Local Government

The Misguided Assault on Chick-fil-A

Banning a business because of the owner's beliefs is a terrible abuse of political power.


As if politicians' flogging of the fast food industry via Nanny State posturing over calories and nutrition isn't bad enough, now those businesses are going to be punished for not having the right political beliefs.

Chick-fil-A, the 50-year-old fast food chain whose Christian credentials were always apparent in its decision to close on Sundays, has been getting more publicity over the past year due to its stated embrace of "traditional families," even as polls show growing support for same-sex marriage recognition.

Gay marriage = bad. Cosplaying = good.

Chick-fil-A has donated millions to various Christian and family-oriented charities. Of them a small amount (around $20,000) went to organizations that are directly involved in anti-gay causes: Focus on the Family, Exodus International, and Family Research Council.

After some conflicts about whether Chick-fil-A restaurants should be allowed on college campuses, the battle blew up big in July due to some recent quotes by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy in the Biblical Reporter defending the company's attitude toward traditional marriage:

Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families—some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that … We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.

Yes, thank the Lord for America's commitment to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Those who don't agree with the religious beliefs of Chick-fil-A's management are free to express as much, boycott the restaurants, send their Muppets elsewhere, and spend their money at fast food restaurants that are friendly to gay marriage (presuming they aren't shut down by politicians trying to control our eating habits for our own good).

And that would have been enough, except both the mayor of Boston and an alderman in Chicago have decided that they should use their political power to punish companies that hold positions they don't like by keeping them from doing business with their constituencies.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is vowing to try to block Chick-fil-A from building in his city, possibly near the tourist-drawing Freedom Trail, home of 95 percent of America's Paul Revere impersonators. After declaring that Boston is at the "forefront of inclusion" Menino ominously warned, "If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult—unless they open up their policies." Menino previously managed to block a Walmart in Roxbury.

In Chicago, Alderman Proco "Joe" Moreno is even more blunt about it. He will not permit Chick-fil-A to build a restaurant in his ward because he does not agree with the religious stance of its leadership. He penned an opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune (registration required) defending his decision:

Initially, I had some traffic concerns with their plan. But then I heard the bigoted, homophobic comments by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who recently came out against same-sex marriage.

There are consequences for one's actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man's ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.

Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune editorial columnist (and Reason contributor) raked Moreno over the coals for his attempt to abuse his power:

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy made a statement. Moreno, who is part of the Chicago city government, wants to punish him for it. It's as black-and-white a case of illegal censorship as anyone could find. And if the company wants to challenge Moreno's decision in court, he wouldn't stand a chance.

But leave the chicken when you go. Just saying.

There are those who support gay marriage who are applauding this effort. Do they grasp at all the potential unintended consequences of this misuse of power? Have they forgotten about efforts to block the Ground Zero mosque? (And is it presumptuous to assume the very same people opposed those efforts?) Eric Zorn, also at the Chicago Tribune, takes on the task of reminding people that the more power political leaders are allowed to wield, the more likely it will blow up in the general public's faces:

Those who are cheering on these pols ought to imagine the jackboot on the other foot—reactionary public officials in some backwater town denying an entrepreneur the right to operate an ordinary business simply because he's an open supporter of Obamacare, abortion rights or even marriage equality.

Such a hypothetical should make it easy to see how it plainly offends the spirit of the Constitution—and sets a horrible precedent—for public officials at any level to punish otherwise legal forms of speech with arbitrary exercises of government power.

That a political official would make decisions over which businesses may operate in his community based on their owners' beliefs will lead to even more outrageous abuses. Menino and Moreno need to be reined in. If customers want to consume the Cathy family's sandwiches in spite of their marriage views (or sadly, because of them), then politicians can very well stay out of it. If customers don't want them, then the problem will resolve itself in due time.

Scott Shackford is an associate editor of 24/7 News at Reason.com.

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Why London is Yawning Over the Olympics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thanks, Scott, for eschewing the obfuscatory neologism “marriage equality” in favour of the more accurate and descriptive “gay marriage.”

    1. Yeah I want to marry 5 women…that shit is illegal everywhere outside of Sudan.

      1. Five mothers-in-law?? [shudders]

        1. Doesn’t have to be. The could be sisters.

          1. Yeah, but if they’re sisters, they can’t fool around with each other.

            Oh, sure, they *could*, but lesbian sister sex just sounds creepy.

