It’s Not Only About Gay Marriage

Sensible approach. Dan Cathy has every right to feel the way he does and to support whatever causes he wishes. He should also have every right to open a store here in SB as long as he follows all the relevant rules. However, since he uses the profits to support causes, folks who don't support those cause would be wise not to eat at his establishment. The food, from what I've heard is pretty mediocre at best.

While I agree Noletaman that withholding funds and patronage is the reasonable approach, this letter is over the top with hyperbole about "hate" and the juvenile ABR nuts exercising their right to abstain from voting. Stop with all of the extreme emotion, grow up, and send your food dollars to businesses that you agree with. In another post I made a comment about that great Progressive Rahm Emanuel stating that this franchise did not have "Chicago values" and then posing the next day with the great hater of Jews, Louis Farrakhan, for a photo opportunity to exemplify Chicago values? Being against Gay marriage is worse than openly being an anti-Semite?

The point is, as I pointed out to Pacific Pride this morning- the ABR members did NOT have a right to abstain. In fact even in legislative and judicial bodies, members only abstain when there is a conflict of interest.
Unless the ABR members had a financial tie to Chick Fill-A, it was inappropriate for them to do anything outside of their rubberstamping duties.
I certainly won't be helping fill the coffers of Cathy; but it's intellectually dishonest (tho perhaps politically advantageous to some) to condone the inappropriate actions of certain ABR members.
If Darika Larimore-Hall REALLY cared about the LGBT community, he'd hold Obama's feet to the fire in terms of his namby pamby "support" of marriage equality which is basically trying to have his cake and eat it too.
But it's much easier to get the low-hanging fruit. The Democratic Party as an establishment party has held gays, minorities and others hostage for decades now while only really making progress when they have to. I'm sure many Republicans feel the same way about their party.
I.E. Why wait til three years into your administration to lift Don't Ask Don't tell?
It's all BS.

What are "Chicago values"? Bootlegging? Beating protesters?

One reason might be ... younger generations have less of a problem with issues like same-sex marriage than their parents & grandparents. So one strategy might be, wait long enough and you might see the desired situation come around without expending political capital (which can be applied elsewhere).

I'm pretty sure these kinds of political calculations have been going on and both parties do it.

There are many LGBT community members with AIDS/HIV who use medicinal marijuana, where was Mr. Hall when these people were being attacked?
Let's just take the easy issues to show how Liberal we are .

@EB
Yeah I see and understand that strategy, it's just a strategy that has a negative impact on lives in the interim.

The ABR members did not have the "right" to abstain but certainly if Dan Cathy can "feel" a certain way, as described above by Daraka Larimore-Hall, then the ABR members would have had a 'duty' to abstain if they felt they could not objectively review Chic-Fil-A COO Dan Cathys' corporate franchise application.

And that would have been Dan Cathys' bad luck. That is if it were not for some magic that occurred at the City Staff level that approved discretionary landscaping plans all on their own. Perhaps the applicant modified their plan to conform to the zone and no further review was required. Let's just hope that staff didn't miss anything important like adding an electrostatic precipitator, or parking, or traffic, or housing, or some faux beautification element that Pearl Chase would have wanted.

Don's comment introduces the factor of institutionalized aesthetics. There are countless beautiful white adobe and red tile buildings in Santa Barbara, do we really need more? It is becoming less "enchanting" or "historical accurate" and more ubiquitous to the point of parody.
There are also many fine vintage Victorian and Craftsmen style buildings, can't we have maybe a few more of those? Maybe if we're really feeling frisky, something more modernistic yet human friendly and aesthetically pleasing.
While it's nice to have a "theme", even theme parks have variety.

I guess it's my mistake to confuse any political party with being the ACLU. Too bad they don't run a candidate.

"At a recent City of Santa Barbara Architectural Board of Review meeting, three individuals exercised their right to abstain from a vote on the local plans."

This is ENTIRELY false. This is NOT their right!

The ABR has a responsibility to perform their duty objectively on the merits of the project, not make decisions when to vote or not vote based on the politics of the owner of the project.

What if a physician refused to treat you because of your politics? Or a DMV employee refuse to test you because of your politics? Or your postman refused to deliver your mail because of your politics? How would you feel about that? Civil servants have no right to withhold their services because they don't like the people that request them.

Pacific Pride...a study in hypocrisy.

Lamenting the tragic path of death AIDS cuts while being proud of the promiscuity that causes it.

Have they ever taken a stance to encourage monogamy? (The best way to prevent AIDS) Equal rights is one thing, and every person on the planet is entitled to equal rights, but claiming you're helping gays while refusing to acknowledge the promiscuity that is linked with the spread of this horrible affliction and encouraging exhibitionist "pride" would be like the American Lung Association running cigarette ads on its website.

What are "Chicago values"? Bootlegging? Beating protesters?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2012 at 6:33 p.m

As my mother would joke "vote early and as often as you can". (I'm from Chicago)

Ken, you're on a roll, stealing my thunder. I too would like to see more Victorian (and for that matter) Georgian and Tudor (my favorite) architecture.

