I've seen several people posting this, but I'm afraid I can't jump on the agreement wagon. Despite any claims that a boycott is ineffective, or that Chick Fil A gives lots of money to other, less discriminatory causes, it doesn't change the fact that this is a company that gives money (and has had its owner voice his unwavering support for) to organizations whose only aims are to interfere with the lives of gay people. There's no equivalent for "the left is the same!" argument that people who liked to pretend that "balance" and "two sides of the story" are equal, immutable things. Chick Fil A gives money to anti-gay groups and is proud of it. That should be enough for anyone with a conscious to think twice. This article seems to think that be allowing Chick Fil A's pathetic, hateful use of their money to stand, that that is somehow taking some kind of principled stand on freedom on liberty. To me, that's just a craven stand on nothing at all.
The only way there would be "balance" is if there were gay-led organizations collecting money to restrict the rights of and legislate against Christians. When you stop laughing, you'll realize that of course that never frigging happens. But if that damn chicken sandwich is so important to you, knock yourself out.
In Defense of Eating at Chick Fil A