There is no place for religion in government. None. Whatsoever. I want to see no laws passed that are based on a legislator’s personal religious preferences, and I do not want to see the US Constitution interpreted based on assumptions about what the creator’s of that document held as their personal religious beliefs.
With businesses, it’s a bit trickier.
I really hate it when the owners or operators of businesses I like express religious viewpoints, and it’s far worse when those viewpoints run counter to my own beliefs. While I really wish they were silent on the matter, if all they do is express that they are religious, and follow certain basic principles, that is generally ok. It is when they start pontificating on specific issues, and especially when they announce that they give a fortune of money to see to it that their personal religions beliefs become the law of the land, that I have big problems.
But, the businesspeople who do this need to understand that they must suffer the consequences. In my opinion, a good businessman does not want to announce to the world his or her support for any side of a controversial issues, be it political, sports-related, or religious. To do so is to alienate a significant portion of your target audience, and very likely cut revenue and profits.
But if they take that step and cross the line, and for example, announce to the world that the owner of the Acme Anvil Company has given $2 million to the North American Convert the Druids to Yazdanism Foundation, then expect Druids, their supporters, likely mosts Kurds, and human rights activists in general, to boycott Acme Anvils, or worse. However, that does not mean that Acme cannot have a store in downtown Boston, Butte, Montana, or Flagstaff, AZ. But if they do, we all have the right to express our displeasure in any legal manner.
In this regard, I have nothing but contempt for Don Cathy. But, while I personally would like to see his little chicken-killing outfit whither away and die, he and his underlings have the right to sell chicken to sarah palin and whoever else supports their chicken and their religious beliefs. And the people who firmly, and properly, see that Cathy is a racist, intolerant provocateur, do not have to eat there, and have the right to try to influence others not to eat there.
I also think that it would be hilarious if not so repugnant that Cathy supporters are using the ludicrous argument that anti-Chick-Fil-A forces are the ones being intolerant. Intolerant of intolerance? There is a Marx Brothers or Mel Brooks story line there somewhere.