Chick-fil-A Coming to Santa Barbara

I stand with Kermit The Frog.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07...

That is one great anti-gay samich. Doesn't sound so appetizing after all.

Does frog really taste like chicken?

Should be Dude-Fil-A.....get it???

So let me see...the mayor of Boston doesn't like the politics of the owner of a business so he/she deprives them of the right to make a living...now *that's* mature. What next?...

What is shocking to me is the fact that Burger King--an American fast-food icon on a par with McDonalds and Jack In The Box is closing shop here. Maybe all the regulations and high costs associated with the privilage of doing business in Santa Barbara did them in. (?)

Lousy food being replaced with lousy food. Regardless of the superstitious, ignorant, and barbaric owners' Neanderthal and theocratic politics, I would have never eaten there anyway. With all the great restaurants in this town, do we really need more fast food trash?

Hey Eck, have you tried the new Turkish cafe owned by the Muslim family? Can't wait to read your restaurant review on that one too. Please rank top ten PC chefs in town so that I'll know where to eat.

If the food is good, I'll be there, Muslim, Christian, Atheist. (Some of us don't need to ban businesses whose ideas conflict with ours)

I have a great idea to reach a peace agreement: Let the family who owns the cafe Scooter mentioned by out Burger King and serve Turkey Burgers. (I couldn't pass that one up)

"buy out"

I was about to post "I'd rather eat flies", but flies will be their only customers.

This 2007 Forbes article, "The Cult of Chick-fil-A", is pretty interesting:

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

It says you pretty much have to demonstrate you're a devout Christian to become a franchise owner (they are not subject to Federal employment discrimination laws).

The article mentions one Muslim store manager settled with Chick-Fil-A in 2000 after he was fired for refusing to participate in a group prayer (to Jesus) at a corporate training program.

Chick-Fil-A apparently is more careful when it comes to hourly workers, but read the article to see what you have to do (or not be) to get a job.

:" Maybe all the regulations and high costs associated with the privilage of doing business in Santa Barbara did them in. (?)"
-- billclausen

Just asking questions, eh Bill? No attempt to push an agenda by appearing to just ask a question ... whose premise is loaded. I suggest you man-up and actually assert your position.

OK SezMe: S.B. is very highly regulated and businesses can't afford the regulations. Perhaps this was the case with Burger King. I'm not a big fan of the politics in S.B. There, now you know where I stand.

We are a country with many choices and viewpoints. I may not agree with their anti-gay viewpoint such as spoken by a member of Chick-Fil-A's board but I defend their right to say it.

I don't believe cities should have the right to forbid a business for expressing their view. SB is such a diverse city which is why I love it so. The local politics do play into my demented sense of humor though. A city that tries to be inclusive to all but is still discriminatory to the few that don't subscribe to the utopian view

We seem to be more apt to defend the rights of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a blatantly terrorist organization, than we do the rights of nutty Christians...kinda strange...

Monday’s ABR review was at the Consent hearing. The two current consent reviewers did not abstain from reviewing Chick-Fil-A due to “scheduling conflicts”, they were in fact at the hearing and reviewed all the other consent agenda items, but as a protest against the company’s president’s stance on marriage equality. A third, willing, ABR member was recruited and reviewed the project after Monday’s regular meetings.

@italiansurg: "We seem to be more apt to defend the rights of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a blatantly terrorist organization, than we do the rights of nutty Christians...kinda strange..."

Even stranger - that people believe utter nonsense like this...

The constitution says; no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Too bad this standard cannot apply to the public sector especially when using public roads, bridges and other public amenities. I mean, on your own private island or in your own private Idaho perhaps discrimination based on a religion test could be tolerated when it comes to employment.

It's time for Santa Barbara's mayor, Helene Schneider to take note of Boston's mayor and follow his lead.

http://i.imgur.com/VSW8L.png

There's no room for Chick-Fil-HATE in Santa Barbara.

Yes, They do seem to be quite the zealous haters of whatever doesn't match up with their idea of societal norms.
Their hiring and management/franchisee selection criteria appear to be discriminatory, biased and outright homophobic...are they closet queens?
most likely.

