A few days ago, a couple of co-workers were talking about how the president of Chick-Fil-A had come out against gay marriage and commenting that this might be detrimental to their business. I didn't think much about it at the time, although it did kind of annoy me that everyone seemed to think it was so inappropriate for Chick-Fil-A's management to express any opinion on gay marriage but no one seemed to care that Starbucks has listed support for gay marriage as one of its core business values. Why is it controversial to express an opinion in favor of traditional marriage but not controversial to express an opinion in favor of gay marriage?
It's been pretty common knowledge for some time that Chick-Fil-A is owned by devout Christians, and gay activists have been attacking it for years. I heard months ago that there was a movement to try to shut down the Chick-Fil-A on the University of Maryland campus. I found that to be pretty appalling, but at the same time boycotts are a legitimate way to express disagreement. Many Christians, for example, decided to boycott Starbucks following its very public endorsement of "marriage equality." While I don't go out of my way to buy from Starbucks, I don't really see the point of a boycott. If I were to refuse to use the goods and services from any company whose political and social opinions I disagreed with, my list of approved companies would be pretty small. I don't agree with Wal-Mart's support of ObamaCare. I don't agree with Target's refusal to allow the Salvation Army bellringers in front of their store at Christmas time. I don't agree with Costco and Google's large donations to Democratic candidates. But by boycotting all of them, I am merely inconveniencing myself while doing nothing to promote my own beliefs (and possibly making other people think I'm an ideological nutcase in the process). Politics doesn't have to enter into every buying decision, and it is not necessary to be in full agreement with the beliefs of a company's management in order to enjoy its products.
However, the Chick-Fil-A issue has gone far beyond a mere boycott of a company over a political disagreement. First of all, the media has been quite dishonest in reporting about this issue, as Mark Hemingway from the Weekly Standard blog notes. Numerous media outlets claimed that the owner, Truett Cathy, condemned gay marriage and cited an interview with the Baptist Press; however, in this interview the owner said nothing to attack gay marriage or supporters of gay marriage but merely reaffirmed his belief in the Biblical definition of marriage and the family. He was asked a question about it and he responded honestly. He also stated that he did not consider Chick-Fil-A to be a Christian business but that it tried to operate according to Scriptural principles. Cathy was a bit more harsh in condemning attacks on the traditional family in some statements in a radio interview which were subsequently uncovered, but he still did not single out gays or gay marriage for criticism. Yet Time magazine's headline said that Cathy's comments were "homophobic." Apparently, supporting traditional marriage and the family equates to homophobia. Sad.
Even worse, the mayor of Boston has now threatened to deny Chick-Fil-A a business license to operate in the city solely based on Cathy's supposedly anti-gay comments. This is a truly chilling development and speaks volumes about how intolerant "tolerance" can be. The government has absolutely no right to deny a business the right to operate based on the personal beliefs of the owner. This is religious discrimination and a significant attack on freedom of speech. It would be one thing if Chick-Fil-A were violating non-discrimination laws in who they hired or in how they treated customers, but there have been no such allegations. If the government can shut your business down simply because it doesn't like your opinion (even if that opinion is unpopular), there is no true freedom of speech. Even The Boston Globe, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, has condemned the Boston mayor's threats as dangerous to the First Amendment. And now the Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel is issuing similar threats against Chick-Fil-A (while at the same time welcoming Louis Farrakhan to his city).
Along with the recent story about the photographer who was found guilty of discrimination for declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony, this is further confirmation of what I wrote a couple months ago about the real goal of the gay rights movement. Its real goal is not "marriage equality," but rather to force full societal approval of homosexuality. Religious people who refuse to go along with this agenda must be marginalized and silenced at all costs. If recent news is any indicator, the gay agenda is succeeding beyond its wildest dreams. In ten years, we have gone from being a country where gay marriage was a fringe idea to being a country where anyone who opposes gay marriage is an anti-gay bigot.
