The government isn't involved in a First Amendment way. In any event, it's all political puffery and pandering, which is in fact protected speech even if despicable.
Not picking on you, DeadMan; your's was just a good jumping off point for my thoughts on this. First, it is indeed a first amendment issue, and Government doesn't need to be involved for someone's right to free speech to be infringed. However, in this case, government officials DID in fact become involved, issuing statements in their official capacity as mayors that this particular business (of a type otherwise allowed in many areas of their respective cities) was not welcomed, and only because of the belief expressed by the CEO of said company. This is essentially applying a religeous test to the application of civil authority, which is so obviously a violation of the Constitution that both mayors have since backed off those statements. A lot of the people who showed up yesterday to eat a CFA were people of like mind to Cathy, but many were just there to insure that people like Rahm Emanual understand that we still believe and support the constitution. It is also perfectly in line with the 1st Amendment to refuse to eat at CFA because of Cathy's beliefs, and to state as much (so long as not acting in the capacity of a government official, where it might be construed as policy).
Regarding Cathy's statements, I'd like to point out a bit of hypocracy (well, perhaps more than just a "bit"). I recall hearing direct from President Obama's lips that he believed in the the traditional view of marriage as being between one man and one woman; this was only a year or two ago, as I recall, before his position "evolved". I don't recall him being villified or told his "values aren't Chicago values", or otherwise told he wasn't welcome there or in Boston. Yet, we have the brew-ha-ha now when a private citizen makes essentially the exact same statement. Consider, please.
For those who have expressed the belief that a town should be able to decide what businesses can open in their towns, it has already been pointed out that while a city government can decide what type of business can open in an area (often done through zoning laws), that decision must be applied universally to all businesses of that type. To put it in perspective, what if a town's mayor or city counsil said that a particular business owner's establishment was banned (or even just stated they'd be "unwelcomed") because the owner was gay? I hope that I would be every bit as offended as what the mayors of Boston and Chicago attempted to do to CFA. Would you?
Finally, to address the issue of what the bible says about morality and punishment, I would point out that something changed between the Old Testiment and the New Testiment; Jesus Christ. Putting people to death for adultery, as an example, was called for in the Old Testiment. However, when Jesus had an adultering woman brought before Him, He bacially saved her. This did not mean adultery was now okay. No, what he said was that her sins were forgiven and to "go, and sin no more". So, Cathy is not being inconsistent with the Bible simply because he is not insisting that horrible punishments be meeted out for things like adultery or fornication and such. Christ did not change what was or was not sinful in God's eyes, only how we treat the sinners; with forgiveness when asked and with love, always.
Sabre
P.S. Went to CFA lastnight at 7:30PM and place was still slammed, but not a word of grumbling or incivilety. Good chicken.
