What Dan Cathy's Beliefs Can and Can't Do

On a personal level, it was deeply gratifying to read Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s letter to Chick-Fil-A President & COO Dan Cathy stating that he would not allow Chick-Fil-A restaurants to open their doors in Boston because of his views on same-sex marriage. I identify as both gay and as a native Bostonian (cum New Yorker) and my first response to the letter was one of pride, satisfaction, even hubris. It made me prouder than any Red Sox or Patriots national title ever could.

On a political level, however, I find Menino’s letter (and the similar statements he prompted from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee) somewhat troubling. It is plainly within Dan Cathy’s First Amendment rights as a private citizen to announce his beliefs on same-sex marriage (and even financially support whoever he pleases–even anti-gay organizations), however repulsive they may be. And to try to stifle him or the ensuing conversation would be un-American. This is not to say he has been stifled, however these mayors are using his statements as ammunition to consciously block his private business–with a right to believe what it wants about gay marriage–from entering their city’s commercial landscape. I’m no Constitutional scholar, but I don’t think Menino or Emanual or Lee can actually do anything about Chick-Fil-A coming to their cities if they chose to. True, Menino has stirred up a great deal of attention and opening a Chick-Fil-A in Boston at this point in time may be a company’s death wish given how much negative exposure they’ve received. In that way, it would be a questionable business practice for Chick-Fil-A to come to Boston now. However, it wouldn’t be illegal.

I am more inclined to side with Mayor Bloomberg on this one. He describes the banning of businesses based on their beliefs as un-American and completely at odds with the freedoms that come along with being an American citizen. I have to agree. The Village Voice cites Bloomberg’s stance as reason to call him a hypocrite in light of his recent ban on sodas larger than 16 oz for health reasons. If he loves freedom so much, then why did he try to limit how much soda a consumer can buy? they ask. However, that’s like comparing apples and oranges. While the right to free speech and religious belief are clearly enumerated in the Constitution, selling deathly quantities of soda is not. Jon Stewart agrees, saying, “[I'm] pretty sure you can’t outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEO’s views repellant. Not sure which amendment covers that, but it’s probably in the top 1.”

There already is a Chick-Fil-A in New York, and it’s at NYU.  Why don’t we use our Constitutionally protected right to protest? And I mean more than a nationwide "kiss-in," which may send a message, but won't create real, systemic change. Better yet, let’s vote with our dollar by refusing to patronize them. Their chicken isn't worth it anyway.