The Left’s Orwellian Assault on Chick-fil-A

Pages: 1 2

Leftist Mayor Rahm Emanuel supported Moreno’s distortions and ambitions. “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” the mayor said in a statement. Emanuel’s most recent discussion of Chicago values prior to this one was to tell the city’s street thugs, who have driven Chicago’s murder rate up 30 percent over last year, to “Take your stuff away to the alley.” Since Mr. Emanuel is apparently resigned to a certain level of mayhem in his city, he has hectored those perpetrating it to move to another location away from children, but seemingly within the city limits — the same city limits that he and his alderman would prevent a Christian-run business from occupying.

Thus the bankruptcy of progressive values, literally enforced by the heavy hand of government, is illuminated. One is left to wonder how many other would-be business owners in Boston and Chicago will be forced to reveal–and perhaps “revise”–their political ideology in order to set up shop in those cities. One might also wonder how many existing businesses will be checked to see if they also have the “proper” ideological credentials to remain in operation. With respect to Chick-fil-A, Moreno noted that’s exactly what is expected. After contemptuously dismissing First Amendment concerns with, “zoning is not a right,” he explained how the company could get back in his good graces. “They’d have to do a complete 180,” the alderman said. “They’d have to work with LGBT groups in terms of hiring, and there would have to be a public apology from (Cathy).”

Such arrogance is remarkable, especially when one considers the virtual certainty that these same people and their fellow travelers would be screaming “fascism!” if some conservative-minded community sought to ban gay-friendly companies such a Starbucks or Oreo Cookies from operating within their confines — based on nothing more than comments made by company executives. Thus, another aspect of progressive bankruptcy is revealed: the complete lack of intellectual consistency, and the massive amount of hypocrisy such inconsistency produces.

Americans should be outraged by this overt intolerance masquerading itself as open-mindedness, the attempt to use government power as an ideological billy club, and the media’s calculating effort to take what Cathy said and twist it into something completely different. Yet for progressives and their media enablers, this is the price one is expected to pay for refusing to kowtow to the parameters of political correctness.

On the other hand, it is very likely both Chicago and Boston are violating Mr. Cathy’s First Amendment rights. Three Supreme Court cases, Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service CommissionRust v. Sullivan, and Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, make it clear that government may not deny a private business permits because of something said by its owner. Unless officials in either Boston or Chicago can produce evidence of discrimination by Chick-fil-A, preventing the company from operating within their respective cities is unconstitutional.

In other words, this controversy has been manufactured, plain and simple. It represents the epitome of the progressive impulse to control individual thought, using the threat of government retaliation as persuasion. It has been egged on by a corrupt media that no longer bothers to get the story right, when the right story doesn’t accrue to progressive interests.

Furthermore, the idea that opposition to gay marriage is tantamount to homophobia is nothing more than a progressive construct aimed at forcing people to accept the gay activist agenda in its totality. It is a ham-fisted attempt to label someone who might be open to homosexuals receiving the same government-mandated services and benefits that married people do, but uncomfortable with redefining “marriage”–a word commonly understood by every culture in the world for more than five thousand years–as a hopeless bigot. As far as the activists and their enablers are concerned, one is all in with the gay activist agenda, or unrepentant homophobe who can literally be run out of town. It is precisely this kind of thinking on which the attempt to deny Chick-fil-A the ability to operate in Boston and Chicago is based. In other words, for “progressives,” tolerance and totalitarianism are two sides of the same coin.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • davarino

    Wow, this is scary. The "tolerant" have become the fascists themselves. I think Chik-fil-A is better off not going to those cities. They would just be robbed on a daily basis anyway. Its funny how the left is so brain damaged that they dont even realize that Chik is the healthy fast food joint they have been looking for and now they are banned…..hehehe. Good luck with your McD's and Burger King. I love those joints, hamburger good hmmmmm. Here in Texas we allow anybody to setup a business. We have them all, which I think is a better demonstration of diversity than any of these other northeast liberal states. Hehehe you guys are funny with your manufactured outrage. Maybe thats one of the many reasons people are bugging out and heading to the midwest.

