Chick-fil-A and the Gay War Against Freedom

Very true, and I'm glad to see the issue finally coming to the forefront. The homofacists have been destroying every person who dares utter a word about them other than in full lockstep support. Look at what has happened to Rick Santorum, who has never once uttered a word of 'hate' against an actual homosexual person.

As with abortion and gun control, we're seeing a total backfiring against their overreach. People have been flooding to Chik-Fil-A in support over the past few weeks - lines wrapped around the building.

I was listening to a legal expert this morning talking about how these government officials are not only totally wrong but are in fact opening up their city offices to massive lawsuits for abuse of office and discrimination.

According to the expert, even COMMENTING against a business on the part of a high-ranking government is legally actionable, to say nothing of actually attempting to bar them from setting up shop. According to the legal expert, these mayors and councilman are being told by their legal council to SHUT UP quickly before the city has to write massive checks to Chik-Fil-A.

Government officials have to be VERY careful anytime they talk publicly about a specific business, even if their words are mostly positive. Very big precedents against doing that.

Looks like Huckabee is trying to start an "I Support Chick-fil-A Day" this coming Wednesday. Hope it works, though we'll certainly never hear about it on the news.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/huckabee-launches-chick-fil-day-aug-1

We live in a Democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Chick-Fil-A is learning a similar lesson to the one learned by any American politician who dares criticize anything Israel does.

NYT agrees with scragged!

The Chick-fil-A Business
Antigay remarks like those made by the president of the fast-food chain are offensive, but they are not a reason to kick the company out of town.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/the-chick-fil-a-business.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211_20120731

Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain based in Atlanta, recently dragged his company into the middle of the same-sex marriage debate. He told one interviewer that the country is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ ” Antigay remarks like these are offensive. But they are not a reason to kick the company out of town, as the officials in Boston and Chicago have threatened to do.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City has the correct take on the matter. Mr. Cathy and his family have long supported efforts to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Mr. Bloomberg worked hard for marriage equality in New York State. But, said Mr. Bloomberg, “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.”

Other officials were considerably less sensitive to the fact that controversial, even hurtful, political views are protected by the First Amendment. One Chicago alderman unwisely threatened to try to use his powers over city businesses to shut out future Chick-fil-A franchises.

Speaker Christine Quinn of the New York City Council also overreached when she sent a letter, on Council stationery, calling for the president of New York University to “sever your relationship” with a Chick-fil-A eatery on campus. “Let me be clear,” she wrote, “I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views.”

As a gay woman who recently got married, Ms. Quinn’s anger about Mr. Cathy’s comments is understandable. And she stressed on Monday that the letter was “solely my own opinion.” But, as a powerful city leader and a leading candidate for mayor, she and others in city governments should take care not to be seen muscling aside businesses whose owners don’t agree with their views. That won’t work, especially in a city as big, diverse and opinionated as New York.

They did it again! Are they realizing there are issues with the gay agenda?

Let Chick-fil-A Fly Free
Municipalities and institutions should leave the decision about whether to eat at Chick-fil-A to individual consumers and not to officeholders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/opinion/let-chick-fil-a-fly-free.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1_20120802

RECENTLY, Dan Cathy, the president of the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A, commented publicly on his beliefs about same-sex marriage. He emphasized that his business is very supportive of family and that Chick-fil-A is family-owned and family-led. He advocated for what he called “the biblical definition of the family unit” and observed that supporting same-sex marriage invites “God’s judgment on our nation.”

Predictably, Mr. Cathy’s comments drew a strong response from opponents and supporters alike. In protest, the Jim Henson Company said it would no longer make toys for Chick-fil-A; in support, the former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, now a television host, declared a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.

But less predictable — and troubling — was that officials in a number of cities expressed not only their ire but also their desire to keep Chick-fil-A out of their towns. In Boston, Mayor Thomas M. Menino urged Chick-fil-A not to open a restaurant, explaining to The Boston Herald: “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.” In Philadelphia, the City Council member James F. Kenney wrote to Mr. Cathy, instructing him to “take a hike and take your intolerance with you.” A Chicago alderman opposed the opening of a new Chick-fil-A restaurant in his ward. And Speaker Christine Quinn of the New York City Council endorsed a movement by students at New York University who are pushing for the removal of Chick-fil-A from the school’s campus.

