Here’s the premise:
Because Chik-Fil-A’s parent company supports traditional religious values and donated money to an organization that promotes heterosexual marriage, they must be against homosexuality; therefore we should boycott the independent franchise owners and send them and their employees to the poorhouse for the religious opinions of someone they likely have never met.

Pheew. That’s an enormous steaming pile of illogic to begin with, and it’s obviously a thinly veiled attack on the US Constitution and a test of the validity of the First Amendment. It has nothing at all to do with poking bungholes or spanking in tongues. Where is the ACLU to protect these innocent restauranteurs and those they employ, comprised of all races, creeds AND sexual orientation, against such blatant and illegal political thuggery?

If the president of a company said something so boneheaded as to offend every living person in the world – and the Owners of Chik-Fil-A never uttered a word against homosexuality, in fact their public statements said the opposite –  isn’t he/she allowed to speak his/her opinion? Why penalize 2nd and 3rd parties, the franchisees and those they employ, with a speech-squelching boycott? Why even penalize the person who may or may not have made such a remark?

The Bill Of Rights BEGINS with The First Amendment; it wasn’t an afterthought. That some elected officials, including those holding high positions of authority, would even consider supporting such abasement of the concepts of free enterprise and Freedom of Speech is abhorrent. Make no mistake. This is one more small step designed to squelch dissent.

Yeah, I know – preaching to the choir. The image above has nothing to do with my commentary, except that it’s the mental picture Progressives conjure of Conservatives, and works as a visual introduction to
The Overnight Open Thread.

_____________________________________

Update: ACLU does the right thing.  h/t Bob in Breckenridge