I expected the thumbs down (though I didn't expect someone would think I was quoting the US constitution, wtf?). I'll give honest discussion a shot. So, here's the concept again, more clearly explained:
I don't like McD and I'm not defending it. But there is a principle at stake here that is more important than hamburgers. That principle is that mayors cannot ban businesses just because they don't like them. And, make no mistake, this is exactly the point here. Florence is not banning McD because of the yellow arches, or they would just say "no yellow arches". They are also not banning McD because hamburgers aren't from Tuscany, or they'd have to ban pizzas too. Florence is banning McD because the mayor doesn't like McD for political reasons. Except that he can't do that because we have freedom of enterprise and "I don't like big American corporations" is not a social goal that can override that.
So, he is making up a specious reason to ban McD. That is what I'm railing against. If you let this sort of abuse slide just because you also dislike McD, you're greasing a slippery slope.
And, in fact, that slope IS here, it HAS been greased, and things ARE slipping on it, because there are other cities where the *exact same argument* is being made to ban immigrants from opening businesses, out of sheer xenophoby. I reiterate: this is not a theorical, this is actually happening.
If you do not see now why I hope McD wins the case, even though I hate both their architecture and the things they call food, then there is nothing more I can say. Downvote away.