Philly Councilman Tells Chick-Fil-A CEO To 'Take A Hike,' HRC Protests Franchise's Food Truck In D.C.
Philadelphia Councilman Jim Kenney isn't having any of Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy's homophobia. In a letter sent to the conservative executive, Kenney told him to "take a hike and take your intolerance with you."
"As an American you are legally entitled to your opinion, regardless of how insensitive and intolerant it may be, but as a fellow American and an elected member of Philadelphia City Council; I am entitled to express my opinion as well," the incensed letter reads. "So please – take a hike and take your intolerance with you. There is no place for this type of hate in our great City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection.”
Kenney also said he'll introduce a resolution officially condemning both Cathy and Chick-fil-A.
Kenney's comments come after Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel backed a plan to block a new Chick-fil-A outpost from opening in the Windy City and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino vowed to stop the franchise's expansion there.
Meanwhile, there's a change.org petition trying to boot Chick-fil-A from the University of Kansas campus. Also, with regard to Emanuel's aforementioned opposition to Cathy and Chick-fil-A, conservative aggregator Matt Drudge currently has the following image and headlines at the top of his influential page.
The pairing implicitly suggests that Emanuel's pro-equality politics are somehow associated with the anti-semitic and racist rhetoric that comes out of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, which, by the way, is also homophobic. The two stories - one of which is about how NOI activists are joining a campaign to end gun violence - are unrelated, though Drudge would like readers to think otherwise.
Finally, Human Rights Campaign and its allies today picketed outside a Chick-fil-A food truck in Washington D.C. Here's an image from the protest. More on that later.
@Mary...sound familiar? It should, it's your inner self speaking.
Posted by: Paul B. | Jul 26, 2012 3:37:46 PM
There is also a change.org petition to have the chain removed from the food court at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis: http://www.change.org/petitions/iupui-remove-chick-fil-a-from-the-campus-center-food-court
Posted by: madmonkey | Jul 26, 2012 3:38:28 PM
Whoever this last "Mary" is, why don't you reveal who you are afterwards if you want to impersonate and joke about someone else's views? And for the record I'm not a closeted lesbian (although I did once have a lesbian crush on a certain "Dirty Dancing" actress - yes, but it was ONCE, and many years ago.)
You want to cause a setback for the gay marriage cause. Suit yourself. But don't say you weren't warned. Every time I caution against reckless action you keep acting as if I'm asking you to give up. Some people just hear what they want to hear.
Posted by: Mary | Jul 26, 2012 3:45:49 PM
@Gregoire -- I agree with you. I will boycott this vile company but barring them from doing business when they are in compliance with all applicable laws just because you disagree with the opinions of the leadership is not acceptable in my book. (Imagine if you had a company that was barred from operating in Tennessee because you supported same-sex marriage.)
Posted by: Dan | Jul 26, 2012 3:49:04 PM
I am surprised that Rahm Emanuel would take such a patently unsupportable constitutional position because politically, it may put Obama in a difficult position. No way Obama can agree with Emanuel from a constitutional standpoint. But if he disagrees, he puts himself in the awkward position of disagreeing with his former chief of staff and of appears to not be fully supporting marriage equality. Emanuel could have and should have simply supported the protests and boycotts without taking the extra step of denying licensing. At this point, if I were Emanuel, I would "clarify" my position or just say I was misquoted. I would absolutely not continue supporting the Alderman's position.
Posted by: Jacoby | Jul 26, 2012 4:13:12 PM
@Mary: Not sure who the "you" is you're warning? The politicians and many of those speaking out against Chick-Fil-A are straight people like yourself. What you label as "reckless", many other straight people see as necessary.
As for all the hysteria about the government stepping in to violate CFA's constitutional right to free speech, give me a break. Every politician and citizen has the same right to tell a discrimination-supporting country to take a hike. That's called an opinion. If Chick-Fil-A doesn't like that opinion they can fight back and try to open where they're not wanted.
