Boston Mayor: Chick-fil-A, Move Along

MayorMeninoThis week, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy said that the United States' gradual embrace of marriage equality is tantamount to "inviting God's judgment on our nation." In so saying, Cathy invited the judgment of Boston's Mayor Thomas M. Menino (pictured at right). From the Boston Herald:

[Mayor Menino] is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston — possibly to a popular tourist spot just steps from the Freedom Trail — after the family-owned firm’s president suggested gay marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday.

“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

Chick-fil-A has long been linked with conservative causes, though seldom so controversially. This week's remarks accomplished what the company's previous Muslim-firings and gay-bashings couldn't, sparking enough backlash to evince a promise from Chick-fil-A execs to stay out of the culture wars from now on. Distinctly odd behavior for a company whose stated purpose isn't to make a profit, but rather "to glorify God." What will God make of Chick-filA's sudden meekness? Maybe Cathy et. al. aren't so pious. Maybe they just don't like gays.   

 

Comments

  1. ASKH says

    +1 to Steve

    I’m all for personally finding Chick-fil-A and it’s corporate policies disgusting. But the mayor has no business blocking them from doing business in Boston. Nice of him to outline how big government derails businesses it doesn’t like from coming to their area. Imagine if it was a gay bar or a free LGBT health clinic. Not such a good idea when the shoe is on the other foot.

  2. rick says

    Good for him. Businesses that actively and proudly discriminate should not be promoted. There are plenty of businesses that support equality and deserve our support. Chic-Fil-A deserves condemnation.

  3. Harrison says

    While I of course appreciate my mayor’s stance on this issue, can he keep this up for any future businesses that want to come to Boston? Or what about the ones that are already here? Is he going to force out Urban Outfitters now too?

  4. Mary says

    I’m not sure why Chic-Fil-A should be “banned from Boston.” The company doesn’t refuse to hire or serve gay people. Does it? Marriage equality is still a controversial issue. One day opposition to it may be on par with racial segregation. But we aren’t there yet. It will take years. The mayor’s actions are just giving social conservatives more reason to paint liberals as intolerant of people who have or are accepting of “traditional values.” The later group includes just about everyone in the U.S. prior to 2003. Put simply, it’s way too soon for what the mayor is trying to do. Although I’m sure his heart is in the right place.

    When this restaurant chain puts up a “No Gays Allowed” sign that would be the time to tell them to keep out of Boston.

  5. neptune says

    Gays bars and LGBT health clinics wouldn’t spend their monies to make Christians and straights second-class citizens.

    This isn’t someone’s bigoted dinner-table conversation the mayor is against. This is their profit fueling hate groups, like NOM, that use DIRTY (dirty, dirty, dirty) tactics to keep equality from us.

    Don’t kid yourselves, if Chick-fil-A donated their money to the National Alliance, every mayor in America would say the same thing.

    Unfortunately, people havent evolved yet to see that a donating to NOM is just the same as a donation to a neo-Nazi group. Even more unfortunate, some of those people are gay.

  6. Caliban says

    As much as I hate Chik-Fil-A, I’m a little iffy about this. If you think this is acceptable then it’s hard to turn around and be offended when the conservative mayor of another city bans a restaurant (or other business) because they promote gay rights or marriage equality.

  7. says

    @ASKH: Of course he has a right to say he doesn’t want Chick-Fil-A in Boston. They support–financially and otherwise–discrimination; MA doesn’t. Marriage equality is the law in MA. A company that believes accepted state law is evil and works against such laws really doesn’t belong in the state. Those who disagree with the mayor obviously also have the right to speak up. The shoe could be on the other foot argument doesn’t really hold up in this case.

  8. says

    Oh look at the internalized homophobia on display. Now if the restaurant gave millions of dollars to the KKK or to the Nazi Party, all of you would have absolutely no problem with the Mayor of Boston banning them. But it is sort of alright for the company to give millions of dollars to anti-gay groups, right?

    Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same sex marriage. A company that donates millions to NOM and other groups promoting constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage should be called out and prevented from making additional money in the state that was courageous enough to say ENOUGH.

  9. says

    @Caliban: I get what you’re saying, and a conservative mayor would also have the right to discourage equality supporting businesses, but marriage equality doesn’t discriminate against anyone. If a lgbt- friendly business worked to outlaw Christian marriage or heterosexual marriage, that would be an equivalent situation. I’d welcome a conservative mayor trying to justify banning a business that believes in equality for all. He might win in some places now; but those days are numbered.

