Chick-fil-a

You're absolutely GD right it is. Of course the two faced bleeding heart gay lovers have no problem with it.

 

"They can offer whatever opinions they want to, but they can't apply the laws in a biased manner."

So how is that in conflict with everyone from a mayor to a business owner having free speech?

You guys are so hung up on "leftists" and "liberals", missing the whole point is what you do even when you make it yourself.

 

Are you fvcking stupid , oh wait rhetorical question.

The mayor can have free speech, when he's having a private conversation with someone but to do as these clowns have indicates at the minimum an abuse of the bully pulpit, which is really just an extension of their public office.

 

Free speech, but only when it agrees with your own prejudices, isn't free speech. Any mayor has every right to publically or privately voice what he thinks is in the interests of his own city just as a business owner does.

 

The "opinion" of a public official has a hell of a lot more weight than that of a private citizen. What he said was, I don't like your politics, therefore your business is not welcome in this city. The mayor is in a position to destroy a business venture. The politics of said businessman should be of no concern to any elected official. This is a clear cut case of abusing one's authority given to him as Mayor. It's the old, vote for me or else Chicago style politics, and we can certainly be confident that those type of politics have traveled all the way to Capital Hill.
I guess you'd be OK with Romney saying that gay marriage does not refelct the values of America. Hey, it's just his opinion. No doubt you and Mr. tingle up my leg Matthews wouldn't even consider that a newsworthy statement.
BTW, Romney would have plenty of evidence to back up such a statement considering gay marriage has been voted down in every single state where it was put to the vote.

 

Of course Romney should be free to air his personal prejudices should he so wish, and then anyone should be free to speak in vilification or support of what he says. The consequences follow.

You're mixing up the right for anyone to freely voice their opinion, with the soundness or desirability of them doing so given their position in society. You are also confusing free speech with the legal authority or lack of, to action any such opinions. They aren't the same thing.
Condemning one person's free speech against another's because you think one might already have or might gain advantage, belongs in George Orwell's 1984.

 

What he said.

 

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to your death your right to say it.

 

That's not going to last. I've been looking at the surveys this morning, and the real story of same sex marriage (SSM) is rapidly growing public acceptance of it. Not going to say a lot about it, you can dig too if you want, but I did find this tidbit:

"Turnout is also a factor. Older voters tend to vote in higher numbers, and there’s a stark age divide on gay marriage.

As Columbia Political Science professor Jeffrey Lax wrote in 2009: “If policy were set by state-by-state majorities of those 65 or older, none would allow same-sex marriage. If policy were set by those under 30, only 12 states would not allow-same-sex marriage.”

 

I'd like to exercise that agreement thx.