Huh? I really disagree. He's denying someone the right to open a business. That's an action against a person (in this occurence a business owner).

I understand he's taking a stand against actions, but ultimately the way he took the stand led him to deny a right to a Christian, and not to his views.

It should be illegal and he should be sued for it.

I agree. 

Luckily we have enough Chick-Fil-A's around the country to fill our needs for their delicious foods.

legally? Certainly. Morally, i'm less certain. This is definitely one of those things that the ACLU could use to earn some more right-wing credentials

You're both right and wrong. I showed you why morally it was wrong. It's an afront to an individual for his beliefs. There are other ways to deal with disagreeing with an individual's beliefs, no matter how influencial he may be (unless he's a politician, then you just don't vote for him).

You're right to say this is a case of the ACLU to look into. Then again, there are so many organizations that support questionable groups and communities, to target the most controversial one may not be the place to start, imho, since by definition it being controversial means it's still unclear whether Cathy's position is morally wrong or not.

The case against a racist would be much simpler.

@kantor
Well, I guess I am just as bad as a racist because I will never accept the homosexual lifestyle as a legitimate relationship but will solely view it as a perversion and sin. Does that make me a homophobe because i don't hate gays, but rather I hate their lifestyle?

Trying to piss off both parties in an argument is the definitive form of neutrality!   

Anyhow, on a serius note, I actually think that sometimes (often?) political correctness, with its hypocrisy and obtuseness can harm people's rights instead of defending them.

I agree. But there's a big difference between disagreeing with a person's political position and then stripping an individual of their rights, in this case a business owner.

Whereas the anti-gay-marriage groups do it via lobbying (the correct channel imho), the alderman actually deprived an individual of a basic right. I don't think it's acceptable at all.

They already have spoken out against the move.

I'd cite an article, except while it's been covered by multiple sources... oddly the only sources I can find are ones i'd consider not worthy of being cited.

Oddly the mainstream media seems to be avoiding it...

Outside Fox news anyway.

Couples in which one spouse earns all of the couple’s income never incur a marriage penalty and almost always receive a marriage bonus, because joint filing shifts the higher earner’s income into a lower tax bracket.

• Example of a marriage bonus: A wife earns $200,000 and her husband earns nothing. They have two children and itemize deductions equal to $40,000. Filing jointly, their taxable income is $146,801, on which their 2008 income tax liability is $27,848. But the AMT raises that liability to $30,825. If they could file separately, the husband as single and the wife as head of household with two children, the wife would owe taxes of $38,957 (including the AMT) and the husband would owe nothing. Their joint tax bill is $8,132 less than their combined individual tax bills, giving them a marriage bonus equal to 4.1 percent of their pretax income.
  (see example details)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/marriage-penalties.cfm

Whoever explained it to you explained wrong.

Secondly, now that I've shown you that married indeed get benefits over individuals, I never said that the chick-fil-a guy was completely in the wrong for voicing his morals. I HAVE called his morals hypocritical for the points I illustrated, ie, denying privelages to others because they were sinful.

I hear all the time that "you don't allow gay marriage because it promotes gay marriage. It allows for people to enter into sin more freely than to rise above the 'temptations' like they should be doing...we should not be telling these people that it's OK". Now, because it's so common to think that I'm 'boiling all Christians down to this stereotype or thought process', I will say that I am not. The anti-gay marriage crowd is so hard to fight because they all have different reasons. It's like the tea party. How do you argue with them? Each group within has like their own ideas and desires. For the anti same sex marriage crowds it's no different. Some say it's enabling, so no. Others say, "no because marriage is sacred"... etc etc. So when you solve the problem of marriage being sacred and say, "OK, so let's give them civil unions with marital benefits", it doesn't work, because the people that held that obstacle then shrink back while another group says "it's enabling". So yeah, it's frustrating, and yes, I think it's backwards and hypocritical. I mean, this is something that would HELP the economy, as well as making the rest of the world look at us again and say, "damn as much as I hate those americans, they're more progressive than we are once again".

There are a myriad of other benefits to marriage besides tax, including credit power, hospital visitation, tax free gifts to spouses, etc etc.

@bold. Why am I not surprised. Had this been the other way around it would be on all the channels and all the news.