Let me see if I got this right. To obtain a business license in such cities as Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles you have to agree with the mayor on social, political and moral issues. Arbitrarily the mayor can assume the right, regardless of the opinion of the majority of his constituents, to determine values and based on his determination postulate businesses opposed to his opinion are not wanted in his city.

Wait until that reverberates in the Muslim community.

That policy could present such scenarios as this. The mayor of Metropolis believes in capitol punishment, but a business opposed to it is not wanted in his city. He does not believe in abortion so businesses favoring abortion are considered undesirable. Mr. Mayor believes pedophiles are discriminated against and a company whose policies condemn the practice are a bane.

If persons discriminate against a company because they happen not to agree with a basic stance of the company’s officials on a social or moral issue, isn’t that a two-way street. If so, where are we going to shop? What company doesn’t have some stance opposed by some people?

What is the next step? Will companies supportive of same-sex marriage refuse to do business with persons who do not approve? Applying the logic thus far expressed that would be a logical step. By doing so they could show they are willing to pay the price for their convictions they expect to extract from Chick-fil-A by their boycott.

On the issue of a privately held company giving to causes they prefer, if they don’t give to the causes in which they believe, persons opposed to the policy certainly aren’t. Why should they be limited to giving only to causes they oppose?

Chick-fil-A issued this statement: “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

Within every strata of society there are extremes. Militants exist in most cultural groups. Whether acknowledged or not they are some in the community advocating same-sex marriage. Here is the good part. There are also many reasonable members who are part of virtually every community and coexist amiably with persons of different beliefs.

I have friends in business who advocate same-sex marriage. I accept them as personal peers, have (agape) love for them, and do business with them. They publically state their belief, but do not make it a criteria for doing business with them. They accept persons with moral and social differences of opinion.

What ever happened to the often mandated tolerance? For years it has meant: “I have an opinion different from yours. Though I think my opinion is right and yours wrong I support your right to your opinion. I love you, but dislike what you stand for.” That is now defined as negative tolerance.

Positive tolerance is now defined as: “My opinion is as good as yours and I demand you accept mine as being as good as yours. There are no absolutes.”

A step beyond even this is now being taken. It is: “I am right and you are wrong and I will not accept you unless you acquiesce to my position.” This is the au courant definition.

That is the attitude being shown Chick-fil-A.

The Rev. Dr. Nelson Price is pastor emeritus of Roswell Street Baptist Church.

Contact Price at nlprice@aol.com.