buckle, because a lot of corporations buckle to leftist pressure. That's because leftists are loud and bothersome, not because they represent any significant number of customers. The other irksome thing is that saying marriage should stay as it has been for 1000 years is not a hate statement! We don't care if you're gay, and we won't ask. Heck, we don't ask if anybody is married, for that matter. How much chicken do you want to buy today is pretty much it.
These thought police need a swift kick to their thought processor.
J. Ewing
JE--Don't worry. Chick fil a is not going to budge. Seriously, they won't.
I have many misgivings about the company (based more on personal experience than all this in the news now), and I'm against basically everything that the people they donate to stand for...but I do not for a moment doubt their sincerity or conviction.
An amusing update to all this -- Rahm Emanuel rejects Chick-fil-A and simultaneously embraces the assistance of Louis Farrakhan in patrolling the streets of Chicago:
Ignoring Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic remarks, Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday welcomed the army of men dispatched to the streets by Farrakhan to stop the violence in Chicago neighborhoods.
And by the way, Farrakhan's not so enlightened on gay marriage, either.
the more 'marriage equality' (a lame ass term, btw) is debated (not really debated, just a lot of name calling and bully tactics is all i see)... the more i am against any marriage for anybody.
Yeah, "marriage equality" is nonsense. It's trying to co-opt a good term that people view positively. It will end up turning the word from something straightforward into a snarky euphemism.
Ok, how about "equal treatment under the law?"
If equal protection under the law means that you can't make distinctions based on definitions, then no, that's not any better.
No worries. I wasn't actually seeking anyone's approval.
Brian: when you accept that public policy has the right to determine the sanctity of your union, you have , essentially, lost the argument per gay marriage... or any other marriage....
I don't give a whit about sanctity. I care about equal protection under the law. Civil marriage exists. There is no compelling reason for the state to discriminate in it.
in that, you may/do have a point... but that is not the point the proponants are making.
in that case, any union is acceptable: brother/sister, father/daughter...
i dont have an issue with such, per se...
just be honest in what you seek.
it should not be illegal to love, right?
whatever form that love may take...
right?
I dunno -- this particular case is less about the underlying issue than it is about governments abusing their power. My point is that abuse of power is a Chicago tradition and we now have a bunch of Chicago pols running the executive branch of the federal government.
Is it possible that a politician would use people's strong feelings about an issue to reap political benefit for himself?
No compelling reason for the state to license marriage? How about preservation of the underlying society?
I thought conservatives believed that government was a product of society, not the other way around.
this particular case is less about the underlying issue than it is about governments abusing their power.
Fair enough. And I'm not particularly sanguine about what Emanuel or Moreno have said, here, even though I completely sympathize with why they did.
But... I don't think it is any different from, say, a town council blocking an Adam & Eve store because they don't think it is consistent with the values of their community. Different communities have different values. Either local governments can attempt to reflect those values in policy, or they cannot.
Equal protection?
Whether you are homo or hetero, we all have the same rights. Period.
I think the issue of "marriage equality" hinges on making distinctions. Proponents want no distinctions to be made which makes those who defend traditional marriage into bigots. But that is to ignore something very basic. Marriage is about more than a romance solidified by law. It is about family and social structure.
I was reminded of the importance of distinctions this morning when my wife applauded our 2 year old for biting his apple into pieces instead of cramming the whole thing into his mouth. It wasn't long ago that she told him, "No biting!" There was a difference in circumstance that made all the difference. That difference was not about the dignity or worth of our son.
Of course this example could be received as condescension. I wonder if that can be avoided, given the circumstances. Oh well.
WB--I'm pretty sure we've covered this ground before, so I won't belabor it...the civil institution is there to protect families that exist. And families that consist of same-sex partners exist. Again, government is a product of society, not the other way around, right?
K-rod, your contribution is as edifying as ever.
the civil institution is there to protect families that exist. And families that consist of same-sex partners exist.
brian's point here is spot on. gays have families, they do adopt kids and care for them.
marriage would add the force of law to these arrangements. one of them cannot just decide to leave the other without the same punishing repercussions the rest of us suffer.
think of it as protecting the kids and holding the gays accountable for their relationships.
This is precisely why it is foolish (if good-hearted) to fight for every inch, however cruel it may seem, lest the camel get it's nose in. Because we'll happily mortgage the future with a good conscience if only we can protect that nose.
