« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mayors turn to totalitarianism over chicken

Chick-fil-A has certainly ruffled some feathers lately.  Although they have done nothing different from what they’ve always done, the world has suddenly learned that the company is run by a . . . . . Christian! (gasp)

Company president Dan Cathy recently reiterated his beliefs by stating his support for traditional marriage.  Based on the firestorm that has followed, you’d think Chick-fil-A was selling crack on a bun.

The Christian ideology of the company’s leadership should be no surprise to anyone.  That’s why the restaurant chain has never been open on Sundays.  And this may come as a surprise to some, but the Bible is not politically correct.

Now at least two left-wing mayors have vowed to keep Chick-fil-A from expanding in their cities.

Boston mayor Thomas Menino sent a letter to Cathy to say, “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.”  So Menino arbitrarily decided Chick-fil-A does not have the freedom to be on the Freedom Trail.

Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.”  Really?  So what are Chicago values?  Murder?  Crooked politics?  Emanuel went on to say, “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the First Ward.”

It should be noted Chick-fil-A has not discriminated against anyone.  The next person to be refused service at a Chick-fil-A because of sexual preference will be the first.  The president of the company merely stated his opinion.  To my knowledge he hasn’t acted on that opinion via Chick-fil-A, so where is the discrimination?

There is certainly no problem if people choose not to patronize Chick-fil-A because of the statements and beliefs of its leader.  But it’s a whole other matter for government to ban the business because of those statements and beliefs.

There are some businesses that I choose not to patronize at least in part due to the political leanings of their founders.  Ben & Jerry’s and Progressive Insurance would be two.  But I would never consider banning them from my community.  Every individual should have the right to choose.

And that is the problem with the left.  They do not you believe you should have that right.  They want to make the choices for you.  Even to the absurd degree of preventing you from having a chicken sandwich.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Chick-fil-A serves them equally but merely favors traditional marriage. Calypso Louie is quite intolerant like most Democrats

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      -nt

      • Viet71

        Agree completely with liberty17, BTW.

        • The_Rebel

          but if a Republican city mayor even hinted at preventing an openly gay restaurant from obtaining a permit in his city, the outcry from the left would be deafening. But it’s ok for Mayor Menino to send a letter to the owner of the property warning him that the city would not appreciate him leasing to a Chick-fil-A.

          • mgoben

            This would have been the perfect time to mention that what these “leaders” are talking about doing is completely unconstitutional, BUT, since the chief justice of the SCOTUS doesn’t even bother with the Constitution any more, why the hell would anybody else!

        • acat

          Anyone who is surprised by this has not been paying attention.

          Mew

          • renny

            Buy Chick Fil-A on Aug. 1 and join the go-test not the protest.

  • Kyle-MI

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. The people pushing gay marriage want to use it as a club to beat those who disagree. This is a shadow of what they did to Prop. 8 supporters in CA. And look at what they are doing to businesses that serve weddings but whose owners don’t do gay weddings.

    • PowerToThePeople

      by not being able to put one of their great stores in the POS city known as Boston.

      Boston has been on a downhill slide for many years now and is one of the most, if not the most, liberal slime cities in the country. San Fran has nothing on Boston anymore.

      And such a shame considering the revolt that started there many years ago. You know the original tea party that is no longer a major part of history in Boston classrooms. It barely gets mentioned, tells you all you need to know about Boston.

      • jerry333

        I have never eaten at a Chick-fil-a in my life. There is no particular reason for thsi, I just haven’t.

        As of this week, however, I have made a point to locate the two closest Chick-fil-a restaurants to my home, and the two closest to my place of employment; and I intend to start patronizing them.

        Not because I agree or disagree with Dan Cathy’s point-of-view; but because I will support someone who is being unjustly attacked and maligned. In this case I will support him and his employees by giving them my business.

      • WmCraig

        I don’t like those people
        They shouldn’t be allowed in OUR neighborhood.
        Someone should make a law.
        They are a bad influence on our children
        They’re not like us

        Democrats used Jim Crow laws and intimidation to impose segregation effectively 100 years ago. Apparently nothing has changed.

