Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

[Phatscotty]

I am going to drive a good distance to get a chicken sandwich on August 1st. I recommend anybody who wants to take a stand against fascist economic bullies, and stand in support of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, also visits. It's the most pro-American thing we can do concerning this issue.

After the Mayors of Boston and Chicago and elected officials in other cities vowed to block efforts to open Chick-fil-A restaurants in their cities because the company’s president told reporters that he supported the traditional definition of marriage, thousands of Americans are mobilizing efforts nationwide to support Chick-fil-A.

The company has come under attack from militant homosexuals and is being “smeared by vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left.”

“The militant homosexual advocates have launched an all out assault on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A,” he said. “The attempts to hurt or destroy Chick-fil-A are nothing short of economic bullying.”

But Chick-fil-A did issue a corporate statement regarding the protests from Donald Perry, vice president Corporate Public Relations:

"Chick-fil-A is a family-owned and family-led company serving the communities in which it operates. From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business. For example, we believe that closing on Sundays, operating debt-free and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities are what make us a stronger company and Chick-fil-A family."


The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.


Our mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.

Rockwall City Council member and Lake Pointe Church member Michelle Smith supports the effort and publicly questioned whether such attacks by the gay lobby are right on her Facebook page July 25. She referred to an editorial on TheAtlantic.com entitled “In Defense of Eating at Chick-fil-A”: “This is about the right of a private business to operate as it wishes," she said. "Do we really want a country where people won’t do commerce with those who have beliefs different than their own?”

“This country was founded on freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” she added. “I strongly support the first amendment right to free speech.”

Chick-fil-A is privately owned by the Cathy family. The company president, Dan Cathy, angered gay rights advocates and supporters when he made recent statements that some have alleged are anti-gay.

Cathy told Baptist Press that the company was unapologetically in favor of traditional marriage.

“Guilty as charged,” he said. “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.”

In a separate interview on the Ken Coleman Show, Cathy suggested that the nation could face God’s wrath over the redefinition of marriage.

“I think we are 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,’” hesaid. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

Boston Mayor Tom Menino was the first to state that the Atlanta-based company would not be welcome in his city.

“You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population,” he told the Boston Globe. “We’re an open city. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also condemned the fast-food chain, vowing his support for Alderman Proco Moreno’s announcement that he would block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district.

“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a statement to the Chicago Tribune. “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the First Ward,” he told the newspaper.

Mountain View California, a bedroom community of San Francisco, has temporarily blocked the chicken chain from opening there after a homosexual couple spearheaded an effort to launch a zoning challenge.

Threats to ban Chick-fil-A have drawn fire from editorial pages across the nation.

The Los Angeles Times condemned the decision, calling it far more troubling than Chick-fil-A’s support of traditional marriage.

“Public officials have a responsibility to carry out their ministerial tasks fairly and evenhandedly – and to uphold the principle of free speech – whether or not they like a business executive’s social or political stances,” the Times opined.

The Boston Globe wondered “which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.”

Donald Wildmon, the founder of the American Family Association, is backing Huckabee’s efforts saying he hoped it would generate the largest one-day sales in the company’s history.

“I have been incensed at the vitriolic assaults on the Chick-fil-A company,” Wildmon wrote in an email. “It’s a great American story that is being smeared by vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was especially disturbed by the actions of Boston’s mayor.

“This is really outrageous when you see this is the train that follows same sex marriage,” Perkins told Fox News. “This idea of the loss of religious freedom – the freedom of speech — and it’s on perfect display in Boston with the intolerance of this mayor.”

Perkins noted that Americans have overwhelmingly endorsed the traditional definition of marriage – 32 times in 32 states.

“Chick-fil-A is in the mainstream,” he said. “The mayor of Boston is in the minority.”

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2012/ju ... -marriage/

[Symmetry]

Huh, as soon as anyone or any organisation is represented as homophobic, it seems like Scotty comes out batting for them. Is there a pattern?

[GreecePwns]

Is this a surprise, Symmetry? He's abandoned the libertarian schtick for social conservatism for quite a while now.

[Nola_Lifer]

I'll fill a chick that day.

[Phatscotty]

I take a stand against any bigotry, discrimination, and bullying. Whenever a government puts up a sign saying "No XYZ's allowed" I will be there to stand against them. I had thought you guys would agree??? Or did you "drop your civil rights schtik for fascism a long time ago"

It has nothing to do with Libertarianism, or social Conservatism, or anything political. It's called being an American with the right to speak freely and worship freely, without being discriminated against.