I just thought of something: I remember when Elia Kazan was being honored for his work a few years before he died (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elia_Kazan) and as I recall, it was at the Academy Awards. He of course was outstanding in his field but also was on the side of Joseph McCarthy during the "witch hunts" of the 1950's where if you were suspected of being a Communist, you're career could be ruined. When the time came for the people in the crowd to acknowledge the tribute, some stood up and clapped, some stayed in their seats in protest of his behavior during the McCarthy investigations, while others took a third path: They stayed in their seats and clapped--thus acknowledging his contributions to the film industry while protesting his political stance.

There is a lesson to be learned by this.

Botany seemingly has an underdeveloped sense of fairness and still does not understand the nuances of 'conflict of interest'

In this case, at a point that a board member figures out that they cannot objectively review, then they must abstain. That is their duty.

It is always the duty for civil servants to deliver the mail, process your drivers license application, or process your FPPC complaint; because there is no discretionary review.

Where's the conflict of interest here Don? Do the ABR members hold Chik-Fil-A stock? I don't see any. This had zero to do with any inability to do the review objectively and everything to do with hate for the politics of the owners of Chik-Fil-A. This review was a very routine matter for them. I don't think even any of the abstaining members would claim that they could not objectively review this project. It was a political decision and only that.

For Botany I guess, it is always about the Self and money.

But whether it is for love or money, or love of money, or love of marriage, or hate of gay marriage, one might find a conflict and difficult to be objective at any point in ABR (example) deliberations and as new information arises. Any inkling resulting in the possibility of impartiality that could not be overcome should result in a recusal if noticed early and abstention if impartiality is discovered later.

Don, it's about freedom of speech, nothing more, nothing less. And you seem to be very inclined to use government as a tool to limit it. For me, I'm not that inclined to give away our rights that way.

As a government-funded panel, the ADB board members did not have the right to let their personal views interfere with their governmental duties. The board is painfully slow (e.g. freeway overpass, Stearn's Wharf reconstruction, sewage plant, etc.) without going off-track.

The core issue at stake is freedom of speech and association. Both sides have a right to say what they want. But neither side has the right to force their views on the other. Which is why i support gay civil unions (or whatever) even though my religion opposes these unions. We are a country based on freedoms and should not have religious based restrictions hidden in laws.

Agree to disagree but let's chill-lax (as my kids like to say) and stop the hate talk on both sides.

"Don, it's about freedom of speech, nothing more, nothing less. And you seem to be very inclined to use government as a tool to limit it. For me, I'm not that inclined to give away our rights that way."
Don't forget that there are those that have not enjoyed the same rights you are so worried about losing for a long time now. When an idiot like the owner of chic fillet wants to open business espousing hate and intollerance for a group that has not enjoyed the same rights and freedom as you have, it is right for the community to check him and block his attempt at business in the 21st century, when we should have moved past this ignorance long ago.
'Nothing says you are against gay marriage like wrapping your hands around two buttery buns, spreading them open to enjoy a nice juicy piece of cock.' - john stewart

"When an idiot like the owner of chic fillet wants to open business espousing hate and intollerance for a group that has not enjoyed the same rights and freedom as you have, it is right for the community to check him and block his attempt at business"

We have a process for those that break the law. It's called the court system. If they are breaking the law, civil and criminal penalties may apply. That is the appropriate use of government for those that are breaking the law as you suggest. If they are not breaking the law and we do as you suggest. then we are just using government as a weapon against those we don't like, for whatever reason we like, without any due process of law.

As a registered Democrat in Santa Barbara County, I call for the immediate resignation of Darika Larimar-Hall for using his position as party chair to involve the Party in the controversy over a procedural issue in the City government; and stating as an "official", a position contrary to the concept of equal rights for all.
This isn't the first scandal involving Larimar-Hall, hopefully it will be his last representing SB Democrats.

the irony of all of this nonsense is that it us discrimination, plain and simple. While certain communities are outraged that an owner of a company could possibly have philosophical or political views contrary to their own, there is not one single instance where it has been shown that that BUSINESS ever discriminated against anybody. You can't find a single complaint from workers or patrons to support such a claim.

Yet, those same communities, grandstanding and pandering to certain agendas, are now blatantly discriminating against a BUSINESS that is guilty of nothing. Denying a permit because you don't agree with the owner's beliefs? WTF? When all of this is said and done, the communities that did this are going to get sued for discrimination - big time, and it is going to be a slam dunk win for the attorneys representing the BUSINESS.

You very likely don't truly know what philosophical beliefs the owner of any business holds, yet as long as they do not discriminate in their hiring practices or with the public, it makes no difference. Which is exactly how it should be.

What kind of world do you want to live in? Should you have to submit to a test of your own personal beliefs to get a business license, or to build a store? Who decides that criteria? Nonsense.

" ... there is not one single instance where it has been shown that that BUSINESS ever discriminated against anybody."
-- cartoonz

Fortune Magazine did a story on Chick-fil-A in 2007. Their research showed there had been 12 discrimination suits filed against CFA since 1988. One case that was settled is briefly described:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/072...

Note that these suits were against the corporate parent, not the franchise operations. No info was provided on the latter.

Fortune also recently published an article on the Cathy family:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareocon...