----------------------

[Laura91]

=====================

[Padma]

Attacking people who choose to boycott Chick-Fil-A is an attack on the FoS too, so it balances out nicely .

[Jamie D]

I don't patronize ChickFil-A, but the point of the article is summed up here:

Once again, in America everyone has the right to say whatever they want to about Chick-fil-A.  However, when politicians try to ban a company from doing business in their areas because one of the company executives does not hold the "correct" political view about an issue that is a major problem.

I tend to agree with that.  A diversity of opinion is a good thing, even when some of that opinion is, in my opinion, backward.

"Political correctness" and "speech codes" are contrary to the American tradition.

[Devlyn]

My chicken puts theirs to shame! Hugs, Devlyn

[Padma]

I think there's a sliding scale, with "political correctness" at one end, and opposing genuine discrimination at the other. I'll admit I was surprised to see politicians saying "we don't want you in our town", though - I think it should be up to individuals to decide whether they want to boycott.

[suzifrommd]

I tend to agree with that.  A diversity of opinion is a good thing, even when some of that opinion is, in my opinion, backward.

"Political correctness" and "speech codes" are contrary to the American tradition.

Is there any limit on speech. Are all of these acceptable?:

1. "You should vote to prevent gay people from having the right to marry each other."
2. "You should shun any gay person who wants to get married."
3. "You should be ready to commit violence if necessary to prevent gay people from getting married."
4. "Come with me to the church. We gonna' bust up a gay wedding."

[Ms. OBrien CVT]

I have to disagree with the author.  If a CEO said the same thing against Blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims:  There would be a uproar among the people.

A CEO's attitudes do get reflected in the company policies.  It is well within the rights of the people to boycott, they are voting with their $$$.  And a city can decide who is allowed within the city boundaries.  If a company was owned by the Klan, you better bet they would not be allowed within the city limits.

[aleon515]

Attacking people who choose to boycott Chick-Fil-A is an attack on the FoS too, so it balances out nicely .

Yeah I've seen this too. I don't agree with people cities who want to keep the Chick-Fil-A out. But then again, I see nothing wrong with conferences and so on choosing not to let them cater (if they do that sort of thing) or leaving them off a list of near by restaurants when there is a convention (even some city training program). That's totally freedom of speech.

AG, I think all the things that you mention would be limits on the speech (and life) of others.

BTW, did anyone else think the sandwich in the article looked disgusting?

[Hikari]

People can say what they want but, that doesn't protect them from retailiation. Sure neo-Nazis might have the right to do a speech in public but the counter demonstration will also be legal, you reap what you sow.

Also, what freedom of speech? Yell fire in a theatre, or hes got a bomb in the airport see how free you are then. There are some pretty good reasons to limit free speech, and we do it is not some inalienable right, and more and more in the information age what you say has consequences.

[Devlyn]

That is a sad looking sandwich, mine are much better! Hugs, Devlyn

[Joelene9]

  I agree.  I don't care for the CEO's view of this particula item nor do I like his product.  But his company has good benefits and closes on Sunday.  There are other chain companies that are not open on Sundays while their competition are open.  They are being attacked because of the religious bent of the upper management and the same-sex unions aversion of some of them.  Nobody is complainig that NYC is virtually closed on Saturdays for the shop owners to observe the Shabat. 
  Joelene

[dalebert]

The mayor seems to be abusing his power, IMHO. When I see things like this, I can't help but feel kind of pleased that A-holes like that Chik-fil-a COO are being stopped, but then I think about when some politician will abuse their power in a direction that I don't like. City planning boards make arbitrary decisions about who gets to do business on their turf all the time and it's usually about kissing the right butts of the right powerful people, donating to campaigns, even greasing the right palms. These things usually help out the big powerful chains and work against the little startups, the mom & pops. This is one case where it seems to be the other way around, but that won't last.

[dalebert]

I'm a big fan of everyone using their own freedom of speech to speak out against the company though. And of course I'm joining the boycott.

[JessicaH]

While I think Chick-Filet's ideology is disgusting, they have a right to believe and support whatever they want. The city has no right to deny them business permits because they don't like them and I find those sort of threats by politicians to be magnitudes more deplorable. I like the food but I won't do business with them because I don't want to support their pet causes. Freedom of speech goes both ways and I will "speak" with my wallet!

[King Malachite]

I have been long thinking about this and at the end of the day I think it's wrong to deny establishments in certain places because the founder of the buisness is against gay marriage.  It is his opinion and he has a right to it.  It's not like he's putting up a sign that says "no gays allowed" and he certainly doesn't have a "gaydar" established in every one of his restaraunts that will vanish every non-conforming person.  Let the people decide if they want to eat there or not. 

For me personally I'm not going to eat there unless someone is paying or I get a free coupon.  It's not because the founder is against gay marriage but it's because they are expensive and the portions are small.  I can get more full from a piece of bubble gum then there.  They do have great food though.

[suzifrommd]

What bothered me the most is the CEO's statement that all he was doing was supporting traditional marriage.

I am so sick of people saying that gay marriage threatens "traditional marriage" without giving even one shred of evidence.

[peky]

However, when politicians try to ban a company from doing business in their areas because one of the company executives does not hold the "correct" political view about an issue that is a major problem.

This is the kind of rhetoric that was used to try to keep segregation against black people alive back in the early 60's; now it is directed against the LGBT community. 

Nobody wants to impose any view in any lonely rich CEO, what we do not want is a Corporation discriminating against a minority

[Padma]

Nah, the only real threat to marriage is spouses .

[delia_dunno]

I have to disagree with the author.  If a CEO said the same thing against Blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims:  There would be a uproar among the people.

A CEO's attitudes do get reflected in the company policies.  It is well within the rights of the people to boycott, they are voting with their $$$.  And a city can decide who is allowed within the city boundaries.  If a company was owned by the Klan, you better bet they would not be allowed within the city limits.

I agree with the above.

[Amazon D]

While I think Chick-Filet's ideology is disgusting, they have a right to believe and support whatever they want. The city has no right to deny them business permits because they don't like them and I find those sort of threats by politicians to be magnitudes more deplorable. I like the food but I won't do business with them because I don't want to support their pet causes. Freedom of speech goes both ways and I will "speak" with my wallet!

WHAT PEKY SAID:
This is the kind of rhetoric that was used to try to keep segregation against black people alive back in the early 60's; now it is directed against the LGBT community. 

Nobody wants to impose any view in any lonely rich CEO, what we do not want is a Corporation discriminating against a minority