A New York State of Mind
London has the world’s attention this week, not New York,
thanks to the Olympics which chose the British capital over NYC as host city. The gold medal
for chutzpah, however, goes to Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He already holds the award for self-financing
a campaign ($108 million) against an opponent who spent less than one-tenth the dollars and came within
4.5 points of beating him. The mayor’s
penchant for dictating what New Yorkers can consume made headlines again this
week.
The billionaire businessman turned politician first had New
York City restaurants ban the use of trans fats in 2006. The mayor’s next proposal this past May would
ban large sodas from being sold in the Big Apple. This week the mayor suggested that hospitals stop
feeding baby formula to newborns
as a way to encourage breast feeding. From
a health and medical perspective having fewer trans fats, consuming less sugary
soda and having babies breast fed is probably the healthier alternative. Having the Government decide these choices, however,
is something else again.
It was surprising, then, to find the nation’s nanny-mayor
not jumping on the anti-Chick-Fil-A brigade like majors in Boston, Chicago,
Philadelphia and San Francisco (amongst others).
“You can’t have a test for what the owners’ personal views
are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city. You really
don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a
permit. That’s just not government’s job.”
Refreshing comments from Mayor Bloomberg – the same guy who does have government
tell people what to eat. That’s chutzpah
New York style.
The Cathy Family
owns the chicken chain and caused a stir when Dan Cathy said: “Well, guilty as charged," in an interview
when asked about Chick-fil-A’s opposing gay marriage. Twitter and Facebook ignited in a furor with
boycotts on the one side and celebrations on the other. Yesterday was “appreciation day”
where throngs of people went to the fast food chain to show their support. This occurred in largely in response to big city
mayors saying the company wasn’t welcome in their towns.
The U.S. economy is structured around supply and demand. Businesses must operate under a variety of
regulations (work practices, industry specific rules, etc.). Freedom of speech is a cherished right and principal. The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that corporations/not-for-profit organizations/unions, etc. could
participate financially in the electoral process. Mitt Romney summarized that decision in his infamous
quote: “corporations are people.” Well, not quite.
Business owners have the right to express their
viewpoints. They have the right to take
their money and give it to causes that support their opinions. Customers have the right to protest, object
and boycott businesses. It’s this
tension why most businesses steer clear of controversial issues and focus on supplying their customers need. Efforts can be undertaken to change the opinion: protests, shame ... even blogging. Government and politicians can (and should) rail against short-sighted and ill-informed comments. Government, however,
doesn’t have the right to regulate a business based on what it says, only on
what it does.
A cake shop in Denver
two weeks ago refused to make a gay couple a rainbow-layered wedding cake. That action is not only bad business, but is
an action that deserves government intervention. It’s fine for the owners of the cake shop to oppose
gay marriage, misguided as I think that may be.
Refusing service based on those beliefs is discrimination and not
permissible. That is the distinction on where Government actually has a role.
Banning or even threatening to ban a business for its thought/opinion is a slippery slope. If some areas bans a business for what
they say about opposing gay marriage, it’s not inconceivable that other areas
would ban businesses for supporting gay marriage – or any other topic. And where would we be then? New York - where chef's might as well go to the Bloomberg school of nutrition.
Comments
Post a Comment