<<<< One of the largest Leftist news magazines in the nation, with 200,000 paid subscribers, takes the side of the Constitution - a startling liberal move in today's radicalized Leftist climate.
In a rather surprising editorial move, Mother Jones - a one world as you can get - has confirmed the 1st Amendment, and taken the side of Chick-Fil-A as it battles the thuggish mayors of Boston and Chicago.
Menino and Moreno have it wrong. Blocking construction of Chick-fil-a restaurants over Cathy's views is a violation of Cathy's First Amendment rights. Boston and Chicago have no more right to stop construction of Chick-fil-As based on an executive's anti-gay views than New York City would have had the right to block construction of an Islamic community center blocks away from Ground Zero.
Refreshing. Look, whether we agree as to the
application of the Constitution, it is our legislative impetus and
legal model. So many within the New Democrat Party have decided to simply
ignore the Constitution. The EPA ignored that document in Sackett vs the
EPA and lost its case in a High Court decision. The EEOC lost in a decision
brought to the Supreme Court by Hosanna Tabor Lutheran Church. Just
before Obama took his throne, the High Court decided against D.C. as it
struck down its ban on private gun ownership. Obama has decided to ignore
DOMA, a 15 year old federal law, all border laws not to his liking. and
the US Congress as he works to legislate law on his own. Sanctuary cities
(there are 50 or more) are in violation of federal law and no one has the guts
to do anything about this lawlessness - and this included GW Bush
during his time in office.
Mother Jones is right in its claim. Hats off to the
editors for taking this position.
At the end of their article, the publication does make
this statement:
If Chick-fil-A discriminates in hiring or refuses to serve customers on the basis of sexual orientation, the local authorities can and should hold him accountable.
I hasten to add that Chick-fil-A holds the Constitution in
highest regard. It has never refused service to gay people (all 2%
of them) nor does it refuse employment to those of that "lifestyle."
The comment was unnecessary, a sneaky rhetorical strategy that does nothing but continue the false bias of the liberal reader . . . . and the MJ editors were doing so good.
I am a Democrat and have been one for years, but this business is very wrong. I eat at Chick and it is great - especially their chicken served with their honey mustard dip. I wouldn't even know of a political issue if not for this blog. The editor's references give me plenty of opportunity to check out the truth, on those occasions I disagree. Good work, I say, to an exDemocrat. Wish you had remained in the party. I did.
ReplyDeleteSomehow, I did not copy the full comment. The text above was part of a much longer email sent to me at midknightmail1@aol.com. There is a name attached, but he did not want it mentioned on the blog. I welcome your comments at that address.
ReplyDelete