Why do liberals support an assault on the 1st amendment by members of Government?

[siuaghan]

This is what Mr Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A said.

"“operate on biblical principles” and “are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.” Defining Chick-fil-A as “a family business,” Cathy went on to say that “We intend to stay the course. … We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

That is living up to one's Religious principals, not bigotry.

The reaction by some Democrat Leaders across the Nation displays Tyrannical intolerance.

“Because of (Dan Cathy’s) ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward,” Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno said, in a threat echoed by
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino was just as blunt: “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” he said. “We’re an open city. We’re a city at the forefront of inclusion.”

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who just recently married her lesbian partner, called upon New York University to kick Chick-fil-A off its campus.

**Within days, Moreno, Emanuel and Menino had qualified their statements somewhat, promising to operate within the law and constitutional limits. Those clarifications became necessary when legal authorities quickly recognized threatened violations of First Amendment rights.**
**************************************…

The First Amendment prohibits the government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[lathrop]

We don't.

Think about your question, and remember that liberals from either party are fundamentally Constitutionalists. See where you went wrong?

[hyun-su]

Hate speech IS protected by the First Amendment. That's why Chick-Fil-A's owner can be a free bigot, and spout all the hate he wishes.

[torran]

"That is living up to one's Religious principals" That doesn't mean it can't be bigoted.

[bergh39]

Dude?

I thought we were supposed to support small local government?

We would not want this country to become a heaven for political correctness to the point of nanny statedom would we?

Sounds like you are advocating that the nanny state of the LAW comes to the rescue because the big bad liberals are bullying you and your humble religious values to me.

Nanny state in other words.

[marq]

Is he being charged with a crime? No. So the First Amendment hasn't been violated. Speech still has consequences. It's called personal responsibility.

[sylvester37]

Republicans have assaulted the whole Constitution. Give me a break. All you care about is that law. Not the ones about equal rights, Or voting Rights without poll taxes. You are phonies in the worst way. I wish we didn't have people like that in our country.

[khalid]

Republicans have assaulted the whole Constitution. Give me a break. All you care about is that law. Not the ones about equal rights, Or voting Rights without poll taxes. You are phonies in the worst way. I wish we didn't have people like that in our country.

The Boston mayor did his job as an elected representative and let them know they are not welcome in Boston, though his statement that you quote does not threaten to stop them from being in Boston.

Many college campuses as well as some governments include discrimination aimed at gays, lesbians, and transgenders in their anti-discrimination policies, so Quinn is also in the clear.

Moreno was out of line as he should have stated he would work to see gays, lesbians, and transgenders included in the city's anti-discrimination policies so that it might legally deny a permit.

Why should you expect people to understand your question about people who don't understand the Bible?

[ji]

First, only an imbecile would think a chain is a family business.

Second, I have the right to refuse to give my money to someone who is trying to force his oppressive and loathsome version of religion on everyone else.

Freedom of speech and religion do NOT mean the "right" to force everyone else to accept YOUR beliefs, and live the way YOU want them to. In fact, that's the OPPOSITE of freedom.

It IS bigotry to deny basic rights to a group of people. The fact that he thinks his imaginary Sky Bully wants him to be a bigot is irrelevant; it's still bigotry. (In the past, religious nut-jobs claimed their imaginary Sky Bully said it was good for Whites to enslave Blacks -- it was still wrong, even if it was their religious view.)