[MudPuppy]

Peach Milkshake is back:

[daddy1gringo]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

[Symmetry]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Don't they have the power of an electorate?

What sort of electoral majority does a minister or priest have to decide that a church should not accept gay marriage within the institutions they control?

[AAFitz]

Eh...Im with Colbert on this one. Id rather go to a KFC, get the double down, breast on breast action. Now thats fkn American!

[Woodruff]

I am going to drive a good distance to get a chicken sandwich on August 1st. I recommend anybody who wants to take a stand against fascist economic bullies, and stand in support of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, also visits. It's the most pro-American thing we can do concerning this issue.
Let's show the Nazis how to play by the rules. Find a chik-fil-a near you!!!

I wonder why you've never done this for a non-religious-related organization, Phatscotty? I wonder why that is?

I take a stand against any bigotry, discrimination, and bullying.

No, you don't. You are a bigot, you promote discriminatory policies, and you are a political bully.

[Woodruff]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Agreed. Perhaps I might relent if they relented, but that's about it.

[Woodruff]

Eh...Im with Colbert on this one. Id rather go to a KFC, get the double down, breast on breast action. Now thats fkn American!

Chik-Fil-A >>>>>>> KFC >>>>>>>> Popeye's

[daddy1gringo]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Don't they have the power of an electorate?

What sort of electoral majority does a minister or priest have to decide that a church should not accept gay marriage within the institutions they control?

Let's say I am the mayor, I am Christian and I was elected by an electorate that I know largely shares my philosophy. A Jewish business owner publicly declares that Jesus is not the Son of God, or let's say the business owner was an atheist who publicly declared that all belief in God is bunk. Do I have the right to block him from opening a branch in my town? Of course not. That is exactly what is happening here.

I think you know about this (even though you are a Brit) but I'll insult your intelligence a little for the benefit of readers who may not be as well informed. The people who made sure the U.S. Constitution contained the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." were the descendants of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and other free thinkers who came here to escape the situation in England, where there was an "established " church, The Anglican, or Church of England. Both the church and the secular government could use the power of the law to persecute people whose beliefs they did not approve. John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail for holding un-approved religious meetings.

That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

I close with this statement from pro-gay-marriage NYC mayor Bloomberg:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ick-fil-a/

[lynch5762]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Don't they have the power of an electorate?

What sort of electoral majority does a minister or priest have to decide that a church should not accept gay marriage within the institutions they control?

Let's say I am the mayor, I am Christian and I was elected by an electorate that I know largely shares my philosophy. A Jewish business owner publicly declares that Jesus is not the Son of God, or let's say the business owner was an atheist who publicly declared that all belief in God is bunk. Do I have the right to block him from opening a branch in my town? Of course not. That is exactly what is happening here.

I think you know about this (even though you are a Brit) but I'll insult your intelligence a little for the benefit of readers who may not be as well informed. The people who made sure the U.S. Constitution contained the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." were the descendants of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and other free thinkers who came here to escape the situation in England, where there was an "established " church, The Anglican, or Church of England. Both the church and the secular government could use the power of the law to persecute people whose beliefs they did not approve. John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail for holding un-approved religious meetings.

That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

I close with this statement from pro-gay-marriage NYC mayor Bloomberg:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ick-fil-a/

Well said.... It amazes me how so many of our leaders in this country could care less about the constitution anymore. It is the backbone of this country and yet it seems that so many chose to ignore it or think that it is outdated... Unfortunately, I have first hand knowledge of what is being taught to our children these days and I can tell you that the emphasis on our history is nothing compared to what it was when I was in school.

I think that a chicken sandwich sounds pretty good on the 1st... I shall pencil them in for lunch!

[Phatscotty]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Well said sir. In fact, perfectly said

[Symmetry]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Don't they have the power of an electorate?

What sort of electoral majority does a minister or priest have to decide that a church should not accept gay marriage within the institutions they control?

Let's say I am the mayor, I am Christian and I was elected by an electorate that I know largely shares my philosophy. A Jewish business owner publicly declares that Jesus is not the Son of God, or let's say the business owner was an atheist who publicly declared that all belief in God is bunk. Do I have the right to block him from opening a branch in my town? Of course not. That is exactly what is happening here.

I think you know about this (even though you are a Brit) but I'll insult your intelligence a little for the benefit of readers who may not be as well informed. The people who made sure the U.S. Constitution contained the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." were the descendants of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and other free thinkers who came here to escape the situation in England, where there was an "established " church, The Anglican, or Church of England. Both the church and the secular government could use the power of the law to persecute people whose beliefs they did not approve. John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail for holding un-approved religious meetings.

