First, I want to preface my comments by saying that gay marriage doesn't bother me. I have a "live and let live" type of attitude. Who am I to keep two people from marrying? No skin off my nose if two gay people get married.
However, I think this action by the Chicago Alderman, as well as by the Boston Mayor, could turn into a real mess. Chick-Fil-A did not say they are going to ban anyone from their restaurants. They welcome everyone. They have not broken any anti-discrimination laws. They have simply exercised their First Ammenedment freedom of speech, and vocally expressed their religious beliefs. They have the right to express those beliefs, whether I agree with them or not.
The serious violation here is the government officials taking retribution against Chick-Fil-A for exercising their First Ammendment freedoms. The Frst Ammenedment is specifically designed to protect speech (and religion) from government
retribution. The Chicago Alderman and the Boston Mayor are government
officials punishing a company because they disagree with their speech and religious views. That is a dangerous (and unconstitutional) road to take .
The road can go both ways. What if an openly gay company tries to open a business in Salt lake City, and that busness gets turned away by Saly Lake City because Salt Lake City officials don't like the company's beliefs? As with what the Chicago and Boston government officials are doing, that would equally be unconstitutional.
If gay people want to boycott Chick-Fil-A, that's fine, and it's the legal and constitutional road to take. What the government officials are doing is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Ammendment.
Oh, I always get my Chick-Fil-A sandwich with extra pickles. The two little slices of pickle aren't enough. A little mustard added is good, too.