Chicago Alderman Continues to Bully Chick-Fil-A Over Gay Marriage

One can support groups that stand for traditional marriage without it being a political act.  To me a political agenda means the groups main focus is the support of candidates who reflect their views and lobbying for legislation that reflects those views.  Giving money to a group that helps families in crisis or that helps promote marriage enrichment would be a way to support marriage that does not have a political agenda.

The problem is that the Left thinks any action of Christians in the public square is a political one.  If you support marriage enrichment for heterosexual couples you are stating your opposition to same sex marriage because the support you give is not gender blind.  Any action involving marriage support a group takes that does not show a clear endorsement of SSM will be regarded as proof of a political agenda.

The only accepted course of action is complete surrender in the form of announcing support for their agenda or severing ties with any group that supports marriage but not SSM.  They don’t want our tolerance, they want our defeat and if that fails our silence.

I’m ready to see the document the alderman says he has and which was the basis for an LL Times story. Put up or shut up.

Even if such a document is in hand it has no bearing on whether a company has met the legal obligations for being granted a zoning variance and subsequent building permit.

Of course not. I was calling Moreno a ...  I don’t think I can use that word here… how about…fibber.

It is an interesting act to turn something that is in no way political (something that has to do with government) into something that is to be considered only political.  When the gay machine globbed onto and absorbed the civil rights movement and made it its own, asserting that gay rights and civil rights are the same, it took the Bible out of the church, where these weddings are supposed to take place, and it equated the wrongness of denying voting rights to people because of the color of their skin to the “wrongness” of supporting the church. 

An effective twist.  But a twist, nonetheless.

But, but, but ... this is so much more important than the 100+ murders in Chicago this year thus far and the extortion of the city by teacher’s unions using children as pawns!

Words Matter, 

I did not mean to come across as criticizing your answer.  I was criticizing the spin Moreno and others have put on this situation.

100??  If only, #6.  Chicago is on track to have over 500 murders this year.  It passed 228 in mid-June.

Any why should CFA have to foreswear donations to groups with political agendas just to get a building permit in Chi-town?  Do gay-friendly companies like Apple and Home Depot have to similarly eschew politics to be able to do business there?

Jeffersonian, I humbly and regretfully stand corrected on the number of murders in Chicago.  Apparently to this Alderman and his ilk, the fact that it is more dangerous to live in Chicago than serve in Afghanistan is completely acceptable as long as ideological purity is paid lip service and grandstand-ed.

P.L.  #7 -

I got a grin out of it.  Chicago pols! My real question is why he’s trying to save face. You might think he had constituents who want the jobs and convenience of a CFA close by. Gay-rights advocates sometimes are shocked when opposition surfaces.

Supporting traditional marriage is not a ‘political agenda’...changing marriage through left-wing social engineering is.

That aside, does Mr. Moreno really want this fight again? He and others saw what happened last time: Chick-fil-a was vindicated, and all the shame belonged to the bullies of the whole affair. But if they want war, then bring it on! I’ll buy CFC gift-cards and put them in the church offering plate for needy families.

Since when does an alderman have the ability to block a business opening in his district based on the religious views, political views, or charitable contributions of the business owner?  This is a shakedown, pure and simple.  If this isn’t unconstitutional, nothing is.