As a gay man, I’m disheartened by statements like Mr. Cathy’s, with their limited conception of what it means to be a family. “Family” is a treasured — I’ll say it, sacred — word in the gay community. Through decades of modern-day oppression, gay men and lesbians have created families against all odds. Love, loyalty, commitment, mutual support: these things are family. They are scarce virtues that our society should do everything in its power to foster.

But that’s my opinion. And a society that truly believes in individual freedom will respect Mr. Cathy’s right to his views. Those who disagree with him are free to boycott Chick-fil-A in protest. But if our elected officials run Chick-fil-A out of town, they are effectively voting for all of us, regardless of our respective beliefs, and eliminating our individual freedoms.

And freedom, after all, is at the heart of the controversy over same-sex marriage. True individual freedom includes allowing consenting adults to marry the partners they choose, regardless of gender. To those for whom same-sex marriage is personally objectionable, their free choice is simple: Don’t enter into one. But don’t impede the freedom of others to do so. As long as Chick-fil-A operates within the boundaries of the law, municipalities and institutions should leave the decision about whether to eat at Chick-fil-A to individual consumers. If they do, Chick-fil-A is still likely to experience a net loss of business over time as a result of Mr. Cathy’s statements. This is because gay people are the constituency most viscerally, fundamentally and personally affected by the denial of the freedom to marry the consenting adult we choose. We are the ones with the highest personal stakes in sticking out the battle in the long run. And we will vote with our feet.

In the marketplace as in politics, those rare players who place individual freedom ahead of their own personal agendas will get my vote every time.

Steve Salbu is the dean of the Scheller College of Business at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

The NYT doesn't want their friends overreaching because they know it will backfire. The NYT is smart enough to realize that CFA has the upper hand here politically.

On the opposite side, this is why I'm so glad to see the controversy. The NYT is right to be scared for their friends. Every time gays go down this road, the backlash is quick and focused.

The best weapon gays have on their side is the normal quiet cultural decay that occurs over time. If they keep their mouths shut, eventually more and more institutions accept them. If they march in the streets and create controversy, the opposition solidifies.

But what fun is it just to sit quietly and wait for victory? Unless there's fighting, they can't see themselves as heroes of the culture wars. Some of these firebrands would rather be heroic than win.

Nate,
the power of the counter-culture warriors of the 60s is at its zenith. Leadership positions in the private sector, in charitable trusts, in both the Republican and Democrat Parties, in the entertainment industry and in government bureaucracies are nearly saturated with counter-culturists. Counter-culture influence in the media has ensured that most issues have been framed in terms favorable to those wanting to radically change society. Public schools have shifted from not teaching western culture and western values to indoctrinating children to be hostile to the values of western civilization, frequently using environmentalism as a tool to attack both capitalism and the concept of limited government.

But, there are clear signs that the political milieu of the counter-culture is about to disintegrate: the European welfare state is imploding; the EU political experiment itself is showing cracks; European nationalism is on the rise; violence and instability in Mexico have shelved the idea of creating a North American Union; border state violence have turned public opinion against multi-culturalism, open-borders and bilingualism; the ideological near-monopoly that radical leftists once had in the national broadcast media in the US has been broken; the internet has allowed the proliferation of viewpoints not controlled by big media gatekeepers; people with mainstream political views have discovered that it is not just radicals who can used social media to organize; push back against radical views in academia and in the K-12 curricula is becoming more common; the events in WI portend a dramatic reduction in the power of government unions and, most importantly, the Tea Party Movement has given a real voice to those who are opposed to the attempt to redefine American society.

The counter-culturists recognize that they are starting to lose their power and are trying to lock-in as much of their political program as they can while they can. It is their panicky efforts to do so that best explains their zealotry.