Comments on: Chicken scraps

By: Ted

Ted — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:57:02 +0000

As my brother pointed out to me FCA can be fairly called "anti-gay," too for its promotion of "conversion" theory. But, yes, Chick-fil-A gives $1.7M to Christian groups, and only a small fraction of that can be fairly attributed to anti-gay causes rather than more conventional charitable uses. Which was my point.

By: John

John — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 16:03:05 +0000

Walter, 1) what others say is irrelevant to Menino’s statement, particularly when they are 1000 miles away; 2) Assumptions don’t make it so; 3) Idiots abound: as you point out, most of the noise was just that, and 4) calls for a conclusion: how do you know this?

I agree that Menino should be censured for running his mouth off: we should expect better from our elected officials. But this is outrage in a teapot.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 02:45:13 +0000

John>There are at least four reasons why Menino’s statement was not ignored as a bit of heat-of-the-moment hyperbole. The first is that a Chicago alderman almost immediately made a similar and very explicit threat. The second is that in cities like Boston and Chicago, if a person in political authority says company X is going to have trouble with its licenses, it is widely assumed that from that point on the license-granting bureaus will make trouble for the company (and in ways that are not always easy for the press to monitor and check). The third is that a not-insubstantial body of opinion (though not, fortunately, most leading outlets of liberal and civil-libertarian commentary) agreed that this was what Menino was doing and *applauded* it. And the fourth is that Menino did not retreat until he had been assailed by many commentaries from those civil libertarians and others. I agree with you that “discrimination” is not a good word to describe this process: “retaliation for First-Amendment-protected speech” and “denial of the rule of law” are better.

Anti-redist>I do not speak for Ted, but I suspect that he would concede that, say, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes is not usefully described as an anti-gay group if you concede that the Family Research Council, whose Peter Sprigg called two years ago for criminalizing homosexual activity, *is* an anti-gay group.

Brat>Not sure what you mean about lawyers neglecting the moral dimension of this issue. I certainly do see it as a moral issue: recognition of same-sex marriage is a moral, not just practical, advance for society. But then I’m not a lawyer so maybe I wasn’t included in your critique.

By: John

John — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 02:21:33 +0000

Wait, wait, let me get this straight: the mayor loses his cool (or his mind) briefly, and makes an intemperate and clearly ridiculous statement. Later, he clarifies it in writing. This brief verbal nonsense is so strong that it would cause a multi-million dollar corporation to believe that it is actively being discriminated against. Do I have that right?

What’s the difference between this and hate-crime speech?

By: In the news, August 4 | Maryland for All Families

In the news, August 4 | Maryland for All Families — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:56:34 +0000

[…] not totally burned out on the Chick-Fil-A controversy, I’ve got a new post at Overlawyered rounding up some of the lessons […]

By: antiredistributionist

antiredistributionist — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:55:35 +0000

I call BS on Frank’s use of the term “anti-gay” to describe any organization that supports traditional marriage.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:58:23 +0000

Max,
Homophobes? Bigots? Really?
The CEO of a large company, a known Christian, was asked his opinion on marriage. He replied as one would expect. Honestly, I would have been more shocked if he had not replied as he did.
Therefore, his opinion is obviously shared by all employees and patrons of the independently owned and operated stores.

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:46:52 +0000

But what about the rights of vegan bigots? Or homophobes worried about trans fats? What are they supposed to do in this controversy, just sit on the sidelines while everyone else gets to take a stand and make a lasting, important contribution to their society by buying or not buying cheap fried chicken that was briefly marinated in pickle juice?

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:53:32 +0000

Ted Frank: Can’t we do both? Why are you making us pick?

I’m not sure it is the profits that are at issue with your chicken sandwich. I think it is the principle of the thing.

That guy is free to take any position he wants. I don’t begrudge him that. But I get to buy chicken sandwiches wherever I feel like.

By: Brat Magursky

Brat Magursky — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:47:12 +0000

I am not surprised to see a strong support for same sex marriage among members of the legal community. It seems to me they see it as a purely equality issue rather than a moral one but when has morality ever figured into a legal position (just because it’s right doesn’t make it legal and just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right) but after all the lofty cries from the Bar’s Ivory Tower echo through the land 1 fact remains – only lawyers can argue in the pro for 1 client one day only to argue con the next for a totally different client (Why didnt you climb up that ladder to get the cat out of the tree Mr Fireman (bad ol Fireman)! vs The ladder broke when you climbed it to get the cat out of the tree (bad ol ladder maker and fire department)! FYI – the strength of the legal argument (advocacy) is directly proportionate to the legal fee paid!!