If a community is opposed to discrimination, isn't that enough reason to keep Chick-fil-A out?

Only if there's a legal mechanism. A government entity is bound by the constitutional guarantees of free speech, and cannot punish a business for exercising that right, no matter how much the local community may disagree with the content of the speech.

IIRC, San Francisco requires all its vendors to provide domestic partner benefits, but could not cancel a contract with a vendor if the board helped fund Prop 8, unless they'd done something else to run afoul of their laws and regs.

Boston will have to approve Chik-Fil-A's applications for opening a store, and grant permits to them, and they may be more strict and difficult than they would otherwise be, but I don't think there's a legal mechanism for forbidding them outright to operate in the city.

Boston will have to approve Chik-Fil-A's applications for opening a store, and grant permits to them, and they may be more strict and difficult than they would otherwise be, but I don't think there's a legal mechanism for forbidding them outright to operate in the city.

Hmmm, I'm not familiar enough with Boston to know if the mayor legally can prevent Chik-Fil-A from opening.

OK, say we're talking about Chicago, where the elected alderman has considerable latitude in granting or denying permits. AFAIK the alderman can legally deny Chik-Fil-A's application for opening a store. Then I would agree with the decision to keep Chik-Fil-A from opening a store in the alderman's ward.

Say it's the reverse situation, and a conservative community doesn't want a business that's known for its advocacy of gay rights to open a store. Assume it's like Chicago and an elected official has enough leeway to legally prevent the company from opening the store. Let's say that does happen. While I would not like the outcome, democracy often results in outcomes I don't like.

To what extent could keeping Chik-Fil-A out of a city be comparable to legislation in certain states (Mississippi comes to mind) imposing such stringent (and, as I understand, unnecessary to health and safety) restrictions on clinics that perform abortions as to effectively close them down? In that context, I note that there is a U.S. Supreme Court decision expressly finding a Constitutional right to obtain an abortion (agree with it or disagree with it -- it is out there) but none to sell chicken sandwiches.

In that context, I note that there is a U.S. Supreme Court decision expressly finding a Constitutional right to obtain an abortion (agree with it or disagree with it -- it is out there) but none to sell chicken sandwiches.

If the courts decide Chik-Fil-A has a legal right to open a store where other restaurants are allowed, or if a law is passed to establish that right, well... then that's what happens.

Spanish question for a manuscipt:

Would a person be names Maria de Guadalupe Sanchez, or would it be Maria Guadalupe de Sanchez?

(I gotta run to Target, but I appreciate any insight.)

It... depends on what her name is? If she's named after the Virgin of Guadalupe, it could very well be the former. If her father's last name is Guadalupe and her mother's is Sanchez, then the latter.

Also, msbelle, your boss does sound like an asshole.

I feel really stupid when I have to point to the screen to explain things. When I have to point to a word, and then flip windows, and draw a rectangle on the screen with my finger and say "That? Is this."

And everyone can hear exactly how pedantic I'm being, but all I'm saying is: "It's written down. Let me read it to you, since you reading it is not working out so good." With all the attendant grammar issues. Thank dog (in a way) that our manager wasn't here to hear that.

At least they can't tell I'm forwarding emails that say "This is the email in which he's telling you X is Y."

Good god, people. Don't make me have to stand and look over your shoulder while you work. And stop asking me what code you have to change.

OK, say we're talking about Chicago, where the elected alderman has considerable latitude in granting or denying permits. AFAIK the alderman can legally deny Chik-Fil-A's application for opening a store. Then I would agree with the decision to keep Chik-Fil-A from opening a store in the alderman's ward.

Still depends on the legal mechanism. Does Chicago law say that the final decision is up to the unfettered discretion of the alderman? Can he deny a permit to a Republican political group because they're Republican? Or is it merely "how things are done"? In which case, just because it's done doesn't make it constitutional.

I would say that, in general, denying a governmental service (like a planning permit or a zoning waiver) to a business solely because of political positions taken by the owners, which are unrelated to the business or service in question, and which are not otherwise illegal (like inciting the violent overthrow of the government), could be successfully challenged in court.

Does Chicago law say that the final decision is up to the unfettered discretion of the alderman? Can he deny a permit to a Republican political group because they're Republican? Or is it merely "how things are done"?

I'm not really sure. From what I've read, an alderman can do that. Not sure if it's just a "how things are done" issue.

I am somewhat conflicted about this, so hearing other views is good.