The hits just keep on comin’ for Chick-fil-A after president Dan Cathy proudly announced his support of anti LGBT organizations.
Today, Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel said publicly that “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values” as alderman Moreno announced that he would actively enforce the ban. The LA Times reports:
Proco “Joe” Moreno, one of 50 Windy City aldermen who make up the City Council, told the Chicago Tribune that he plans to prevent Chick-fil-A from building its second Chicago restaurant in his trendy, hipster-filled ward….
“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Tribune this week. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1stWard.”
On the other end of the political spectrum, Rick Santorum tweeted proudly to his 200,000+ followers that he was eating Chick-fil-A chicken strips, and referred to former Republican primary competitor Mike Huckabee’s “Chick-fil-A For a Day” support holiday:
One Twitter dissenter replied what many have been thinking:
At the same time, the letter allegedly written by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino to Chick-fil-A (below) went viral on the Internet, acquiring thousands of shares in just hours.
So, what do you think of all the hullaballoo surrounding the Chick-fil-A controversy?
What did you think of Rick Santorum’s tweets?
Photo: Jeff Robertson/AP
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
It is inappropriate to deny a business permits based upon the political beliefs of the owner, as it denies the consumer the ability to make their own choices.
If consumers disagree with a restaurant’s message, then they can stop eating there and it will go out of business. This does not require local city councils to become thought police.
I would much rather have a world where apathetic consumers kept Chick-fil-A in business than one where all the food in my neighborhood tastes terrible and is overpriced, but it’s all that’s available because the restaurant permitting process has become politicized.
I agree. even though I fundamentally disagree with Chic-fil-a on this one the fact that their owner has a theological opinion on a matter does not equal discrimination at the corporate or store level. The hire equal opportunity and they serve everyone who comes through the doors. The alderman is out of line. Possibly even criminally out of line on constitutional grounds.
I believe that the use of the regulatory machinery of government to punish individuals for their beliefs is the worst form of governmental corruption.
What I like about this is as an elected official the Mayor of Boston – using insight that not all of his constituents might have – was able to uphold what he sees as the values of the people who elected him. That is, from a certain perspective, the people “made their choice” by electing this particular mayor. If they want a Chic-Fil-a *SO BADLY* elect someone new, or petition the mayor directly.
Vaunted “economic choice” does not have to happen just at the point of sale.
What you are describing is literally the tyranny of the majority.
Is it also cool with you if anti-abortion politicians deny licenses to would-be abortion clinics? Couldn’t people just “elect someone else” if they really need access to abortions? Or is it maybe important to recognize that the choices of 49% of the population shouldn’t be denied simply because it’s currently their turn out of office?
Actually it’s tyranny of the minority. Most people DO NOT care and will continue to eat a Chick-Fil-A
But is free market regulation based in a world of asymmetric information any better?
For the free market mechanism to work properly everyone who cares about Chick-Fil-A’s behavior would have to know about it, and Chick-Fil-A itself would have to know that everyone knows. Free market regulation works best (not quite “solely” if I remember my experimental economics results correctly, but it does break down quickly under even modest information asymmetry) in areas of perfect information. This doesn’t exist. It never will exist.
From this perspective it seems more efficient to have the Mayor outright deny the build order than have Chick-Fil-A spend the money to learn the information the hard that the free market model assumes it already has (but doesn’t and never can).
Now you do have a point, this is a sword that cuts both ways. I do agree that it’s NOT GOOD that basic human rights can be overturned by an election and/or careful petitioning of lobbyists. The US even has a long history of this (immigrants in AZ as an example, assorted “ultrasound bills” as other examples, on a more federal level the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, list goes on).
That being said, I am not convinced the free market could fix those problems, nor am I convinced it would fix this problem. More direct democracy, better measurements of opinion, better informed electorates all sound like much more solid starting points.
Whoa boy, if you really did study economics, then you must have missed the whole point.
Chick-fil-A is a business that sells food. People who buy food from Chick-fil-A are engaged in mutually beneficial transactions: the customers enjoy consuming the food, so they happily part with their money in exchange for the food. Chick-fil-A, in the meantime, is able to turn a profit on said food, and so is happy to sell it.
In formal economics studies this mutual benefit is called “surplus,” and it is captured by both the consumers and the company so long as both feel themselves to be better off than they would have if no transaction took place.
The issue here is that uninvolved 3rd parties are attempting to destroy the surplus of others. If I honestly don’t care about the status of Gay Marriage, but I do enjoy chicken sandwiches, is it really the right of the mayor to deny me that enjoyment?
If the mayor of Boston is only actually elected by 60% of the voters (a wider margin than most politicians are elected by) does that really give him the right to destroy the surplus of those who didn’t vote for him?
What you are clearly missing here is that Chick-fil-A makes consumers better off: no one forces you to eat there. This is good for society, it means that consumers are getting the surplus they desire.
What is now happening is that an unrelated group of people, those who gain surplus by denying Chick-fil-A a permit, is effectively stealing surplus from those who just want to enjoy a chicken sandwich.
