Indeed guys...Of course advertisementese can be be a very sneaky and tricksy language to decipher and one fraught with pitfalls for it's intended audience.
Noticed this from a legal blog which points out a first amendment issue for Chicago or Boston blocking Chick-Fil-A from getting a permit or building a restaurant. One that is very relevant.
There's a fair bit more at the the Volokh conspiracy (Link below) which does state that the only way they could be denied a permit would be if Chicago could prove that Chick-Fil-A had discriminated in hiring or in serving people in Chicago. However as Eugene Volokh notes if the main reason they are going after Chick-Fil-A is for the owners speech (however objectionable it may be) the Government of Chicago will not have any legally defensible reason for denying Chick-Fil-A a permit.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-bui ... -marriage/
--Werehawk--
My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."
Noticed this from a legal blog which points out a first amendment issue for Chicago or Boston blocking Chick-Fil-A from getting a permit or building a restaurant. One that is very relevant.
Eugene Volokh Wrote:....denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, -snip- It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.
And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (-snip-). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (-snip-), seem to either not know or not care about the law.
There's a fair bit more at the the Volokh conspiracy (Link below) which does state that the only way they could be denied a permit would be if Chicago could prove that Chick-Fil-A had discriminated in hiring or in serving people in Chicago. However as Eugene Volokh notes if the main reason they are going after Chick-Fil-A is for the owners speech (however objectionable it may be) the Government of Chicago will not have any legally defensible reason for denying Chick-Fil-A a permit.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-bui ... -marriage/
--Werehawk--
My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."