    • Larry G.

      As has been stated on this forum and others so many times, the Left believes that tolerance is defined as agreeing with them, just as they believe you have the right to free speech – as long as you agree with them. Yes, they are fascists and always have been – read Jonah Goldberg's book.

    • Louis K.

      Since when is not letting a fast food chain in a country related to the dystopian 1984? Since when does the enslavement and constant rape of human history and society comes down to whether or not a company can sell CHICKEN in a city? I'm not saying they're right, the ACLU protected free speech in this instance and I agree with them. But invoking Hitchenesque prose and George Orwell in a controversy that's so STUPID and INANE is a useless waste of time. Refusing to allow intolerance isn't "ohhh you're being intolerant to our view," it's a boycott of homophobia and religious bigotry.

      • Roger

        And at first Hitler didn't march Jews to any gas chambers. Where does it start for you?

    • Spider

      These people didn't become anything. They were always fascists and what they call tolerance is: you have to accept them but they don't have to accept you.

  • poetcomic1

    Rainbow Colored Jackboots.

    • Kufar Dawg

      I read about some anti-fascist group who attacked everyone in a restaurant (in the USA) because some white supremacist group was meeting there. I remember their mission statement had, among other things, combating islamophobia AND antsemitism.

  • Ar'nun

    Keep in mind that Mayor Thomas "Mumbles" Menino is also the same mayor of Boston who gave $1.7 Million tax dollars and sold Public Land at half the retail value to a Muslim Brotherhood group funded by Al Qaradawi to open, at the time, the biggest Muslim Center in North America. He welcomed this group with open arms. Today, this new Mega Mosque stands half constructed because the group who will be running the Mosque lost its shirt in the Holly Land Foundation trial as they were yet another unidicted co-conspirator.

    • WorkerBee

      Mumbles is a slow adult, he can't help himself.

  • Chezwick

    Surreal. There was no disparagement of gays in Dan Cathy's remarks…no expression of intolerance whatsoever, just an affirmation of belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage. And now, he's being burned at the metaphorical stake in a new form of witch-hunt.

    This story – because of its grotesqueness and the extent of the distortions and character-assassination involved – can and should become a rallying-point for conservatives to galvanize the larger populace into a true understanding of the world we live in…that it's the left, not the right, that want to usurp our freedom of speech and thought. Dan Cathy is a victim of liberal/left hatred and intolerance….and he should be lionized as such!

    • BS77

      Remember how the "oh so tolerant" leftist and lib media treated Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann….Anyone who does not agree with the mindless liberal agenda gets thrown into the media
      garbage compacter. If you oppose illegal immigration or support voter ID legislation, why you are a raving
      racist. If you support the Second Amendment, you are a fascist hill billy. If you actually prefer conservative or libertarian candidates, why you are a Tea Party red neck goon….and on it goes. I am not surprised by the
      leftist assault on this restaurant chain. See, they are not PC —for the raving lunatic left this is a thought crime.

  • Guest

    “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” the mayor said in a statement"

    That's right. Chicago values include corruption, criminal activity, and thuggish shakedowns. If I were Chik-Fil-A I would take Rahmbo's staement as a compliment.

  • Gwen

    I will make a point of eating at chick-fil-a even though I'm not a big fan of fast food. I've had enough from the homosexual stormtroopers.

  • Steve Chavez

    Aren't they doing exactly what ROSA PARKS "WHITE'S ONLY" FOUGHT AGAINST?

    These same groups divide themselves with groups based on SKIN COLOR like Congressional BLACK Caucus, BLACK Entertainment Television, BLACK Journalists of America WHICH MEANS "BLACKS ONLY!"

    Then there are groups like LA RAZA AND LULAC again SEGREGATING A RACE!

    These groups then have their RACIST SEGREGATION AT UNIVERSITIES therefore teaching our young to not be of one community with students from all over the world, but to be DIVIDED INTO COLORS AND RACES. What are foreign students thinking about our "MELTING POT?"

