I had no idea what a Chick-fil-a was until this outrage started.
As noted in the articles about it tends to be more of a "red state" (incorrect color of course, blue by the correct Atlas color scheme) thing, the only one I've ever seen is the one at my old university's food court. The only two in the Twin Cities appear to be in food courts at the University of Minnesota and the airport, so yeah outside the south they just seem to appear in food courts. I did eat at it at my university because at the time I wasn't aware of who owned it and what they supported, but their nuggets have this really weird aftertaste and the food in general has a way of making you feel gross afterwards. Probably better to avoid it anyway.
I think boycotting a company that donates millions to organisations that funds 'ex-gay' shams is a sensible thing to do if you have 21st Century sensibilities.
This is sensible, but what Chicago is doing is quite different. If a person has an offensive position and another person disagrees a boycott is an acceptable means of protest against their organization. If a person has an offensive position and government official chooses to discriminate against their organization on a neutral matter like zoning or subdivision that is not an acceptable form of protest.That's kind of how I feel, I mean what if some mayor in the south screaming about "defending traditional marriage" decided to try to block the opening of an Apple Store because of Apple's position on this? The mayor publicizing the company's CEO's position and fundings and calling for a boycott is also an effective way of shaming and hurting the company. Trying to block them from opening then lets them play the victim card and drum up sympathy. This is now doubt winning Chik-fil-a far more business in the south that would equal far more money than just a new location in Boston and Chicago would.