            1. I can dig it.

              1. Now, lesbian *cousins*…

            2. It’s ok as long as they are twins.

    2. Is “gay marriage” really more accurate? I don’t support legally defined “gay marriage”, but I don’t support legally defined straight marriage either. I prefer the phrase “marriage equality” because my first preference is to end government sanctioned marriage altogether. It is only a second-best case to grant homosexuals the same marriage rights that straights have.

      Put another way, I don’t think that gays are being denied rights – straights have been granted privileges. It is unfair to privilege one group of people over another.

      1. Is “gay marriage” really more accurate?

        I think it is, yes. The political and legal fight is over whether gay people should get married, and nothing else.

        As DR ampersand S notes, “marriage equality” could mean equal status for the parties to the marriage, up to and including doing away with discrimination against men when its time to end the marriage.

        1. “I think it is, yes. The political and legal fight is over whether gay people should get married, and nothing else.”

          Yeah, but the cultural fight (the only thing most people really care about), is whether gay people should be seen as normal.

          1. Define “normal”.

      2. I prefer the phrase “marriage equality” because my first preference is to end government sanctioned marriage altogether.

        So how is divorce and the division of assets handled?

        *please let the answer be a social justice tribunal….oh dear Zod please….*

        1. Pure contracts. Poorly delineated assets already necessitate some kind of arbitrator anyway.

          1. Yep and you could have an arbitration clause so you don’t have to go to court.

      3. I agree. Cole Porter and John Maynard Keynes shouldn’t have been denied the right to marry. Oh, wait. . . .

    3. I was thinking marriage equality meant “equal status” as opposed to the unequal marriage practice of “man owns woman”. It made sense to me in the context of bible belt douchebags discriminating against ideas. This is what happens when ambiguous phrases are used to discuss straightforward concepts.

      1. Marriage equality would also include polygamy and group marriages which isn’t part of the current debate.

        1. Any kind of voluntary consensual arrangement and any non coercive form of contract is fine with me.

          1. That’s fine, but how would you handle, say, income tax? Should a family of one man and his four stay-at-home wives be allowed to average their income between the five of them, so that they pay less than the man would pay as a single filer? (I know that the married tax rates are no longer a pure income average, in which they pay as much tax as they would if each one earned exactly half the couple’s income, but that’s the general idea behind different married and single rates.)

            1. Flat tax. Or no tax.

  2. all this does is reveal the left in all its ridiculous glory. This isn’t about hate and CFA as an entity is not discriminating against anyone. The CEO merely stated an opinion. That I disagree with him leaves me a choice – stand on principle and stop going to Chick-fil-A or say ‘screw it’ and go there anyway.

    Frankly, that is how this ought to be. Those offended by what the man said have every right to boycott and those who support him may well double down on their consumption. Elected officials getting involved crosses a huge line. As came up in the AM links, it will be interesting when a right-leaning mayor blocks a business because that CEO is pro-choice or anti-gun.

    1. Fortunately, right-leaning people tend to be more respectful of beliefs, in general, despite the fact that we may argue vehemently for the opposite side. We value individual rights. It’s the self-proclaimed groups of people seeking diversity and inclusion that do not actually value either diversity or inclusion.

      1. Except gay people. Their rights are ignored.

        The only thing that’s happened here is the Left has now sunk to your level.

        True liberty-minded people will be looking for an alternative.

        1. sorry, but the left has long since occupied the thought police level along with the let’s-use-the-state-to-force-our-way level. Many conservatives favor traditional marriage. What other gay rights are being ignored?

          1. What other gay rights are being ignored?

            The right to be accepted and embraced by everyone unquestioningly, of course. The right not to be offended. The right to government gravy. After all, straight people have always enjoyed those rights without any encumbrances or conditions.

            1. And you’re going to goose step up and insure that every queer is accepted, embraced and not offended right?

              1. Lol, your sarc detector is malfunctioning.

            2. “The right not to be offended.”

              Just in case you just fell off the turnip truck, this is the United States. Everybody has the right to BE offended at some point in their existence. It’s called the First Amendment. Hell, I am offended every time I see President Obama and/or any one of his Echo Chamber Hand Maidens.

              1. “The right not to be offended.”

                I’ve noticed that for the Left, tolerance means being as thin-skinned as possible, whereas for everybody else, it means being as thick-skinned as possible.

