updated from bottom, Aug. 6, 2012
Aug. 1 was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, even in Massachusetts.
As Instapundit Glenn Reynolds blogs:
I don’t think this can be interpreted as opposition to gay marriage, so much as a response to bullying. But I do think that the bullying has probably tainted the gay-marriage brand, which is too bad. The gay-marriage argument is already winning — there’s no need to engage in Rahm Emanuel-style attacks, and doing so merely invites pushback.
But I think that’s far too optimistic, given the reported comments by the lined-up out-the-door patrons of the fast food chain, which donates millions to anti-gay groups. And it’s not so good for gay employees at the outlets these days, either.
On a more hopeful note, David Boaz blogs at Politico:
As Timothy Kincaid writes at Box Turtle Bulletin, “The company has a new label: ‘the brand of choice for anti-gay people.’”
That was good for the company on Wednesday. But I can’t believe it will be a good brand in the long run. Watch for an increase in sales of McDonald’s chicken sandwiches this week.
Let’s hope.
Further thoughts. I’ve reflected a bit more on what the Chick-fil-A eruption signifies, and I think it points to some gaping problems for us. As I’ve argued for many years, the fight for gay legal equality and liberty, while in obvious ways advanced by support from liberal Democrats, is also undermined by the close identification of our struggle with those who advocate ever-larger, more intrusive government and more control over the lives of America’s citizens by liberal government elites. The Obama mandate requiring employers, including those with religious affiliations, to provide contraceptive coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs is an example of left-liberal arrogance and over-reach. The efforts by Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanual and a handful of other Democratic officeholders in various liberal jurisdictions to use zoning laws against Chick-fil-A is now being seen as part of the ongoing “attack on religious liberty.” The anti-gay bigots are lined up at Chick-fil-A, but so are large numbers of conservative leaners who don’t want liberal government dictating what people can say and think (lost in all this, of course, is the fact that Chick-fil-A, as a corporation, gives millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations).
The efforts by just a handful of our erstwhile friends (or, less charitably, pandering politicians), has cost us dearly and could very well undermine efforts in Maryland, Minnesota and elsewhere to fight anti-gay-marriage initiatives. We know who are enemies are; but with friends like these, we could be sunk.
Furthermore. Josh Barro writes in the Boston Globe How Boston Mayor Tom Menino turned bullies into martyrs with his Chick-fil-A stance. Along with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, Washington Mayor Vincent Gray, and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn:
these city officials changed the subject, and not in a good way for advocates of gay marriage. Chick-fil-A no longer has to answer for its CEO’s position on gay marriage and its owners’ support of organizations that oppose gay rights. Instead, the company is on the much more comfortable ground of simply defending its CEO’s right to express a constitutionally protected opinion without reprisal from the government.
38 Comments for “Hate Appreciation Day?”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But I think that’s far too optimistic, given the reported comments by the lined-up out-the-door patrons of the fast food chain, which donates millions to anti-gay groups. And it’s not so good for gay employees at the outlets these days, either.
We’ve seen it all before.
In 1964, when Lester Maddox, Georgia’s fried chicken king of the time, enforced segregation at his Pickrick restaurant in Atlanta at gunpoint, he became a celebrity overnight.
The AP photos of the gun-wielding Maddox, alongside his son who was armed with a pick handle, were published nationwide, and Pickrick became a destination for hard-core segregationists.
For weeks, thousands of segregationists formed long lines to eat at the restaurant, the crowds often getting to the point where Maddox had to turn the crowds away. Segregationist politicians came to show support. For months afterward, Maddox hawked red-painted pick handles (he bought up the entire supply from five factories), American flags and a canned beverage called “Gold Water” from the parking lot.
Maddox launched his political career (in the words of Ivan White, Jr., the then mayor of Atlanta) “screaming nigger-nigger-nigger”, and he rode the segregation political horse all the way to the Governor’s mansion. Ironically, once in office, Maddox governed as a racial moderate, and helped lay the foundation for future progress.
