Unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere, the most devastating thing happened to college students recently: Chick-fil-A announced that they donate money to anti-gay organizations. While not earth shattering, many people who support gay rights have come out in support of a boycott of Chick-fil-A.

I am not among them.

Don’t get me wrong, I support gay marriage (I believe in the separation of church and state as a two way street, the church has no right to dictate to the government how to govern nor forces its beliefs onto citizens, and the government has no right to regulate church doctrine nor prohibit a person from worshipping how he or she chooses.). But something about this “boycott” has rubbed me the wrong way since I first heard about it.

First of all, what makes Chick-fil-A so special? The following is a small list of companies that have also donated to right-wing anti-gay causes: Urban Outfitters, ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart, and A-1 Self Storage. I would not be surprised in the least if there were other companies. But where is their boycott? To single out Chick-Fil-A is unfair. Also, how often do you do business with a company that has beliefs that are counter to yours?

Second, I’ve heard comparisons to Jim Crow laws. That is ridiculous. During the height of Jim Crow, there were signs and laws that enforced segregation. Last time I ate at Chick-fil-A, I didn’t see any customers turned away due to sexual orientation. While they espouse a political belief, Chick-fil-A seems to be willing to serve anyone who has money and is willing to buy from them.

Those two points tie into my third: Chick-fil-A has a right to their political beliefs, just as you and I have a right to ours. At what point did Chick-fil-A voluntarily or involuntarily sacrifice their right to believe what they believe politically? Do the people who protest Chick-fil-A know they are criticizing a company for merely exercising their free speech? Hypocritical if you ask me.

Finally, the mayors of Chicago and Boston have announced they will block the building of Chick-Fil-As in their respective cities. While supporters of the boycott are arguing that the constitution and separation of church and state are on their side, they fail to neglect that only Congress as the right to regulate interstate commerce.

The mayors of Chicago and Boston are greatly exceeding their authority, and I fear what implications their actions may have. Will mayors have the right to determine what businesses are opened in their cities, and if so, how much will political ideology play in their selection criteria? This is a dangerous precedent.

Perhaps the lasting, if not appropriate image, I keep getting in my head when I see anti-Chick-fil-A posts on Twitter or Facebook are of Lindsey Fünke, from “Arrested Development.” If you’re not familiar with the show, she’s a spoiled formerly rich brat who aggrandizes herself as an activist and protester. She merely protests for attention and to feel good about herself, with no thought as to the purpose of the protest. And every time I see people talk about how bad Chick-fil-A is, I wonder if they are protesting for the right reasons, or just to have their 15 minutes of fame.