That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

I close with this statement from pro-gay-marriage NYC mayor Bloomberg:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ick-fil-a/

You will be known by those that agree with you more than those that disagree. I appreciate your stance, but at some point you should take a look around at the people you're siding with.

[Phatscotty]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Don't they have the power of an electorate?

What sort of electoral majority does a minister or priest have to decide that a church should not accept gay marriage within the institutions they control?

Let's say I am the mayor, I am Christian and I was elected by an electorate that I know largely shares my philosophy. A Jewish business owner publicly declares that Jesus is not the Son of God, or let's say the business owner was an atheist who publicly declared that all belief in God is bunk. Do I have the right to block him from opening a branch in my town? Of course not. That is exactly what is happening here.

I think you know about this (even though you are a Brit) but I'll insult your intelligence a little for the benefit of readers who may not be as well informed. The people who made sure the U.S. Constitution contained the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." were the descendants of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and other free thinkers who came here to escape the situation in England, where there was an "established " church, The Anglican, or Church of England. Both the church and the secular government could use the power of the law to persecute people whose beliefs they did not approve. John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail for holding un-approved religious meetings.

That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

I close with this statement from pro-gay-marriage NYC mayor Bloomberg:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ick-fil-a/

You will be known by those that agree with you more than those that disagree. I appreciate your stance, but at some point you should take a look around at the people you're siding with.

In other words, ignore the substance and your own feelings and thoughts, and focus on a complete strangers opinions.

Symmetry, do you have a response to Gringo when he said this? Or all you can do is "appreciate" it???

I think you know about this (even though you are a Brit) but I'll insult your intelligence a little for the benefit of readers who may not be as well informed. The people who made sure the U.S. Constitution contained the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." were the descendants of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and other free thinkers who came here to escape the situation in England, where there was an "established " church, The Anglican, or Church of England. Both the church and the secular government could use the power of the law to persecute people whose beliefs they did not approve. John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail for holding un-approved religious meetings. That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

Is he right? wrong? Is this a clear example of bigotry, in your opinion Symm, or is it not?

[kentington]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Don't they have the power of an electorate?

What sort of electoral majority does a minister or priest have to decide that a church should not accept gay marriage within the institutions they control?

Let's say I am the mayor, I am Christian and I was elected by an electorate that I know largely shares my philosophy. A Jewish business owner publicly declares that Jesus is not the Son of God, or let's say the business owner was an atheist who publicly declared that all belief in God is bunk. Do I have the right to block him from opening a branch in my town? Of course not. That is exactly what is happening here.

I think you know about this (even though you are a Brit) but I'll insult your intelligence a little for the benefit of readers who may not be as well informed. The people who made sure the U.S. Constitution contained the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." were the descendants of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and other free thinkers who came here to escape the situation in England, where there was an "established " church, The Anglican, or Church of England. Both the church and the secular government could use the power of the law to persecute people whose beliefs they did not approve. John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail for holding un-approved religious meetings.

That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

I close with this statement from pro-gay-marriage NYC mayor Bloomberg:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ick-fil-a/

You will be known by those that agree with you more than those that disagree. I appreciate your stance, but at some point you should take a look around at the people you're siding with.

No daddy1gringo join my team!

Why can't you just look at the what he is saying instead of who he is agreeing with? Seriously, you should know what stance he would take in a thread like this anyway.
So, are you saying that even if Phatscotty is right you will disagree with him because he isn't on the side you want to be seen as?

[Symmetry]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Don't they have the power of an electorate?

What sort of electoral majority does a minister or priest have to decide that a church should not accept gay marriage within the institutions they control?

Let's say I am the mayor, I am Christian and I was elected by an electorate that I know largely shares my philosophy. A Jewish business owner publicly declares that Jesus is not the Son of God, or let's say the business owner was an atheist who publicly declared that all belief in God is bunk. Do I have the right to block him from opening a branch in my town? Of course not. That is exactly what is happening here.

I think you know about this (even though you are a Brit) but I'll insult your intelligence a little for the benefit of readers who may not be as well informed. The people who made sure the U.S. Constitution contained the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." were the descendants of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and other free thinkers who came here to escape the situation in England, where there was an "established " church, The Anglican, or Church of England. Both the church and the secular government could use the power of the law to persecute people whose beliefs they did not approve. John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail for holding un-approved religious meetings.

