Attorney's analysis of TCRA's Discrimination Case against Chick-Fil-A [ no legitimate case]

[Regarding Chicago-based LGBT group and their legal filings against Chick-Fil-A, charging discrimination: This legal analysis believes there is no real case:]

The complaint does not allege at all that any of the unnamed Complainants were denied service at a Chick-fil-A location, denied employment at a Chick-fil-A location, or made to feel unwelcome at said location by the actions and omissions of ... employees because of their sexual orientation.

In fact, it’s not even clear from the Complaint than any of them have ever actually visited a Chick-fil-A...

The entire basis for the discrimination claim here is because of what the owners of the company happen to do with the money that they earn from the business. How can it possibly be “discrimination”...

"It’s fairly clear that the “hostile speech” that is the basis in this Complaint does not fall within any of criteria...

Cathy’s comments, as well as the contributions that are made ...are not directly to any specific member of a protected class...

It is also clear that no reasonable person would consider comments made by a corporation officer located in Georgia to a religious magazine about his personal opinions on a matter of public controversy were an indication that Chick-fil-A wants to deny services or employment to people who happen to be gay.

Finally, there’s no evidence that the statements are motivated by a desire to exclude people because they are homosexuals...

There is not, however, a legitimate claim of discrimination here and TCRA is clearly just using the Chick-Fil-A controversy to draw attention, and quite likely donations, to itself."

I pray the judge who presides over the case is as intelligent as is this attorney by the name of Mataconis:

What an example of a robust and clear mind, given to reason and logic!

This ought to be the ruling summary in the case.

From the link;

“Since it is against Illinois law to discriminate against a protected class and the company had a history of discrimination against minorities, Alderman Moreno made clear his conviction of protecting Chicago residents. “It’s my responsibility, as a community representative, to have responsible businesses [in my Ward], and part of that responsibility is to not have [a business with] discriminatory policies” Moreno told Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” yesterday. “I’m not going to back off.”
The dialogue between TCRA and Chick-fil-A stalled once the news of Dan Cathy’s comments broke. “I spoke to a Senior Vice President the week before Dan Cathy’s comments hit the press. Since then, we have not been able to get a hold of anyone at Chick-fil-A,” stated Meister.
The Civil Rights Agenda is quick to point out that this is not a First Amendment Issue. “The complaint has nothing to do with freedom of speech or religious liberty as some might suggest,” insists Martinez. “This is about Chick-fil-A having a policy, a corporate culture, which promotes discrimination. The COO in his personal capacity can say or think whatever he wants, it may be hateful, but it is his right. But when he speaks on behalf of the company, and the company starts implementing policy that reflects that hatred it is against the law in Illinois.””

“but do you agree that there are serious First Amendment issues with TCRA’s complaint of discrimination?”

Oh! The complaint is preposterous! I should have added a comment when I posted that snippet.

Oh , yes, I understand now clearly that what you posted does show the gay advocacy’s complaint and their opinion that it is in violation of Illinois state law.

Yes, very important! (I had mistakenly thought you were trying to show that you believed it really was in violation of IL law ;) I gotcha now ;-) Thanks for your input. :-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.