We are still scratching our head over what to make of the City of Boston, Massachussetts's linkage of so-called "gay marriage" (which is like saying "dehydrated water") and the proposed opening of a "Chick-Fil-A" shop in Boston. Now, before we get scalp lesions, we have been forced to make a few conclusions (and of course some scalding mocking has to be thrown into the mix.)
Boston is trying to ban Chick-Fil-A from opening in Boston because the business discriminates against gay folks. Now, if a gay couple comes in and orders some chicken, are they told: get lost, you queers, we don't serve faggots? (No.)
If some guy applies for a job there, does he face a question about his sexual preferences? (No.)
So what's the BFD?
Well, it so happens that the president of Chick-Fil-A has publicly stated that he believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman and that this is the only permissible context for sexual relations between two human beings.
What a prude. He probably thinks people shouldn't be allowed to have sex with sheep and donkeys, too. But if some guy who enjoys putting a couple shots up some porker's exhaust pipe walks in and orders, he'll be served. However he won't be able to bring his porcine paramour inside - because Boston's public health laws prohibit it. So who's discriminatory NOW?
Chick-Fil-A does NOT "discriminate against gay people". Boston is trying to punish the president of Chick-Fil-A for his personal, Constitutionally protected expression of his own beliefs. What Boston is trying to do is akin to denying someone a business license because he's a Republican (and that's probably been done, just not quite so publicly). And Boston's politicians are saying they are taking this stand in the name of "freedom"?? What a load of crap.
As we see it, if Chick-Fil-A is such a moral abomination; then the public will be able to vote on it by exercising their freedom of choice to patronize the place or not.
And even among homosexuals, opinions on Chick-Fil-A vary. Many homosexuals, notably convicted homosexual pedophile Jerry Sandusky, have been known to enjoy a "chicken sandwich". On the other hand homosexual cannibal Jeffery Dahmer ("the queer who made Milwaukee famous") would never eat at Chick-Fil-A, as he was known to prefer BOY-fil-a.
All kidding aside, porn shops and strip joints are okay, but restaurants run by Christians who believe homosexuality to be unacceptable are to be run out of town? What about kebab joints run by Moslems who believe gays should be buried up to their necks and stoned to death?
Unless Chick-Fil-A is engaging in unlawful discrimination, they MUST NOT be impeded from opening their shop. By trying to do so, Boston is engaging in the patently unlawful act of government abridgement of freedom of speech. What do you suppose these politicians would say if, oh, Salt Lake City refused to let a bakery open because the owners thought Mormonism was a lot of hooey?
It's the same old crap. If it wasn't for double standards, the Left would have no standards whatsoever.