Some of you may recall a couple of years ago when some big city politicians announced that they would block Chik-Fil-E from opening up a store in their cities:
The uproar continues, and quite properly so (earlier here and here), over the threats of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago alderman Proco (“Joe”) Moreno to exclude the Chick-Fil-A fast-food chain because they disagree (as do I) with some of the views of its owner. Among the latest commentary, the impeccably liberal Boston Globe has sided with the company in an editorial (“which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand?…A city in which business owners must pass a political litmus test is the antithesis of what the Freedom Trail represents”), as has my libertarian colleague Tom Palmer at Cato (“Mayor Menino is no friend of human rights.”)
The spectacle of a national business being threatened with denial of local licenses because of its views on a national controversy is bad enough. But “don’t offend well-organized groups” is only Rule #2 for a business that regularly needs licenses, approvals and permissions. Rule #1 is “don’t criticize the officials in charge of granting the permissions.” Can you imagine if Mr. Dan Cathy had been quoted in an interview as saying “Boston has a mediocre if not incompetent Mayor, and the Chicago Board of Aldermen is an ethics scandal in continuous session.” How long do you think it would take for his construction permits to get approved then?
Given the amount of pushback they got, I had somewhat naively thought that we might not be going there again. As it turns out, though, that is not to be. The newest target is one Donald J Trump. In New York City:
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Monday that his city may not be able to break its business contracts with Donald Trump but will avoid future deals with the 2016 GOP contender.
“My impression is that unless there has been some breaking of a contract or something that gives us a legal opportunity to act, I’m not sure we have a specific course of action,” the Democratic mayor told reporters Monday, according to CNN and Capital New York.
“But we’re certainly not looking to do any business with him going forward,” de Blasio added.
And Washington DC:
A pair of Democratic lawmakers are petitioning the Obama administration to block GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump from showcasing his name on the businessman’s new hotel in Washington, D.C.
In a letter to the Department of Interior and General Services Administration (GSA), Reps. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Tony Cárdenas (D-Calif.) requested that Trump be prevented from having his name “prominently displayed” on the newly refurbished Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue, blocks from the White House.
“Trump’s recent and repeated remarks disparaging women, Mexican-Americans, and other Latinos are hateful, divisive and completely inaccurate,” the pair wrote to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and recently confirmed GSA Administrator Denise Turner Roth in a letter dated Aug. 13.
And, once again, in Boston:
Donald Trump, a reality TV star currently yelling crazy shit on his way through a Republican presidential primary while sporting a sad trombone haircut, is not welcome in Boston.
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh told the Boston Herald Monday that Trump would have to apologize to immigrants for his inflammatory comments.
“I think his comments are inappropriate. And if he wanted to build a hotel here, he’d have to make some apologies to people in this country,” said Walsh, the son of immigrants from Galway.
Each of these cases differ slightly from the others. But as much as I am not a fan of Donald Trump*, city contracts and business arrangements really should not depend on such things. I mean, really shouldn’t. We should at least be able to agree on that.
Given the givens, I have little issue with NBC using its pocketbook to cancel The Apprentice, or Macy’s to sever there relationship. But it does get different once we’re starting to talk about governments – even local ones – using their purse strings and regulatory levers to favor some people over others in such a fashion. Are there some circumstances in which I could imagine being okay with it? I don’t know… maybe? But not really. If their views are repugnant enough, there ought to be something behavioral that you can hang your hat upon.
Which doesn’t really work for Trump, of course, because as much as he hates illegal immigrants, one thing he doesn’t do is refuse to hire them.
This is pretty unlikely to be much of a slippery slope. First, because it’s unclear that they can even do what they’re talking about doing. It mostly looks like chest-thumping. But slope or so, this is the sort of thing that should be discouraged and opposed right out of the gate. Even if the “victim” is Donald Trump.
* – Hey Mike Rice, still waiting to hear an answer to the question of whether or not you are on Team Trump with Lion and Dave Hackensack.
About the Author
9 Responses to Yeah, Let’s Not Do This
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
I have a *little* sympathy for De Blasio’s position and for the idea that a municipality has greater discretion in terms of who it does business with and using that person’s public statements as one guideline for how it exercises that decision. But maybe any case I can think of for where I might have sympathy falls under “other things the government can hang its had on” part of things.
I say “a little” sympathy and not “a lot” because I don’t like the idea of the state deciding ahead of time (or even after the fact) what speech is acceptable. And perhaps I haven’t fully thought a lot of it through.
Individuals can and should be free not to patronize businesses whose policies they disagree with (then again, I suspect if some folks looked really closely at businesses, there’d be precious few that they could shop or eat at). But when city leaders start “banning” or “unwelcoming” or other things businesses that are legal otherwise…..well, it’s like restricting free speech, eventually everything gets banned.
Though I admit to wondering what will happen as more states legalize pot; will it be treated like liquor stores and not permitted to be within x distance of schools and such?
Also, big LOL for the “sad trombone haircut.”
Trumps lawyers will have a good time should any such city try to put those sentiments into action.
I have a theory that urban liberal office-holders are going to increasingly become to the Democratic coalition what rural state senators are to the Republican one.
Stalking horses?
People whose electoral accountability incentives are hugely different from that of a national party. Especially as it pertains to red meat.
No, I’m not on Team Trump just yet, but I don’t consider him to be a joke candidate unlike Over There.
I think he is spot-on regarding immigration, and he has obviously tapped into something with the Republican electorate.
I don’t think he is misogynist. Insulting the appearance of Rosie O’Donnell doesn’t make one a misogynist per se. Remember, Trump has never been accused of sexual harassment, never mind found guilty of it. Ask Bill Clinton what HIS record is regarding that. Get a Ouija Board and ask Ted Kennedy, who killed a woman.
It is important to remember that one must get a majority at the RNC in order to become the nominee. He will never get that in the first vote. However, once the first vote takes place, delegates are no longer bound to whomever they pledged to support. Will enough switch sides as their preferred candidates bow out? We will see.
Thanks for answering!
That scenario assumes the candidate isn’t determined prior to the convention. While the sheer number of candidates increases that probability, let’s remember that 1) it hasn’t happened in the modern primary era, and 2) we’re still a year away from the convention, and 5-6 months away from the first primaries (god willing and the states don’t go crazy). Candidates are going to start disappearing from any real consideration before that first convention, and then money will stop flowing to those who show poorly early on and redirect to the candidate the money likes, most likely producing a winner before the last primaries (unless all the states suddenly compress them so tightly there’s no time for that process to take place).
While recognizing the mathematical possibility of a brokered convention, I’d wager against it.