    So now, a business owner can't have an opinion spoken publicly or else the ones who scream about "SOCIETY BEING INTOLERANT" ARE NOW INTOLERANT?

    Are they now going to interview every store owner to get their opinion, and if they don't like what they say on a number of issues, they can SPRAY PAINT A SCARLET LETTER ON THE STORE WINDOW?

    How would GAYS LIKE IT IF American's who are against gay marriage boycott businesses owned by GAYS or even hires GAYS? THE OUTRAGE.

    Did anyone see Rahm on TV explaining his point? Wow. And he's one of Obama's closet friends and advisers?

  • Spider

    These cities that are guilty of descrimination – viewpoint and religious descrimination. This company does not discriminate however the cities are going after the company simply for a viewpoint. If this company takes these cities to court the company will win hands down. I hope they do and bancrupt them and their union thugs to boot. – paybacks are a bitch huh LEFTIES. Isn't lawfare your favorite tactic?. Just ask the ACLU and the Atheist groups.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Amazing how this anti-gay drivel surfaces every other month, keepin the gay isssue in the forefront
    via any idiotic distortion is not helping gays only thier exhibitionistic narcissism. Menino, Morino,
    Leftist Mopes by any name……………………………………………….William

    • mlcblog

      Makes me think of the fraud Kinsey who perpetrated innocent little children to publish his bonkers papers, where he insisted that the population is at least 10% homosexual, whereas the true facts are somewhere around 1-2%. Of course, that figure can rise with ongoing perpetration among the populace turning out new ones, especially when, as in California, it is unbelievably made ILLEGAL for the psychological community to counsel children who have been perpetrated by homosexuals to regain their natural balance as a heterosexual.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        It seems to me that to avoid recognition the homosexuals must be in everyone's face, thus
        disappear in the onrush of phobic and other accusations which are just not true. The
        late Dr. Robin Huntington a close friend and confidant and considered somewhat liberal
        though not very stated that the homosexual condition was a thorough going illness in
        need of treatment. Lost souls in defiance of life and all circumstances within a matrix
        of possabilties that can never release them to peace and normalcy but continuously
        decry the obvious unacceptance while living a lie supported by undermining leftists.

        • mlcblog

          I have a somewhat similar take on it. I think it is all about behavior. It is not something people are born with, although that it taught and believed dogmatically throughout our present culture. I believe it is a choice, though most often made subconsciously because obviously who would this choice willingly? and further that it is a reaction to certain traumas of life, principally suffered in childhood within their family of origin or at the hands of a person who was let to get too close and turned out not to be trustworthy after all. Yes, I think the thinking gets completely skewed, as in the chapter of Romans, where the Word refers to the reprobate mind and that once that threshold is crossed one cannot come back (into sane thinking). It seems true with all I have seen in this lifestyle. It is very compromising on self-esteem. One last note, though, I am aware of folks who have renounced that way of life and learned new (heterosexual) behavior and thinking, this all with supportive people.

          • WilliamJamesWard


          • mlcblog

            exhibitionistic narcissism

            I like your phrase, especially as I live near the city (San Francisco, my dear birth place) which has been corrupted by filth and exhibitionism of all tkinds, even including gaudy tourists from Europe. I mean gaudy, as in so pretentious in their extreme PC liberal socialism. It is just dripping. I have to wear my blinders and my nose plugs to go visit my beloved city sights/ sites.

          • rogo65

            I agree with all you said EXCEPT your reference to Romans , for it states ALL possess reprobate minds , not exclusively homosexuals or other types of sexual deviation . It's not a good idea to misquote such things .

          • mlcblog

            You are correct. Romans is talking about the reprobate mind in general, having just laid out some specifics of the behavior that can generate said state of mind. I did not mean to infer that the reprobate mind refers only to the homosexual community. Ever heard of Stinkin' Thinkin. Anyone can do it. We get all strong in our own minds and will or cannot submit to the loving God we can know. If this prevails, we can end up with a reprobate mind. The key as I know it is to let God love us, to quote the great Rev. Lloyd John Ogilvie. Let God love you.