  10. Mike in the Tundra says

    @David – the ads are automatically generated. Google must search the sites for words that are being used. Sometimes the results are rather strange.

  11. Lymis says

    I have mixed feeling about this.

    I agree that their corporate support of anti-gay causes is vile. I encourage everyone to refuse to eat there.

    If they refused to actually serve gay people, or any other customer who walked in the door, or if they have a hiring and firing policy that excludes LGBT employees, then yeah, deny them the license.

    I don’t like the idea of refusing to let them operate a business that behaves in line with appropriate anti-discrimination laws because they mayor disapproves of their politics.

    That’s not an appropriate door to open, because it could all too easily swing both ways. Are we prepared to support Republican or Tea Party mayors refusing to allow businesses who provide corporate money to pro-gay causes to operate?

    Not everything that is immoral should be illegal. Make damn sure they abide by every nondiscrimination law on the books, and make use of any and all legal means to make their discrimination clear. Heck, even come up with a Mayor’s Report on Inclusive Eateries and publish it online so people know who to support.

    But don’t ban the business. What would be ideal is if they opened and got absolutely no customers at all.

  12. MarkUs says

    This reminds me, with the Boy Scout thing, someone said watch the South Park where “Gay Al” is removed as scoutmaster and a burly straight marine who then takes nude pictures of the boys replaces him. I’d never seen it so I watched it online last night. What was unusual was the very end when the boys and the entire town have rallied for The BSA to re-intall Gay Al, and Gay Al gets up in front of everyone and resigns. “It’s a private club, we’re no better than they are if we force them.”

  13. says

    @Lymis: Yes, the door could swing both ways. Bring it on. But who exactly would pro-gay businesses be working to discriminate against? We know that Chick-Fil-A is supporting organizations that are trying to prevent gay couples from marrying, and trying to overturn marriage equality laws, but what civil rights exactly would a pro-gay business be working to prevent anyone from having?

    @Mary: Your “too soon too soon” mantra doesn’t apply to MA. Marriage equality is settled there, and it’s not controversial. It would be more controversial for a mayor or governor of a state like VT or MA to support a business that enables discrimination. They’d lose the support of the pro-equality constituents who elected them.

    @Neptune/Homer: Exactly right.

  14. I hate gays says

    Frankly while I’m proud of Menino, it would be unconstitutional to ban a company from doing business because of the religious beliefs of its leaders. And yes, it does set a dangerous precedent.

  15. Mary says

    If a business that serves and hires gay people but opposes gay marriage can be banned from Boston, then why can’t individual citizens who oppose gay marriage (irrestpective of how well they treat gays in their personal contact with them) be told to move out of Boston? Does the mayor not worry about this type of “bigotry” also?
    What law is Chick-Fil-A violating? Even if this restaurant were trying to get the Massachusets law changed (and I’m not sure that’s what they’re aiming for) is it against the law to try to change the law?

    My point is that the mayor’s indignation at the restaurant’s politics shouldn’t be a reason to keep them out of town. They aren’t violating any laws. And doesn’t Boston need the business? I’m sure there are many unemployed people in Boston who apply for a job there.

  16. David says

    I live in the Boston community. As a community we have moral values. The mayor of boston was speaking loudly for my beliefs. If people don’t like it then it’s their choice to vote him out of office. If you don’t live in Boston then it’s a damn shame.

  17. Pam says

    Chick-fil-A does not ask persons dining there if they are gay, nor do they ask in their employment process. So the only discrimination occurring here is at the hands of the mayor. If and when Chick-fil-A refuses to serve or hire gays, that will be the time to oppose the restaurant. The mayor doesn’t try to stop Muslim-owned businesses from locating in Boston even though women are considered to be inferior by most persons in that religion. The reason he doesn’t is because those businesses do not refuse service to women nor do they refuse to hire women. They can think of women as second-class citizens all they want as long as they do not deny equal service and/or opportunity to them. The same is true of Chic-fil-A. It is their right to believe same-sex marriage is wrong and to say so. They just can’t discriminate against those who support it or are engaged in it.

  18. Mike says

    Now this is a smart Mayor, I am thinking about moving to Boston where they are smart enough to know what an antigay bigot looks and sounds like. Keep America Free and stop all business that discriminates against Americans just because they are black or gay or Muslim, etc..

  19. says

    “It is their right to believe same-sex marriage is wrong and to say so.”

    Absolutely true, Pam. But who’s saying it isn’t their right?

