I heard a story on the radio nooz that disgusted me to my core. In Dallas today, a group of . . . .

[Blanks]

68. They regulated the types of business...

...not the types of business owners. However, I don't think the 'Fast Food Ban' law will stand either (as I said).

You could certainly make an argument that bigotry is bad for us. If the business is behaving in a bigoted manner? Is there evidence that the business owners are? The corporate management have bigoted attitudes toward certain people, but as far as I know they aren't discriminating in the business place.

The CEO is making statements about his belief system and is making political donations toward politicians who support his position. These are his personal beliefs and I think in the end it is probably going to destroy (or at minimum damage) the company.

I don't eat at Chick-fil-A in solidarity with the people who are being targeted. I believe boycotting the franchises is an appropriate response to his attitude, just as I intend to boycott all businesses that financially support groups that I don't agree with.

I don't support limiting the rights of the business owners in this case for two reasons.

1) If successful; there is precedent that certain businesses can be kept out of cities because of political pressure.
2) If unsuccessful; (the more likely scenario) everyone is going to be pissed off because the bigots won. It will be framed as a victory for bigotry. When, if fact, it is a victory for the rights of businesses.

I'm not opposed to punishing the bigoted CEO; but let's punish him in the marketplace, and not get our asses kicked in the court system. If they can ban an 'anti-civil union' business owner; then they can ban a 'muslim' business owner for being anti-christian etc.