.
OPINION: The right way and the wrong way to protest Chick-fil-A
Customers line up at a Chick-fil-A food truck that was targeted by about two dozen protesters last week in Washington.
July 31st, 2012
11:53 AM ET

OPINION: The right way and the wrong way to protest Chick-fil-A

(CNN) – CNN Contributor LZ Granderson says he was a Chick-fil-A fan until he heard of its stance on gay rights, but the Constitution doesn't allow mayors to ban Chick-fil-A simply based on the company's president's views. Granderson thinks he has a better and legal way to protest.

[0:57] "The last thing anyone, liberal or conservative, should want is local government censoring what a private citizen can say by way of withholding permits and licenses."

[3:06] "This is what the forefathers had in mind when they composed the Constitution: liberals making out during lunch and conservatives stuffing their face with chicken in the name of Jesus. God I love this country."

What do you think about this issue? Join the conversation and add your comments below.

Read more of LZ Granderson's columns at CNN Opinion.

soundoff (3 Responses)
  1. Newshater421

    This isn't about his freedom of speech...it's about the fact that he uses money he made from his company to fight against gay marriage. What if it were the other way around...and this was a country where only gays could get married, and straight people didn't have the legal right that marriage entails? Because that's what this is really about...legal rights of human beings, not "God's" rules. On one hand the Christians fear Muslim law...on the other hand they want Christian law to be the rule of the land. You can't have it both ways. As an atheist, I don't want any religion dictating what I can and can't do. I'm not gay, but here in the "land of the free..." I want the right to be.

    August 2, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
  2. JayWat

    It is appaling that a Mayor or a college is attempting to limit free speech rights of an organization's president bcause they don't like his views. To not support gay marriage is not ANTI anything, its being PRO something and that's a right this is constitutionally protected. There are 44 states which define marriage as between a man and woman, that puts those people in a majority position. That's only 7 states who hold the opposite view and it is not nessarily the majority of the people in that state who hold that view, just the ones who voted. The long and short of it is that millions of Americans support the traditional view of marriage, we have a right to our viewpoint like everyone else!! We are not ANTI anything we are PRO man and woman

    August 2, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Newshater421

      Yes, and the majority of people didn't support civil rights either...nor did they support us enter WW2...or an end to slavery...or that evolution be taught in schools...or George W Bush being elected in 2000...So, what's you point? This is one of those times in history where change is afoot...sadly it doesn't come easy...but, one day people will look back and say,"Why did people care so much about same sex couples getting married?" and "Why did people believe in a man in the sky, who isn't there?" and "Did people really think that a man was coming back from the dead to save them?"

      But, for now will just sit around and fight about it on the Internet.

      August 2, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |