NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn asks NYU to evict Chick-fil-A | Fox News: Were her actions a violation of the 1st amendment?

by Heisenberg Posted 2012/08/01 15:33:26

Related Topics: Fox News, New York, Fox, Nyc, 1st Amendment, Politician, York, US, FoxNews, Chick-fil-a, City Council, Town, 2012

Read More

157 votes
Read all 255 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	131 votes	83%
	No	26 votes	17%

FOXNEWS.COM reports:
A powerful New York politician claims she was just speaking as a private citizen when tried to run Chick-fil-A out of town, but she used her official letterhead and even invoked her position as City Council speaker to apply pressure.

town official letterhead invoked position city council speaker apply pressure

town official letterhead invoked position city council speaker apply pressure

+19

Add a comment above

Bothergirl 2012/08/01 17:39:42

Yes

+13
What is so odd is the complaint that Mr. Cathy is a bigot. He isn't. He was just voicing his opinion. Free Speach is a Constutional right. For the most part same sex marriage is not a right.
If any side is bigoted it would be the pro-gay/lesbian faction. Most people support traditional marriage over homosexual marraige.
If gay folks want more respect they should support eveyones rights even Mr. Cathy's.
>> See Replies

More polls by Heisenberg

Christopher Kirchen 2012/08/26 20:11:13

No

But they were in attempted restraint of trade.

reply
us 2012/08/07 15:52:50

Yes

Shame on her, against chick-fil-a, and traditional marriage, people who have a job and who are working.

reply
Pedalpusher 2012/08/07 05:41:10

Yes

+1
A business has the right to his own opinions and the right to serve who he wants! They can't step on that!

reply
Cora 2012/08/06 00:09:16

Yes

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

reply
Jesferkicks 2012/08/05 10:02:05

Yes

+1
What Chick-fil-A does is none of her damn business.

reply
Muriel 2012/08/04 15:20:06

No

And this person attends college?She needs to take a class in more than the constitution.People wish to earn the respect of others they best start earning it

reply
4dc 2012/08/04 14:39:45

No

+2
she has a right to her opinion just as chick-fil-a's ceo does...but she has no business invoking her office in stating that personal opinion

reply
clasact 2012/08/04 13:21:52

Yes

+2
She may have the right of free speach as all do but she also should have thought about useing her position before she started running her mouth.As an elected official her personal opinions should be kept to herself,she is there to represent the people not herself

reply
Nilam 2012/08/04 04:25:28

No

a little outrages yes, but no law was made, nor charges filed, so there is no violation

reply
AGPhillbin 2012/08/04 04:02:38

No

The Councilwoman has a right to her opinion, including her opinion that their landlord should evict them. That said, she should not have used official stationery, or invoked her elected office, except for identification purposes, and she should be reprimanded for it. If the City Council acted on her opinion, that would have been a violation of the First Amendment. It does come close to a violation of the First Amendment, because it's all about stifling Mr. Cathy's opinion.

reply
Paige 2012/08/04 03:53:15

Yes

Unfortunately Cathy has a right to his opinions, and we have a right to not give him our business.

reply
☆FritzW☆ 2012/08/04 01:38:54

No

I don't like what she did and she should be reprimanded for her conduct in misrepresenting her elected position, but to say it's a violation of the Frist amenment in and of itself is a violation of her First amendment rights. She's allowed her opinion just as much as the CEO of Chick-fil-A is allowd his. And, of course, if the city were to act upon her request on the official letterhead then THEY would be violating the First amendment.

reply
Donnie 2012/08/03 22:53:44
☆stillthe12c☆ 2012/08/03 21:01:39

No

If she was to force NYU to kick them out then yes. I do hope that the people that vote fro her will see fit to vote her out.

reply
Danielle 2012/08/03 19:55:37

Yes

She can say what she wants, but she has no right to force the government to do what she wants.

reply
JET 2012/08/03 17:36:25

Yes

+1
If she was voicing her opinion as a private citizen, fine and dandy. She should have used her private stationary and postage, not the taxpayers.

reply
BongRipper 2012/08/03 14:49:39

No

The first amendment shouldn't have been dragged into this. One man used his freedom of speech to express his opinion on gay marriage, than the rest of the country used their freedom of expression to either support or not support him. So what if a politician said something stupid, politicians say stupid things all the time

reply
Seonag 2012/08/03 13:06:38

Yes

Why does 'free speech' apply only to the Left? Why is it that if you hold a different opinion from the Left you are a bigot and/or racist?

reply
john brenni 2012/08/03 12:26:41

Yes

If Councilwoman Quinn does not like chick a fil then she does not have to eat there, in the N.Y.U area, a mostly Gay area they probably wont last long now anyway. due to liberal hate coverage.

reply
Kingarthurup 2012/08/03 06:54:00

Yes

Way to go LIbtards!

