Left Coast is at it again. Should Santa Barbara Architectural Board of Review be able deny Chick-fil-A a permit to build for their stand on gay marriage?
☆stillthe12c☆
2012/08/09 18:25:12
|
|
|||||
|
4 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
49 votes
|
|
82% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
12% | |||
Santa Barbara Architectural Board of Review denies Chick-fil-A a permit to build over their view on gay marriage. The Mayor of the city had to step in and over rule them.
Read More: http://www.independent.com/news/2012/aug/08/chick-...
Top Opinion
-
Demonic Rat Hunter 2012/08/09 21:40:02This should never happen.
+7Wonder what would happen if we denied permits for buisineses and building because a company is Pro-Homo ?
usually on the basis of ideology.
I guarantee, that if they lose enough money , then this guy will either have a sudden change of heart or he will quietly do his best to distance his business from his personal opinions and then keep his mouth shut. That's also how free enterprise works.
Even if they disagree they don't have the power not to eat there...how sad...
As far as we know, only the Board doesn't want CFA in their town and its based on the opinions expressed by the owner of CFA. If they all want to say that publically as individuals and recommend people don't go there, great. But to abuse their power to deny the business is criminal.
Here's the difference between me and you. You are clearly a partisan. You don't like CFA and their opinions either so you rationalize any way to punish them even if its a stark Constitutional violation. You have no credibility.
Me? I also disagree with CFA. I'm pro gay marriage. But the owner can say what he wants and I'm not going to advocate abuse of government power to punish him. If people don't want to go, thats great. I'm consistent. You're biased.
Tell us if you'd be complaining if the ABR denied permits to an Abortion Clinic.
I didn't think so.
Yes. It is.
"The First Amendment applies with even greater force when the speech restriction is imposed through regulatory decisions, like a zoning decision, rather than tied to a government contract. See, e.g., CarePartners, LLC v. Lashway, 545 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir. 2008). Withholding regulatory approval is even less permissible, since it doesn’t involve the government’s power of the purse."
http://www.opposingviews.com/...
"But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.
And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (and I don’t know what the rule is under Illinois law). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights....
Yes. It is.
"The First Amendment applies with even greater force when the speech restriction is imposed through regulatory decisions, like a zoning decision, rather than tied to a government contract. See, e.g., CarePartners, LLC v. Lashway, 545 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir. 2008). Withholding regulatory approval is even less permissible, since it doesn’t involve the government’s power of the purse."
http://www.opposingviews.com/...
"But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.
And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (and I don’t know what the rule is under Illinois law). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (if his statement is quoted in context), seem to either not know or not care about the law."
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07...
Thank You
Thanks!
Not on these grounds they don't.