The First Amendment and Chick-fil-A
I haven't posted anything about the Chick-fil-A kerfuffle since a) I don't eat chicken and therefore don't patronize chicken restaurants and b) I didn't think there was anything particularly surprising about the political leanings of the ownership. The only aspect of the whole thing that I'll comment on is the defense of the First Amendment that some Chick-fil-A supporters are shouting about. Huh? I haven't heard anyone say that Dan Cathy has no right to express his views on homosexuality. What I have heard and seen is people who refuse to spend their dollars on a product that, in whatever small amount, produces profits that are then donated to hate groups. Seems perfectly reasonable to me and has nothing to do with free speech - in fact, it's helpful to know these things so that we can spend our dollars more conscientiously.
For those who are taking Rahm Emmanuel and other mayors to task for suggesting that Chick-fil-A might not be welcome in their communities, I'll posit the following: if we were looking back at, say, 1969, and a mayor of a major city spoke against welcoming businesses whose owners actively, financially supported segregationist groups, we'd see them as heroic. I don't know anyone that regrets having boycotted corporations that supported the government of apartheid South Africa - I'm not seeing a big difference here. Money talks.
As for the numbnuts that are harassing Chick-fil-A employees, leave the kids alone and stop embarrassing yourselves.