    It’s also a mayor’s right to say that he’d rather not do business with a company that is actively (using the financial clout of their company) working to prevent the same equality that is the law of MA. If people don’t like what the mayor is saying they can vote against him next time or rally in support of Chick-Fil-A. Or Chick-Fil-A could fight the mayor and win, but he’s not required to roll out the red carpet for them when a business who supports the civil rights of all MA citizens could open instead.

    BTW, I’m not sure which Muslim-owned national chain you’re referring to, one that’s contributing large sums to anti-woman causes and is still welcomed by the Mayor? Could you be specific? And if such a business were wishing to locate in Boston, wouldn’t the mayor or anyone else have a free speech right to oppose such a business?

  20. Caliban says

    @Pam, I’ve said I’m a little uncomfortable with this but you’re being more than a little disingenuous when you say “the only discrimination occurring here is at the hands of the mayor.” That’s complete and utter bullcrap. Chik-Fil-A gives openly and generously to anti-gay groups like NOM and Focus On The Family, which doesn’t “just” oppose marriage equality but ANY and all gay rights or legal protections for gays. It’s barely been a week since Chik-Fil-A owner Dan Cathy said they were “guilty as charged” regarding accusations Chik-Fil-A is anti-gay.

    Chik-Fil-A’s stand on gay rights has not been passive or private, they ACTIVELY support the limiting of rights gays gain in the future and repealing those we already have. So your statement that Boston’s mayor is the “only” one discriminating here is a flat-out lie and I’m not going to let it pass unchallenged.

    If there’s anything that will push me toward full-on approval of the mayor’s stance it’s blatant lies like yours.

  21. Pam says

    Ernie: The mayor absolutely does have the right to oppose such a business by refusing to eat there, not opening a franchise, not owning stock in it, etc. But he does not have the right to stop them from opening a restaurant because of their beliefs. And that’s what he is saying he will do: prevent them from locating in Boston. Caliban: the causes you say Mr. Cathy participates in are all legal means of opposing something he believes to be wrong. Disagreeing with someone’s beliefs or practices is not discrimination; it is a right we are privileged to enjoy in this country. Opposing pedophilia does not equal discrimination even if you support groups whose purpose is to stamp out pedophilia. Opposing abortion is not discrimination against doctors who perform abortions even if you support groups whose purpose is to repeal the right to abortion. Now, refusing to serve gays and/or to employ them is unlawful. But Mr. Cathy does not engage in such practices. Also, stopping a business from operating because of the owner’s beliefs is not lawful. Yet the mayor is engaging in this tactic. So, I repeat: the only discrimination occurring is that of the mayor.

  22. Caliban says

    Focus On The Family, one of the groups Chik-Fil-A supports financially, DOES in fact oppose protections for gays in housing, employment, and pretty much every other way imaginable. If that’s not prejudicial then the definition of the word has changed since the last time I checked Websters.

    Now that that I’ve given it some though, f**k you and f**k Dan Cathy. More power to keeping people like you as far away from me as possible.

  23. says

    Pam, wrong again. Repeating it won’t make it right.

    Cathy doesn’t just hold those beliefs. He ACTS. He spends huge amounts of $$ to deprive people of rights. Rights Massachusetts gays and lesbians have and rights most Massachusetts voters support.

    Would you get it if the group he gave money to was the KKK? Or al Qaeda? Since you appear to be anti Muslim. But neither of those hate groups has the clout in the US that NOM and the groups Cathy supports have. That’s the difference. Hateful and effective at writing discrimination into law. Cathy is the one supporting discrimination in a big way.

  24. mtmslg says

    I LOVE my mayor! He speaks plainly and represents the views of his constituents. As for all the anti-business rhetoric — Menino is very pro-business. He just believes morals come before money.

  25. says

    @Pam: your latest comment is so full of false equivalencies that lead to the repetition of your earlier lie that it’s really not worth commenting on it further.

    Chick-Fil-A’s values are diametrically opposed to the family values of MA and other New England states. The politicians and citizens of these states have an absolute right to oppose inviting in a company opposed to the accepted, legal family values of the place they wish to locate. If the company still wishes to locate in a place opposed to their own values, then they can fight to be there. And if they win, they’ll be expected to offer benefits (assuming Chick-Fil-A gives benefits) that include, for instance, same-sex spouses.