        • mlcblog

          I have a somewhat similar take on it. I think it is all about behavior. It is not something people are born with, although that it taught and believed dogmatically throughout our present culture. I believe it is a choice, though most often made subconsciously because obviously who would this choice willingly? and further that it is a reaction to certain traumas of life, principally suffered in childhood within their family of origin or at the hands of a person who was let to get too close and turned out not to be trustworthy after all. Yes, I think the thinking gets completely skewed, as in the chapter of Romans, where the Word refers to the reprobate mind and that once that threshold is crossed one cannot come back (into sane thinking). It seems true with all I have seen in this lifestyle. It is very compromising on self-esteem. One last note, though, I am aware of folks who have renounced that way of life and learned new (heterosexual) behavior and thinking, this all with supportive people.

  • SigDooo

    lol, that dude just looks like a pompous windbag lol.

  • oldtimer

    What happened to seperation of church and state and 1st amendment rights in this instance? Only applicable when useful to the left's purposes? And Rahm should concentrate on all the real crime in his city.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      He is, he is self absorbed……………………………….William

    • intrcptr2

      Wrong church, OT. This new "church" is better than the old church.

  • Stan Lee

    Chik-fil-A is actually now receiving unsolicited advertising. All those myopic Democrat politicians who are bellowing away for the sake of attempted notoriety are literally identifying themselves as political hacks who'll capitalize on any situation in order to force themselves into the "public eye."
    They may satisfy a small percentage of ignorant followers, but the realization is clear that Chik-fil-A's owner has every right to his personal feelings, his religion which causes injury to no one, and the fact that employees of that organizsation are not required to be of the same Christian faith as owner Mr. Cathy.
    I have visited a Chik-fil-A in my vicinity often, the place is spotless, employees are most courteous, and the food served is wholesome. I seek the Chik-fil-A product when I travel, it's the best fast food I can purchase and I recommend it to anyone who hasn't sampled their offerings.

    • mlcblog

      can I get it online??

  • LibertyMan

    Does this suprise anyone?… a state that has elected a known murderer/rapist for how many years?… where former homosexual are denied civil rights like speech… where spouses of recent deceased gun owners have there homes raided like common criminals within weeks of the death?

  • Iratus Vulgas

    I think one of the most striking differences between Right and Left is that the Left typically attacks the private sector to achieve political change, the Right expresses its grievances towards the State. Most telling, wouldn't you say?

    • Roger

      People have been known to vote with their feet.
      CNN and MSNBC have ratings in the toilet,but without any organized attacks or hate speech to accomplish it.

      And no one mentions the value of JCPenney stock since they came out for gay marraige.

  • LibertyMan

    Didn't the mayor of Boston have a similar reaction?

  • Atlas_Collins

    The funny thing is that in this country disgusting homosexuals are already free to be as disgustingly homosexual as they want to be.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm no "homophobe," I just don't want the repugnant deviants to splash anything on me.

