Groups set to appeal Chick-Fil-A Around Town, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Jul 18, 2012 at 4:53 pm
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.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, July 18, 2012, 4:48 PM
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 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 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?
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 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! :)