    As someone who lives in an equality state, I would fully expect my politicians to reflect the values of my state and not the values of a hate-group supporting company. In fact, CFA has already tried to step on some VT toes, and pretty much our whole state rose up against them. So, good luck making inroads where you’re not wanted, Mr. Cathy.

  26. Gary says

    Boston is so smug, thinking itself the center of the universe. I came out in Boston and it’s wasn’t the gay paradise it’s trying to portray today. Beacon Hill was the gay mecca. Charles Street was like Christopher Street in NY. I used to love walks in the cold with my high Frye boots P-Coat, mop of hair, playing the cruising game. I’m sure it’s the Mayor, taking cues from the African American Governor, following Barack’s lead, on this ban. I always wondered why “Dunkin Donuts” never made it to LA. They beat all donuts. Odd but today, I would be more drawn to the chicken. I’m much wiser.

  27. Pam says

    Mr. Cathy can hold whatever views he pleases because that’s something we have in this country: the right to free speech and the right to free thoughts. There are no thought police in this country. Some of you are so focused on one issue that you can’t see the forest for the trees. If this mayor succeeds in blocking a business from locating there because the owner holds a viewpoint different from his own, he opens the door for it to be done to every single group. He opens the door for a Christian mayor to block gay-owned businesses from locating there because they don’t think the way he does. The mayor of Boston can think Mr. Cathy is despicable, he can think Mr. Cathy is wrong, he can think Mr. Cathy should not support the causes that he does. This is America. What he can’t do is prevent him from opening a business there because of those things. And that is what the mayor wants to do. As long as there is no discrimination in service or employment, the rest is Mr. Cathy’s business and no one else’s. I can guarantee you if the scenario mentioned above (Christian mayor attempting to block a gay-owned business from locating in his city) plays out, most of you will be right back here taking the opposing view to what you have right now–even if the owners of that business support gay causes that attempt to strip Christians of their rights. Are you on here protesting Muslim-owned businesses from locating in Boston? I think not, even though women are treated dreadfully by members of that religion. And you should not because as long as the Muslim business owners do not discriminate against women in service to customers and/or in hiring practices, it is no one’s business what their thoughts and beliefs are. Even if it is learned that the owners of those businesses support groups attempting to get Sharia law enforced (as has happened), no one has the right to prevent their business from opening in their city–as long as the owners comply with the laws of this nation. There is no law preventing persons from supporting causes you despise.

  28. Robert says

    You gay apologists — my god. Comparing this to a business that’s pro-gay? A pro-gay company doesn’t donate money to ANTI-STRAIGHT organizations. It is NOT the same thing. How can anyone not see the glaring difference in this case? There’s nothing to be iffy about. This is not politics. Chick-fil-A funds HATE GROUPS. There is no equivalent on our side. NONE.

  29. Caliban says

    @Pam, YOU are the one who cited acceptance of pedophilia as an apt comparison to gay rights.

    YOU are the one connected rights for gay people and abortion.

    It is so so sad that self-proclaimed “Christians” are such poor, pitiful victims in all if this. Maybe one of these days you’ll have a voice in government, maybe even elect a Christian President.

    Oh. Wait. Every goddamn President in the entire history of the US has been at least nominally Christian and what you’re really whining about is that you can’t impose your RELIGIOUS beliefs on CIVIL law!

    If it weren’t so nauseating it would be funny how “Christians” cast themselves as victims in all of this, not because they don’t have adequate representation in government, but because they can’t impose their religious beliefs on others. It’s even more amazing when you consider that most “Christians” ignore all the Biblical rules that apply to themselves but insist that it’s the inerrant Word Of God™ when it comes to gays.How very convenient!

    For one thing, Pam, the Bible says you should keep your big fat trap shut (New Testament) and go bake your hubby a pie. Normally I dismiss the Biblical rules but in your case I’m willing to make an exception.

  30. says

    Pam.

    Once again. Please give us one example of any gay organization attempting to strip Christians of their rights. Have Christians lost a single right anywhere in the US (the right to force others to live as Christians please doesn’t count)?

    Or of a Muslim organization or business that has affected gay rights or women’s legal rights in the US in any way. In which state or city is Sharia law enforced? Do enlighten us, please!

    Then — maybe — we can talk.

  31. says

    Pam.

    Once again. Please give us one example of any gay organization attempting to strip Christians of their rights. Have Christians lost a single right anywhere in the US (the right to force others to live as Christians please doesn’t count)?

    Or of a Muslim organization or business that has affected gay rights or women’s legal rights in the US in any way. In which state or city is Sharia law enforced? Do enlighten us, please!

