So, the fella who owns Chick-fil-A says he believes in the "traditional" definition of marriage. He can't agree with the concept of gay marriage. He bases this on his religious beliefs.
So, the mayor of Boston says (and in San Francisco, too, as well as some other cities) that there can be no Chick-fil-A restaurant in his city if the owner doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Should a business be denied operation because its owner has a religious belief that differs with the existing law ... as long as the business abides by the law in all ways. Nowhere is it reported that the business refuses service to anyone; or treats any customers differently from any other customers.
I thought this was the whole idea of religious freedom ... anyone is free to believe (or not believe) as they choose; as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights to do the same. And the govt isn't allowed to be biased for ... or against ... anyone's religious belief, as long as it doesn't conflict with secular laws.
Am I out in left field (right field?), or what?