I think this is promising: hate will not be tolerated, even for the sake of fried chicken.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chick-fil-a-chicago-20120725,0,4158667.story

Among consequences of Chik-Fil-A's president's recent anti-gay comments:

-Chicago city Alderman (your and my new word for the day) swears to deny Chik-Fil-A a permit for building a new franchise in the First Ward
-Boston mayor writes an open letter to the company decreeing that he heavily discourages the company from trying to build in the city
-The Jim Henson company voids their merchandising agreement with the company for meal toys (which Chik-Fil-A is trying to blame on the toys being "dangerous")

As well as lots and lots of bad press.

Of course, now the company is backpedaling after the president recently declared that people who support gay marriage are "arrogant" in their effort to redefine the term, saying that the debate should be left up to the political/public arena. I wonder if that means they'll stop donating to anti-gay organizations (something that very much bothers me for different reasons than my support of LGBT rights. With all the suffering people in the world, you're taking your money and spending it on trying to stop people from getting married? Forget you.)

Chick - fil - gay would have been the preferred thread name

I spent more time deliberating on thread titles than creating thread content, but this damn inventory job has me on crippling sleep-loss, so i couldn't come up with anything properly clever.

While I support the Henson company's move.

The first two I think are HUGELY inappropriate actions... and the kind of thing you'd likely lose a lawsuit for.

There is a reason why the ACLU defends the KKK whenever cities try and deny them permits.

Government shouldn't be able to deny permits simply because they disagree with someones stance on one political issue.

That's why i think the Boston guy hasn't said anything definitive, while the alderman from Chicago is more likely to say such things (similar to how the president might say "so and so is bad" while a congressman will propose some sort of loony legislation about said so and so). The alderman's just pandering, and likely wouldn't act on the matter.

Not that I agree with what the president said, at all. But the first two things sound like a clear abuse of power.

Edit: Curse you, Kasz. Posting what was on my mind! 

I'm totally against what they think but... really? I don't think some of those things are necessary. That's prohibiting them to make a business isn't that against the law in some way? Or an abuse of power?
Besides, Chick-Fil-A makes some money for the city, right? Overall, I think that move was not a good one.

Actually it looks like he more or less did this... and is also using "Trafic issues" as a secondary excuse to hide behind legally.

Also good luck to the people boycotting. They don't have any in Nevada anyway... but Chick Fil A made the only chicken sandwich I actually like.

This. His actions can be questionable but still corporations do so much shit and people just sit and applaud.

Man I hate political correctness.