Constitution-Fil-A

I've sat in amazement as I've watched people, particularly those on the left, talk about Chik Fil-A's founder's position on marriage and the subsequent threats that have been directed at potential franchisees of said business. And while there has been much outrage over the position of Chik-Fil-A's founder, there has been far less commentary devoted to the reactions of certain mayors in regards to the threats they have posed to US democracy.

This isn't the first time this year that so called 'pro gay rights" folks have completely dropped the Civil Rights ball in their quest for so called "equality". Earlier this year Manny Pacquiao expressed his religion based position on homosexuality by quoting a verse in the Bible that generally states that such persons should be stoned. Not that I personally agree with such a position but it's supposed to be "America" where two things are supposedly sacrosanct: speech and religion. The owners of The Grove in LA said that due to Pacquiao's comments he would be banned from the LA mall. While many people went on and on about Manny's statement, nobody, not a single person from the "gay rights" crowd or the so called "equal protection" crowd expressed alarm over a place of public accommodation blatantly violating the law and in particular the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, the one people like to beat over your head when there are threats of racial discrimination.

See; as is usual around these parts of late, the Civil Rights of certain people, usually those of an unpopular opinion or religion (often one and the same) are up for grabs when they apparently conflict with the morals (or lack thereof) of another more popular group. Let us be clear on the law: no place of public accommodation may prevent a member of the public access based on their race, religion, color, creed or sexual orientation. Period. What the Grove did was no different at all than the public threats and actions of Bull Conner. Yes, I said it and it's a fact. And that is bad company to be keeping. Unless Manny Pacquiao had made a threat to the public such as threatening to stone or otherwise harm anyone he saw in The Grove that he considered homosexual or was disturbing the peace, or any other immediate and present danger to the public at large or patrons of The Grove then The Grove has no legal basis to deny him access. Enter Chik-Fil-A. Anyone who has been paying attention (apparently that would be few of us) knows that Chik-Fil-A was founded by what we would call conservative Christians. The stores are not open on Sundays in order to observe the Protestant/Catholic Sabbath. In light of this to be surprised about the founder's position on marriage amounts to a whole lot of wishful thinking on the part of those so disposed. But in reality the position of the founder is of little relevance because the constitution, that pesky piece of paper, protects his right to his position as well as his right to open up any legal enterprise that meets all municipal codes and adheres to the rules laid out by the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it pertains to public accommodation

Apparently this little legal issue was forgotten by certain elected officials who oddly took some sort of oath to uphold the constitutions of both their state's and the country's. Shocking I know. Just like with The Grove, these persons completely lost sight of their obligations under the law and threatened local franchisees with denied permits to do business based on the religious based opinion of the franchise founder. Imagine that? Would you like to have your employment based upon your association with someone who you are connected to in some weak way who has an opinion that your potential employer doesn't agree with? Are we going there now?

What was conspicuously absent from the threats agains Chik Fil-A was any charge of discriminatory practices in it's corporate HQ or at any one of it's local franchises. Not one of the talking bobble heads could point to any case where a homosexual, black, Hindu, Muslim or disabled person was discriminated against in any of the franchise locations. Not. A. One. Think about that. A store being threatened with denial of service by local governments for not discriminating against its customers. That's some bullshit. You may think that this is preposterous but it isn't. By threatening local franchisees with an illegal and unconstitutional denial of permits and the like based on some third party's opinion is exactly what is being proposed. That these mayors have to be reminded of this rather than they (except Bloomberg) didn't brush such idiocy aside from the beginning shows exactly what these people are about.

The way I see it, the mayors who proposed such nonsense should be out on their asses come the next election based on this single issue (and I'm not given to single issue voting). Why? Because it is clear that they do not understand what their primary job is and it is clear where their priorities lie. A head of government who is willing to break the law to punish a business with the resources to fight is definitely willing to break the law to punish the "little person" who does not have such resources. That should concern the citizenship. As for Chik-Fil-A the options are clear. If you the potential customer does not agree with the opinion of the founder then by all means avoid spending your money in that place. If you don't like that the corporate entity has donated to a cause you disagree with, by all means, Do not shop their. It is really that simple. Nobody is forcing anyone to spend money with people or entities with whom they have a moral issue with. However a bright line is crossed when the government steps in to police the free speech and free exercise of religion and association of citizens. That should bother you far more than what the folks at Chik-fil-A are going on with.