The real outrage in this is that two elected officials threatened the president under color of law for expressing his views. That’s what you should be mad about. I’ll continue my boycott of Chicago and MA.
Don't you dare say that you're just supporting Dan Cathy's freedom of speech and religious expression. While there may be some of you who actually do care about the First Amendment working for everyone, I would like to know where you were when:
At which point he goes into a list of places that have been boycotted for their views one way or another. I have to disagree and here's why.
I, like most American's, only become involved when I feel that something affects me. I didn't see the LGBT community come and participate with the Starbucks buycott for example. I'm sure there was overlap as I know that Gay Cynic probably participated but as a whole the groups are not tied together at the hip. I would in general do my best to support someone, but I will not expend energy in going out of my way as I will with places who forbid concealed carry for example.
What has happened here is that a large number of people are supporting Chick-Fil-A, not because of the owners stance on Gay marriage. That is an entirely separate debate and my position can be summed thusly:
The state has no business being involved in marriage. As for the legal rights provided by marriage between partners, who cares if they're both male or female. Everyone deserves the same legal rights and it is no one's business to judge anyone else for their choices.
Moving on though this situation was aggravated by two political individuals. Namely the mayors of Chicago and Boston. These two individuals attempted to use the force of state to punish a company and its owner for voicing their opinion. While I disagree with that opinion, they had every right to say it without the threat or use of force from government. That is the problem, these politicians were using government to silence speech. It wasn't a separate part of the public attempting to shame the company for their opinion, it was the state. The fact that they were using government to influence or control speech is a blatant violation of the first amendment and is worthy of note because what is to stop either of them saying I cannot conduct business because of my outspoken support of the second amendment? It doesn't have to even be about the second amendment though, it could be anything they disagree with.
I am by no means the only one with this view as well. This is very much a free speech issue because the state should not be allowed to disallow businesses from operation based on the opinions and speech of their owners or employees.
I live in Washington and there is no Chick-Fil-A out here. Overall I probably wouldn't go if there was, but given the behavior of a few tyrannical politician's I would give patronage just to show my support. That's exactly what those politicians did by doing that. They drove people to patronize that business merely because the government was intimidating them. -B]