That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

I close with this statement from pro-gay-marriage NYC mayor Bloomberg:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ick-fil-a/

You will be known by those that agree with you more than those that disagree. I appreciate your stance, but at some point you should take a look around at the people you're siding with.

In other words, ignore the substance and your own feelings and thoughts, and focus on a complete strangers opinions.

Symmetry, do you have a response to Gringo when he said this? Or all you can do is "appreciate" it???

I think you know about this (even though you are a Brit) but I'll insult your intelligence a little for the benefit of readers who may not be as well informed. The people who made sure the U.S. Constitution contained the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." were the descendants of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and other free thinkers who came here to escape the situation in England, where there was an "established " church, The Anglican, or Church of England. Both the church and the secular government could use the power of the law to persecute people whose beliefs they did not approve. John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail for holding un-approved religious meetings. That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

Is he right? wrong? Is this a clear example of bigotry, in your opinion Symm, or is it not?

He's bat shit loco given my atheism, but I have a good deal of respect for his locomotivation, and I enjoy his conversation even when we're adversarial.

[Phatscotty]

Lots of people are of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't make them bigots. I am sure some are. Some also of people who believe that all such people are ignorant bigots are themselves bigots.

All Dan Cathy did was state his belief, and contribute from his profits from his family's company to causes in which he believes. He has the right to do that.

If people who strongly disagree with him want to "vote with their pocketbook" and boycott that business, they have the right to do that too.

The problem here is with the mayors who are threatening to use the power of their government offices to persecute the man for his beliefs. That is exactly the kind of abuse that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution was created to prevent. Their actions are unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal. They need to be impeached and prosecuted.

Don't they have the power of an electorate?

What sort of electoral majority does a minister or priest have to decide that a church should not accept gay marriage within the institutions they control?

Let's say I am the mayor, I am Christian and I was elected by an electorate that I know largely shares my philosophy. A Jewish business owner publicly declares that Jesus is not the Son of God, or let's say the business owner was an atheist who publicly declared that all belief in God is bunk. Do I have the right to block him from opening a branch in my town? Of course not. That is exactly what is happening here.

I think you know about this (even though you are a Brit) but I'll insult your intelligence a little for the benefit of readers who may not be as well informed. The people who made sure the U.S. Constitution contained the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." were the descendants of the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers, and other free thinkers who came here to escape the situation in England, where there was an "established " church, The Anglican, or Church of England. Both the church and the secular government could use the power of the law to persecute people whose beliefs they did not approve. John Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress while in jail for holding un-approved religious meetings.

That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

I close with this statement from pro-gay-marriage NYC mayor Bloomberg:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ick-fil-a/

You will be known by those that agree with you more than those that disagree. I appreciate your stance, but at some point you should take a look around at the people you're siding with.

In other words, ignore the substance and your own feelings and thoughts, and focus on a complete strangers opinions.

Symmetry, do you have a response to Gringo when he said this? Or all you can do is "appreciate" it???

That is what these mayors are attempting to do, and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and criminal.

Is he right? wrong? Is this a clear example of bigotry, in your opinion Symm, or is it not?

He's bat shit loco given my atheism, but I have a good deal of respect for his locomotivation, and I enjoy his conversation even when we're adversarial.

"A bit dodgy" but I will ask again, in a different way...Is the response by the mayor of Boston an act of bigotry?

[Symmetry]

No .

[Phatscotty]

Is the response by the mayor of Boston an act of bigotry?

No .

Then you don't know what bigotry is. I will give you the simplest examples known on earth, just to remind you.

"no mosques allowed"
"no jews allowed"
"no handicaps allowed"
"no purple people allowed"
"no chik-fil-a-s allowed"



This is an example of bigotry. If you change "Irish" with "chik-fil-a" its bigoted in the same way.

Let me ask you one more question. What if this was an Islamic business? and a bunch of mayors in Texas started threatening to pull the permits of the Islamic business and close them down based on the same exact statement by their CEO as the Chik-fil-a CEO? Would you give the same answer? that the Texas mayors are not bigoted?

[Army of GOD]

f*ck I hate neo-cons

so scotty, please tell me that when Oreo came out with its pro-gay ad, you supported "Oreo Day" which was to stand against the economic fascists who opposed gay marriage and thus went on to boycott Oreos, right?

[CreepersWiener]

I used to work at a Chic-Fil-A a long time ago. I used to jerk off in the kitchen and put a little bit of my sperm on each sandwich. I hope you all had one!

[Army of GOD]

oh and the Mcdonald's Chicken McBites are fucking delicious.