Chicago Alderman OKs plan to let Chick-fil-A build after it promises to end anti-gay donations

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2012 3:18 p.m.

    Say Halleluhiah!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 21, 2012 10:28 a.m.


    God works in mysterious ways.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 8:09 p.m.


    it can happen.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 5:01 p.m.

    "Wow, this is rather a surprising development." RandHand, Tolstoy and I agree.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 4:45 p.m.


    I'm surprised that CFA changed their stance. Politicians shouldn't be using their positions to force anybody to shut up or change their position politically.


    Tolstoy explained it. I'm not surprised you didn't hear much about it; the conservatives who were so vocal about CFA had, like I said, *crickets* to say about the issue. Which goes to show that their vaunted "CFA appreciation day" wasn't about free speech at all, but about support of CFA's anti-gay agendas.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 3:08 p.m.


    it was a governmental official in Maryland that wrote a letter on official government letterhead to he Baltimore ravens insisting that they silence one of their players for speaking out in support of gay marriage. while I do not think it justifies the chicago governmental officials behavior, I to find it deeply hypocritical that the DN refused to run even one story on the incident in Maryland. The really strange bart of the DN not running it was that it was actually a democrat representative that did it which you could of all had a field day with. As a democrat I would argue that the fact however remains that his political affiliation as with the incident in chicago is not the determining factor of weather the behavior was wrong or not they where both wrong regardless.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 2:57 p.m.


    I too was unaware of that development. I agree Moneno should not be using his elected office to intimidate people into compliance. I strongly disagree with chick fil a but as I did at the time i support their right to express their views without fear of government reprisal. I think it is important to remind people that does not however mean they are above non- governmental organizations and private citizens voicing their disapproval of their position.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    Please enlighten regarding "sportsmen being denied their free speech by congressmen on official letterhead"

    I have never heard of the story and am curious to know what it is.

    If a government official is indeed denying the right to freedom of speech, than he is in the wrong - but I do not know the details of the story in order to confirm that is the case

    We may have a nexus of agreement

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    Tolstoy: That's what I thought, too. However, if you read the article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune, Moreno is touting how he "scored a 'big win'" and got Chick-fil-A to agree to change it's stance, and therefore, they can now build.

    Interesting comment in the Chicago Tribune about the article says it best:

    "Though I could not disagree more with Chick-fil-A's stance on marriage equality, it offends me that Moreno evidently extracted this promise from the corporation as a condition of their doing business in his ward.

    How would any of us good liberals feel if some right-wing city councilman deep in Red State America extracted a promise from, say, a muffler shop to stop offering financial support to, say, Planned Parenthood as a condition of doing business in his community.

    We'd feel outraged."

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    No what is surprising is that the LA times and DN is trying to rewrite history with this spin. The government official backed down months ago when the original controversy happened because he was roundly criticized by people from both sides of this debate for overstepping his bounds not after this meeting between the gay rights group and chick fil a

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 9:01 a.m.

    Ranchhand: What do you find most surprising about it? Surprising that a group of people can effectively deny another from it right to build because they disagee in their priciples and beliefs? Or surprising that a government official can block someone from conducting business in "his area" because they disagee in their priciples and beliefs? Surprising that Chick-fil-A would change their stance because they have been forced to in exchange for the option to build? Or surprising that such things could happen when the whole concept of "freedom of expression" is screamed about on a regular basis by both sides of every debate?

    Maybe this is the post you're looking for...

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 8:20 a.m.

    Too bad. They should keep being vocal and donating to good causes. I know I will. No need to cave to the intolerant demands of the left.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 6:56 a.m.

    Wow, this is rather a surprising development.

    I am still waiting for conservatives to stand up for the free speech of sportsmen being denied their free speech by congressmen on official letterhead. All I've heard so far is *crickets*.