I keep hearing these retarded arguments in defense of Chik fil-A claiming that they have the right to say whatever they want to and cities, and even individuals, cannot respond with an organized boycott of them, lest poor, poor Chik fil-A's First Amendment right to freedom of speech be violated.
Well first let me say that I don't eat meat or meat byproducts (moral issue for me), so I've been on a de facto boycott of Chik fil-A for about two years now anyway. My participation in a formal boycott hence will make no real-world difference since I don't buy from them, so my PERSONAL investment in this issue is minimal, to say the least.
But how do I respond to claims that people, and even whole cities, don't have a right to boycott Chik fil-A in response to their anti-gay tirades and actual support of anti-gay groups? Like this:
I don't care what people or cities do regarding the issue. As far as I'm concerned, corporations are not people and should not be treated as if they were. They should have no legal rights. Corporate existence should be viewed and approached as a privilege that society bestows conditionally, based on whatever conditions society determines are acceptable at any given point, just like it used to in this country before the 1871 Supreme Court ruling. Should the given community determine that it is unacceptable for corporations to flagrantly discriminate against gay people, more power to them I say.