Thoughts on Chick-fil-A's Controversy

I've been on vacation, so I'm a little late in commenting on the latest Chick-fil-A brouhaha. I've also been reluctant to blog about it since it has little to do with food--though that changed once the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco vowed to block new CfA restaurants in their cities. As the editors of National Review put it well: "The powers of government are not to be used for parochial political ends. Even in Chicago." And, isn't it contradictory to tell an organization to stay out of your city because they're not inclusive enough?
Speaking of big-city mayors, one upside of this controversy is that it's prompted Mike Bloomberg to make a statement I can actually agree with: that it's inappropriate "to look at somebody's political views and decide whether or not they can live in the city, or operate a business in the city, or work for somebody in the city."
Really, this story is about much more than just food: it's about the Left's latest attempt to reset the limits of acceptable speech.

As other sources have pointed out, liberal media outlets misleadingly spun CfA CEO Dan Cathy's statements in an interview with The Baptist Press to make it sound like he had come out against gay marriage when he was never asked about the subject in the first place. But since CfA has been on the Left's radar for years now, his statement about "guilty as charged" was treated as proof that he, and by extension his company, was officially anti-gay. According to some activists and liberal media types, eating at CfA now meant supporting hate.
I think we're seeing a Saul Alinsky-like attempt to isolate and attack CfA, this time because its CEO hinted at positions that are completely mainstream, albeit politically incorrect. Gay marriage has been defeated in every state that it's been put to a vote, so even if Mr. Cathy had hypothetically voiced respectful disagreement with gay marriage, how exactly would put him beyond the pale of acceptable opinion? (The company has said it will decline to comment on cultural/political matters going forward, and I think this is wise.) It's easier for activists to target one individual or company than take on a whole society which for the part disagrees with their position. 
It requires an intentional logical leap to say that Cathy's support of traditional families makes him anti-gay marriage, and an even bigger leap that it makes him anti-gay. But that is just what this Mediaite hack says in this tantrum editorial: "... I’ve stopped drawing a distinction between anti-gay marriage and anti-gay. And you know why I did that? Because there isn’t one."
According to this line of thinking, if you're not fully on-board with the gay activists, you're against them. That's the sort of divisive, non-nuanced statement that the Left often accuses the Right of. And remember how much fuss liberals made when George W. Bush said to the world just after 9-11 that if you're not with us, you're against us? 
(This is sort of off-topic, but my favorite Chick-fil-A sauce--and maybe my favorite sauce, period--is the Chick-fil-A Sauce. What's yours?)