I wonder if y'all would feel differently if chick fil a's president had announced that he opposed inter-racial marriages as well as same-sex marriages. The way I see it, you're just as much of an evil bigot if you oppose one as the other. This became a public matter the moment Cathy publicly announced his hatred of gays and lesbians, and it is entirely appropriate for the City to decide whether his business should have a presence here. BTW, the property owner, McColm Family Trust, is a hardcore, evangelical Christian group that delights in traveling to the Third World and bothering people.

its chicken sandwiches served up by some 91 year old dude who is having a hard time getting his head around gay marriage. bfd.

how is that a surprise? he's an old time baptist. he's not even used to gays...let alone gay marriage.

bring your chicken sammies and waffle fries old timer, i'll bring my tolerant ass by and chow down.

@banjo ... not sure that's the correct family.

Public records show the trustees for the McColm Family Trust are Robert & Barbara McColm of Santa Barbara. Their trust owns a considerable amount of commercial and residential property in town.

Something tells me this isn't going to go over well with the citizenry. Their chicken is better than KFC...not that that's saying much.

If you say a company can't locate here because of the personal views of it's leadership, it's just as bad as saying a company can't locate here because of the race of it's leadership. They have a right to free speech just like everyone else does. We also have the right to patronize or not patronize any establishment we wish to. If they were choosing who to hire or who to serve based on the views of their leadership, it would be a different story, but that's not the case.

In the meantime, I'll have a fudgepack chicken sandwich to go please.

In the end, they're just another outside corporation sucking money out of our community and using it to oppress members of our community.

@botany: "If you say a company can't locate here because of the personal views of it's leadership, it's just as bad as saying a company can't locate here because of the race of it's leadership."

It's not that same thing. At all. Even remotely. Race is not a choice. Bat-crazy ignorance is a choice. Case in point...

@botany: "I'll have a fudgepack chicken sandwich to go please."

Have as many as you like! As long as you're eating and not talking, the world is better off. Although based on the lack of class shown in this comment, I can reasonably assume that you talk with your mouth full.

"If they were choosing who to hire or who to serve based on the views of their leadership, it would be a different story, but that's not the case."
-- Botany

If you check out the 2007 Forbes article (link posted above) its says:

"Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts."

In addition, there was the case of the Muslim manager I mentioned previously, which was settled out of court.

Is this a smoking gun? Maybe. But given the picture painted by Forbes, I would have expected more discrimination charges from hourly and salaried employees of the franchisees.

How about we vote with our pocket book, leave PC crap alone, and not patronize the place instead of worrying about the rest of this drivel? And, I agree with KV that we will have a better local economy if we always make the effort to patronize local options whenever possible.

Note that the Forbes article did not check on discrimination suits against franchisees, just the corporate parent. But one might expect that any suit against a franchisee would also include the parent.

We must respect The Bill of Rights regardless of the garbage people like to say or practice. To each their own, and different strokes for different folks is what I say.

The very first government issued marriage licenses were done in the south as a way to oppose inter-racial marriage.

Maybe we should just go back to the days when marriage was a RELIGIOUS ceremony and allow individuals to voluntarily contract with one another in such a way that gays and straights all have the same rights with regards to everything from sharing of assets and visitation preferences to children. If anybody wants to get married, go to a church that agrees to perform the ceremony. Done. Finito. Get the government OUT of the marriage business completely.

I'm a big believer in the idea of "voting with one's feet."

I support Gay rights, but seldom eat fast food and am unlikely to eat there. However, if someone wishes to do so, that's their right as well. If right wing types squawked about Ben & Jerry's "leftist" policies, would anyone take seriously calls to boycott/picket etc.?
I do think "hate" gets tossed around a bit too easily. I don't agree with their (CFA's) positions, but don't think that the rest of the world is 100% in accord with mine either.

I read an article about a halal butcher shop (with a largely non-Muslim, mostly Latino clientele) in the LAT the other day. Can anyone imagine the hue and cry if something similar were to open in animal-loving SB? Would such protests then be "hateful" or be seen as examples of anti-religious "bigotry?"

East Beach -It's not that same thing. At all. Even remotely. Race is not a choice. Bat-crazy ignorance is a choice."

Being Catholic, gay or Muslim is a choice? So it's OK to discriminate against them? Just like you think it's OK to discriminate against someone because you don't like their politics?

And obviously, you really believe a person is guilty until proven innocent. Does an accusation of discrimination amount to guilt? Please name one large corporation that's never been sued for discrimination and I'll agree with you.

Loonpt hits the nail on the head. The government should not be in the business of marriage. That way, everyone has equal rights in that context.

The idea of banning someone from running a business because their views are offensive is a scary slide down a slippery slope. What next? "This person is a right-wing conservative and we have no room for their elitist politics so we won't grant them a license.

Ironically, in left-of-center S.B. the issue will probably self-correct when people simply boycottt the business. Money talks.