  • PJTJ

    So let me see if I have this right– if my religious conviction is that marriage should remain between one man and one woman, this amounts to an attack on homosexuals and I am an intolerant bigot. So, by extension, if I favor the United States in my foreign policy views, I am, by definition, hostile to other nations. If I join the armed forces, I therefore hate pacifists. If I order a steak dinner, I am attacking Hindus and vegans. If I celebrate Christmas, I therefore hate Jews. If I go to church on Sunday, I am attacking atheists.
    People of Faith can play this game, too (and they should): If you are opposed to the traditional and Biblical definition of marriage, you are , by definition, a God-hating, Christ-hating, church-burning Christophobic religious bigot– the only difference is that most on the modern, Leninist Left really are church-burning Christophobic religious bigots. Notice that muslims oppose gay marriage, too, but the Left doesn't go after them. This whole push for gay marriage maintains, at its core, a fundamental hatred for Catholicism/Christianity which is not American in its roots, but Leninist. I have been saying for years that this is a winning issue for conservatives if they would just think out of the box– the federal government openly attacked the Catholic Church this year with its push for free birth control and abortions to be provided by Catholic institutions. The Left openly displays its bigoted hatred for anything and everything that is Christian. Now why do 90% of blacks vote Democrat? Because democrats have done a superlative job of convincing blacks that republicans are racists. The difference is that the Left's Leninist hatred for the Christian churches is very real and very pronounced– and republican leaders should be going to Catholic Churches & the Catholic leadership and telling them that the Democrat Party hates your church, your savior and your scripture, and that they are your mortal enemies; we, on the other hand, are your friends and we will protect you against the Left's bigotry. I want 90% of the Catholic vote in the same way that the Dems get 90% of the black vote. If they can do it, so can we. Republicans scratch their heads and wonder how they can get the Hispanic vote. Memo to the clueless: nearly all Hispanics are Catholic, and those who aren't Catholic are Evangelical Christians. Go to their churches and hang the Leninists with their own Christophobic rhetoric. The Left gives us overwhelming evidence of their Christophobic bigotry & hatred every single day; the Dan Cathy incident is just another manifestation of it. It's time that we turned around and started killing them with it. They call us racists every single day under the flimsiest of pretenses– we must now do the same with their religious bigotry. The terms "Christophobic bigot," "anti-Catholic" and "Leninist church-burners" should be uttered every day at every opportunity, from the highest levels to the grass roots– supplemented by the Left's own words. The removal of crosses at government cemeteries, the atheist displays during Christmas– all of this is done by the Left. How about making them pay for it??

    • trickyblain

      It's quite simple. Under the Constitution, you cannot establish laws that codify discrimination, no matter what someone's magic book says. Magic books are not the basis of US law; the Constitution is.

      That said, you are free to follow and worship and live by any magic book you wish. You just can't pass laws laws based on it.

      • Carlos Perera

        Er, . . . no: under the Constitution the power of the federal government over the population is limited to the powers explicitly allowed to it in the document. Further to ensure that the central government does not trample on the long-established rights of the English-speaking peoples, a Bill of Rights was appended, which denies to said central government the power to establish a religion, while also confirming the people's right to the free exercise of religion. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out in his famous letter to the Baptist ministers of Danbury, Connecticut, the Constitution sets up a "wall of separation" _to protect the churches from the power of the federal government_, not to protect the government from the churches. Nothing in the Constitution forbids religious influence, or the customs and mores of the people, from influencing legislation; if it did, then laws against murder, rape, battery, theft, slavery, and fraud, to name just a few categories of law off the top of my head, would be unconstitutional, as various religious Scriptures–"magic books" if you will–or the interpretation thereof by churches, condemn those actions.

        The only part of the Constitution that remotely deals with "establishing laws that codify discrimination" is the 14th Amendment, of which the relevant clause is Section 1, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Nothing in Section 1 prohibits codifying discrimination, as long as said discrimination does not deny the equal protection of the laws to citizens as defined in its body. Thus, states can circumscribe marriage in all sorts of ways, as long as their marriage laws are applied equally; thus, states limit the degree of consanguinity allowed for a legally valid marriage contract, the ages of those contracting marriage, the number of spouses that can contract marriage, the conditions under which marriages can be dissolved, . . . and the sexes of the spouses. As long as the limitations apply equally to all citizens, i.e., as long as, say, black Americans are not proscribed from marrying their siblings, while white Americans get to do so, the marriage law passes Constitutional muster. The limitations on who may marry whom necessarily reflect the mores of the society, and these, in turn, necessarily reflect its religious beliefs. Laws must, however, be equally applied, at all levels of government, with respect to the exercise of the natural law rights recognized in the Bill of Rights: business licenses, for example, may not be denied to citizens because they have exercised their free speech, free press, free assembly, or free exercise of religion rights in a way that the licensing authority finds less than congenial. But the laws themselves can be discriminatory as all get-out, as long as the application is not biased as previously discussed.

