The CEO is obviously a jackass
if people want to support his business, fine
if people want to boycott his business, fine
he shouldn't be denied a location on government property because of his beliefs as long as he doesnt break the law. He can be a homophobe and bigot all he wants, as long has his restaurant serve and employees all in a legal manner so be it.
The mayors or whatever should have simply did it the legal way like others do and just denied him and said they feel a another business would fit better there
Now that they came out and said they dont like hime because of his bigoted ways and THAT is the reason we are denying him they probably set themselves up for failure.
Then again maybe they just wanted to expose the owner, gains some press for themselves and in the end will allow him and say its because the law says they have to
Just because a child is being raised by two parents, does not mean it is better than being raised by a single parent.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
no direct government action needs to be taken for a chilling effect to be present... a mere threat of government sanction is enough to be considered a rights violation.
there is no substantial difference between saying " do not speak out against SSM or we will throw you in prison" and " do not speak out against SSM or we will deny you a business license".
no one has been throw in prison, and no one has been denied a business license... but both are threats of sanction and both are intended to stifle free speech/expression.