Thoughts on the Chick-Fil-A Controversy

1) The cities of Chicago and Boston would not be violating any law or constitutional provision, as far as I am aware, if they were to refuse to grant planning permission to a Chick-Fil-A outlet based on the political beliefs of the company’s President. States and their subdivisions (which include municipalities) have wide latitude under the Tenth Amendment to use their police power (which includes planning and licensing); the only barrier would be an Illinois or Massachusetts state law limiting what actions the city can take.

2) There are plenty of historical precedents for corporations being targeted for special regulation on account of their owners’ political activities. Companies which did business with Nazi Germany had assets seized and fines imposed under the Trading with the Enemy Act, and France’s state-owned rail company, SNCF, can’t bid for a contract to operate on California’s proposed high-speed rail network because its trains were commandeered by the Vichy Regime to transport French Jews to the death camps; California law requires companies doing business with the state to disclose any involvement in the Holocaust. There are also various federal laws governing industrial relations which deny access to arbitration by the NLRB to labour unions led by communists.

3) As a writer at the Nation has noted, the fact that the corporation donates money to anti-gay organisations means that this is not about the First Amendment rights of Chick-Fil-A’s President. Those who defend Chick-Fil-A are defending corporate personhood.

4) Denying planning permission to build an outlet of a fast food chain somewhere is not a violation of anyone’s rights. Glenn Greenwald poses a few hypothetical examples in this Salon piece to illustrate the dangers that would ensue if Congress were to criminalise the spending of money to advocate liberal causes. They aren’t relevant, because no-one is proposing sending the President of Chick-Fil-A to jail (or depriving him of any civil rights) for his views; planning permission to build a chicken franchise is an entitlement, not a right.