I ate at Chick-Fil-A last Wednesday on Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. Since then I have been called a bigot, homophobic, and worse. This in spite of the fact that I voted against the North Carolina constitutional amendment to define marriage, this in spite of that fact that I have had a number of gay friends and really could care less if they are legally allowed to “marry”.
I ate at Chicki-Fil-A to send a message to politicians that at least for now the freedom of speech and religion is alive and well. People who hold political power can’t use their position to stifle speech, no matter how repugnant that particular politician might find it. When the Mayor of Chicago or Boston says “Chick-Fil-A values are not their cities values” are they speaking for those cities large Catholic population?
The politicians vowed to bar the Chick-Fil-A chain from opening restaurants in their cities not because of anything Chick-Fil-A did, but because of what the owner said. If liberal city government officials are allowed to punish a company for religious views or voicing those views, should a religious city government official be allowed to punish a company for an owner’s liberal views? I think not in both cases. There might be a constitutional argument to support gay marriage but there is most definitely a constitution guarantee of religious and speech freedom. As long as the US constitution exists, this country can never have limits on speech like we find in Europe and Canada. It might sound like a great idea to jail someone for voicing support for something like Nazi rhetoric in Germany, but what happens when the government jails people who don’t support Nazi values? Like Germany in 1938? Freedom of speech is a double edged sword and so is any attempt to limit it.
Everyone wants freedom of speech when the speaker agrees with them, most are more than happy to sanction limits on speech when they disagree, but sorry folks you can’t have it both ways. Citizens have every right to support or protest a business whose practices they disagree with. The government has no such right except to protect public safety, and I hardly thing the Chick-fil-A people can be viewed as a public hazard, except maybe to chickens. At the risk of suffering verbal abuse from gay marriage supporters I thought it was important to send this message to government.
The whole gay marriage argument is another example of the mess that we get into when we start involving the government in our personal lives. Why is the state even sanctioning marriage? If we need some recognized way to define a significant person as our next of kin for legal reasons why must it even be a spouse? Why can’t I have my uncle Harvey be the person who is assigned my legal guardian?
If the main problem with no government sanctioned gay marriage is economic How about this, we let each church define marriage in whatever model it sees fit and we file a paper with the government when you get “married” defining you legal guardian and leave it at that, be it your girlfriend, boyfriend or my uncle Harvey.
Mr. Dawes, I completely agree with you. Everyone seems to be focusing solely on the gay marriage issue, completely missing the fact that Mr. Cathy (like anyone else) has a right to free speech. It's disgusting to me that people are yelling about civil rights while at the same time seeming to challenge Mr. Cathy's right to free speech. No matter how much someone disagrees with another person's opinion, the beauty of living in this country is that the offending opinion is still protected under the Bill of Rights. Even especially offending viewpoints, such as those of the National Socialist Party, are protected (see "National Socialist Party vs. Skokie"). It's incredibly hypocritical to only support free speech when it's your opinion that's being protected.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it's very worrisome to me that government officials, such as the mayor of Boston (Mr. Menino), think it's acceptable to attempt preventing the opening of a privately owned business in the city over which they preside. I believe the requirement that "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, the free exercise thereof, or the freedom of speech" certainly applies to all government officials. Mr. Menino was attacking Mr. Cathy's right to free speech, and doing so as an elected official.
Besides that, Chick-Fil-A is a privately owned business, and it is by no means actively discriminating against homosexual people. If it were, or if Chick-Fil-A was a public institution, this would be another matter. Even if Mr. Menino had sent his unethical letter privately, and as a private citizen, the situation would be different. But to try to use his position as mayor of a city to bully the president of a company into not opening his business in a location is a deplorable use of power, and one that should cause concern for anyone who is at all interested in the liberty of private citizens.
People should also understand that just because someone wishes to protect Mr. Cathy's right to free speech and condemn actions like those of Mr. Menino, that doesn't mean that person hates the homosexual community. Like you, Mr. Dawes, I voted against Amendment One, and I believe that the government has no business deciding who can and can't be considered someone's spouse. This is not the issue. The issue at hand is twofold: first, that any person, even the president of a company, is entitled to his or her own opinion. Second, that no government official should try to use his or her power in a way that interferes with a person's rights or with the lawful operation of a privately-owned business.
MKV
Deletethank you for your input.
There is one other destructive aspect of this escalating intolerance of anyone else’s views in society. As we all retreat to Ghettos of like-minded thinkers it seem the level of intolerance grows. If no one will associate with anyone who does not hold the exact same views we increase the danger of creating a splintered society of like-minded clicks whose suspicion and paranoia of other groups grows. We see this sectarian division lead to violence in places like Bosnia and Iraq.
I ate at Chick-fil-A as well. My support was only to say that a citizen has a right of free speech and the Government, ie. a mayor or zoning official, should not force public policy against free speech to push their particular agenda. Always, always, always allow the private citizen to be able to choose and decide in the free market.
ReplyDeleteI as well do not care if gays can or cannot marry. I am strongly against the Government restricting my Liberty and regardless of how I feel about homosexuality, I do not feel the Government should be removing a Liberty that does not affect someone else. But the Government, or mayor, deciding the values of a whole city and then using his power of elected office to enforce his values is wrong. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I ate at Chick-fil-A because a private citizen has a right to believe what they wish. When someone can show evidence that Chick-fil-A has refused to serve a gay person on the grounds that they are gay, I may change my mind. I would wager that will never happen.
The tolerant Left; as long as you believe everything that they do.
Just to throw in some lively discussion, and I preface this with admitting that I do still eat Chik-fil-a for the time.
ReplyDeleteI think there can be some legitimacy to the argument. Unfortunately, the kernel of truth is hidden under layers and layers of fanatical emotions and media hype. Chik-fil-a as a business chooses to donate a portion of their proceeds to groups that push for legislative action against homosexuals right to marry. Granted, this is a tiny tiny percent of their charitable donations. They also give millions to foster home programs. But, if that company is behind political action that I don't agree with, then it's the beauty of the free market I can choose not to support them. With their donations, their not just making it about Dan Cathy's personal opinions, it's become a corporate policy.
For me, the connection between delicious chicken sandwiches and groups like Focus on the Family is too far removed. But then again, maybe it's selfishly just because I'm not directly affected by homosexual discrimination. If I found out a portion of my favorite Chinese restaurant went to China's government, I probably wouldn't dine there. Even as delicious as their sesame chicken taste.
Obviously it is everyone right to frequent businesses that reflect you values. Then again if you are only going to use businesses that agree with every single view you hold you might be growing your own food and making your own cloths. As you said Chick-Fil-A donates to dozens of less controversial charities that do a great deal of good. In addition they are a very successful business that provides a great product and thousands of jobs.
DeleteThe problem I see with much of the gay rights supporters is it is not satisfied with people who respect the law and do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, Chick-Fil-A happily employ’s and serves gay people but the gay supporter insist that people like the Chick-Fil-A owners reject their religion and support gay marriage. I just don’t think it is realistic to insist members of all the major religions to reject their beliefs. We must find a solution that does not impose one person’s religious beliefs on another person while not forcing views on the first person that forces him to violate his religious beliefs.
For me I will continue to have lunch at Chick-Fil-A and the restaurant where my wife’s gay friend is the chief. I don’t feel it is necessary for everyone I interact with to share my every view.