Eat Mor Vile Speech

You have no idea how much it galls me to agree with Glenn Effing Greenwald on anything, but he's right about Chicago Mayor Rahmbo going after Chik-Fil-A and denying them a permit to operate a franchise in the city for the sole reason that their President is a homophobic asshole.

Obviously, it’s perfectly legitimate for private citizens to decide not to patronize a business with executives who have such views (I’d likely refrain from doing so in this case). Beyond that, if a business is engaging in discriminatory hiring or service practices in violation of the law — refusing to hire gay employees or serve gay patrons in cities which have made sexual orientation discrimination illegal — then it is perfectly legitimate to take action against them.

But that is not the case here; the actions are purely in retribution against the views of the business’ top executive on the desirability of same-sex marriage:

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has said Chick-fil-A “doesn’t belong in Boston” because of [Chick-fil-A President Dan] Cathy’s discriminatory stance.

On Wednesday, the tag team of Emanuel and Moreno joined the chorus, citing Cathy’s anti-gay views.

Yes, Chicago, Dan Cathy is a homophobe, a bigot, and an unapologetic assclown.  I refuse to eat at Chik-Fil-A for the sole reason that Cathy is a continued hateful bigot.  But the Constitution is pretty gorram clear about what constitutes free speech, and the Supreme Court recently issued a ruling on that fact in March of 2011 saying that our old friends, the anti-gay bigots of Westboro Baptist Church, have the Constitutional right to say awful things about people.

You can't deny Chik-Fil-A a permit because Dan Cathy is a bigot.  Period.

As my Salon colleague Mary Elizabeth Williams noted when writing about the controversy in Boston: “Aside from the fact that Chick-fil-A is always closed on Sunday, there’s no evidence those beliefs have been institutionalized in any way. There’s no record of refusing service to gay patrons, or unfair hiring practices, or a hostile work environment.” Indeed, Joe Moreno, the Chicago alderman who represents a “hipster ward” and who initially blocked the business’ expansion, made clear that he was motivated not by any alleged discriminatory business practices but solely by “bigoted, homophobic comments”: namely, the Chick-fil-A President’s view that the Bible mandates marriages be between men and women only. And as Williams noted, the company oversees a “foundation that’s contributed financially to” numerous right-wing groups: Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, among others.

That's awful of them.  But it is not illegal to have that opinion.  Defense of free speech in the United States requires that clear cases of vile speech like this are protected and cannot be used to punish an organization.  It requires accepting that fact.  It requires vigilance and swift legal action should those opinions become discriminatory action, but the opinions themselves are valid.  You have the right to have those opinions, and I have the right to disagree with them.  That's how America works, people.

Glenn Greenwald is someone I rarely agree with and in fact his transgressions against logic, discourse, reason, and propriety are well documented.  But he is right here, this is Constitution 101, folks.

And as far as Rahmbo goes, you screwed it badly, man.  Let these guys open their restaurant.  Then don't eat there.  But you treat them in accordance to the letter of the law.

I have an opinion too:  screw Chik-Fil-A, and screw the people who eat there.  Constitution allows me to say that right here.  Your mileage may of course vary.  By the way, Facebook?  That means Dem strategist Karl Frisch gets to post this.





Do we understand the whole "vile speech is protected under the Constitution" thing now?

Good.