I admire the fact that Chick-Fil-A's management refuses to be intimidated by the bullies on the Left (both activists and politicians). Most businesses would have capitulated long ago. I admire the fact that they stand up for their beliefs and always have, even to the point of being closed on Sunday. Mike Huckabee has proposed August 1st as Chick-Fil-A Day and is encouraging people who are upset about the Boston mayor's comments to go to Chick-Fil-A on that day. My wife and I are doing so and would encourage readers of this blog to do the same! This is a way to show your support for the First Amendment and for a good family-run company that gives away large amounts of money to charity. And the fact that you will get a great-tasting chicken sandwich doesn't hurt either!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
My thoughts on the encroaching communist menace that is Nobamacare:
appellatesky.blogspot.com/2012/07/prying-my-insurance-card-from-my-cold.html
I do not understand how this has been twisted into a fight about free speech. I have heard and read many of the various viewpoints being expressed in opposition to the stance taken by Chick-fil-A's owner and his son, but I have not heard or read of anyone asking that he be imprisoned, censored, or silenced by the government. Since the First Amendment gives the legal right to free speech, it seems logical that there is no threat to free speech unless a legal threat is being made. In fact, asking those who are in opposition to the CEO's beliefs to silence their protests is threatening Freedom of Speech under the definition being used by Huckabee and those in agreement with him. The ability of Mr. Cathy and his son to speak their minds on their views of marriage and homosexuality and their right to donate their money as they see fit have in no way been jeopardized. The call by Huckabee and others to action is essentially the stirring up of people for no legitimate reason. Wouldn't it be nice if someone could stir up those kind of numbers of people across the country to donate the money they so quickly spent on food to the needy, or to volunteer the time they spent in lines at Chick-fil-A to help those in need?
Anonymous, thanks for commenting. There are two primary issues in play here that I think motivated the large turnout in support of Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday. The first is the free speech issue. As I stated in my post, this was triggered by the mayor of Boston threatening to deny Chick-Fil-A a license to do business in Boston because of the personal views the owner had expressed on same-sex marriage. Soon after, other government officials issued similar threats, including the mayor and an alderman of Chicago and the mayor of San Francisco. This is a black-and-white First Amendment issue. Governments cannot threaten to shut down a business or attempt to deny a business the right to operate in their jurisdictions because they disagree with the owner's beliefs. That is blatantly discriminatory and un-American. The mayor of Boston did back down after a couple of days, but only because there was an outcry (and doubtless because the city's legal counsel told him he didn't have a leg to stand on). People across the country rightly perceived that city governments were bullying a private business that had broken no laws and expressed their disapproval en masse. There were people interviewed by news organizations who said they support gay marriage but nevertheless participated in CFA Appreciation Day because they were angry about what the mayors were doing.
The second issue in play here is simply that many people in this country appreciate Chick-Fil-A and support the position its owner took on the topic of marriage. As I made clear in my post above, the boycotters are perfectly within their rights to refuse to patronize CFA, but supporters are also within their rights to push back against the boycott. And they did, in a BIG way. I think this struck a nerve with a lot of us because we are tired of being called bigots and homophobes and haters by the media and gay activists simply because we think marriage should be defined as one man and one woman, a definition that has been consistent across many cultures for many years. There are legitimate public policy reasons not to redefine marriage, and we would like our opinions to be treated with respect without people automatically jumping to the conclusion that we hate gays and love discrimination.
People across the country watched as the media completely manufactured a fake controversy here. How the Chick-Fil-A story could even be considered news is beyond me. The company has been run by a Christian family ever since the 1960's and has always supported traditional family values and traditional marriage. It has always been up front about its beliefs, even to the point of being closed on Sundays. The CEO was interviewed by an obsure religious publication and was asked if he still held to his beliefs about the biblical family, and he replied "Yes." And suddenly, every media outlet in the country is running breathless headline articles about how Chick-Fil-A is an anti-gay business, even though there are no allegations that it has discriminated against gays in hiring or in serving customers. And millions of Americans are watching this saga unfold and saying, "Hey, I like Chick-Fil-A. They are a family-run business that has the friendliest employees and the best service in fast food, and they do a lot of good things for their communities and give a lot of charity. And like more than 50% of other Americans, I agree with them about marriage. They are being unfairly attacked and I'm going to support them." That's just what they did. The grassroots CFA supporters didn't start this controversy, but they sure did get involved once it was thrust upon them. And they showed up in such massive numbers that it was hard even for the media to ignore them, although some outlets did (CBS News).
With regard to donating the money to the needy, I don't know why it's impossible for someone to buy a chicken sandwich and also give to a charity. Is it a bigger waste of time to stand in line for an hour to stand up for something you believe in than to spend an hour watching a football game or playing a video game or reading a novel? We have no idea how generous those people standing in line at CFA on Wednesday are with their time and money, just as we have no idea how generous those "kiss-in" protestors outside of CFA today are with their time and money. I have my personal opinion as to which group gives more to charity, but I can't prove it.
Post a Comment