Replies

I sincerely hope there's a countersuit against this little wet end who filed suit. Since no one has any way of knowing what his sexual orientation or marital status is and since there is no company policy directing the franchisee to refuse service to anyone based on the customer's actual or perceived sexual orientation or marriage status, then there is no way that there is any possible discrimination going on. The CEO of Chick-fil-A is exercising his First Amendment rights in stating his beliefs but he is also accommodating the urge of everyone who has the money to pay to eat his chicken.

If someone, such as the moron who filed suit, doesn't want to eat Chick-fil-A because he doesn't like the beliefs of the CEO, then the only thing that is preventing him from chowing down on chicken is his decision not to do so because of a value judgement he made against the restaurant based on a value judgement he has made against the CEO. His not setting foot in Chick-fil-A is not because he is being excluded by the restaurant but because he is voluntarily excluding himself based on his own values.

The law doesn't provide any relief for anyone who feels he is being discriminated against, only for those who, under the law, are actually being discriminated against. In his case, the only one exercising any discrimination that determines whether or not he avails himself of the product on sale is he himself.