Please don't make this thread a politically correct issue nor a political issue or the thread will get deleted. Thank you. But we don't have a Chick Fil-A here because of the same issue. And I like their food.
 

Chicago alderman blocks Chick-fil-A expansion

CHICAGO (AP) – A Chicago alderman says he won't allow Chick-fil-A to open a restaurant in his ward until it comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy.
By Mike Stewart, AP
Before Wednesday's City Council meeting, Alderman Joe Moreno said he's tried to work with the company for months, he says Chick-fil-A has not put its stated anti-discrimination policy into writing.
 
Gay rights advocates were surprised last week, when the president of fast-food chain Chick-fil-A publicly announced his position against same-sex marriage.
 
After Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said that his privately owned company is "guilty as charged" in support of what he called the biblical definition of the family unit, Chick-fil-A released its own statement. It said it has a history of applying biblically based principles to its business, such as keeping its stores closed on Sundays.
 
"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," according to the statement.
 
"Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena," it said.
 
Read More
http://www.usatoday.com/m...l-A-Chicago/56481072/1

Idc one way or another, I dont like their chicken... but it doesn't surprise me after the truck vote today.
As I tweeted earlier, Emanual learned from the best, on how to get his way from his old boss... 

They operate a location in Greenwich Village.

A chicken salad sandwich and the wrath of God. Woohoo.

They pay and treat their employees better than other fast food places.

They will have less locations employees and customers because they feel the need to support anti groups (God forbid if it was guns) and holding their own religious beliefs is not enough. If they were anything but Christian...watch out.

From a business standpoint...

It was very selfish to make statement up on the hill when it has nothing to do with the business of chicken....and leave franchise owners/operators and staff to deal with the atmosphere. Corporate already takes 65% of the pre-tax profits.

 
First, I want to preface my comments by saying that gay marriage doesn't bother me. I have a "live and let live" type of attitude.  Who am I to keep two people from marrying?  No skin off my nose if two gay people get married.
 
However, I think this action by the Chicago Alderman, as well as by the Boston Mayor, could turn into a real mess.   Chick-Fil-A did not say they are going to ban anyone from their restaurants.  They welcome everyone.  They have not broken any anti-discrimination laws.  They have simply exercised their First Ammenedment freedom of speech, and vocally expressed their religious beliefs.  They have the right to express those beliefs, whether I agree with them or not. 
 
The serious violation here is the government officials taking retribution against Chick-Fil-A for exercising their First Ammendment freedoms.  The Frst Ammenedment is specifically designed to protect speech (and religion) from government retribution.   The Chicago Alderman and the Boston Mayor are government officials punishing a company because they disagree with their speech and religious views.    That is a dangerous (and unconstitutional) road to take .  
The road can go both ways.   What if an openly gay company tries to open a business in Salt lake City, and that busness gets turned away by Saly Lake City because Salt Lake City officials don't like the company's beliefs?    As with what the Chicago and Boston government officials are doing, that would equally be unconstitutional.   
 
If gay people want to boycott Chick-Fil-A, that's fine, and it's the legal and constitutional road to take.  What the government officials are doing is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Ammendment.  
 
Oh, I always get my Chick-Fil-A sandwich with extra pickles.  The two little slices of pickle aren't enough.  A little mustard added is good, too.  
 
 
 
 
 

Dont care for their food, thus dont care for their policy....dont like it, dont eat there. Just like the old days......
 

Well...it's more than freedom of speech.

It's also contributions to very very dangerous organizations that subscribe to the concept of "ex-gay" reform. Sometimes by radical methods.

Also...if they happened to be members of other religions and practiced and held those expectations as far as employees (prayer meetings and consequences for not attending...interviewing family members as part of the hiring or promotion process... risk of termination if "sins" as they define it happen..the expectation of being part of a traditional marriage and staying married as guidelines to "good" employee status or job retention) would easily be considered something far different than good Christian values. This is sort of the reason why so many people ended up in America in the first place.

Glenn1234 .........I agree 100%.
CC ..........I didn't understand one thing you wrote.

CCinNJ


Well...it's more than freedom of speech.

It's also contributions to very very dangerous organizations that subscribe to the concept of "ex-gay" reform. Sometimes by radical methods.

Also...if they happened to be members of other religions and practiced and held those expectations as far as employees (prayer meetings and consequences for not attending...interviewing family members as part of the hiring or promotion process... risk of termination if "sins" as they define it happen..the expectation of being part of a traditional marriage and staying married as guidelines to "good" employee status or job retention) would easily be considered something far different than good Christian values. This is sort of the reason why so many people ended up in America in the first place.

 

They're not forcing their beliefs on others.  They merely expressed them.  Agree or disagree (... and I happen to disagree with Chick-Fil-A's stance on this),  it's still their right to say it.  The purpose of the First Ammenedment is not just to protect popular speech.  It's protects unpopular and (what some consider) offensive speech, as well. 
 
 
You're concerned that Chick-Fil-A might force prayer meetings, etc.  They have not done that.  You think they should be banned because you feel that saome day they might do those things you say they might do?

Your argument above about Chick-Fil-A's beliefs and what they might do  can equally apply to the gay company trying to set up in Salt lake Cty.  Would it be okay for the Salt Lake City to ban them because ... "the XYZ gay company might try to pass a litmus test where employees have to be gay, or they must do X and Y, etc." ?   
 