Especially a government banning a business for political reasons. It's worse than a slippery slope, it's already in the mud.

People have a choice to patronize the businesses they choose and for any reason they choose. They don't need government telling them what businesses they can patronize because the people in that government don't like the politics of the people running that business.

@Botany ... you have missed my point.

Reread my post. You said:

"If they were choosing who to hire or who to serve based on the views of their leadership, it would be a different story, but that's not the case."

I took that to mean you are saying it's OK for the owner to believe whatever he wants to believe, but its *NOT* OK for him to discriminate in hiring practices or in the workplace.

If that's what you meant, I actually agree.

I simply was pointing out that the Forbes article says Chick-Fil-A has *INDEED* been found guilty of discrimination in the workplace multiple times according to U.S District Court records.

I have no idea what your rant about ethnicity is about. If you think I believe any form of discrimination is acceptable, you are way off base.

In the end, I'm more concerned about parking fees at the beach than this.

I'm more afraid of politicians who would discard the freedoms of speech and religion to punish Chick Fil A than I am of some doddering old chicken magnate who is on the wrong side of history and the issue.

The two Architectural Board of Review commission members should lose their jobs/appointments for expressing a bias/political position in refusing to vote on this matter. The excuse that they could not be unbiased should not be accepted since they should only base their review on the appropriate information, not the applicants religious views.

East Beach - "I have no idea what your rant about ethnicity is about. If you think I believe any form of discrimination is acceptable, you are way off base."

On this point we can agree. So what's the problem? Chick-Fil-A can bring their business to our town without being discriminated against. Glad we got that settled.

I love this notion that a company that has blatant discrimminatory policies is somehow just exercising its right to free speech, and how people offended by those horrific policies are just being 'PC'.

The simplestic and ignorant lives some of you lead....

It has not been proven that their policies are discriminatory, and that's not for you or me or the city of Santa Barbara to decide. That's an issue for the courts. And even if the discrimination is proven, the remedy or punishment is also decided by the courts. But the idea that a governmental entity such as the city could engage in such discrimination because they don't like the politics of the corporate executives is even more horrific. If the city tells companies with certain political views they can't do business here, what's to prevent them from telling people with certain political views they can't live here either? Government is meant to represent ALL of us. Government also needs to be held to a higher standard.

Utter nonsense. If you choose to throw common sense out the window and sugar coat this as some "political disagreement", fine. But I have desire to go down that road.

This isn't matter of political differences. It's a matter of not tolerating intolerance. Period. This isn't some slippery slope... this is COMPLETELY black and white.

@Botany: "Government is meant to represent ALL of us."

And to protect our community from despicable companies like Chik-Fil-A.

EatTheRich - "And to protect our community from despicable companies like Chik-Fil-A. "

If you can't see how discriminatory and judgmental your statements are, you are truly blind. You see governement as a weapon to promote your political agenda. And if people disagree, they get shut out.

@Botany: "If you can't see how discriminatory and judgmental your statements are, you are truly blind. You see governement as a weapon to promote your political agenda. And if people disagree, they get shut out."

I'm not the blind one here, buddy. If this were a different era, I think it's pretty clear which side of the fire hoses you would be on.

So let's say Chik-Fil-A had the same policies for the Irish. Or Jews. Or Portuguese. Or African-Americans. Would opposition to those policies be a "political agenda"? Absolutely not. But somehow, for the LGBT community, it's perfectly acceptable.

But it's pretty cute, the way you frame Chik-Fil-A as some victim of us horrible people who want everyone in our community treated equally and *not* subjected to the homophobic practices of a bigoted company. Did I say cute? I meant vile and disgusting.

The difference is that you are transferring the political beliefs of the senior management into a perceived corporate policy of discrimination. They have no such policy. And if they did, it would be up to the courts to decide if that was the case, not you or the city of Santa Barbara. The courts would then decide the remedy and the punishment, again not you or the city of Santa Barbara. We are supposed to have due process here, which you seem inclined to forget or ignore. You want to find the corporation guilty for the personal beliefs of it's management without any kind of due process whatsoever. That's not what our country is all about.

Leave the government out of this. The free market can and will handle it. People can choose to vote with their money. If not enough people patronize the business, it will fail and leave town. Problem solved, and in a voluntary way.

The passive 'vote with your wallet' or "free market" concept works best for right wing fascists selling chicken sandwiches and with big fat wallets. For fairness and democracy we need progressive leadership.

