|
|
|
Uploaded: Wednesday, July 18, 2012, 4:48 PM
Updated: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 8:50 AM
Groups set to appeal Chick-Fil-A
Gay marriage supporters quickly raise funds for $1,000-appeal of zoning administrator decision
|
|
by Daniel DeBolt
Mountain View Voice Staff
Over the last week two separate efforts sprang up to oppose a Chick-Fil-A fast-food restaurant approved by the city's zoning administrator. One group says the company's "bigoted" practices were the last straw.
Citing Chick-Fil-A's funding of "hate" against gay people, a group of employees of the Mountain View startup HighlightCam quickly raised $1,000 Wednesday night on wepay.com to pay for an appeal to the City Council.
On Thursday morning resident Bruce England said in an email that he was working with another group also seeking to appeal the zoning administrator's July 11 decision to allow Chick-Fil-A to build a restaurant with drive-through at 1962 West El Camino Real.
HighlightCam employee David Speakman said his company's CEO and a founder were among over 27 donors, along with state Senate candidate Sally Lieber. The Wepay.com page notes the company's funding of "hate. In particular, they fund hate of the gay members of our town and their families."
The company has reportedly given over $3 million to anti-gay rights groups between 2003 and 2009. Supporters of the appeal have also seized on Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy's remarks in a recent radio interview that he is "guilty as charged" in opposing gay marriage.
"It's not just a bigoted evil company," Speakman said. "It's a company that wants a bad restaurant in a bad spot."
Speakman says the goal of Chick-Fil-A is to bring in as many cars as possible, putting pedestrians in unnecessary danger on a portion of El Camino Real where several pedestrians have recently been hit by cars. He notes how much effort has gone to making El Camino Real pedestrian friendly, especially in the redevelopment of San Antonio Shopping Center, which is near HighlightCam's San Antonio Circle office.
And cars idling in a drive-through isn't good for the environment, he says.
"It doesn't matter who owns the restaurant," Speakman said. Considering positions the council has taken previously, "it doesn't sound like something the City Council would approve."
"We cannot win on any claim based upon this evil company's hateful actions against minorities," he writes. "But we can fight the land use change and the increased danger to our population from cars driving up and over the sidewalks to get to fast food -- a danger that is not worth the risk to our otherwise bicycle and pedestrian friendly city."
England said in an email that his group opposes ChickFil-A for the following reasons:
- "The project is too close to adjacent properties and is highly likely to have unacceptable noise, light, and pollution impacts on neighbors."
- "Not enough hard data was submitted to the City to support the proposal."
- "The project is inconsistent with the City's greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, the Grand Boulevard Initiative, and General Plan Update visioning."Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by anonymous coward, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jul 18, 2012 at 4:53 pm Why does it cost $1000 to appeal?
|
|
Posted by @anonymous coward, a resident of another community, on Jul 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm Probably to prevent abuse of the appeals process by nuisance actions.
|
|
Posted by Juan, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jul 18, 2012 at 5:34 pm Get a life, people! I don't see anyone protesting In N Out Burgers...
|
|
Posted by Nick, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 18, 2012 at 7:32 pm Daniel DeBolt seems obsessed with Chick Fil A. Get a life! Even if an appeal gets filed, it will get overturned since the personal beliefs of a company founder don't factor into the decisions of city zoning.
Just don't eat the chicken if you don't like it, but why try to block it? If you hate Chick Fil A, wouldn't you rather have them spend $1M+ to build a new restaurant and boycott it so it fails? Otherwise everyone will just drive to the one just down 237 anyway.
|
|
Posted by OR, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 1:13 am I really don't like any business promoting their religious attitudes. Here's the latest of a hateful disgorge from the COO:
Web Link
|
|
Posted by Omega3, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 6:53 am At least the gay issue distracts from the fact that this kind of food ads to the obesity problem in the US. Absolute dietary garbage. Enjoy the self poisoning if that's what you're into.
|
|
Posted by Chick-fil-haaay!!!, a resident of the Martens-Carmelita neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 8:25 am Gee, what a shocker! Some people don't like certain people. Certain people don't like others. It's a fact of life. Deal with it.
If people who protest don't like them for being anti-gay. Don't eat there. Give your money to another fast food chain. Me, I like them gays, but I need to eat too.
|
|
Posted by Opinion, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 10:11 am I'm sure there were a few owners of "Whites Only" businesses that fought the morally and socially correct changes that happened during the civil rights movement, and I'm sure people said "Hey if you don't like it, don't eat there"
It should not surprise anyone that there are people lingering on the wrong side of history on this issue as well.
True, some people don't like others and never will. If it ends there, no big deal at all, but if one group says "I don't like you _AND_ I'm going to do all I can to try and deny you rights.", well that's a whole different thing.
I don't really need another reason not to eat there(obesity, heart disease, diabetes), but sadly I do.
|
|
Posted by Nick, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 10:52 am Opinion -- you're making a completely false comparison. Chick Fil A does not discriminate against anyone. This "story" (which shouldn't even be news) is based on the personal views of a founder of Chick Fil A, not the company itself. Almost any founder, CEO, VP, or other business leader likely has views you or I don't like.
What is the logic in denying people the option to eat at a restaurant based on the argument that people should be open-minded, tolerant, and have options in who they marry? Isn't that hypocritical?
For all those discussing health issues: have you looked at the nutrition facts for Chick Fil A? It's much better than most of the other fast food places (or even restaurants) on El Camino. If you try to block access to a better place like Chick Fil A, you're just helping the worse places stay open through less competition.
|
|
Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 1:22 pm
USA is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online Google and some other companies support liberal causes including gay marriage. Should we ban them from Mountain View?
|
|
Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm
USA is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online I really don't like any business promoting their anti-religious attitudes. Here's the latest of a hateful disgorge from Google about the hate for traditional marriage: Web Link
|
|
Posted by gcoladon, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 2:26 pm
gcoladon is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online Could anyone enlighten me as to why we don't have 'domestic partnerships' for any couple (lets leave it at couples?), to satisfy the state's need for keeping track of families and child custody and taxes and visitation rights etc, and leave questions of what defines 'marriage' to the different religions/cultures that established such customs in the first place?
Wikipedia on the history of marriage: Web Link
Wouldn't that solve the problem/disagreement?
And would allow purveyors of chicken sandwiches and eaters of chicken sandwiches to voluntarily transact without others' protesting and appealing to civil authority?
|
|
Posted by The Enlightener, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 3:09 pm
The Enlightener is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online Nick, I see the comparison being about people fighting imminent social change, and ending up on the wrong side of history, not an issue of discrimination. Its true, they have every right to open in MV, I fully support that, but let it be clear that the owners of this company are donating money to orgs fighting to deny people rights.
The money comes from the restaurants who get it from you. I simply don't want to fund any part of oppression if I can avoid it.
And USA, you're funny. Please tell me what specific rights Google is taking away from you by supporting gay marriage and respect for gays in homophobic countries. Everyone should read that link just to see how you tried to spin it to suit your needs.
|
|
Posted by chas, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 11:31 pm
chas is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online This company HighlightCam seems to come across as anti handicap. Maybe the parade this weekend should be routed by their office. Not everyone can be a biker or a walker and if you have limited mobility a drive thru restaurant can be very helpful....
|
|
Posted by FarmerFrog, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 9:27 am
FarmerFrog is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online It's a private company. They have the right to their opinion. I'm a consumer, I have the right to mine. If I choose to not support their establishment because of their opinion, that's my decision.
HOWEVER - banning a private business from opening a store because you disagree with their opinion on gay marriage is juvenile and ridiculous. They are replacing a Sizzler - did you object to Sizzler opening because they serve meat? Are you going to protest future churches from opening?
Chick-Fil-A made a questionable business decision, but that shouldn't keep them from continuing to operate their business. Let them open.
|
|
Posted by LovingMtnView, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jul 25, 2012 at 5:53 pm
LovingMtnView is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online Yes, the owners of the company are funding anti-gay organizations...but also the company itself is providing these donations!
Boston has stood up against the company and refused them entry to their city. Mountain View should do the same. We have the right to refuse businesses that are harmful to the community.
|
|
Posted by SJF, a resident of the Gemello neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2012 at 5:40 pm
SJF is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online Chick-fil-A will be no asset to Mtn View's "Grand Blvd." ECR has many fast food drive-ins. Several are already located in our neighborhood. They ALL serve Chicken! How about a locally (or California) owned/operated restaurant that will contribute to our state and local economy? Do we really want/need a business known to be run by intolerant and dogmatic executives? We praise the City Counsel for seeking a suitable tenant for the Emporium site. PAMF is a community asset. This is not a different issue, only a smaller site. Where is our City Council on this qualify-of-life issue?
And by the way, who does Peter Gilli represent when he endorses new use of a site that requires removal of our precious heritage trees? Maybe Mr. Gilli should work for the City of Las Vegas or at least try to understand the importance of our heritage trees if he is going to work "for" the citizens of Mtn. View? Mountain View deserves better!
|
|
Posted by grace, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 10, 2012 at 4:44 pm
grace is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online First Amendment lawyers have already promised to sue the City of Mountain View if CFA is blocked from opening a restaurant based on the founders' sincerely held religious beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and by U.S. Supreme Court decisions as "sincerely held religious beliefs." The CFA founders' speech is also protected by the First Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court rulings, as is the "speech" of someone who burned a U.S. flag according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The founders have a legal right to their beliefs in Biblically-based marriage, to have their restaurants closed on Sundays for a "day of rest" (also Biblical), to donate millions to take care of foster children and orphans (also Biblical), to not incur debt in the running of their businesses (also Biblical). That's all protected by law. CFA obeys all federal and state anti-discrimination laws and hires gays. Mountain View also has a porn store down the street on El Camino, whose owners' "speech" is also protected by the U.S. Supreme Court and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You can't forbid people from opening up businesses just because you disagree with their legally protected "speech".
|
|
Posted by LovingMtnView, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Aug 11, 2012 at 10:09 am
LovingMtnView is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online There is no question that Chick-Fil-A is funding true hate groups. The most egregious is a group is enabling Uganda to move forward with a policy "that would execute all gay people"
Here is what Chick-Fil-A uses it's corporate profits to fund:
1. Chick-fil-A profits fund documented hate groups that aggressively work against LGBT people, advocating for their criminalization, psychological abuse or death.
2. Chick-fil-A profits support the radical-right-wing group Eagle Forum, which supports LGBT people being considered criminals.
3. Chick-fil-A profits support Exodus International, which claims to “cure homosexuality” through psychological coercion of LGBT people. It says LGBT people are “perverse.”
4. Chick-fil-A profits support Focus on the Family (FOF) and its off-shoot group, Family Research Council (FRC), which has been designated as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center. FOF aggressively defames LGBT people as a threat to children and FRC spent $25,000 to stop the US Congress from condemning Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” policy that would execute all gay people.
There's no way that the city would deny their application based solely on using their business to enable murder, but they will likely just not allow the business due to an opposition to drive-thrus. (Some on the city council have already expressed opposition to drive-thrus). I wish the constitutional lawyers well when they try to argue their way around that! :)
|
|
|
To comment on this topic, please login here if you are a registered member. If not, click here. | |
|
Send this story
Print this story