        • trickyblain

          A long — and absurd– defense of discrimination, Carlos. Take it up with the Supremes, just saying…

          The "only" part of the Constitution that deals with it is still part of the Constitution.

        • trickyblain

          A long — and absurd– defense of discrimination, Carlos. Take it up with the Supremes, just saying…

          The "only" part of the Constitution that deals with it is still part of the Constitution.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Leftists and Communists know that to take over a Nation they must destroy the cultural norm and
      societal values. I think it started for sure with laugh in where all religious people were constant
      targets for ridicule, to undermine works well with making fun of a person. Attacking the mind by
      alluding to the stupidity of those you want gone, major effort to change behavior and the change
      was doing drugs, promiscuity and social decay. The left does not change, they are at war with
      America and have taken over many institutions, government, entertainment, educational et. al.,
      but the end result is always a grand failure as they are as false as a trillion Obama $3.00 bills.

  • Steedy

    Chik-fil-A is now my favorite fast-food restaurant. I'll be eating there every chance I get, thank you.

  • tgh754cmh

    Chicago values? Hah! Look at Obama: Chicago Values personified. And Grainne is correct; if those restaurants were run by Muslims who preached Death to Homosexuals, Rahm and the other lunatic mayor wouldn't say a damn thing. Typical Leftist BS double standards.

  • trickyblain

    Ahlert calling somebody a hack, that's really funny!

    Even more so when he's telling us that the public backlash against this company is all about one innocent statement the CEO made. He's lying, of course. Chick Fil A has spent millions and millions backing unconstitutional, discriminatory statutes that would forbid SSM. The company inserts itself into the political system, therefore it's not shocking that they get a response from liberty-loving patriots. All those so impressed with Leviticus must also never, ever — under pain of death — mix fabrics or eat shrimp, right?

    • Carlos Perera

      What's really funny is the twisting of of Constitutional principles, history, and the English language by hack commenters.

      Chick-Fil-A's owners have every right to speak out, without trammels, on any issue they choose to address, without fearing retaliation from Democratic political machine thugs (who apparently are termed "liberty-loving patriots" by Orwellian cultural Marxists). What part of "freedom of speech" don't you understand? If you and other homosexualists don't like their public stance on this or any other issues, you are free not to patronize their restaurants. You are _not_ entitled to use the police power of the state to suppress a viewpoint you don't like: _That_ is what is Constitutional.

      Regarding marriage laws, they are necessarily discriminatory in all sorts of ways, as they must define who may marry whom to establish a civil status; e.g., if you want to wed your sister or feel you just can't get along with fewer than four wives, you're just plain out of luck anywhere in the U. S.

      In the corpus of Western law, stretching as far back as historical documentation allows, marriage has never been legally recognized except between men and women . . . which is the only arrangement that makes biological sense. Dan Cathy et al. are not overturning a grand tradition of sodomitic marriage; the sodomites are the ones trying to subvert the core institution of this or any other civilization.

      As to Leviticus' proscription of mixing fabrics or eating sea creatures without scales, that is a textbook non sequitur, regarding the issue at hand. For what it's worth, I give you my blessing to mix wool and linen and to eat as many arthropods as you want.

      • trickyblain

        The first four paragraphs of your screed are paranoid pablum. Of course the company has a right to express its views on a particular subject. It also has a right to suffer to political/public consequences.

        The last paragraph, however, needs some expansion. It seems your position is that the laws proscribed in Leviticus relating to eating and fashion are obsolete, yet your pet issue is fully contemporary and reasonable. Why do you ignore some parts of the Magic Book, and adhere moronically to others?

