It isn’t “discrimination” to not allow smoking inside of a Chick-fil-A establishment? Aren’t smokers a segment of society? What about denying service to someone without a shirt and shoes on? Doesn’t that discriminate against nudists?
“…Officials in at least three cities have vowed to block efforts to open Chick-fil-A restaurants after the company’s president told reporters that he supported the traditional definition of marriage – and warned that redefining marriage might bring God’s judgment on the nation.
“Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the First Ward,” he announced.
The Los Angeles Times condemned the decision, calling it far more troubling than Chick-fil-A’s support of traditional marriage.
The Boston Globe wondered “which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.
“When an elected public official wields the club of government against a Christian business in the name of “tolerance,” it’s not harmless kid stuff,” Malkin wrote. “It’s chilling.”
“The militant homosexual advocates have launched an all out assault on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A,” he said. “The attempts to hurt or destroy Chick-fil-A are nothing short of economic bullying.” …”
Full story here.