    Then — maybe — we can talk.

  32. says

    @Pam: You’re getting more wingnut hysterical and less logical with each post. Give some specific examples of these situations you keep citing or else they’re just your little fantasies, and irrational ones at that. If you’re going to be a troll, practice the art better!

    The fact is a city or state has every right to determine which businesses it wants and which it does not, and if Boston, MA chooses not to welcome a company like Chick-Fil-A because it works against the accepted family values of the state, the best Chick-Fil-A can do is try to fight to belong where their antiquated, anti-equality values don’t belong. Company owners have the right to spout whatever bigoted nonsense they please, but companies can’t just open up shop on whatever street corner they please. Citizens, mayors, and city boards have say in the matter. And they’re saying, No.

  33. Pam says

    David Duke is a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization must of us find repugnant. But it is not unlawful for him to throw his support to the Klan and he cannot be prevented from opening a business in Detroit or Gary, Indiana–both cities with large black populations–because he supports the Klan. In fact, Duke ran for several political offices; he could not be prevented from doing so. Neither can Chick-fil-A be prevented from opening a restaurant in Boston because their president supports causes the mayor does not like. It does not matter that MA allows same-sex marriage. MA law does not outweigh federal law. Persons who oppose same-sex marriage are still free to live in MA, own businesses there, and live their lives as they see fit. Do you believe if a person tells a detective or a judge that they thought about killing someone, they can be arrested for it? Of course not. As long as they did not commit the crime, they cannot be tried for their thoughts and opinions. You are free to think as you please in this entire nation, including MA.

  34. Pam says

    I do not know if there are any gay organizations that are trying to strip Christians of their rights. And neither do you. But it doesn’t matter. If the mayor of Boston were allowed to prevent a business from locating there because its president opposes same-sex marriage and gives support to organizations of the same mind, it would open the door for Christian and Muslim mayors to prevent gay-owned businesses from locating in their cities. It would open the door for a mayor who was also a pedophile to prevent businesses from locating in his city that work hard for the arrest, trial, and conviction of pedophiles. It would not–could not–stop with this mayor because it would set a legal precedent that quite honestly would come back and bite your own selves in the behind.

  35. Pam says

    And by the way: whether you see yourselves as an organization or not, you are indeed attempting to strip Christians of their right to oppose same-sex marriage.

  36. says

    @Pam: More empty, not comparable examples with no factual backup. Fail.

    People can oppose marriage equality all they want. And the city of Boston can choose not to put out the welcome mat for anti-equality Chick-Fil-A. It’s simply not true than any business can open any place it likes. If CFA wants to open where they’re not welcome they can fight to do so. But they have no special right to locate anywhere it strikes their bigoted fancy. Repeating falsehoods doesn’t make them true.

  37. JT says

    @Neptune
    “Gays bars and LGBT health clinics wouldn’t spend their monies to make Christians and straights second-class citizens.”

    He’s saying that if you allow localities to outlaw a business based on the beliefs of its owners, then areas where gays aren’t welcome can legally ban gay businesses. You cannot ban a business based on an their views or, unless they are donating to terrorist groups, their donations.

  38. Pam says

    It is unfortunate that many of you cannot grasp even the most simple concepts, such as the difference between actual discrimination and an opinion. Discrimination is unlawful; a belief, opinion, or thought is not. Giving support-financial or otherwise–to organizations that help to further one’s beliefs is lawful and is, in fact, a way that has always been used to get new laws enacted or old ones changed or removed. It has never been lawful to deny rights to someone (such as the right to own a legitimate business) because one does not like the person’s position on one or more issues. Consider the late 70’s attempt by the city of Skokie, IL to prevent neo-Nazis from marching in the city which at the time was home to many Holocaust survivors. They lost the First Amendment case. If Holocaust survivors could not by law prevent a Nazi group from marching on their city, then certainly the mayor of Boston will not be able to prevent a business from locating there because its owner opposes same-sex marriage and is associated with organizations working to bring about its demise.

  39. ratbastard says

    Nice sentiment, but he has no business trying to block what’s otherwise a perfectly legitimate business.

    I live in Boston. Maybe his honor should be spending his time on serious quality of life issues like beyond capacity transit system that’s crowded at all hours of the day and night, my pet peeve is the many private businesses who’ve decided it’s OK to set up shop on public sidewalks which makes walking an increasing pain in the a**, or how about doing something positive about our over the top property taxes, No, this guy wants to grandstand.

