Why the Chick-fil-A Controversy Raises Tough Questions About Government Power to Regulate Business

Justia.com ^ | 8/1/12 | Micael C. Dorf

[DallasBiff]

I agree with the analyses of Oman and Volokh, given the facts as they appear. Nonetheless, as I shall explain in this column, the Chick-fil-A controversy raises a question that will often prove vexing, because the speech of businesses and their representatives can be a legitimate concern of local government for two main reasons: First, speech manifesting bias may hint at illegal conduct manifesting the same bias; and second, in many circumstances private speech may implicate the government itself

[DallasBiff]

Michael C. Dorf, another twisting pretzel like John Roberts in the making.

What is up with these lawyers who cannot see the difference between liberty and tyranny.

[IronJack]

speech manifesting bias may hint at illegal conduct manifesting the same bias;

"Hint" all you want. First of all, it's arguable that the "bias" this hints at should be any of the government's business anyway. Secondly, since when is "hinting" at a crime the same as the crime?

The fact is, the government has NO RIGHT to regulate speech at a business. None.

[Nifster]

what an ass. The ‘speech’ of business is NONE of the government’s bidness. Besides, Mr. Cathy made it clear he was expressing a personal opinion NOT the position of his bidness. Not only does Chick-Fil-A NOT discriminate against homosexuals they hire them if they are the right worker

[darkangel82]

I read this idiocy yesterday. If he made this ignorant and stupid argument in court he’d be found in contempt.

[Pollster1]

First, speech manifesting bias may hint at illegal conduct manifesting the same bias

Good point. I heard that Chik-Fil-A refuses to conduct "weddings" for gay customers!

[MrBambaLaMamba]

You’d think that the gay community would embrace Chick-fil-A as they do love the cock.

[DesertRhino]

“speech manifesting bias may hint at illegal conduct manifesting the same bias;”

So we in conservative states like Texas may initiate investigations of those who advocate legalization of drugs, sex with minors, etc?
After all, that speech hints at illegal conduct.

[DesertRhino]

“Secondly, since when is “hinting” at a crime the same as the crime? “

What I love about the left is that they always naively think that only THEY may use such cool theories. Wonder what he would think if TEXAS decides to investigate an advocate of sharia (after all,, his speech hints that he might support jihad) Or an advocate of open borders (after all, theres a hint he might be a human trafficker), etc etc. Target has a gay marriage registry, maybe this hints they are supporting NAMBLA,,surely we may simply “investigate” deeper?
Our side could have a lot of fun with this!

[DesertRhino]

I commented on his blog, asking if we could then use his “speech hints at crime” justification to also investigate Muslims, gay organizations, open border advocates, drug legalization advocates, etc.

I was polite, and did not use profanity or threats. I only asked a pointed question. Yet, my question did not survive his moderation. Soooo, it appears a Harvard Lawyer, a Harvard Debate Captian, a former USSC clerk for Justice Kennedy, and Cornell Law prof could not respond my argument!

I will now happily answer any and all law questions here on FR, since i have defeated in debate such a legal scholar! I may even be qualified to argue at the USSC now! Hahhhvvard must be easy. I always suspected, but now i know.

[DallasBiff]

I commented on his blog, asking if we could then use his “speech hints at crime” justification to also investigate Muslims, gay organizations, open border advocates, drug legalization advocates, etc. I was polite, and did not use profanity or threats. I only asked a pointed question. Yet, my question did not survive his moderation. Soooo, it appears a Harvard Lawyer, a Harvard Debate Captian, a former USSC clerk for Justice Kennedy, and Cornell Law prof could not respond my argument!

Like I said another John Roberts in the making. At least Kennedy voted against Obamacare, Harriet Myers would have been much better.

[Josephat]

I believe Justia.com is the same site that removed all reference to Minor vs. Happerstet(sp), the Supreme Court case that defined Natural Born Citizen. Don’t think I would trust anything that they put forth.

[rwa265]

If he continues to write inane commentary such as this, he may cause the creation of a new expression - What a Dorf.

[Salvation]

Meet S. Truett Cathy, The 91-Year-Old Billionaire Behind Chick-Fil-A

Some history and historical pictures at the source of this FR thread.

[FlingWingFlyer]

I don’t know who the hell these two-bit, Nazi “mayors” think they are telling a business that they cannot set a franchise in their town. That’s not a mayor’s job. They all need to be thrown out on their asses.

[Mack the knife]

Y’all missed the gem in his “academic paper”:

---

After all, as I have argued at length in a recent academic paper, laws forbidding same-sex marriage can reasonably be understood as conveying a pernicious social meaning—suggesting that LGBT Americans are merely entitled to second-class citizenship.

---

I heard the same drivel last night on Hannity from an angry black man. There is absolutely no tolerance for an opposing view - anyone who disagrees is non-human.

Of course, the outrage is selective - Obama professed the opinion that homosexual marriage should not be legal until a few weeks ago, but he wasn’t attacked for that position.