        For those two young to know anyone who was really impacted by Jim Crow, I am going to share with you a dirty little secret, one that the progressive revisionist history doesn’t tell you. Colored didn’t mean black. Jews, East Europeans, Italians, Spanish, Greek, latin American any just about anyone other than the few elite were disqualified by the “white only” sign.

        Jim Crow started out as a way to keep slavery benefits without slavery but it quickly evolved to deal with the immigrant migrations of the early 20th century. Jim Crow wasn’t really about color, it was about using government to benefit the elite and select cronies.

        My family, living in a poor neighborhood in the tide water region of Virginia with immigrant Jews, Germans and poles where victims of the 1918 race riots. My mother was chased from her home and witnessed people being shot. She was seven. No one would mistake me for colored. Riots then were not about color but about maintaining control over jobs. Working people were afraid of the competition posed by immigrants. In other places Unions formed and maintained strict control over who got opportunity and who didn’t. But in the south Jim Crow served that purpose.

        Later in life, my family generally not racists (with a few exceptions) complied with segregation. One could not get caught “sympathizing” with the plight of the oppressed. The poor person behind the counter who refused to serve those black folks wasn’t a racist, they were just a poor person trying to keep a job.
        - You boss could get in a lot of trouble for serving the wrong folks. If the boss was a business owner he could be banned from his church, find his business license revoked. see his kids suddenly do poorly in school. Or be expelled for attitude problems. So the boss didn’t impose those racist regulations because he was a racist. But because if he didn’t the people in power would take away everything he worked for, and ruin his family. So he pushed these rules down, whether he embraced them or not, because failure to “tow the line” made you a sympathizer. And the people in power didn’t tolerate “sympahthizers”.

        Prejudice was not outlawed. Government sponsored prejudice is what the law changed. Institutional prejudice is what the law changed. You cannot refuse to serve someone because of his or her beliefs. But you do not have to believe they are right.

        Since Obama has taken over the White House, I have heard statements that have been illegal since 1973. Obama’s attacks on the bankers were straight out of Jim Crow intimidation tactics. Totalitarianism is still very difficult to achieve in this country. But Jim Crow style segregation, intimidation and the carrot and stick reward that makes “demographic groups” comply at the expense of others is well within the power of progressives to impose.

        Crony capitalism, subjective law enforcement, government criticism and the force of bureaucratic agencies are all tools used by Jim Crow democrats. Jim Kenney of the Philadelphia City councel is a perfect example. He plans to introduce legislation condemning because he doesn’t like what those people believe, speaking of Dan Cathy.

        Now you know anyone that wants to keep their job will not issue them a business license. Any inspector that wants to keep their job will make staying in business difficult for them.

        They aren’t welcome in this neighborhood.

        I remember when government imposed segregation based on prejudice was against the law. How soon we forget.

        • renny

          because they refuse gay “leaders.”?

  • liberty17

    In this troubled economy you want to STOP growth just because you don’t agree with the founder’s policies?
    I’d also like to point out that I have NEVER heard a conservative elected official call for this type of thing. I mean look at all the businesses that are declared supporters of gay marriage…Home Depot, Coca Cola, and Bank of America, just to name a few. Yet, I don’t hear conservative leaders vowing to stop their expansion. If we did, wouldn’t that cause an uproar! But somehow it’s ok if the left does it. The truth is it’s not right for anyone to call for this. Let the free market decide. If I don’t like what a business stands for, I don’t have to go there. Just another case of the government getting involved where it shouldn’t.

  • poorwilber

    I should hope not. Perhaps they should use that in the companies advertising.

    • http://gardenslegal.com morstar150

      You can’t be for freedom of speech and then take government action against someone who takes a view different than yours.

      http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/07/25/mayor-tom-menino-shouldn-block-chick-fil-because-president-dan-cathy-views/ITVaDNW86zkKxdlERX72EN/story.html

  • WmCraig

    But he is a supporter and would prefer the city squander millions on legal fees rather than submit to selling the building back for a price that is about half it’s estimated value.

    So, while his name doesn’t appear related to the initial effort he claims solidarity with any movement that would impose prejudicial intolerance on people based on their sexual orientation or religion.

    Sounds odd doesn’t it? The City of Philadelphia imposing prejudicial intolerance on people because they are Christian or Heterosexual.

    Some brotherly love that is.