Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Bill de Blasio Picks-a-Fight with Chick-fil-A because he’s a ______

    Bill de Blasio Picks-a-Fight with Chick-fil-A because he’s a ______

    fill in the blank

    NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has his problems, including a probe into alleged campaign fundraising improprieties.

    So what did he do?

    Pick-a-Fight with Chick-fil-A.

    Via BizPac Review (h/t Bo Snerdly):

    New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has called for a boycott of popular restaurant chain Chick-fil-A, presumably for its founder, Dan Cathy’s, past public statements supporting traditional marriage.

    “What the ownership of Chick-fil-A has said is wrong,” the mayor said at a press conference, the New York Daily News reported.

    De Blasio conceded that, of course, the restaurant does “have a legal right” to exist but he won’t be giving it any business.

    “I’m certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn’t urge any other New Yorkers to patronize them,” he said as a new location is set to open in the Queens Center Mall this fall.

    Rather than being happy a new business is opening in his city and creating jobs de Blasio cannot fathom a business existing whose ownership doesn’t agree with him on gay marriage.

    Although there is no obvious record of de Blasio criticizing any Muslim owned businesses whose proprietors feel the same way.

    Steve Cuozzo at The NY Post calls de Blasio’s clucking travesty:

    Eat it, Bill de Blasio!

    Your suggestion that we avoid Chick-Fil-A because the company’s president disapproves of same-sex marriage made me gag.

    The national chicken chain is opening more outlets around town, drawing happy throngs and creating jobs in formerly empty storefronts.

    This was how the mayor welcomed them on Monday: “I’m certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn’t urge any other New Yorker to patronize them.”

    Chick-Fil-A will survive. But as long as de Blasio’s trashing eateries in order to stroke special interests — common sense be damned — why won’t he take on other restaurants which might offend certain ethnic and gender sensitivities?

    Needless to say, the boycott call is not working:

    When Chick-fil-A opened in NYC, lines were around the corner, and New Yorkers seem to love eating Mor Chicken:

    None of this targeting of Chick-fil-A is new. Whenever liberal politicians want someone to politically grill, Chick-fil-A seems to be on the menu. Remember when liberal politicians tried to ban Chick-fil-A from NYC, Boston and Chicago?

    Mor Chicken lovers around the country launched Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and Legal Insurrection readers sent in dozens of photos and video.

    [Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day 2012)Lee, Newport Beach, CA

    [Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day 2012 – Lee, Newport Beach, CA]

    What is it with de Blasio?

    Fill in the blank:

    Bill de Blasio Picks-a-Fight with Chick-fil-A because he’s a ______.



    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    I’ll take NYC’s Chick Fil A’s restaurants here please.

    ultraskeptic | May 14, 2016 at 9:05 pm

    This is just another of those nutso social/governmental frictions that could be simply alleviated by recalling what the principle function of matrimony evolved from: the need for a legal provision to control and protect property rights. So to eliminate the constant blather of religious nuts, why not make marriage a religious-only practice joining couples in whatever spiritual coupling their faith espouses, allowing each religious group to determine whom they will and will not join. And then have an entirely separate civil process, perhaps labeled “civil union” as a formal legal partnership allowing any two people (I’d even allow more, but then I’m much more liberal than most people who are constrained by their reflexive social preconceptions) to be joined for purposes of property rights, taxes, and inheritance. The religious stuff would satisfy the need for people’s Lord’s approval, and the civil stuff would be an additional or alternative requirement for the non-emotional conjunction of parties to fulfill legal requirements. Like so much of government, this is a simple problem with a complicated, long-standing, inadequate solution imposed. Split the G0d crap from the law crap, and the problem is solved.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend