If the owner of a business made discriminatory statements against my race, I would wonder how much of the owner's views are made manifest in the policies of the business and in the behavior of its employees. I would no longer trust that company's commitment to customer service and to fairness toward its employees. I would be loathe to put a single red cent into the pocket of someone I consider bigoted. As a result of those discriminatory statements, I likely would not patronize that business and would stop patronizing it if I were already a customer. If I thought that the bigoted perspective of the owner translated into how I or other black people would be treated by the business, I would seriously consider participating in a boycott of that business.
But beyond the requirements of local ordinances and federal law, I neither need nor want my government to fight that battle for me.
Chick-Fil-A has come under fire in some major cities - including mine - for statements made by its founder regarding gay marriage. Personally, I believe that our 14th Amendment mandates that a same sex couple has no less a right to be recognized as married by the state as my wife and I do. I also recognize that religious denominations have the right to their own ecumenical traditions up to and including not performing rites that conflict with their religious teachings. In the Chick-Fil-A brouhaha, those two concepts come very close to intersecting. The company is family-owned and that family is Christian in its outlook. You can't eat at their restaurants on Sunday because scripture considers Sunday to be a day or rest, reflection and prayer. Chick-Fil-A restaurants are closed as a result. There is no law that requires Chick-Fil-A to be open on Sunday. Nor is there a law that requires the ownership and management of Chick-Fil-A - or any business for that matter - to adhere to a particular world view.
Local politicians in cities like Chicago and San Francisco have used their bully pulpit to condemn Chick-Fil-A and have gone as far as to block the opening of new restaurants. I consider the use of government power to block a business because of the religious or personal views of its ownership to be at least an overreach and may be illegal. If a Chick-Fil-A store discriminates against an employee or a customer based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or physical ability, then that store should not exist. But if it is not breaking the law, then not only do I see no reason to block the store, but I see such an action as opening a terrible can of worms.
I don't plan on patronizing Chick-Fil-A for several reasons. But that doesn't mean that the company does not have the right to service customers who do want to patronize them, as long as they operate within the laws of our Nation and the ordinances of our respective communities.