Here's the difference.

Ellen Raff says she is "astounded at the ire coming from right-leaning politicos" because gay people and gay-lovers have chosen to boycott Chick-fil-A because of the moral stance of its owner. She says these same people rejoiced over boycotting the Dixie Chicks.

First of all, Ellen is mistaken that morally upright people were upset over gays boycotting Chick-Fil-A. We don't care where gay people eat. What we were upset about was government, in the guise of Rahm Emanual and his cohort mayors, saying that Chick-Fil-A couldn't do business in their cities. If, as individuals, they don't want to eat there, that's their business. But they have absolutely no right to preclude Chick-Fil-A from doing business in their cities because its owner is a Godly man.

Second of all, there is a difference in the stands that were taken. People who paid a price to go see the Dixie Chicks in concert were subjected to a political diatribe instead of the music they paid to hear. When people walk into Chick-Fil-A, they don't get sermons on homosexuality -- they get chicken sandwiches. 

Ellen says she doesn't get our logic. Perhaps that's because she is unfamiliar with what logic is.

"Free speech has consequences." The Dallas Morning News; August 6, 2012; p. 10A.