        2. True liberty-minded people would not expect that they need to look to government for permission to have their relationships legitimized. Nor would they believe they have a right to force others to recognize or legitimize their relationships.

          1. legitimizing contracts is the essential role of government.

            1. What Mr. Gray says. “[L]egitimizing contracts is the essential role of government.” Right– contracts, not relationships.

            2. If it was all about contracts then the whole argument about marriage is pointless. After all, they would just need to get a lawyer, jot down that they both get half of everything and whatever other terms are important, sign it and be done. But we both know that there’s a lot more to it than that.

  3. SF furthers its rep for Prog stupidity:
    “Ed Lee zings Chick-fil-A”
    Not only is he claiming they can’t open in SF, he’s claiming they can’t open in neighboring cities.
    I think the crown it too tight; it’s shrunk his brain.

  4. Even the liberals I know think this is stupid.

    1. I know one liberal who had no problem with it, and mocked someone else who called it fascism. Then again, he’s a bigger arsehole than Tony and forgets sometimes that the whole world isn’t DU or Alternet.

    2. Can I trade my liberals for your liberals?

  5. I think the logic of many gay marriage activists goes like this…..
    1. “Gay” is what I am, like “black” is what an African-American is.
    2. Black people had to fight for their rights, using all kinds of tactics…sometimes illegal, but it’s all ok when social justice is at stake.
    3. Therefore, to advance gay rights, any code of conduct that might apply to other people doesn’t have to apply to me because of social justice.

    As a consequence, you get behavior like this or what happened after the vote in California (ironically, with many of the threats and accostings directed at black people)

  6. How the fuck is this even permissible under the 14th amendment?

    1. what is this 14th Amendment you speak of and what in what document is it contained?

      1. I think something is emanating from it.

  7. By the way pickles on a chicken sandwich is fucking gross.

    1. I’ve come to like it, and I’m not a fan of pickles on sammiches. I still don’t like the waffle fries, though.

      1. The waffle fries suck. I eat the original chicken sandwich and drink their tasty hi-caffeine ice tea.

      2. you can sub cole slaw for the fries; it’s pretty good.

    2. Ask for your sandwich with no pickles. If CFA makes a mistake they’ll give you another for free with profuse apologies and you can remove the pickles from the first one and eat that too.

      1. Shhh shut the fuck up. Don’t blow up loopholes, you jackass.

    3. I like pickles on many kinds of sandwiches, but they’re not great on things with bacon or barbecue sauce (excepting the McRib). If Chickfilet sandwiches did not have pickles, they would be nothing but a dry piece of chicken with nothing to lubricate them.

  8. What’s sad is, these people are so brazen as to state it publicly. I think we all know that these kinds of things go on every day, and despite the fact that these politicians went public with these blatantly unconstitutional abuses of power, this would have simply happened silently and inexplicably in days gone by. Are things so different now, that the cockroaches don’t even scatter when the lights come on anymore? Imagine if these politicians had just kept their mouths shut and just roadblocked them in the future whenever the situation arose. None of us would ever even hear about it. They’re comfortable enough now to tell us all about it?

  9. We don’t have to wonder what would happen if the jackboot were on the other foot. The jackboot has been on the other foot, as I noted here: http://blog.heterodoxhomosexua…..riage.html

  10. That guy’s family speech is the gayest thing I read today.

    1. The one true definition of “family” is “people that you hate”.

  11. “There are those who support gay marriage who are applauding this effort. Do they grasp at all the potential unintended consequences of this misuse of power?”

    No, they don’t. Because they are quite incapable of imagining a time when Gays no longer enjoy their present “favored minority” status. And, frankly, given the history of societal attitudes towards homosexuality, this marks them as slightly less intelligent than a colony of cherrystone clams.

    1. do they even see it as “a misuse of power?” A good many leftards see this as a wholly appropriate use of govt force because it supports their worldview and, not to put too fine a point on it, virtually criminalizes anyone who disagrees.

      They don’t see that one of their oxen could be similarly gored because they see any viewpoint other than theirs as illegitimate. Remember all the fussing about the mosque near Ground Zero, and that wasn’t even led by politicians.

    2. As always, an appreciation of the Iron Laws would save them much grief:

      Me today, you tomorrow.

      Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

      1. If they were capable of that sort of perspective and wisdom, they’d probably be true liberals or libertarians.

  12. Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos is donating $2.5 million for the gay marriage cause. He generally is liberal/libertarian in his views.

