I was honestly astounded the New Yorker actually printed Dan Piepenbring’s bigoted and downright ignorant attack piece Friday titled “Chick-Fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City.”

If we want to have a good-natured debate on Chick-fil-A versus Wendy’s based solely on personal preference, I’m all for that. That's capitalism at its finest. But Piepenbring’s piece objected to the supposed “infiltration” of Chick-fil-A on the basis of its owners' religious beliefs.

Consider the overt bigotry of this headline statement: Chick-fil-A’s “emphasis on community…suggests an ulterior motive. The restaurant’s corporate purpose begins with the words ‘to glorify God,’ and that proselytism thrums below the surface of its new Fulton Street restaurant, which has the ersatz homespun ambiance of a megachurch.”

Piepenbring admits that “New York has taken to Chick-Fil-A,” and he describes the rapid increase in popularity of the restaurant, recognizing the corporation has announced plans to open more locations in New York. (Maybe because the food is delicious?) But he hates that idea because the chicken sandwiches are served out of the owners’ sincere desire to simply “glorify God.” As opposed to any other fast food chain that doesn’t declare a sincere religious motive, so I guess we’re going to assume that the lack of specific religious motivation makes those sandwiches tolerable in the community of downtown New York.

Then, he says this: "And yet the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism. Its headquarters, in Atlanta, is adorned with Bible verses and a statute of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet. Its stores close on Sundays."

A fast food chain is "infiltrating" the community with an "ulterior motive" because it chooses a day of worship to close its doors and puts up a few Bible verses in its own corporate headquarters? This is one of the worst instances I can recall since last week’s firing of Kevin Williamson that a mainstream publication has attacked someone for their sincerely-held Christian beliefs.

Piepenbring goes on to describe the restaurant chain’s “Spokescows” as “its ultimate evangelists,” because obviously, this kind of messaging is somehow putting New Yorkers in peril. Seriously? Has anyone ever been converted religiously on the basis of interacting with a Spokescow? And even if you have, so what? Good for you! America, even New York, recognizes that individuals may choose their beliefs, even if they come from a spokescow.

Yet, Piepenbring is actually arguing that a chicken sandwich chain owned by Christians is somehow culturally dangerous enough to warrant exclusion and ostracizing from society. This is exactly the kind of viewpoint discrimination that rights of conscience bills are designed to protect against, so that someone like Piepenbring cannot stop a business from operating simply because he hates the business’ religious messages.

My bet is that this attack piece would never have been published if it were against any other religion or suspect class under law. Can you imagine a mainstream publication claiming kosher restaurants are “infiltrating” and aren’t part of the rightful community of New Yorkers because the writer is anti-Semitic and wants Jewish restaurants eradicated from his city?

Or what if a Midwestern opinion writer objected to a Muslim Halal butcher coming into their community and used the word “infiltration?” Too many Qu’ran references behind closed doors at corporate. Wouldn’t the guardians of religious freedom at The New Yorker object to that pejorative characterization? Why are only Christians the target of their ire?

For-profit, commercial businesses retain the right pursuant to all the protections in the First Amendment to be openly affiliated with a religion, including Christianity. In fact, the Supreme Court has long and properly recognized First Amendment protections for private religious speech, including in the context of a corporation’s business operations and messaging.

The New Yorker’s entire piece might be absurdly laughable (which it is) if it didn’t claim in broad daylight that Chick-fil-A should be discriminated against and treated differently than all other restaurant options in New York City because Piepenbring is offended by Chick-fil-A’s private corporate message. Piepenbring goes on to advocate that we the people should not be subjected to Chick-fil-A’s politics, decor, and “commercial-evangelical messaging.”

It is shocking a mainstream publication would actually print this. Chick-fil-A as a corporate entity retains the right to attract customers based on its particular branding, including religious messaging. Piepenbring’s remedy here is to choose instead to patronize Wendy’s or McDonald’s or to go somewhere else that is open on Sundays. He doesn’t have any legal basis or any basis whatsoever to assert an “infiltration,” suggesting that Chick-fil-A just doesn’t belong in the New York community (its thousands of customers might beg to differ). This would be condemned as hate speech if it were against any other religion.

This is not a piece to simply laugh off. It’s evidencing the increasing acceptance and normalizing of intolerance and hatred against Christian messages.

Chick-fil-A has every right to be in New York (or anywhere else in America) operating their restaurants as a Christian business organization. This kind of open and personal animus on the basis of religious belief and messaging should be shocking and concerning to everyone who values First Amendment protections. Piepenbring isn’t just suggesting Chick-fil-A isn’t his personal favorite. He’s suggesting the ouster of a company on the sole basis of its religious affiliation and sincerely held beliefs.

This is the essence of bigotry and intolerance. No one is compelling Piepenbring or anyone at the New Yorker to patronize Chick-fil-A or to speak in support of their Christian beliefs. But neither New York City nor the New Yorker can stop Chick-fil-A from operating its business just because it is Christian and seeks “to glorify God.”

The New Yorker should immediately withdraw this piece and issue an apology to the Chick-fil-A for its participation in perpetuating religious bigotry.

Jenna Ellis (@jennaellisorg) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is an attorney, a fellow at the Centennial Institute, a radio show host in Denver, Colo., and the author of The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.