  40. ratbastard says

    @Gary,

    The south end and fenway WERE the gayborhoods, NOT Beacon Hill. And Charles St today is like a movie set or main street at Disney world, full of tourists, yuppies, and shady antique stores and real estate agents.

    ===========

    And it’s not the locals who’re the snobs, it’s the ubiquitous transient ‘professionals’, college students, and tourits who have the ‘attitudes’.

  41. ratbastard says

    I say ‘were’ Boston’s gayboroods because they’ve been gentrified and have become very expensive to live in. Boston is fast becoming a city of haves and have-nots, or more precisely, the socioeconomically well off and the ‘poor’ living off subsidized housing, etc. The working and middle class are being badly squeezed here. Maybe his honor could look into this problem and come up with some viable tactics to combat it. Naw, what am I saying. His campaigns are funded by big businesses and real estate interests.

  42. CVP says

    Pam, with all due respect, shut up. Your “right” to free commenting on this site has been revoked. Go play somewhere else. You’re a dork with an impotent tongue.

  43. anthonyj says

    The point is that the CEO of Chick-Fil-A made his bigotry well-known in a very public way to the American people. So, although their shops don’t have signs in their window that say “Keep Gays Out” they don’t need to – the CEO has already made his views perfectly clear. He and his company want to see you dead but they will profit from you if they have to…

  44. says

    Ah, poor Pam, you just won’t quit with your idiotic comparisons. (It’s not about the 1st Amendment: the right to march in the streets is not the same as the right to open a business wherever it suits your fancy, though kudos for reaching back to the 70s for your “example.” Chick-Fil-A’s freedom of speech is intact.) You must REALLY like chicken! Now you can freak out because the Muppets have cut ties with the bigots at Chick-Fil-A. Yes, even puppets have the right to say No, Thanks, the same right the mayor and citizens of Boston have.

  45. Gary says

    Ratbastard: Remember “Sporters?” I lived on Grove Street and had many gay friends living on Beacon Hill. It was “gay” enough for me at 19. I watched the tourist clip. Don’t let if fool you. Boston is boring. The Grove and 3rd Street Promenade in LA will save you the plane flight. And nothing has been “banned” that I’m aware of — except smoking, Also people aren’t so “proud” of where they live. By fighting the “bigots” they become the bigots.

  46. Jerry6 says

    Chic-Fil-A ADVERTISES THEIR BIGOTRY, openly and deliberately, Not only have I NEVER entered a Chic-Fil-A, I now do not enter any Shopping Center that has one in their Mall.

  47. Kakapo says

    Oh, for the love of… This site is great for its actual content, but the comments are consistently ridiculous. The mayor said something lovely and supportive (which was likely somewhat influenced by the idea that he might appeal to GLBT voters). He didn’t try to legislate anything. He has the same first amendment rights we all have. This is free speech… and support. Stop being idiots.

  48. Terry says

    Boston’s mayor is an idiot. This country was founded on religious and moral values. Chik Filet represents a company that values family. Everyone I know will continue to enjoy eating there.

  49. Jack says

    I am ALL for Dan Cathy’s courage to speak out about his moral convictions. Embracing immorality, destroying the GOD created family is what he believes is wrong. I agree!
    Why are the muppets promoting a gay message to our children?? LEAVE MY CHILDREN ALONE you immoral liberal swine.

  50. wimsy says

    Hooray for the mayor, who had every right to refuse discretionary business permits to a hate group that happens to sell chicken. The mayor has every right to protect the population from extremist crackpots, just as he would have the right to refuse building permits to a saloon next to a school or an application from the Ku Klux Klan to build a clubhouse. It makes no difference if what they do its legal.

    I have every right to oppose an objectionable business from locating in my neighborhood, and I have the right to demand that my elected public officials back me up. If they don’t, I have the right to vote for someone else.

  51. Jim Heckel says

    What these ‘defence of marriage’ politicians fail to realise is that true Holy Matrimony (which is indeed one man, one woman, one lifetime) is irrevocable and done in the name of Jesus Christ. State marriage is done in the name of the State, and can be dissolved at the good pleasure of either party. So as we see, the State marriage licence is NOT Holy Matrimony. With this in mind, there is no sanctity TO defend with that licence, and can be no argument against gay couples having access to it. After all, we let gays have driver’s licenses and no one complains about the sanctity of the interstates, right? It’s the same way here – learn to separate the holy from the profane and NEVER conflate the two!

Leave A Reply