Here’s the National Review‘s take on the Chick-Fil-A controversy. Dial down the “sexual revolution = totalitarianism” hyperbole—though I guess since both sides of that equation are inflated, they are mathematically equal—and NR actually has a point:
Let’s be clear about the mayor’s intent. No one has credibly accused Chick-fil-A of discrimination in employment or in it services. Every customer gets served, regardless of sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, or any other factor. Chick-fil-A stores comply with all applicable local, state, and federal nondiscrimination laws. Yet the mayor believes the business has no place in his town because of the constitutionally protected speech, ideas, and gifts of its executives and leaders.
I’ll give ’em that. Chick-Fil-A isn’t implementing any discriminatory policy, near as I can tell*. The uproar seems to be about owner Dan Cathy’s public denouncement of same-sex marriage in a recent Baptist Press article, an opinion he apparently backs up with donations to anti-gay marriage organizations. If you don’t like that, which you shouldn’t, do what the Muppets did and withdraw your support, in your case by not eating there. Banning a company from a municipality over its owner’s views is impractical and reactionary.
But here’s where NR loses me:
Unless our nation has truly entered a post-constitutional age, [Menino’s] intolerance won’t prevail in federal court.
Man, you gotta have a corkscrew to twist those actively prohibiting same-sex marriage into the victims of intolerance.
* Here’s the only quote from the Baptist Press‘ unnecessarily ugly website that could potentially indicate a policy of actually coercing employees based on an anti-gay marriage stance.
“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.
So whatever “anything we possibly can to strengthen families” means.