    • Oleg

      You have an interesting interpretation of what constitutes “Liberty Loving Patriots” thsoe that are openly ruminating about how they could use the power of the state to deny someone a right to due process soley because of their point of view. This clearly shows the topsy turvey twisting of the political left and the radical gay movement, marriage becomes a right, which it is not, otherwise you would be able to marry anyone or anything in any quantity. Even though the traditional defination of marriage, one women and one man, has stood for hundreds if not thousands of years those that support it it are now extremists and bigots.
      What I am wondering is what will happen one day when the nanny statists, the ones who want to ban sugar, salt, and regulate drink sizes, eventually turn their gaze towards the gay community for having an unhealthy lifestyle. After all if the government runs the healthcare system it’s costing the government money to treat AIDS, and Hepatitis C Keep supporting statism and this will happen one day, along with euthenasia, eugenics, and other dark practices from the not to distant past.
      That is if the Islamists don’t overun the West and create a pan Islamic caliphate, which the Left doesn’t seem to think is a concern. Then it will be all a moot point, no booze, no pork, no gays, and women will be the third class citizens wearing tents. If you don’t like politics and religion being mixed there is no such seperation under Islam, the religion is the stae and vice versa.

  • mlcblog

    That's right. It is surreal. I was searching for a word!

    I hope Mr. Cathy pursues this and wins in court. I think there are plenty of people in Boston who would like to eat Chick-A-Fil items.

    What a fiasco.

  • Ghostwriter

    Well,I had more than my share of debates on BL and GL manga. For those who don't know what I'm talking about,these two manga are same-sex romances for straight audiences. I'm not a fan of such things and I don't want to read them. That's my thing and I've said so numerous times on anime websites. I've even gotten into debates because of my dislike of those genres. This is ridiculous. I hope Mr. Cathy goes the lawsuit route and I hope he wins. Despite what those like trickyblain believe,someone shouldn't be punished for his political beliefs. That would be like me being punished for not wanting to watch an anti-American anime like "Spriggan."
    Mr. Cathy has a different opinion than the mayors of Chicago and Boston. He shouldn't be punished simply because he has a different opinion than them. That's wrong and not what America is all about.

  • intrcptr2

    I'm voting with my wallet, gang.

    Who wants mohr chikn?

    • WilliamJamesWard

      I would like to see franchises spring up all over…..the nasty attack may be the best
      business boost for Chick-fil-A ever………………………..William

  • joe

    Rahm just looks petty and foolish like he always does.

    The whole thing is another distraction from Obama failures and the economy.

    It's not even a valid argument since : marriage isn't legal in Illinois
    2. a personal opinion does not constitute a company's policy
    3. no one has suffered any discrimination by the company
    4.preventing a business from operating based on a person's religious beliefs is discrimination.

    It is utterly ridiculous for government to threaten ,harass and demonize a person for saying they believe in a legal,moral,responsible,socially benefical act. Will they fine people for having children while married next ?

    And if they pursue this attitude ,it opens the door for every local government to block muslim ,Jewish,Buddhist etc., owned businesses if they don't agree with their religious ideology or personal opinion.


    Gays are just like everyone else – in Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Up Your Alley Fair
    (censored version)
    San Francisco, July 27, 2008

  • mrbean

    Ahhh yes we must not upset all the cornholers and the tunafish breaths by calling their chosen sexual activities deviancy and debauchery.

  • Amused

    To begin with , banning a permit for a buisiness due to the views of an owner of a chain store is patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL .
    ChicFilet 's got an excellent case of discrimination to bring before the courts , and this one doesn't even have to get to the Supreme Court ….it is blatantly unConstitutional .
    What about Ben & Jerry's ??they went beyond just an owners point of view and attempted an offensive name to one of their products .

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Feedom of speech and being intitled to one's own opinion and view, that is big. We may not
      agree on many things but, hey what fun. Think on it Musi——-no Constitutional right and
      freedom of views, ouch! If prohibited I am sure we would be sharing the same gallows.

      • Amused

        This will not fly . Chick-Filet will win on lower court levels , if these cities want to pursue it , then they will lose on any court level /. It is a blatant violation of the Constitution .

  • Bob

    Two words:


  • Jim_C

    I agree. Let the business stand. If you don't like the ignorant views supported by the bigot CEO, don't buy its food.