There’s an opinion piece over at the LA Times that’s titled “Chick-fil-A gets a lesson on corporate outspokenness.” It talks about how the president Dan Cathy has “crossed the line” with his outspokenness for traditional and biblically defined marriage. While affirming the free speech of the president of Chick Fil A, I thought the article was focused on something trivial when leftists politicians’ outspokenness crossed the line and posed a bigger problem and threat to freedom and liberty with arbitrary threats that lack legality. As the writer himself shared in a short snippet:
The mayor of Boston, a Philadelphia council member and a Chicago alderman, among other politicians, aired threats to keep Chick-fil-A stores out of their jurisdictions, playing to their constituencies being easier since they probably have no legal right to do so, and they know it.
Again why focus on Chick Fil A’s president outspokeness when the guy just owns a group of restaurant when politicians openly threaten action against someone holding a belief that does not violate the law? This seems rather strange to me. Dan Cathy has a right to his freedom of speech and so does the politicians. But when politicians speak on the basis of their office and powers, that’s a scary thing. If I were to write an article for the L.A. Times, I would have one titled, “Politicians should gets a lesson on outspokenness when they have no legal rights to do so.” How does one feel if politicians on the other side just play to their constituencies by saying they might banned “Out of the Closet” Thrift Stores because it’s against their city’s values? Do you then write an article about the Thrift Store’s political value?