That would be the First Amendment, that governs expression and speech. It also encompasses religious beliefs. Which is what Dan Cathy was practicing.

He does seem to be being discriminated against based on his Southern Baptist beliefs.

Interesting how there is support for ones freedom to express being gay but not another freedom to express his religion.

No?

That's simple, Dan Cathy has a constitutional right to practice what ever religious beliefs he wants and he is free from government persecution.



He is not free from being judged by the public for those beliefs.



If you don't like the way he feels about homosexuality, then the best way to show it, is to not patronize his business.



The Westboro Baptist Church could open a restaurant chain and make the best hamburgers on the planet and sell them for a dime a piece. I still wouldn't spend a plug nickel there.



And unless you somehow decrease the amount of the product being purchased, "the community" still receives benefit of purchasing said product, it just goes to the competitor now instead of the people being boycotted. So the "community" isn't being hurt overall, just the specific target of the boycott. Competitors of that target reap the rewards and the net change to the "community" is zero. In the example given, BP may not receive my purchase but Chevron will.

Put what ever spin or logo you want on it. At the end of the day a
Franchise owner that spent 1-2m on a store and paid a franchise fee is being hurt for something he had nothing to do with.

Punishment of the innocent.....
Persecution of the innocent.....
Isn't that what some hypocrites are supposedly against?

Oh BTW if it doesn't matter what brand is bought because something is being bought; then it doesn't matter what sexual orientation is on the field because the game will be played anyway.

Try again.

No spin. I hope everyone includes their moral beliefs into how they spend their money. Don't reward people that have different values. It's the best way to let business know they the can and will be held accountable for their actions.



If a company uses child labor then don't buy their product if you're against child labor.



If a company tests its product on animals, then don't buy their products if you're against animal cruelty.



If a company has a terrible environmental record, then don't buy their products if you're an environmentalist.



And if a company supports groups that teach hate, then don't buy their products if you're a Christian.



That's walkin the walk. Pretty much the opposite of spin.

There is a huge discernible difference between deliberate corporate policy and the actions of a rogue employee or employees.

Guilt by association is punishment of the innocent <full stop>

Here, I'll do the same and spin it my way. Gay priests molested friends of mine in Vermillion Parish in the late 70s. I'll just chose to not support any gays. Sounds more than fair doesn't it?

Yes, there is a difference between rogue employees and corporate policy. In the case of Chick fil a, there has been a "higher than industry standard" number of law suits alleging discrimination in career advancement and sexual orientation bias. That would indicate more of corporate culture than he actions of a rogue employee.



In the scenario that you laid out with the gay priests, you are choosing not to support a people based on an individual characteristics, such as red hair or blue eyes. That is discrimination and it's wrong. That's entirely different than choosing not to patronize a business based on differing viewpoints.



To make your scenario similar to what we are discussing you would choose not to support the Church if they were doing nothing to stop their priests from abusing children or punishing the abusers. But this would assume more than one incident and a pattern of coverup from the Church, so as not to fall under the "rogue employee" stipulation you suggested earlier. If there was a pattern, would you suggest that we ignore the actions of the child abusing priest and support the Church as we always have?

Do your homework and you'll understand that CFL caters to a lower income franchisee.

If CFL is so horrible why do they turn away 1000+ applicants for everyone they grant? Certainly minorities wouldn't be interested
In working for David Duke Motors.

False information.
Do some research about the number of stores in affluent areas vs. lower income.
Look at the 'diversity' of the board of directors and executive officer pages.
Look at their franchisee demographics.

Your argument that they turn down 99.9% (it's closer to 92%) of applicants works the other way- they can afford to be selective and find owners who think the way they do. And of those they turn away, you know it isn't because they have 'too much money' and CFA is looking for lower income owners.

You also might want to look at CFA's fees; no way a low income owner could afford their net profit charge.

That's laughable, YOU get to decide how someone else feels about a group of people? Feeling that are based off real world experiences. Seems pretty fair to say you feel like you can decide how everyone should think and feel in regards to homosexuals. Very interesting.

Horse crap, don't try to spin the "born that way" with me. Blue eyes, brown hair, fair skin, none of which ever hurt anyone and those are physical traits.

What those priests did were actions not physical traits. Everyone is born a certain way, some chose to hurt other people. Gay pedofiles are not born that way, if they are then I highly suggest the gay community get something done about offenders being paroled.

Sounds to me like there is a bit of inconsistency as to how gays are actually born.

Lawsuits are evidence of nothing except people claiming they have been wronged. If you understood the difference between a CFL franchise and a say Starbucks or Gas Station franchise you would know why there are disproportionate claims. Do your homework and you'll understand that CFL caters to a lower income franchisee.

If CFL is so horrible why do they turn away 1000+ applicants for everyone they grant? Certainly minorities wouldn't be interested
In working for David Duke Motors.

Since, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments I think it's pretty safe to assume that you don't have any more to add to your claim that someone's personal boycott against a company is a bad thing.