Posted by: Ernie | Jul 26, 2012 4:54:30 PM
@Jacoby: Unless Emanuel has elaborated, I don't know what you think is unconstitutional about the statement he made yesterday? Basically he said that Chick-Fil-A values are not Chicago values. And they aren't. Just as Chick-Fil-A has said that marriage equality is not their value. Whether an alderman can actually block a business because it works to deprive people of civil rights (unlike pro-equality businesses who aren't working to deprive anyone of civil rights) is questionable, but until that step is taken we're talking about speech not action. And I'm not sure why Obama would feel compelled to weigh in at all on what Rahm is doing in Chicago. What would be the point?
Posted by: Ernie | Jul 26, 2012 5:52:10 PM
Ernie: I think Emanuel's mistake is in saying he backs the Alderman's plan to prevent Chick-Fil-A from setting up an outpost in Chicago. I agree there is nothing wrong in him saying it does not reflect Chicago's values. I think the issue is that if the government uses its licensing powers to deny a business a license because views expressed by the CEO are not "acceptable" that is contrary to the First Amendment. I think Obama gets involved because certain segments of the press can see political points being scored against Obama by asking him about it. He either has to take a position against the First Amendment or to oppose his former chief of staff and seem to not fully support gay marriage. Like I said, it is a pretty surprising statement from Emanuel who is normally pretty politically astute. If I were him, I would clarify immediately that he does not support the alderman or say he was misquoted before the issue gets picked up by more media outlets.
Posted by: Jacoby | Jul 26, 2012 6:54:20 PM
Spread the word to family, friend and co-workers and vote with your $. It always works!
Posted by: craig | Jul 26, 2012 8:43:11 PM
In the USA business owners like all citizens have the right to express what some people, myself included, consider insensitive and intolerant remarks. Other people then have the right to agree with those opinions and support their business or disagree with them and withdraw their support from that business. Everyone also has the right to try to get others to support or oppose that business owner. However government officials should do nothing to hinder that business as long as it is in compliance with laws and ordinances. I think that some remarks by mayors and councilmen have actually gained some sympathy for the family of bible thumpers named Cathy.
Posted by: andrew | Jul 26, 2012 9:21:13 PM
Chickens are gay.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 27, 2012 12:13:22 AM
IF being gay is protected by the laws of Chicago or Boston or Philadelphia then an argument could be made that the statements of Chich Fil A CEO create a hostile environment towards a protected class. A government should not allow business that foster a hostile environment towards some of their citizens into their cities.
Posted by: Armando | Jul 27, 2012 1:30:02 AM
@Armando: "If being gay is protected by the laws". Our laws don't protect any sexual orientation. Individuals have rights and obligations not categories of people. "Government should not allow business that fosters a hostile environment toward some of their citizens". You must want some kind of dictatorship. This gay man favors the free exchange of ideas and opinions in a democracy.
Posted by: andrew | Jul 27, 2012 3:45:53 AM
I have an idea. Why not allow Chick-Fil-A to open restaraunts in these cities, then donate the tax revenues from these locations to local LGBT charities? To me, that would be an even bigger slap in the face to this bigotted company than banning them.
Posted by: Ken | Jul 27, 2012 7:36:56 AM
Help us support the Jim Henson Company and their refusal to play a role in the funding of organizations who not only openly oppose gay marriage, but are also fighting to prevent it. August 1st is Muppet Appreciation Day!
http://www.facebook.com/events/254375927998230/permalink/254375931331563/?ref=notif¬if_t=like
Posted by: Lauren | Jul 27, 2012 9:36:49 AM
@Jacoby: The direct quotes from Emanuel (though I could have missed some) didn't reference denying Chick-Fil-A permits based on their views; the media implied that, as did the Alderman, but I'm not sure Emanuel did. And he certainly doesn't need to step back from his remarks about Chick-Fil-A's values. But if this becomes the media debacle you think it will for Emanuel (seems unlikely to me unless CFA starts fighting back instead of running scared), I still don't see why Obama would weigh in in any specific way on what is essentially a local and unpresidential issue.
Posted by: Ernie | Jul 27, 2012 10:44:06 AM