reply
Alexander T Steward 2012/08/03 06:52:49

Yes

Probably

reply
TheTruth1313 2012/08/03 06:05:15

Yes

AS I have said many times before, whether you agree or disagree, people are entitled to their opinions and free speech without being harassed one way or the other.

reply
Prophet 2012/08/03 05:12:21

Yes

What a douce she is. To think that she can deprive other Americans of one of the best sandwiches around. Thats not fair.

reply
Miss Capri 2012/08/03 04:49:07

Yes

These heterophobes really need to butt out and take their bigotry elsewhere. Anyway, will other media report this besides Fox News?

reply
Linnster to Miss Capri 2012/08/04 15:40:01

The New York Daily News ran an article about this in yesterday's paper, so yes, other media reported it.

reply
in vino veritas 2012/08/03 04:34:53

Yes

+3
Free people better get a handle on what is unfolding here,this isnt just about Chick Fila or Gay marriage its about the fundamental RIGHT to voice our opinion,today Mr. Cathy tomorrow me or you,WTF gives!! Vote these scumbags out......

reply
wtw 2012/08/03 04:12:33

Yes

+1
She needs evicted for failure to uphold her office which says she will uphold the law!

reply
Rock 2012/08/03 03:35:52

No

There are two separate issues here. Was there a violation in the 1st Amendment, absolutely not. Did she abuse her power as a public servant and thus try to remove CFA through fascist means, absolutely yes.

One thing that I haven't heard anybody say in all these CFA threads and so on, is how this all is a clear sign at just how much democrats do not value small businesses. It seems the CFA mess has backfired on them all and it was a pitiful try by Ms. Quinn to do damage control.

reply
jcadla 2012/08/03 03:29:53
Michelle 2012/08/03 02:57:54

No

Chick-fil-a may have the freedom to say they are against gay marriage, but they do not have the freedom from the consequences of what they've said. They are a business-- they need to be prepared for backlash like this when they voice any kind of political view, especially when they said the words to any kind of press (a Baptist magazine, in this case), and especially one that many people consider an equal human rights issue. If the people are asking for the business to be removed for it's views as private citizens, they have the right to voice that as well and try to change things. The article reports, "she used her official letterhead and even invoked her position... to apply pressure." Isn't that abuse of authority, not violation of the first amendment?

reply
jcadla to Michelle 2012/08/03 03:25:30
Michelle to jcadla 2012/08/03 03:28:19 (edited)

[EDITED:] I read my comment three times looking for what you were talking about before finding it. I apologize for my choice in words. However, saying you "support traditional marriage" is the same thing as saying you're against gay marriage. It's a bit of a euphanism-- trying to make it sound positive instead of negative.

reply
in vino... to Michelle 2012/08/03 04:41:30

" is the same as saying youre against gay marriage" and your point is what,legislating morality much?! I think you should worship gnomes does that mean you have to,phuck no,you zealots make me ill picking at the words that come out of others mouths then trying to silence them grow some skin,yellow bellies,this will be good for a report..... its the economy,useful idiots!

reply
Michelle to in vino... 2012/08/03 04:57:08 (edited)

"Supporting traditional marriage": supporting the belief that marriage is between one man and one women-- not anything else. (ie, two women or two men). It is literally the exact same concept as being against gay marriage. That is the only point I was trying to make. Nothing about "legislating morality" or anything that you might have seen in my post. They can "support traditional marriage" all they want-- however, freedom of speech does not mean you're free from the consequences of what you say. If a company is going to take a stance on an issue-- any issue-- they need to prepare for backlash from the opposing group. Furthermore, it's completely impossible to take a person's point seriously when all you posted is insults. Please, if you're going to respond to someone's post, actually say something besides childishly trying to insult them into not responding.

reply
POWERSHAKER 2012/08/03 02:55:22

Yes

+1
Yep. She sure was out of line. I agree with Fox news.

reply
alun.palmer 2012/08/03 02:41:53

No

+1
She was exercising free speech, not preventing others from doing so. NYU can have whatever tenants they want, and she was just trying to influence their choice.

reply
Tee Quake 2012/08/03 02:29:11

Yes

+1
NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn is the one who needs to be "evicted". These liberals are unmitigated trash and I am so sick and tired of them trying to ram their BS down my throat, 24-7. You can almost see her soul sickness radiating from her picture as she lies. Is she another example of Mayor Mike's appointments to the City Council?

reply
jcadla to Tee Quake 2012/08/03 03:28:05
schjaz 2012/08/02 15:01:11

Yes

+1
That's fascism. She has no business doing that.

reply
L.A. woman 2012/08/02 14:17:33

Yes

+3
Let me guess, Democrat? Always the first to show intolerance of others viewpoints all the while calling for tolerance.

reply