We can't have government officials banning businesses because they disagree with their beliefs. And we can't ban companies because what they *might* do because of those beliefs ... yet haven't even done those things!   
  
  
  
 

What don't you understand?

The prayer meetings the interview process etc etc are part of Chick Fil A corporate culture. The expectations are part of the hiring and promotion process.

If it was an openly-Gay business with a corporate process of guiding Christians through their beliefs as policy...I'd expect a Christian pol to exercise whatever right they have...to block that.

CC that is exactly what's wrong with this entire situation.
They are a company based on the views of the founder.
 
If I didn't want to work for someone that thought that way I wouldn't apply for the job.
 
If I didn't want to spend my money at a food service operation that was of whatever religious orientation I'd go someplace else for lunch.
 
The attempt by a few to force change on others grates me to no end.
 
I have never understood that mindset. I won't allow, perfume, gum chewing, and sloppy clothing, so those that think it's their right to do those things just don't work here.
 
But no one has the right to say I can't open my business because of my religious views. No one. LMAO
 
PS local zoning is hard enough to work with let alone giving them the right to check my religious views.

 
Agree or disagree with what a company says, like it or not, the the U.S. Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and religion, trumps any personal feelings/emotions on this issue. 
The thought police can't decide what is acceptable and not acceptable thought and speech.    
 
I think I'm going to bow out of this before it escalates any more, and we all get spam flagged.  :)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

How about the religious groups (Amish) that live in Southern Illinois Indiana, and Ohio? There are many many small business owned by those folks and they have very strict rules. The non believers that work for those companies comply with the rules and seem to have no ill effects.

Glenn I agree with that also my last post on the topic.
But I had to post this headline from the news story on this issue:

Fast-food chain Chick-fil-A under fire for company chief's gay marriage comments — but with free speech and jobs on line, do threatening big city officials have a drumstick to stand on?
 
 
thanks all.

Yet there are FIVE Hobby Lobby stores within Chicago! Hobby Lobby is a very Christian oriented store that most definitely reflects the values of it's owners.
 
Perhaps that's it. NO BUSINESS SHOULD REFLECT THE VALUES OF IT'S OWNERS.
 
BTW, I do not recall ever eating at a Chik-fil-A but that is because they seem to be in malls and I don't care a whole lot for malls. On the other hand, I've dropped a bit of cash in Hobby Lobby.
 
Now if any of these businesses were funding terrorist groups, that would be one thing. I have heard a lot of the Irish bars in Boston fund the IRA, yet they are encouraged to continue their fund raising. But say the word "Christ" as something besides an expletive or say that you don't think homosexuality is right, then you are an evil person. They do not discriminate. The will serve homsexuals. I think they should stay away from Chicago. It's full of hoodlums, thieves, murders and various other criminals. And that's just their politicians and "law" enforcement. Chicago is crime. It attracts criminals which is a good thing. They have someplace to live. We stopped for gas on the South end of Chicago once. I've never seen a convenience store with bullet proof glass that thick. On our way back thru, we got gas before we reached Chicago and didn't stop even though our transmission went out (lost the top gear).  We may be country, but we ain't stupid.

Well...I guarantee if the First Wives Christian Club came to the area to handle all of the events and you wanted in...only to be told after 56 interviews that you are not going to be a vendor due to divorce (they don't like that either) have sinned in their eyes or won't attend Prayer Breakfast...you'd have a problem with that.
You might not give a sh*t about anyone exercising any right to try and come to a resolution about it...either. I doubt you'd be here all golly gee...I agree.

Maybe it good once it's acceptable in the workplace! Maybe the powers-that-be can say it's another thing to regulate in equal fairness when fine! Like having 4 sinks. We have Jesus! God! Lord! Allah! ! Christ! I'm forgetting someone. Maybe that means a fine.

Buddha! I forgot!

Equal time for the sister wives! They have plenty of workers to run the drive-thru!

As far as the headline...it's their cross to bear. A fast food place has no reason to make a public announcement at the risk of their owner/operators staff or customers....about gay marriage gun control or anything else.

Here's the thing about freedom of speech that has been glossed over.

You have the right to it...and when you are in a business situation other parties have the legal or official right to request you to either sign a confidentiality agreement...or in this case if you are a member of a City Council you have the right to request certain polices (they claim are to be true...after a statement that might lead someone to question it) be put in writing

If you have the right to and do just push something through based on some policy that is not in writing...you can prepare to face those you represent at every open meeting where you will be criticized relentlessly.

The decision after this statement was a request that the CFA anti-discrimination policy be put in writing...and unless/until it was...the elected right not to green light the deal would happen. That's the right of the elected official who made this decision...and it's within his right.

This what Cathy said in the interview:
 
"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.
 
It's a private, family owned business, Mr Cathy has a successful business, this is his Belief. He does have a sign hanging in the Restaurant bashing Gay Marriage. I like the Chain, except on Sundays, They are closed. There used to be a store at the Colorado Airport, they wanted the restaurant to open on Sundays, They said Bye Bye. Nice to see a company with these kinds of Values, and integrity. Chicago should worry about the murder rate in their city, not the position of a privately owned business...........