Grandfather them in and leave it at that.
Brian, can't resist your comment about "equal treatment under the law." Already exists; homosexuals are allowed to marry any willing, unrelated, unmarried person of the opposite sex, if they are not yet married. Just like the rest of us.
And as I've noted before, government isn't into family law because they're all about romantic relationships. They're into family law because heterosexual sex has a finite possibility of creating vulnerable classes called "mothers" and "children." Since the ordinary process of homosexual sex cannot do this, they are excluded from the class called "marriage."
Change the definition from the vulnerable classes to "romantic interest", and guess what? You make those vulnerable classes even more vulnerable.
Not where I want to go.
Not where I want to go.
me neither, Bubba, but others have gone there already, leaving vulnerable children in their wake.
i want those children protected.
societal mores have changed. we aint gonna put that genie back into the bottle. gotta deal with what we have to deal with.
but i wonder... for those who keep championing (politically) the sanctity/wholesomeness of male-female marriage in the christian tradition: when is somebody going to introduce legislation upholding it? when will divorce be banned?
sanctity of marriage, right?
how many ministers (besides 'all of them') have or will preside over a second marriage?
It's an interesting idea, the genie and the bottle. "You can't go back" is a line from some movie I think. Then there's Pandora's Box. Also, Original Sin. A cultural motif that is grounded either in realism or fatalism.
We can't go back to what was. But that doesn't mean we need talk about what is as if it's a good idea. Protecting the kids of homosexual parents is a great idea, but can we do it without selling out future generations of kids? Can we at least talk about how problematic it is to be endorsing fatherless or motherless households? Isn't it at least possible that this massive cultural shift will have dire unintended consequences? And yet we march blithely forward. We are busily at work destroying our culture.
And yes, no fault divorce has been a disaster. I would absolutely support banning it as soon as possible. But that's so mean. And who gives a damn about tomorrow's kids anyway?
It's obviously hard to know what to do. I certainly don't. I'm pretty sure it's going to involve suffering more than legislation, but we'll see.
Gino;divorce law actually fits in the tradition of family law, as it regulates what happens when one spouse leaves the other, for reason or otherwise. I would tweak it in certain ways--allow for "cause," some penalties on the one filing for divorce if not for cause, etc..--but the big changes I'd make would not be in divorce law, but rather in the incentives and disincentives that society makes towards marriage.
Isn't it at least possible that this massive cultural shift will have dire unintended consequences? And yet we march blithely forward. We are busily at work destroying our culture.
2% of the population is gay. In all likelihood, a minority of that population are actually interested in getting married, much less having children. That small group is trying to create/promote/protect stable families, and you want to stop them.
Roughly 50% of "traditional" (Tab A/Slot B) marriages end in divorce, and they have your full support.
You guys say this isn't about what you think of gay people, but I frankly do not believe you.
Brian: an anti-gay buddy of mine now supports gay marriage.
after seeing several friends lose fortunes to lousy frigid wives, and then it happening to him... he had an epiphany.
yeah, that'll show 'em the error of their way...
Brian; the massive cultural shift would not be in who was or was not getting married. The massive cultural shift would be in our understanding of what family law is intended to accomplish--and if we start (as I fear we have already started) to view it merely as government endorsing certain romantic relationships, the primary function of family law could be lost.
You guys say this isn't about what you think of gay people, but I frankly do not believe you.
I don't think you're following what the original post was about -- as far as I know, Proco Moreno, Rahm Emanuel and the others who are threatening CFA are all straight. I'm a lot more worried about Chicago-style politics going national than I am about gay marriage.
Hey, I'm just responding to comments in the thread. If you want to keep things to the original post, fine...but I'm hardly alone in enlarging the scope of the conversation, here.
I'm hardly alone in enlarging the scope of the conversation, here.
I know that, but "you guys" is a pretty big net. And if you're going to make an implicit charge of bigotry -- the "I don't believe you" business -- it's gonna get a response. I don't see a bad faith argument anywhere on this thread.
The FACT remains that whether you are homo or hetero we all have the same rights. It is a fact regardless if Brian can or can't get it through his bigoted craaww...
In your heart you know I am right!
You guys say this isn't about what you think of gay people, but I frankly do not believe you.
That's fine. And if that is the basis for the conversation, then there's no point to the conversation. And maybe that's true. Maybe talking civilly is just a waste of everyone's time.
W.B.
Post a Comment