In any event, the Pickwick dust-up was a tempest in a teapot. Roughly 50 years later, how many people younger than I am have even heard of Lester Maddox and his brave stance to keep blacks from eating at the Pickwick? And how many people today — at least among the sane ones — would opt for a return to segregation?
Chik-fil-a is the new Pickwick. We are winning the war for equality. The current dust-up is a distraction, the ugly sideshow of a dying cultural dinosaur. I hope Dan Cathy, today’s Lester Maddox, enjoys his fifteen minutes of fame.
I’m staying out of the chicken wars. The war isn’t worth my time.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, paid Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach, you and your fellow Obama Party bigots are the ones screaming and using governmental power to violate peoples’ constitutional rights.
It’s no surprise that you use race-baiting and hate to attack those who disagree with you. It’s the same pattern that your fellow leftist ideologues have used, all the way from Marx through today. And as Obama slips lower and lower and you start to see your plans to use government to carry out your bigotry and jealousy slide farther and farther out of reach, you’re only going to get more shrill.
One would think the Wisconsin recall, in which your lies and your screams of “you’re a homophobe who wants to kill gays if you vote Republican” were firmly rejected, might have knocked some sense into you. But you are a hateful bigot, and it’s assuming too much that you actually are capable of thinking at this point.
posted by AG on
Stephen, do you have the same disgust with Middle Eastern and Indian restaurants run by Muslims? It’s very unlikely that their owners have a more positive opinion on gay marriage than Dan Cathy has. In fact, they would probably prefer not to disagree with the Qur’an teaching on what to do with gays, that is to execute them. Do you also avoid businesses run by African-Americans? They are much more likely to oppose gay marriage than whites. Do you do due diligence and find out their position on gay marriage before patronizing them? If not, some of your money will be likely used to support the Sharia law and anti-gay black churches.
If eating a chicken sandwich is equivalent to appreciating hate, would having a shawarma or chicken tikka masala be like appreciating pure evil?
I tolerate and do business with people who are very likely to hold opinions much more anti-gay than the president of Chick-fil-A. I see no reason to boycott the business, the owner of which has the same opinion on gay marriage as the Democratic President had just a few months ago.
posted by Houndentenor on
Do any other restaurants donate millions each year to anti-gay groups? If you have that information, please let us know. I don’t really care what people’s personal beliefs are. That affect me not in the least. If they work to pass laws that will affect my life, then that DOES affect me and I would not want to give them money to use against me. Personally I don’t much care for rap music, but I certainly wouldn’t support making it illegal and wouldn’t give money to any organization that wanted to do so. There is no reason why anyone who does like rap music should care that I don’t. It doesn’t affect their lives at all. The same is true here. I don’t really care what people I’ve never even met care about my personal choices. I do care what the law is and what policies there are that affect me. This isn’t about Mr Cathay’s opinions. Who cares? It’s that part of every dollar spent in his restaurants goes to limit the rights of gay people. Yesterday, was a celebration of that practice and it’s a big lie to pretend that it’s anything other than that.
posted by AG on
I consider Islam a dangerous totalitarian ideology that spreads hate toward people who, like me, are gay and atheists. Good Muslims donate a share of their income to Muslim organizations, which are anti-gay groups per se. Thus, a part of almost every dollar that you spend at Muslim businesses finances the creeping attack on gay people.
This is what imam Yusef al-Qaradawi, one of the spiritual guides of the Islamic Society of Boston, to which Boston Mayor Menino gave city land well below cost, thinks about gay rights.
“[A homosexual should be given] the same punishment as any sexual pervert . . . Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them.”
According to the Anti-Defamation League, “In 2003 Qaradawi stated on IslamOnline that the punishment of homosexuality is the death penalty.”
Perhaps, by now he softened his stance and advocates the death penalty for gays only if four witnesses saw an act of sodomy.
posted by Jimmy on
You’re hysterical.
I consider evangelical fundamentalist dominionist Christians just as dangerous, and I’m sure gay people in Uganda would agree with me. We do have freedom of religion, and it seems un-American to stand in the way of anyone wanting to build a house of worship. In this country, muslims do not have a hegemony in the way conservative Christianity does. You can wring your hands about that the muslim problem, but we have bigger fish, or rather, chicken, to fry.
