Chick-fil-A litmus test violates 14th Amendment
Re: "Hey, Boston: Leave Chick-fil-A alone," July 26
I join Mark Tapscott in being a First Amendment fanatic. I also am a fanatic for the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates equal protection of law to all Americans.
If America, through its government officials, is going to use political and religious litmus tests to decide which businesses may set up shop in town, such litmus tests must be applied equally to all business owners, not just Chick-fil-A. We cannot have laws in America on the basis of "different strokes for different folks."
To slightly paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every political correctness tyrannizing the minds of men.
Lawrence K. Marsh
Boycott of Chick-fil-A as American as apple pie
Your publication is certainly correct to criticize the mayorsof Boston and Chicago for sayingthey will use the force of law to interfere with Chick-fil-A's right to do business. That is clearly wrong, and their bravado will likely be short-lived.
But let's be real.The outcry against Chick-fil-A is not simply because of the outspoken views of its anti-gay CEO. It's because the company has spent millions of dollars actively opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians. That is why the firm is now facing a boycott, something as American as apple pie.
Customers have every right to boycott a company actively opposed to their political beliefs or legal rights. Just in the past year, for example, Target, Google, and Starbucks have all been targeted by anti-gay organizations because of their support for gay rights. Did you write editorials opposing those boycotts? Did you lament the lack of a "live-and-let-live" philosophy by all the Religious Right groups fighting to bring back "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"or state sodomy laws and other legal restrictions on gays and lesbians?
All your huffing and puffing about freedom would be a lot more believable if you applied it to Nanny States bothleft and the right.
Log Cabin Republicans of Virginia
Chavez is a clear and present danger
The Obama administration's continued indifference to the actions of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is dangerous on several fronts.
President Obama made the startling comment recently that Chavez poses no threat to U.S. national security. This Venezuelan strongman has shown Russian weaponry, Iranian drones, and hospitality to Hezbollah, which has been permitted to establish training camps on nearby Margarita Island.
His shipping of fuel to Syria and his involvement with the Columbian drug cartels are just a few more examples of how dangerous Chavez really is.
Yet Obama and his administration simply continue to ignore this situation. Such inaction can and will embolden Chavez to expand cooperation with U.S. enemies and further destabilize the region. This is another reason why we must make a change in the White House in November.