Why do conservatives act like liberal boycotts are a violation of their free speech/religious freedom?

Its because they are trying to desperately hold on to whatever power they have left.

Example:

The government is supposed to treat everyone equally, and the first amendment grants freedom of religion to everyone. Shouldn't gay couples be allowed to marry even though it might go against the beliefs of one particular religion, or is it better for the gov to take a religious belief and make it law (violation everyone else's freedom who is not part of that religion) to take the rights away of every gay person?

Its obvious. But why do they fight so hard to prevent it? Because if gay marriage became legal, they lose so much of their social policy stance... Yet they know that it is inevitable. They can only delay the process by pretending they are being violated themselves.

Same with the creationism vs evolution debate. They just can't afford to lose more. Although you probably would see some of the left doing the same if they were on the losing side.

No, I think their issues were:

1) Rahm Emanuel and religious freedom and freedom of speech.

2) A huge number of slanderous and libelous statements and posts about Chick-fil-a by individuals that were given a pass in silence by the gay community.

3) The calls for unethical and contemptible behavior in the Chick-fil-as, quickly scaled back to "gentle hand holding, a loving kiss, etc.).

I chose to eat there for a week on that basis.

As an ethical JFK Democrat in favor of full equality (they're human beings - how can you treat them worse than criminals if you aren't willing to actively try to make their behavior illegal? Seems hypocritical to me of gay rights opponents), I have nothing but contempt for the silence of the gay community during these attacks.

The gay community got back some of their lost ethics when they simply chose NOT to show up for the "kiss in".

You've utterly missed the point. You've focused on a few clueless people and missed the forest for a few trees.

Then you generalize it to all of the forest (conservatives).

Your question is ignorant. Actually look at the issue instead of trying to make political "points".

Stop generalizing as well - that's bigotry.

The behavior of the individuals who did that, are silly. I'm often amazed at the people who think that free speech is something that individuals can abridge (they can't, that part of the Bill of Rights deals with what the government can and cannot do).

This whole fiasco set the gay community back quite a bit.

Equality is coming, you know it, I know it, they all know it.

Let's not dwell on what was a VERY poor choice on the part of some members of the gay community and a very poorly thought-out silence in the light of the attacks by the majority of the gay community.

Just let it go and let's move on.

In GOOD news, have you checked out the Webster's Online Dictionary?

Marriage as including gay couples is no longer informal usage, but a formal definition.

It's come into common usage and included as a full definition for the word.

One battle ethically won.

Just use the word a lot without the vitriol and that battle is won.

Like a typical liberal, you've only got half of it right and you distort the rest.

Liberals, or gays, can eat wherever they want.

Liberals, or gays, have never been refused service or employment at Chick-Fil-A.

Mr. Cathy is entitled to his opinion under the First Amendment.

Liberals, or gays, are entitled tot heir viewpopint as well.

HOWEVER - liberal, or gay, public officials ARE NOT ALLOWED to threaten the lawful commercial activities of a business because they don't like the Constitutionally protected opinion of the owner.

And for the record - free market tactics WERE employed, and Chick-Fil-A had a record-setting profit. Thank you Gay and Liberal intolerant hypocrites for pissing off the American public! YEEEEAAAH!

it really is reliable! the biggest distinction is: Conservatives trust in God, smaller authorities, and own duty. Liberals struggle through a psychological ailment and trust (study as dream) that the State (i.e. authorities) ought to play the function of God with a view to create a Heaven on earth (the position there is not any choose for extraordinarily own duty b/c the authorities will make all selections for all persons). i'm quite powerful it really is what the tale above receives at.

I hadn't noticed a liberal boycott of Chick-fil-A, except perhaps Rham Emanuel.

Go eat your yogurt covered tofu and smile at your own obvious superiority.

Yes, the moderate Romney lost my vote by praising homosexuals and saying the boy scouts should be forced to let them in. Romney and Obama are both corporate pimps who are owned by zionist shadow bankers. New World Order (Satan's government) is almost a reality.

I have also exercised my right to choose. I choose not to patronize the following, Staples, Chick-fil-a, Home Depot and Sports Authority. Just added Papa Johns.

You must have missed the part where Rahm Emanuel wanted to ban the company from operating in "his" city. That is what the whole thing was about. That is fascist dude. All the man did was say what his opinion is. He doesn't believe in Gay marriage. Holy crap is that so bad that it warrants having a mayor try to ban you from doing business? From what I know of America no governing member has any sort of authority to do any such thing. People showed up. Welcome to America. Yes it isn't against the law yet to offend gay people and their "marriage".

The free market doesn't include mayors who think they can ban your business if they disagree with you. Get a hold of the facts. I never expect any thing less than get thumbs down from ignorant yahoo participants. If it were the other way around you would be screaming about nazis.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel tried to bully them out of their cities, no said the people

the cons tried boycotts to "a million mums" ws the greatest flop of all time So much for cons