If Yusef al-Qaradawi has a falafel cart in Boston, I will be sure to boycott it if I am ever there.
posted by AG on
Ugandan anti-gay Christians don’t have a church in Boston. Imam Yusef al-Qaradawi, on the other hand, has a mosque there (or from my point of view, here). Boston mayor, Thomas Menino, the face of the un-American, unconstitutional attack on the freedom of speech and religion, fully embraced by the gay Left, is on the side of Imam Yusef al-Qaradawi, while Mr. Menino wants to use all the weight of the local government power to prevent Chick-fil-A to open a location in downtown Boston, just because the company’s president espouses the same views on gay marriage as the left-wing politicians that you, progressives, voted for, donated money to, and volunteered for in the last 16 years. Of course, you can claim that the opponents of these anti-gay Democrats were even worse. But that’s not the point. The point is that you’re ready to excuse the most vicious attacks on gay rights in this country just because the perpetrators, the Muslims, happen to be, at the moment, the supporters of your political party. You’re nothing but partisan hacks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yup.
Which is why you and your Obama Party scream and insist that government must ban Christian or other establishments in which they disagree with the owner’s views from opening.
What makes it funny is that Jimmy knows what the consequences of his “kiss-in” protest would be at the aforementioned mosque or the Nation of Islam’s restaurant in Chicago, both of whom advocate at minimum the criminalization of homosexuality and openly state that gays should be murdered; he would get beat up, and his friends in the Obama Party would blame him for being “provocative”.
So hence why we get all the obsessiveness about “dominionism”; it’s rationalization for the fact that gays and lesbians like Jimmy are overwhelmingly anti-Christian bigots and need an excuse to carry out their bigotry. It really doesn’t have anything to do with “hate”; they’ll even support calling for gays to be murdered if the same people hate Christians and Jews (and especially if they donate to the Obama Party).
posted by Jimmy on
I can do nothing about what is uttered by “holy” men in houses or worship. I’ve heard fire and brimstone preachers say stuff not too far off from what the imam advocates.
What I can say is that there exists in our government dominionist christians seeking to bring about their vision for this country. They are more that happy to see someone sit and worry about what some muslim said somewhere, while they are busy at work on their unholy agenda.
Fundies saying crazy stuff is bad, regardless of whatever cloth they wear. Ask a dead veteran’s family who had to suffer the injustice of having their child’s funeral marred by the insane ravings by protected lunatics if they were terribly concerned at the time what some muslim thought.
Don’t fret over a trickle, and ignore the flood.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yup, here’s the threats to our country that Jimmy and his fellow bigot gays are out to eliminate.
Meanwhile, it seems we do have “dominionists” in government — bigots in the Barack Obama Party who abuse governmental power to push their agenda and ban businesses with which they agree.
As always, it’s projection. Jimmy is a wannabe fascist who wants to use the law to punish people with different religious beliefs; thus, he accuses other people.
posted by Jorge on
What I can say is that there exists in our government dominionist christians seeking to bring about their vision for this country. They are more that happy to see someone sit and worry about what some muslim said somewhere, while they are busy at work on their unholy agenda.
–Meanwhile, it seems we do have “dominionists” in government — bigots in the Barack Obama Party who abuse governmental power to push their agenda and ban businesses with which they agree.
That was a wasted opportunity.
I think we should hold Jimmy accountable for making such slanderous statements about our President. By the way, where have you two been?
I can do nothing about what is uttered by “holy” men in houses or worship. I’ve heard fire and brimstone preachers say stuff not too far off from what the imam advocates.
–Yup, here’s the threats to our country that Jimmy and his fellow bigot gays are out to eliminate.
I have not heard nor seen this chalking incident. Therefore you must be a bigot gay with ulterior motives.
And there’s really no question that you are, Mr. ND30, so at least try to have a little more fun.
posted by Jimmy on
“By the way, where have you two been?”