    1. no, Bezos is only liberal in that he seeks to use the power of govt to enforce his belief system. A libertarian would say govt does not belong in marriage at all, be it gay, straight, or poly.

      1. I’d surmise Bezos is too right-wing for shrike, and is only being referenced positively by shrike for Bezos’ stance on this one issue.

        “A fool and his money” comes to mind, by the way, but Bezos is free to waste it however he wants.

        Just as gays are free to blow their money on Obama’s campaign (the guy who just recently changed his mind on gay marriage).

        Hmm… wonder if Emanuel’s recent anti-CFA stance has anything to do with Obama’s war-chest stuffing acquisitionathon…

        1. You would be wrong again. Bezos donates almost exclusively to Democrats.


          There is nothing “right-wing” about him. Remember mainstream Dems are the party of free trade.

          Your imagination is working overtime again. I suppose Soros is now “right-wing” to you for his support of Cato.

          1. “Almost exclusively” = “dipshit”.

            He should donate to the LP, and not to either Team.

            1. Not if his donations are protection money to protect Amazon from sales tax bullshit.

              1. I remember reading something by a guy from Microsoft (yeah, I know it’s vague, but that’s how my memory works) – basically, the minute they started contributing to politicians’ campaigns, the gov’t stopped harassing them.

          2. Remember mainstream Dems are the party of free trade.


            1. Soros is a cunt. His *only* saving grace is his support against drug laws.

              Otherwise, he could die in a fire, and I wouldn’t be able to care.

              1. Oh, and CATO should give back Soros’ money, and refuse any further donations from that dirtbag.

            2. No, no, he’s right. If you just ignore that tiny, tiny Democratic voting bloc called “unions”.

              1. Why do you hate brown people, PM?

                /leftist logic

                1. I love how the hate “shipping jobs overseas.” Better that white Americans/Europeans keep them all, despite already being the richest people on the planet. How very “progressive”.

        2. [Just as gays are free to blow their money ]

          I see what you did there.

    2. You cannot be a liberal and a libertarian.

      1. Social liberal and small gov is a what then?

        There are lot us that reject the Big Gov GOP.

        1. Why don’t you _also_ reject Big Gov Democrat Party, shrike?

        2. Social liberal and small gov is a what then?

          Libertarian, as much as anything.

          Its certainly not “liberal” in the current sense.

        3. Social liberal and small gov is a what then?

          Libertarian. Dems are neither.

          1. Actually, “social neutral” would be the best stance, but that’s nigh-impossible.

            How about “social non-interventionist”?

      2. Technically, you can not be a liberal and a progressive. Libertarians are the actual liberals.

        1. “Libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist”, even moreso impossible.

        2. I agree. I am a liberal but don’t claim to be LP since I failed the purity test. (I am for the FDIC and pollution regs)

          1. That’s not all you’re for, shitheel.

            Supporting Team Blue exclusively, means you can’t *be* a libertarian. At. All.

            Not without lying.

            1. I don’t claim to be libertarian. You keep forgetting that no matter how many times I admit failing the purity test.

              I am a liberal.

              1. Yeah, you are, shitheel. Which makes you just as despicable as the right-wingiest of right-wingers.

                You should all die in a fire.

                1. Not libertarian means not liberal.

                  1. Claiming to be a fan of Barry Goldwater, while supporting Team Blue… that’s not just “not libertarian”, that’s retarded.

                    Notice how it sailed over his head, btw. If he ever did claim to be a libertarian, he’d be lying. But as usual, the puck flew past and his skates weren’t even on the ice.

                2. Fire today, FIFY?

                  Do tell me when you’re planning on wishing people who disagree with you death by piranha attack. That’ll be fun!

                  1. Fuck off, Tony. I give what I get. People who are nice to me, I give that back in return.

                    People like you and shrike? You deserve every morsel.

              2. “I am a liberal.”

                You once told me that you’re opposed to medicaid/medicare and other social programs. Forget for the moment that you were lying, but if true, you’re closest to a moderate Northeastern RINO ala Mitt Romney.

          2. I am a liberal but don’t claim to be LP since I failed the purity test.

            You fail the LP purity test in the same way Stalin did.

        3. That said, I think the typical ACLU member is not libertarian, but is distinct from progressives in that they do consider the Iron Laws and do protect the rights of those they dislike. There’s a reason they are taking Chik fil A’s side and that a lot of them thought Citizens United was correctly decided. We’ve already got a word, so I think it would be best to leave the word liberal for people like that.

          1. If the first amendment allows Citizens United then it has to be amended. It’s a horrifically bad outcome to a well-intentioned principle. That’s a tough pragmatic pill to swallow, but objectively can you say that the wealthiest interests being able to have the loudest “speech” by orders of magnitude is consistent with the spirit of free speech?

            I usually go with the ACLU but CU is an abomination. Nobody endorsing the first amendment at its creation would have said it enthusiastically permits such dominance of wealthy interests on politics. That’s quite clearly antithetical to the spirit of the founding.

            1. Free speech means everyone has the right to speak freely. It doesn’t mean everyone gets equal speech. That’s not even possible. I don’t understand how the people who whine about “buying elections” don’t realize that the only way money can win elections is if voters are stupid and lazy and just vote for whoever puts out the most ads. In that case, the voters are the problem, not free speech. Not to mention CU included issues related to censorship, not just monetary donations

              1. You mean the only way this equals wealthy dominance of elections is if the entire industry of advertising were to persists, implying advertising works.

                This is a case when overzealous principle interferes with reality. The first amendment isn’t a facilitator of plutocracy.

                1. “The first amendment isn’t a facilitator of plutocracy.”

                  No, what you’re seeing is big government facilitating plutocracy because it’s INTRINSICALLY incompatible with freedom, including free speech.

                2. “blah, blah, blah…plutocracy…blah, blah, blah.”

                  If you were really a utilitarian the way you claim, you should favor plutocracy, since wealthy people tend to be both smarter and more educated, meaning they’ll generate better public policy having exclusive voting rights.

              2. What Calidissident said. Free speech, not equal speech. And the idea that the most ads get the most votes *should* be an insult to most people who post here.

                1. And the idea that the most ads get the most votes *should* be an insult to most people who post here.

                  But the most ads do get the most votes. This does not work with lefties, of course. Only those of us who are confused, stupid, or evil (i.e., not a lefty) are subject to the siren songs of political advertisements.

            2. Nobody endorsing the first amendment at its creation would have said it enthusiastically permits such dominance of wealthy interests on politics

              Yeah, it’s not like they had yellow journalism or anything when the country was founded. And since we needed government to censor the media then, we clearly need the same thing today. For great justice!

  13. I will never pass a Chick-fil-A by again because of this abuse of power by these officials. Gays should be free to do what they want, and Dan Cathy should be free to speak his mind without recriminations from governments. Betcha’ this episode increases their business.

  14. “imagine the jackboot on the other foot?reactionary public officials in some backwater town denying an entrepreneur the right to operate an ordinary business simply because he’s an open supporter of Obamacare, abortion rights or even marriage equality.”

    I would very much like to know if there are such cases involving an “ordinary business.” I know about the mosques, and I know about the abortion clinics they’re trying to shut down – but I’m talking about *ordinary* businesses on the order of sandwich shops.

    I know the rhetorical value of getting liberals to think about a “backwater town” freezing out (ha!) Ben and Jerry’s with zoning hassles because of their beliefs, but I’d like to see some evidence. Just because it hasn’t been in the mainstream news doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but it’s strong *evidence* that it didn’t happen, since the MSM would simply eat it up.

    If the MSM missed it, it was due to laziness not lack of interest.

    So where is the “backwater” counterpart to what’s happening* in the enlightened havens of Chicago and Boston and San Francisco?

    *Though Menino seems to be backing off.

  15. “There are those who support gay marriage who are applauding this effort.”

    Who might those be? Fuzzy journalism. There probably are some. I don’t think governments should consider business owners’ religious beliefs in determining permitting. Where I live that would be unpleasant for liberals. But surely even public colleges can make such choices–There isn’t actually an absolute right for Chick-fil-A to open a franchise in a particular location. I expect Oral Roberts U to serve nothing but Chick-fil-A from now on.

    Everyone I know boycots Chick-fil-A. But it’s so hard to keep up with the political beliefs of CEOs. I work for one who is a conservative Catholic who makes anti-Obama screeds at Christmas luncheons. I’d hate to think of my place of work being banned for his stupid beliefs.

