Some people — in comments, on Twitter and elsewhere — are defending what Emanuel and Menino are doing on the ground that the Chick-fil-A is not being punished for the views of its CEO, but because it donates money to Bad Groups (i.e., conservative groups), and since money is not speech, there is nothing wrong with this. Aside from the fact that the city officials do not even claim this to be the case (they’re open about the fact that they’re acting to punish the company for the political views of the CEO), suppose a town in Alabama or Montana or Central California were to enact this ordinance:
Any resident found to have donated money to a group advocating same-sex marriage or abortion rights — including, without limitation, Human Rights Campaign or Planned Parenthood — shall be barred from opening or operating a business in this city.
For those offering the defense I just referenced, what possible grounds would you have for objecting to such an ordinance (other than to say that it’s OK when the state punishes views that you dislike, not ones you like)?
” Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com (via ayjay)Notes
-
notanordinaryjoe likes this
-
pegobry reblogged this from ayjay
-
jxd1689 reblogged this from jpraxis
-
jxd1689 likes this
-
jpraxis reblogged this from beggarsalll
-
drfluellen likes this
-
robertogreco likes this
-
itbefellinthedays reblogged this from ayjay
-
adrieldiaz likes this
-
beggarsalll reblogged this from ayjay
-
elaienar likes this
-
ayjay posted this
