Why is Chick-Fil-A being filleted?

It's not very often that I'll step up to the plate on behalf of a fast-animal flesh establishment. But this is one of those times when the exception trumps the rule.
I refer, of course, to the fabricated controversy surrounding Chick-Fil-A, the Atlanta-based business started in 1967 by Truett Cathy. Mr. Cathy made his restaurant legendary in the South and, over decades, was successful in bringing it to other parts of the U.S. Two such establishments exist in Massachusetts, but in February of this year, the student senate of Northeastern University declined the establishment of a Chick-Fil-A on campus.
And recently, in response to a published report detailing the company's donations to the Marriage & Family Foundation and Family Research Council, Boston mayor Thomas Menino declared that he would not allow a Chick-Fil-A anywhere within the borders of Suffolk County. This is the same politico who has also barred WalMart's presence in the city, disagreeing as he does its corporate philosophy. Menino would rather pontificate than create much-needed jobs for Boston residents.
Truett Cathy, the CEO, and Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A's president, are Southern Baptists. As such, they support the traditional family and have made statements reflecting their beliefs that it needs to be defended and preserved. You don't need to know any more than that to deduce why college students, the Lefty mayor of Boston and the Hollywood crowd have condemned Chick-Fil-A.
Dan Cathy has said that legislating gay marriage invites "God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'" But Dan Cathy has never requested that Chick-Fil-A restaurants not serve gay people. The only overtly religious aspect to Chick-Fil-A is the fact that it is closed on Sundays. In fact, if the Cathys have been most notoriously adamant about anything, it's their refusal to serve on the Christian day of rest and worship. To anyone, even traditional families.
The gay militants and their far-Left defenders don't wish to acknowledge Dan Cathy's right to free speech. I'm sure he's had liberal college students working in his establishments across the country and the donning of a Chick-Fil-A label pin did not denote their membership in an indoctrination camp.
The Left talks such a great game about daring to be different. It's exactly what Dan Cathy has done and he's been vilified for it. The talk show host Roger Hedgecock summed it up nicely on his July 24 program:

The mafia of the Left will not tolerate a single utterance outside the boundaries of their politically correct channel. Not one. There's no free speech in this country, not anymore. We have the politically correct-speech police. Which only applies to conservatives.

Hedgecock cites the example of Office Depot's partnership with the Born This Way Foundation founded by Lady Gaga. Office Depot implores customers to "Be Brave". Bravery only flows in one direction apparently. The Cathys have tried it and are getting put through the shredder. Supplied by Office Depot, no doubt.
And that's fine. Office Depot, as a private business, can support whatever causes it wishes to. So can Chick-Fil-A. But Chick-Fil-A hasn't chosen to march in lockstep with the right cause and that's the problem.
I'm not impressed by the line of work the Cathys went into, and I personally would not eat at a Chick-Fil-A because I don't eat mammal or bird flesh.  However, Chick-Fil-A does use free-range chicken. To me, that's progressive and immediately places them on a pedestal above most other fast-food joints.  It's an indication that the Cathys are good folk.
This assault on Chick-Fil-A is nonsense. It's time that those who preach the merits of diversity and claim to embrace tolerance do those very things. But they won't. The nature of being a liberal is to be perpetually hypocritical.

It's about more than stage fright, Mr. Mayor

As much as I was glad to see Boris Johnson return to office as Mayor of London—especially given his opponent—I am always distressed to hear him talk nonsense.
Johnson has called on Londoners to "stop whining" and throw their support behind the Olympics, which will start next weekend. The mayor claims denziens of the capital city have been stricken with "paralyzing stage fright." Er, no, Mr. Mayor.  I think you're confused.  We're frozen to the spot thinking how much of our council tax money was spent on this charade, none of which we'll see again.
Nine billion pounds was spent on this corporate spunkfest. I am not fooled by one-thirty-second of a scintilla that this will benefit the average working person in London or nationwide.  £9 billion to break even.  Not going to happen, is it?  It's always easier to spend someone else's money than it is to generate it.  I don't care what anyone says, the Olympics are not going to raise anywhere close to that figure.
Demonstrate to me how the Olympics will result in a significant raise in my salary and I'll support the travesty.  I'll play along and keep my mouth shut.  Grease my palm the way so many others have been lubed and I'll tapdance all day along Tower Bridge in the oh-so-fetching pink and purple colors of the London 2012 volunteer brigade—the ones that would doubtless make me look like I was preparing for late-night frolicks at Horse Meat Disco.
Years ago, I shared my thoughts on London 2012. I unequivocally stand by them.
Mayor Johnson said that Londoners have shown a willingness to "agonise about the traffic, when our transport systems are performing well" and "worry about security when we always planned to have a strong military role in making our games as safe as possible." He reminded us that the Olympic Park was built on time and under budget.
None of which, of course, is true. The security arrangements, as I predicted four years ago, were a shambles. Public transportation and traffic flow are jokes when millions of foreigners aren't flocking into the capital. I've already discussed what a Through the Looking Glass statement the Olympics being delivered on budget is.
But I'll delve into that a tad more.  In March, BBC sports blogger David Bond wrote:

It used to be sufficient for the government to say the £9.3bn was an infrastructure budget, set up to pay for the venues of the Olympic Park ... But with that money now being used for so many different areas of the project - security, ceremonies and other operational requirements associated with the actual staging of the Games - that argument no longer holds.

Not exactly the stuff of rocket science to work that one out, no offense to Mr. Bond.  I think the "Olympo-funk," as Boris refers to it, that many of us are feeling is justified.
Maybe you could fool people in Cumbria or Northumbria or Yorkshire with cheers of "Go Team GB!" They did not have to contribute toward the Olympics nor will they have to deal with the congestion, delays and major-league annoyances the Games will cause.
I can't blame Boris, and I can forgive him for lying through his teeth about the Olympics and acting like a complete rumpswab for them.  He inherited them from his rival and opponent, "Red Ken" Livingstone, who was no less a suck-up to the Games than Johnson.  The whole "Back the Bid" scheme and the eventual "awarding" of the Olympics to London in 2005 were done under Livingstone's tenure.  It wouldn't do much for his standing or credibility if Mayor Johnson moaned like most of the rest of us.
I'm just glad that I work nights because that way might make it easier for me to attempt to ignore this whole charade. It will only last two weeks.

(Photo courtesy of The Hindu, March 27, 2012)