    1. “I don’t think governments should consider business owners’ religious beliefs in determining permitting.”

      That’s what you say at reason.com. When posting at HuffPo, you’re cheering it.

      1. Then don’t go to the luncheons, Tony. Or just ignore the religious rhetoric.

        That’s what sensible people do.

  16. Government shouldn’t be “permitting” anything in the first place.

    That’s right. Let the market decide. You’re friends (man, that must be one annoying party) boycott it and I applaud their initiative – and they didn’t need any coercing to take that decision.

    Personally, I love Chick-fil-A and will be hitting one the second I cross the border.

    As for the mayors, a couple of arrogant, self-serving, faux-principled, tyrannical nincompoops with illiberal DNA.

    Emanuel enlisted Farrakhan to police the streets of Chicago, while Menino prevents Wal-mart from getting into Boston. San Francisco can’t be saved.

    One could only look on in sad disbelief.

  17. I think the marriage debate should be left to churches not government. If a church wants to recognize a gay marriage then so be it.

    There should be no such thing as “group rights.” If you give a group rights you necessarily take away anthers. There can only be individual rights.

    I’m an atheist, evolutionist, anarcho-capitalist and I agree with a christian conservative definition of marriage but I don’t expect the gay community to care and I don’t think my views should be forced on anyone else.

    Nor do I think government thugs should be allowed to dictate your right to a living (ie right to your life). Let the consumers decide if they want to support the business.

    1. Convince the heterosexuals to give up their group rights then we’ll all go along with it. Until then let’s live in the actual universe.

      1. 1850’s Tony:

        White folks get to own slaves, so black folks should get to own slaves too! Oh, you say nobody should have slaves? Well fuck you! As soon as the white folks give up their slaves then we’ll quit asking for ours. EQUALITY FOR ALL!

        1. Uh, actually, free blacks *were* allowed to own slaves, if they lived in slave states. There weren’t many of them, but there were some.

  18. Is the “gay marriage” issue really just about the one thing that the “sacred” institution of marriage almost always leads to, the unholy legal suit of “divorce”?

    Since nobody is out there protesting the idea that marriage is between two consenting adults instead of a polyandrous definition of multiple consenting adults.

    Does anyone else thing that the ulterior motive of gay marriage really just all of the lawyers’ wet dreams of gay divorce?

  19. If the Religious Right would step back and allow Same-Sex Marriage, then the “problem” should resolve itself in a generation or two.

    1. You’re assuming homosexuality is biological.

      1. As opposed to what?

    2. If the Religious Right would step back and allow stop insisting that Same-Sex Marriage is the foundational institution in society, thus proliferating the inequities it engenders, then the “problem” should resolve itself in a generation or two.


      1. What would you say is the foundational institution in society?

  20. How quickly these politicians forget that as much as the second ammendment guarantees a separation of church and state it is much more intended to provide a separation of state and church. The government has no place telling ANY business owner what his personal beliefs should or should not be. The same people applauding these efforts are the ones that would be screaming at the tops of their lungs were a conservative politician attempt to do the same thing simply because a business owner was in favor of gay marriage. The door must swing both ways. Either we have freedom of expression, or we do not. We cannot have freedom to express only those opinions we agree with or we have no freedom at all.

  21. I just don’t like thousands of years of tradition turned on its head because some people can’t manage ‘Tab A goes in Slot A’

    1. Would that be the tradition of girls being chattel property of her father before she becomes the chattel property of her husband? Or the tradition of parents telling their children who they are going to marry, even if they’ve never met?

      1. A top-down design of society with no input from the unwashed masses is much better.

    2. Note that, if labelled differently, men also have a ‘Slot A’.

      Furthermore, it’s unfortunate that you seem to think that the purpose of marriage is to enable you to stick ‘Your Tab A’ into ‘Your Wife’s Slot A’. I’m sure Mrs. Zeppelin will be mighty proud to continue to refer to you as her Man knowing that you feel thusly about her.

      Ed: “Honey, I’m home!”
      Mrs. Z: “Here’s My Slot A for your exclusive use, My Stone Age Relic Man, you!”
      Ed: “That’s My Girl.” 🙂

  22. FYI: The Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany took place on 01 April 1933, soon after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. The boycott was the first of many measures against the Jews of Germany, which ultimately culminated in the “Final Solution”. — DO YOU SEE THE SIMILARITIES ?????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.