No, Chick-Fil-A has not caved. The media is just lying again.

[Hubie]

It has recently been reported in the news today that Chick-Fil-A has backed down from their support for pro-family groups. Fortunately, these reports have turned out to be false:

http://www.frontiersla.com/Blog/Fron...tryID=10440763

http://www.advocate.com/business/201...equality-group

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...ti-gay-groups/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/gay-advoc...l-a-fairytale/

Well, now it looks like this false story about Chick-Fil-A no longer supporting pro-family groups was cooked up just so the left could start smearing the company anew. Articles citing the false story are now being written to attack Chick-Fil-A for supposedly going against their word:

http://www.shewired.com/soapbox/2012...tionable-money

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...12/09/20/49335

[Hubie]

You know, part of me wonders if this Chicago thug is saying this in order to backtrack from his unconstitutional threat to block CFA from building in Chicago without actually look like he's backtracking.

[Hubie]

Told ya so:

http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/09/2...rd-straight-2/

Contrary to reports first made by the gay-activist group The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) on Tuesday and later picked up by mainstream media outlets, Chick-fil-A and its charitable-giving arm, the WinShape Foundation, did not agree to stop making donations to groups that support the biblical definition of marriage in exchange for being allowed to open a franchise in Chicago.

Don't expect the lame-stream media to correct their earlier reports.

[noonwitch]

I don't have a problem with anyone who chooses not to get their food at certain restaurants because of the expressed political views of the owners. I do it myself, but I don't picket in front of the places.

I don't think that any government or government official has the right to deny a legal business to build in their jurisdiction just because someone doesn't like the political views of the owner.

[Odysseus]

I don't have a problem with anyone who chooses not to get their food at certain restaurants because of the expressed political views of the owners. I do it myself, but I don't picket in front of the places.

I don't think that any government or government official has the right to deny a legal business to build in their jurisdiction just because someone doesn't like the political views of the owner.

I think that a community should have the right to restrict certain businesses whose product is offensive or likely to cause a nuisance (strip and dance clubs, for example, tend to create loud traffic at late hours, which isn't something that you'd want in a residential neighborhood), but the specific issue for that kind of restriction is the product, not the philosphy of the owner. CFA's product is chicken. Unless they are a vegan community, Chicago has no basis for restricting the sale of chicken by a vendor whose views don't match the mayor's. After all, there are lots of businesses that don't support leftist causes that could decide to take their business elsewhere, and if a community can ban someone's business because they oppose gay marriage, then another community has the same right to ban a pro-gay marriage business. Odysseus' first law of restricted government is that any power given to a politcian that you like will inevitably end up in the hands of a politician that you don't like.

[noonwitch]

I think that a community should have the right to restrict certain businesses whose product is offensive or likely to cause a nuisance (strip and dance clubs, for example, tend to create loud traffic at late hours, which isn't something that you'd want in a residential neighborhood), but the specific issue for that kind of restriction is the product, not the philosphy of the owner. CFA's product is chicken. Unless they are a vegan community, Chicago has no basis for restricting the sale of chicken by a vendor whose views don't match the mayor's. After all, there are lots of businesses that don't support leftist causes that could decide to take their business elsewhere, and if a community can ban someone's business because they oppose gay marriage, then another community has the same right to ban a pro-gay marriage business. Odysseus' first law of restricted government is that any power given to a politcian that you like will inevitably end up in the hands of a politician that you don't like.

When I lived in Detroit, I lived just north of Highland Park. The stretch of Woodward in the north part of HP and Detroit is full of tittie bars, adult theaters and bookstores, but there are 3 churches nearby, 2 of which have adjacent elementary schools (one Catholic, one Protestant). I am totally for zoning those businesses away from schools, so that children do not have to walk by them on their way to school every day. It's not just the lurid ads, it's the creeps hanging out in the parking lot, the hookers that hang out in front of them, and the related drug and alcohol habits of the patrons and hookers.


One of the adult theaters did get bought out by a church, and is now the Revival Tabernacle (AOG). The weekend they opened their church, they had a "Purifying Service". I lived 4 blocks away, and could hear the awesome gospel music that was part of the service. I am impressed with their staying power-their pastor, a white man, lives in a house down the street from the church and was stabbed in his own home a few years back. He has since recovered and continues to live in that house and serve that church and neighborhood.