He’s been rolling in the same turd patch he was rolling in the last time I saw him. As for myself, I’ve hard at work on my fascist machinations, but I can’t seem to get the little mustache right.
posted by Jorge on
I tell people to have fun and I get smart aleck >:(
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t think the government at any level should be giving anything to any religious organization. People have the right to believe all sorts of absurd and ridiculous things. What they don’t have the right to do is make the rest of us pretend we believe them to or force their misguided sense of morality on people who don’t believe as they do. That goes for all religions.
posted by DCBuck on
AG, Boston may not have any Ugandan Christian churches, but I’d bet you a (non-CFA) chicken sandwich that they DO have Talibangelical churches who send funds and people to Uganda to prop up those churches under the guise of “missionary work.” If you are saying that Islam is basically a religion of hate (esp. towards gays and non-believers) and that gays need to drop the uber-PC crap and call a spade a spade when it comes to Islam, then I am 100% in agreement with you. However, again – this is NOT about one man, his opinions, and how he spends his personal funds. It IS about a large corporation that claims to be all about “love” and “Christian principles,” all the while they are ACTIVELY FUNDING some of the worst hate groups around. I don’t think most reasonable gays think what the mayor of Boston and the other city officials who have ranted about barring CFA from building in their towns say is right, but calling out a large corporation who claims to be all about “love” and who ACTIVELY does the opposite, and boycotting said corporation is as American as apple pie. And, please, spare us the FOX News – Obama drivel. As much as I dislike the guy, Obama did not use federal funds to actively support Focus, Exodus, and other hate groups. Not supporting marriage is FAR AND AWAY different from actively funding organizations who would like to see us wiped off the planet.
posted by JohnInCA on
You know, I keep hearing that line. “The same opinoin on gay marriage as Obama had a few months ago.” Do you think that line actually works on anyone? Obama has never supported DOMA, supported civil unions before he supported marriage, struck down DADT, signed the Matthew Shepherd Act, made quite a few pro-gay Executive Memos and so-on.
It’s a false equivalency, an attempt to reduce people’s actual objections down to an absurd simplified tag-line. The fact is that Obama and Dan Cathy have never had the same views on gay rights, and that Obama’s been the one that Chik-Fil-A funded FRC is fighting against.
So really… just who do you think you’re fooling here?
As an aside, no, I don’t go out of my way to learn the political leanings of every place I shop at. But if I do find out then I don’t see why I should ignore my knowledge and adjust my habits accordingly. Or, to put it another way… if they don’t make an issue of their anti-gay politics, then I won’t make an issue of their anti-gay politics.
posted by Jorge on
You know, I keep hearing that line. “The same opinoin on gay marriage as Obama had a few months ago.” Do you think that line actually works on anyone?…
Chick-Fil-A had its most successful day ever, and you’re asking that?
This has been made into a First Amendment issue and a gay marriage issue. The left had tried to make this an anti-gay bigotry issue. It has failed miserably. Most people are not making the distinction between people who disagree with gay marriage and support gay rights and people who actively oppose gay marriage but do not discriminate against gays. This is reality. This is the country’s political center.
posted by JohnInCA on
One day of success isn’t terribly important to me.
How much people are swayed by deceitful rhetoric? Much more interesting and important.
So yes. I’m much more curious about whether or not anyone is actually influenced by comparing Dan Cathy to Obama then about whining that Chik-Fil-A had “it’s most successful day ever”.
Especially since anyone that’s familiar with the history of the south could have expected this. Backlash surges of support happen. Anyone that didn’t expect this hasn’t been paying attention.
posted by Jorge on
So yes. I’m much more curious about whether or not anyone is actually influenced by comparing Dan Cathy to Obama then about whining that Chik-Fil-A had “it’s most successful day ever”.
I think the causal arrow is in the opposite direction. No one is going to be convinced of something they already believe–that opposition to gay marriage is a mundane, mainstream American value that is not relevant to whether someone is pro-gay or anti-gay.
