Voices Around Town | August 3, 2012 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |


Mountain View Voice

For the Record - August 3, 2012

Voices Around Town

How do you feel about Chick-Fil-A coming to Mountain View?

Asked in downtown Mountain View. Photos and interviews by Emily Efland.

"I don't care about the political stance of chain restaurants and how that has anything to do with the service they provide in the community."

Bruce Zahire, San Francisco

"I'm personally against Chick-Fil-A coming here. We have a strong LGBT community here, and there are some public officials in other cities who have been very strong in speaking out against Chick-Fil-A, and I personally don't support them coming here."

Sergio Lopez, Almaden

"I like the Chick-Fil-A food. The way they're associating with gay marriages should not be a factor in their business model."

Tony Lam, San Jose

"I think everybody has a right to say what he wants to say and take action without any legal conflict. However, the rest of (the) people against it have the right to do so (too). I'm in a neutral position."

Debra Shen, Palo Alto

"I wouldn't eat there, I don't eat there even when I go to the East Coast. If I'm already not giving them my money, then I'm already speaking with my wallet, and I think that's what most people are looking to do."

Jeremiah Njoroge, Santa Clara

Have a question for Voices Around Town? Email it to editor@mv-voice.com


Posted by Grace, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 10, 2012 at 9:12 pm

With regards to opponents who want to stop a Chik Fil A from being opened in Mountain View because of the founding family's sincerely held religious beliefs, First Amendment lawyers have already stated they plan to litigate the City of Mountain View if CFA is stopped over this issue. Sincerely held religious beliefs (even if you don't agree with them) are constitutionally protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that protected "speech" includes the burning of a U.S. flag. A flag burner has the legal right to open a business and not be stopped because of their "speech." The founders of CFA have sincerely held religious beliefs that include: supporting the Bible's commands about marriage; being closed on Sundays (to observe a "day of rest"); not debting to run their business (another Biblical command); donating millions of dollars to help foster children and orphans (another Biblical command). Those are all legally protected beliefs. The heads of CFA have not used "hate" language (in keeping with the Bible's commands to let no vile word depart from your mouth). CFA obeys all federal and state anti-discrimination laws and they hire gays. Mountain View and CFA opponents will be getting an education in the First Amendment when the constitutional lawyers arrive to duke it out.

Posted by registered user, LovingMtnView, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 11, 2012 at 10:06 am

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! :)