Chick-Fil-A’s plans to expand into one of the nation’s largest cities has hit a snag, after Boston Mayor Thomas Menino sent a scathing letter to company president Dan Cathy informing him that so long as the company remained intolerant of the LGBT community, Boston would remain intolerant of Chick-Fil-A.

In a letter dated July 20, Menino writes:

You called supporters of gay marriage “prideful”. Here in Boston, to borrow your own words, we are “guilty as charged.” We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.

Chick-Fil-A had reportedly been seeking property along the city’s famous Freedom Trail, a tourism hotspot and prime real estate for businesses, for its first Boston location. But Menino has vowed to block any attempt by the company to open a new store. “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” he wrote in the letter.

Menino’s letter may have been just the first crack in the dam. Yesterday, Chicago alderman Joe Moreno made a similar pledge to block any attempts by the chain to build its second store in the city, proposed for the highly trafficked Logan Square neighborhood whose zoning is controlled by Moreno.

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” he said on Tuesday in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

The chain, which has stores nationwide and currently ranks as the nation’s 10th largest fast food company, has found itself at the center of a maelstrom of criticism after Cathy’s remarks.

A man in Oklahoma City was nearly killed when his car blew up in front of him last night in what appears to be a hate crime. According to Jon Ferguson, he was woken up in the middle of the night by his car alarm, and when he went outside it was being vandalized by several people. Upon approaching them, the vandals threw something into the car, making it explode. Ferguson was rushed to the hospital with first and second degree burns.

The remains of the car suggest that the attack was a hate crime — the vandals spray-painted the homophobic slur “fag” on the hood. Ferguson, who is openly gay, spoke about how the threat of violence has made him doubt whether coming out was a good idea:

FERGUSON:It’s almost not worth being proud of who you are and trying to show you’re gay because stuff like this really does happen. I’ve always seen it on the news that kids are dying and stuff because they’re being bullied, and you’re 25 years old and something like this happens to you. It’s almost not worth it, and you understand why kids don’t come out of the closet.

The case is currently being investigated as an act of arson, not a hate crime. News 9 reported that the Oklahoma City Fire and Police Department will continue investigations if they think a hate crime was committed.

– Nina Liss-Schultz

Jeremy Hooper has uncovered a strategy memo detailing the Family Research Council’s future spending plans. Like the infamous “race-wedging” documents that revealed the National Organization for Marriage’s malevloent intentions, this document provides a candid look at how this prominent anti-gay hate group views the culture war and where its focus will be moving forward. What’s particularly notable is FRC’s admission that its agenda is completely religious in nature, but that it intends to force its beliefs upon others. Here are a few highlights:

GO ON OFFENSE: FRC has consistently played great defense. But at this “moment of critical mass” for this and the next generation, we must go on the offense to advance the Christian worldview as America’s only hope. We must double our impact!

GENERATE BIASED RESEARCH: Society listens to academic research, so we must use the language the secular world understands to prove that marriage and worship are foundational to a healthy society and economy. The left has many large institutes manufacturing faulty research to support their anti-family agenda, pro-family conservatives need a social science research powerhouse.

TARGET YOUNG PEOPLE: We have an aggressive plan to engage high school and college students, equip young leaders, and find new ways to communicate truth to the internet generation… we must flood the public debate with fresh, new pro-family activists. FRC must expand our development of materials and video curriculum to equip pastors and laypeople to effectively engage the culture… To expand our reach, we must expand our team that works directly with pastors and their congregations.

FUND ASTROTURF MOVEMENT: Many battles happen on the state and local level where grassroots activsits need FRC’s expertise, and where it is easier to be proactive… we can do unlimited lobbying and more political activity through our affiliated 501(c)(4), FRC Action.

In many ways, this document offers reason to be hopeful. FRC clearly sees that on questions like marriage equality, it is losing on multiple fronts. All legitimate scientific research lends credence to supporting LGBT equality — the left’s “many large institutes” include every major medical organization in the country. The intense amount of pushback on Mark Regnerus’ illegitimate conclusions about the harms of gay parenting provides a great example of conservatives’ failure to justify their religious-based biases with scientific data.

Further, polling continues to show distinct generation gaps among young people on all LGBT issues, so FRC’s concern about targeting young people is telling. The tactic is a bit ironic, given that conservatives regularly attack the LGBT community for trying to “indoctrinate” young people, but that’s exactly what they want to do by finding “new ways to communicate the truth.” The dismal turnout at bus tour events over the past few years reminds just how minimal engaged support conservatives actually have on the ground. But “unlimited lobbying” won’t be enough to disrupt the incredible momentum away from discriminating beliefs.

This is the incredibly well-funded opposition. They intend to attack more, distort research, and spin messaging to impose their narrow religious ideas upon an increasingly inclusive culture. Let them try.

Steven Perlberg contributed to this post.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has joined Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) in condemning the Pentagon for allowing military servicemembers to wear their uniforms in the San Diego Pride Parade last weekend. Like Forbes, Inhofe believes the decision somehow reflects President Obama “forcing its liberal social agenda on the military,” but in his letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, he even argues that the decision is “expressly prohibited by DOD policy”:

Based on the current standing DOD Directive 1344.10 and separate service department regulations, service members “shall not march or ride in a partisan political parade.” These directive and regulations are unambiguous and straight forward with the intent of preserving the military’s apolitical stance. This apolitical stance has served our military well and earned the respect of not just American but nations around the world as being a professional organization, set aside from politics and agendas.

The reversal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” allows U.S. service members to openly serve in our military. However, allowing service members to participate in a gay pride parade, while in uniform, is expressly prohibited by DOD policy… If the Navy can punish a Chaplain for participating in a pro-life event or a Marine participating in a political rally, it stands to reason that DOD should maintain the same standard and preclude service members in uniform from marching in a gay pride parade.

Inhofe clearly (and unsurprisingly) does not even possess the most basic understanding of LGBT Pride. There is nothing inherently partisan or political about a Pride parade — it is a celebration of life and community. Wearing a military uniform in a Pride parade is no more political than wearing one to a heterosexual wedding. That the senator’s only understanding of sexuality and gender is as political issues, rather than as aspects of constituents’ lives and families, is sad.

Though it’s a moot point, if  Inhofe believes that LGBT issues are “partisan,” it is certainly not a reflection of the political make-up of the LGBT community. It is the Republican Party itself, through anti-LGBT party platforms and near-uniform opposition to equality, that has drawn such bold dividing lines in the political debate. This, of course, is in spite of the best efforts by groups like the Log Cabin Republicans and outlier equality-supporters like Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R).

If Inhofe’s argument isn’t weak enough, the duplicitous example he uses to defend it further deligitimizes it. The Navy has never punished a chaplain for any pro-life activities — the only case Inhofe could be referring to is that of Gordon James Klingenschmitt, who was dismissed for praying “in Jesus’ name.” His participation in an anti-choice event was irrelevant. For what it’s worth, Klingenschmitt is himself a rabid homophobe who has argued that gay demons can infect animals and anti-bullying laws will invite sexual assault into schools.

Claims like those made by Inhofe and Forbes are an obvious attempt to maintain the stigma and invisibility of gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers in the absence of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.