Wowee. Uhh, yeah, I will instead celebrate my right to not shovel disgusting trash into my mouth.

More seriously, an infinitely better option is to express anger and disappointment with politicians who would seek to use their positions of representative power to limit free enterprise for a completely unjustified reason.

If you dislike that the CEO of Chic-Fil-A thinks homosexuality is immoral, thinks that Gay Marriage is going to bring God's wrath down on America, and donates extensively to related right-wing causes, I think it is perfectly legitimate to agitate for a boycott, because it gives the opportunity for each autonomous individual to speak with their money and deny funding to things they oppose.

If you are really concerned about donations from wealthy corporations helping to determine court cases and legislation that affect people's rights in an anit-Democratic fashion, agitate against THAT, don't undermine free speech and due process by attacking someone taking advantage of the system, which is truly the problem.

On the other hand, this nonsense from Rahm Emmanuelle about denying building permits to the chain because of its discrimination is a terrible response. Firstly because it usurps the individual's democratic right in society from getting to determine their own feelings about the issue, but also because it is obviously not discriminatory in any legal or relevant sense. Chic-Fil-A the restaurant serves all people equally, hires all people equally, doesn't use any hate speech in its marketing or anything, and conforms to all relevant laws I am aware of.

I don't see why municipalities can't exercise there right to limit building. That being said, I also don't see why people give a shit what Dan Cathy does with his money.

Can you genuinely not see the problem with either of those things?

#1 - How are these examples of municipalities using their power to impose subjective assessments of moral views any different than those who have blocked the Mulsim community centre in downtown Manhattan, or even worse, if the city of Birmingham kicked out all of the restaurants it deemed to be objectionable due to their CEO's support for progressive causes? It's a pretty terrible precedent, and a shocking abandonment of democratic principles.

#2 - That being said, a large portion of the money that Chic-Fil-A gives to it's CEO is then given to causes that seek the limiting of people's rights. I think it's perfectly acceptable to get pissed off at that, and try to convince others to be pissed off about it.

Wow...you fasictst/thought police scare the hell out of me. Funny...I'll bet when conservatives decide to boycott comanies they disagree with you probably call them every name in the book....hypocrites.

I boycott abortion clinics.

"It's Chic-Fil-A day. If you SUPPORT the right of an individual to express himself freely - whether or not you agree with his speech - then visit your local Chic-Fil-A today and take a principled stance on FREEDOM of speech!"

It's not freedom of speech, you dolt. It's a question of property rights - having the right to dispense of your material wealth how you please.

He can rant all he wants about whatever he wants in this country. (Provided he makes no threatening remarks, that is)

Likewise, the people of this nation are also free to say whatever they like against him.

Its all perfectly legal on both sides. I personally think that as a businessman, he would avoid courting any controversy whatsoever, but that's his call. And he gets to deal with the fallout when people don't like it.


And I personally am going to exercise my free speech, and point out that Krellin, per usual, has a rather imperfect understanding of the law. Nothing new here, really.

Whatever Krellin. I gave a principled argument for why the publicized responses of many self-avowed liberal mayors were terrible and should be opposed.... but obviously I'm facist. Great. Thanks for coming out.

But just to shed some light on your accusation of hypocrisy regarding boycotting... I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticize people for what they say, and criticize them for what they do, and fully accept criticism when it comes your way. Mutual criticism is the hallmark of a free speech regime, not the actions of thought-police. I really do not understand why this is controversial.

Further. an important element of this criticism in a capitalist society is exercising your right as an individual consumer is to criticize, so to speak, corporations that you dislike with your money (or lack thereof), and encourage like-minded individuals to do the same. When a company becomes outwardly political, it invites a political response, and you should feel liberated to act accordingly.

So just as I think it is perfectly legitimate for people to boycott Oreo when it makes a political stand in favour of gay rights if they so wish http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06-27/news/32444968_1_cookie-gay-pride-kraft-foods so I do think that it is legitimate to boycott Chic-Fil-A when it's public face makes a political stand against Gay Rights and its money supports political causes.

If that's hypocrisy.... well screw it, I guess I don't understand the concept.

also jack, he can reap the benefits, as is being seen today, when lines at his stores are wrapped arond the building.

I think Chick-Fil-A has boycotted me. Of the two locations within 50 miles of me, one is on a university campus and the other is in...Toledo. The closest one to where I grew up is like 100 miles away too.

Everyone has the right to spend their money where they want. I personally won't be eating a Chic-Fil-A because they, as a company, have donated money to anti-gay group. As a consumer that is my right.

But, I disagree with cities being allowed to say they can't open a store in their city because of that. It's not a city job to mandate what ethics a company have. Let them open the store and let it fail if their citizens don't want to support a company that has corporate leadership with those kind of morals.

Freedom of speech isn't so free anymore.

see, I am sure I disagree with CelticFox on a lot of things, but at least I can respect him for the fact that he recognizes that this person had the right to say what he did, and have the views that he does.

All we have is our money to do our talking, and today a lot of people gave a lot of money to Chick fil A. He said what he said, and did not pay for it ...yet.

@Stressed - CelticFox isn't a he. She is a she. :-)

As far as what rights are being violated by the mayors... Freedom of speech (they don't like his vocal promotion), property rights (they don't like his financial support choices), and religion (his speech and charity choices are religiously motivated). When they say he can't have a store because of his view and support of anti-gay organizations then they are discriminating against him for the clearly constitutionally protected religious views he holds.

@friendly sword, 1) Muslim community center and chick fil a are not comparable. I believe Austin Texas doesn't let any chains within the city limits. Municipalities can do what they want. If the constituents are upset then they will make their voices heard. If the local government doesn't listen they will be voted out of office.

2)sure, they can be mad. But the uproar is about a guy who doesn't agree with gay marriage. I think the daily show made a great point, do we need to agree with everything that the companies do? If so, we will all have to stop consuming. Don't get me wrong, if they were discriminating against their employees or their customers I would be on the bandwagon.

@SMmc We don't have to agre with everything, but most company CEO's don't donate to anti-gay organizations either.

I think most of us are in agreement here on the mayoral actions and how horribly wrong they are. I just watched a video on it though and was astonished at how big the crowds were at Chick-Fil-A! Lines around the block and cars backed up all along a highway. The owner (Cathy, is it?) is going to be laughing at his critics all the way to the bank.

But I still don't see why people care so much about it. Its his company (I believe its still a private company), his money, so he can do with it what he wants to. What happened to the time when people would just respect the differences in opinion between themselves and others and carry on with their lives?

President Eden, you're incorrect. When the government makes a negative decision toward a person or business because of their expressed views, then it is a violation of free speech, irrespective of whether the negative decision has to do with property, business, criminal law, or anythin else.

smcbride, similarly, the Austin case is very different. If Austin chooses not to allow chains, fine. But when it starts explicitly basing the decision for a particular chain on its expressed political or religious views, it's just waltzed into a world of legal hurt.

@CelticFox - He isn't just the CEO. He is the owner and sole shareholder (it's a private company) so he can do with his money and, for that matter, the comapny's money pretty much whatever he likes except fund terrorists or purchase illegal goods like drugs or embargoed goods (blood diamonds, cuban cigars, et. al.)