A Chicago alderman, angered by the president of Chick-fil-A’s comments that he is against gay marriage, said he will block the company from building a restaurant in his ward.
Alderman Joe Moreno said Wednesday that unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy, Chick-fil-A will not open its first free-standing restaurant in the city as it plans to do.
“They have nothing on the books that says they do not discriminate and they are open to everyone,” said Moreno, whose ward is on the northwest side. “I want to see that policy before they go forward.”
Now, after Boston Mayor Thomas Menino vowed to block the fast food chain from opening a franchise in his city, a letter penned by the Massachusetts lawmaker to Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy has surfaced in the blogosphere. That letter, which was posted to Boston’s official Facebook page and has since been picked up by a number of media outlets including Towleroad, is dated July 20 and reads as follows:
“In recent days you said Chick-fil-A opposes same-sex marriage and said the generation that supports it has an ‘arrogant attitude.’
Now — incredibly — your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.”
Now, I could get into a whole thing about the dangers of government picking and choosing who gets to do business based on the personal political beliefs of that business’ owner. I could ask progressives whether they actually want a world in which the government could say “Hmm…you’ve given to Planned Parenthood and Barack Obama? NO BUSINESS PERMIT FOR YOU.” I could ruminate on the empty soullessness of choosing to do business only with those you agree with—the horrible, spirit-sucking dreariness of making the political the personal in all realms.
Instead, I’ll just link to this story:
SAN FRANCISCO — On a recent morning at the main public library here, dozens of people sat and stood at computers, searching job-hunting sites, playing games, watching music videos. And some looked at naked pictures of men and women in full view of passers-by.
The library has been stung by complaints about the content, including explicit pornography, that some people watch in front of others. To address the issue, the library over the last six weeks has installed 18 computer monitors with plastic hoods so that only the person using the computer can see what is on the screen.
“It’s for their privacy, and for ours,” said Michelle Jeffers, the library spokeswoman. The library will also soon post warnings on the screens of all its 240 computers to remind people to be sensitive to other patrons — a solution it prefers to filtering or censoring images.
Why oh why must we allow perverts to watch porn in public? BECAUSE TOLERANCE, THAT’S WHY. I’d really like to see the overlap on a Venn Diagram of “People who are boycotting Chick-fil-a” and “People who think we should accommodate people watching porn at public libraries.” I imagine it’d be significant.
I try not to get worked up about this sort of stuff because I’m pretty much a live-and-let-live guy. But the left is not, and that’s why they’re trying to cripple a company and cost thousands of people their livelihood for having the temerity to disagree with their notion of right and wrong while simultaneously wondering what’s the big deal about watching porn in public libraries. Our culture is sick and broken. Possibly irreparably. As Rod Dreher put it:
Even so, I don’t understand what is wrong with this culture. Do we now lack the moral sense and the moral confidence to say that it’s wrong to watch pornography in libraries, and in places where children and others may have no choice but to see those images? I mean, hell, we consider it intolerable that anybody might have to breathe secondhand smoke in public against their will, but we can’t bring ourselves to say that people have a right not to be exposed to hardcore porn in the public square.