I would argue that not only is such theft irresponsible, it is the very basis of some of the most destructive public policy the United States has ever seen. For example, did you know that Plessy v. Furgeson came about because a railroad did not want to segregate blacks and whites, but was forced to do so by law?
What you seem to not understand is this is not about a “problem” to be fixed, this is about the right of individual consumers to enjoy whatever makes them happy without third parties stealing that enjoyment. The free market need not drive Chick-fil-A out of business, because it’s not at all clear that we are better off if they are out of business. It’s entirely possible that the surplus of enjoying a chicken sandwich would ordinarily outweigh the surplus of boycotting an establishment owned by bigots. The point is that the surplus belongs to the consumers, and should not be stolen by a public official.
You’re right, what the Mayor of Boston did represents an economic inefficiency. It’s basically a textbook example.
It’s not so much that Chick-Fil-A is simply owned by bigots. Were its leaders content to keep their hatred to themselves there really wouldn’t be any issue. However, the owners of Chik-Fil-A openly donate to anti-gay charities and take up (vocally, as powerful/influential people) anti-gay stances that combat gay rights, spread disinformation, that sort of thing.
In formal economic terms, what concerns me is what appears to be an externality. Chick-Fil-A is polluting hatred into the general population. From this perspective, I would argue that blocking Chick-Fil-A becomes truly negative only if the summed utility from those who would appreciate the closer Chick-Fil-A is greater than the hatred spread (or “negative utility” to society) about gay people not only from the new restaurant but from the silent compliance with Chick-Fil-A’s vocal/well-funded/potent hateful policies.
Even if only gay people are affected by this hate externality then we are right back to your original argument against mine. The tyranny of the majority is affecting the gay minority except this time with the dollar not an election. Is all of that worth it to protect the “consumer’s right to choose” to buy a very specific chicken sandwich?
I wonder how many people would be organizing on behalf of a business whose owner claimed Biblical principles supported slavery and who had given millions to the Klan? Few, I would think, would jump to the company’s defense and many would say ‘you’re not getting my money or operating in my neighborhood.’ Chik-Fil-A admittedly opposes full citizenship for LGBT people and donates millions to anti-gay organizations. So I don’t find it shocking that jurisdictions with anti-discrimination laws have an interest in denying a place to companies who embrace and support discrimination.
Mr. Cathy did not deny service to anybody based on their sexual orientation. He express his belief on the matter as an exercise of free speech. It is intolerant and unfair to deny a business permit in a city based on their founder’s belief. The tolerant have become intolerant. The freedom fighters for equality are punishing other for exercising their freedom of speech.
Agreed. Discriminatory government policies aren’t suddenly okay as long as they’re against a target we dislike. CONSUMERS, not governments, should be punishing Chick Fil-A for its social stance.
Remember to always stand up for the speech of someone you hate!
If cities don’t have a right to deny business permits based on the moral/ethical code of a majority of constituent voters, then why doesn’t my town have a strip club? I’m sick of having to drive half an hour to get glitter on my nose.
As for the freedom of speech stuff, sure constitutional law is supposed to override everything else in this country, but who enforces it when the government won’t? That’s right, the citizens. That’s why we have the second amendment and all that. And good news for everyone: There is a mechanism in place for Boston voters to override their mayor’s decision. They just fire the guy in the next election and find a new, Chick-Fil-A friendly mayor.
Does anyone honestly see that happening in Boston, of all places? I’m guessing most of the people who put this mayor in office are pretty content with his decision, and it’s not up to the rest of the country to usurp the authority of the people who actually live there.
Andrew,
If local authorities have the right to make moral decision for their territory why was NC (and other states) bashed for voting a one man-one women marriage amendment? I see a double standard here.
Are you being intentionally thick? Strip clubs are ultimately denied permits not because of their opinions or even the morality of them, they’re denied permits in certain zones because of the potential for harm to children or the potential to detract from the zoning interests.
And although we are a country based on representational democracy our laws have always been subject to the constitution which over rules the majority wishes/ End of slavery anyone? End of denying voting rights to african americans anyone? Both of those were contra the majority but each one was upheld because of the constitutional mandate that sometimes protects the minority. And rightly so.
Can we all agree that Santorum’s tweets are hysterical?
Oh most definitely. I cried a little bit when I finally got it. I’m thinking about getting twitter just to follow him.
Thank you, Mike L, Philip, Copyleft, and Rev. Peake : )
I clicked this article wincing and ready to read a bunch of Chick-fil-A hate-filled comments, cheering on the acts of these politicians. It’s encouraging to hear from those see past Chick-Fil-A’s position, and recognize their right to operate.
Thank you for the integrity: )
“Chick Fil-A sauce” now has a very different connotation to me, now that it’s associated with “santorum.”
Perhaps now the two will be synonymous with each other — two names for the same byproduct of anal sex.
Thanks for spelling it out for us, WellOkayThen
If the owner(s) of Chick-Fil-A were simply stating their personal views on religion, gays, and hay marriage, then that would not be a problem. However, they are using their money and influence to try to act on making their religious views into law via their contributions to political groups that are against gays/gay marriage and for legislating discrimination.
If you are a business owner, you are free to shoot off your mouth and try to buy influence, but don’t get pissy when your customers and others react to your actions.