Progressive sounds more like fascism. Since when did gays become militant? And how would Martin Luther King handle this situation? By using the government to enforce laws that pleased him or by shaming his enemies with kindess and love? These so called Christians that believe it is their right to put other people down and judge them must have missed some key parts of Jesus's teachings, because I have seen more Christ like features in their so called opponents than in them.

You can't ensure rights for a group of people by destroying 1st Amendment rights for everyone else. Totally in support of boycotting Chick Fil A but government interference/punishment due to speech is unconstitutional as oped boards/legal scholars across the country have begun saying about actions by officials in Chicago and Boston.

For so many of the commenters who really hate Chick Fil A, how is what he said different than what the President was saying up until a short while ago. The answer is its not and if you were not this riled up then, you might actually be a pretty intolerant/prejudiced person. You set a standard for old man chicken a private businessmen that you wouldn't apply to the person you voted for last election.

Personally, I think it's sheer stupidity for someone in authority in a company to use their position as a pulpit to espouse their personal opinions. But for a governmental body to take action to essentially block that company from doing business in their community based on that person's personal viewpoint in totally irresponsible. Let the community decide whether to patronize that business or not. Government's duty is not to select the businesses it's citizens should or should not patronize based on the political viewpoints of it's management.

For clarification: If Chicken Fillet or whatever-it's-called discriminates either in its hiring, or who it serves, then they should not be allowed to operate. If they hold political, social, or religious views we don't like then the government needs to stay out of their business if that is their only transgression.

But when the owner's personal beliefs translate into company policies & practices that violate Federal law (i.e. The Civil Rights Act and The Americans with Disabilities Act) then they need to be prosecuted.

As Forbes has reported, there is evidence Chick-Fil-A has done just that (few details provided but the Muslim manager who refused to pray to Jesus when asked is a smoking gun).

One of the reasons Chick-Fil-A has been able to walk a fine line is because of the unusual way they operate. Their franchisees are for practical purposes employees who have profit-sharing ... CFA owns all the restaurants and pays all the costs of setting up and upgrading the store. And the franchise fee is ridiculously low ($5,000) when compared to the millions others franchise operations charge.

But the employee is still technically a franchisee so is not covered under Federal discrimination laws. CFA can therefore select only Christian franchisees if they want. If they were employees, that would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act.

However, CFA's unique style of franchising has also allowed it to become an enormously successful business as described here:

http://www.ajc.com/business/chick-fil...

CFA is right up there with McDonald's which is arguably one of the top fast-food operations in the world.

I agree with you billclausen, you squeezed your post in before I could finish mine.

East Beach - Just a few questions? Whose responsibility is it do decide if they have committed a criminal act. Does that responsibility belong to the city of Santa Barbara? Should the decision to ban them be base just based on accusation, conviction or settlement? And if they were banned of the basis of alleged discrimination, should the ban be applied equally to all companies that have had similar complaints, settlements or convictions of discrimination?

People AND corporations are guaranteed due process and equal treatment under the law. It really appears that many here seem anxious to deny them that. They rationalize that by claiming that others have been discriminated against and that justifies discriminating against them solely based upon complaints of such discrimination. This is a classic case of two alleged wrongs making a right.

@Botany ... I'll take your question at face value.

I'm not a lawyer, but if you've read the Forbes article, you'll note that employment and other types of discrimination is a violation of the Civil Liberties Act and the Chick-Fil-A cases were brought in U.S. District Courts. So the simple answer is a federal judge and jury.

As for the rest of your post, I assume it's directed at someone else. I've expressed zero opinions related to banning CFA and have no interest in that issue.

Botany-Surely you know better than to think that "Progressives" want due process applied here. For goodness sake, CFA as a company must be evil and therefore they should have no rights because we do not like what their personal beliefs appear to be...

This is what happens when your corporate executives use their positions as a pulpit to espouse their personal opinions. I respect their right to do so, but highly recommend against it.

http://news.yahoo.com/chick-fil-vice-...

According to what Eat the Rich is saying we should also never allow Target to establish themselves in Santa Barbara, as they are strongly discriminating against Heterosexual marriage by pushing the Homosexual Agenda. Fair enough!

Eat The Rich: Not ONE instance of discrimination against homosexuals has been proved against Chick-Fil-A. You are just a hateful person who is intolerant of other's opinions.

In the vein of typical Liberal group-think I will say this: Don't like Chick-Fil-A? Don't eat there. But leave the rest of us to our own choices. After all, you are the champions of "Choice", aren't you?