Especially since anyone that’s familiar with the history of the south could have expected this. Backlash surges of support happen. Anyone that didn’t expect this hasn’t been paying attention.
Oh, I expected it. Between the Tea Party movement in the 2010 elections, Gov. Walker surviving his recall vote, and the Occupy Movement fizzling, backlashes against the left and far-left seem to be an increasingly common occurrance.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I see no reason to boycott the business, the owner of which has the same opinion on gay marriage as the Democratic President had just a few months ago.
Dan Cathy supports marriage-equivalent civil unions, and opposes the FMA and DOMA? That’s not bad. It is a stronger pro-equality position that Mitt Romney’s, anyway. Good for Dan if you are right, AG.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s not the same position. That’s flat out lie.
Christians really ought to read their Bible. Lying is as much a sin as any of the others.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s not the same position. That’s flat out lie.
Houndentenor, you mean that AG was trying to pull the wool over our eyes when he said that Dan Cathy “has the same opinion on gay marriage as the Democratic President had just a few months ago“?
Well, gee, I guess that Dan Cathy doesn’t support marriage-equivalent civil unions, and oppose the FMA and DOMA, after all. Who would have thunk it?
Christians really ought to read their Bible. Lying is as much a sin as any of the others.
AG says that he’s an atheist.
posted by DCBuck on
AG, your straw man has no legs. Despite how the media and Talibangelicals have distorted it, this is NOT about one man and his opinions/religious beliefs. It IS about a company AS A WHOLE that ACTIVELY SUPPORTS some of the most vitriolic anti-gay groups around with PROFITS. It IS about how Cathy’s company, at his direction, sends millions of dollars to groups including one that didn’t think the U.S. should have condemned Uganda for wanting to put gays to death. I am under no illusion that every dollar I spend is being used the way I would like. And, let me also say that I find the politicians who have rattled the saber about not allowing CFA to enter their cities to be well-intentioned, but incredibly misguided. If this was an issue of Cathy using his own PERSONAL funds to support these hate groups, I wouldn’t like it, but it’s a world of difference from using your company as a means to fuel these groups. So, just because I can’t patrol every instance, does that mean that I’m automatically forbidden from taking a stand where/when I can? It’s not a perfect world, but you can bet that Hell will have frozen long over before I ever set foot in a Chick-fil-A again, and I’m encouraging everyone I know to do the same.
posted by AG on
I’m an atheist, so it’s very hard for me to see the distinction between marriages and civil unions. If President Obama supported civil unions that gave the same 1000+ rights to gay couples and his party had huge majorities in Congress for two years, how come we still don’t have them? Until 2011 Obama’s administration actively defended DOMA in courts. And as late as in 2004 another Democratic President, Clinton, who had signed and touted DOMA in 1996, advised Kerry to come out in support of state-wide constitutional marriage amendments. So, tell me Mr. Scharbach for whom of the above-mentioned Democratic politicians you did NOT volunteer, donate money, and vote for? But now you wouldn’t even buy a chicken sandwich from a person with these positions.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let’s try to stay calm, AG, and tackle this point-by-point.
I’m an atheist, so it’s very hard for me to see the distinction between marriages and civil unions.
Under civil law, no theoretical distinction exists between a civil union and a civil marriage, so long as whatever form is chosen by government is offered on an equal footing. Civil marriage has no religious connotation whatsoever, and cannot, under our constitution.
But here’s the rub: When we talk, in this country, about civil unions, we are not talking about eliminating civil marriage and replacing civil marriage with civil unions, as a number of European countries do.
When we talk about civil unions in this country, we are talking about creating a parallel form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, the sole point of which is to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual couples, reserving civil marriage for the former, and excluding the latter. The evidence presented in the Prop8 case, if nothing else, made that as clear as a goat’s ass.
In my view, a parallel scheme created for the sole purpose of sanctioning inequality does not meet constitutional muster, and cannot.
If President Obama supported civil unions that gave the same 1000+ rights to gay couples and his party had huge majorities in Congress for two years, how come we still don’t have them?
Civil marriage (and by extension, civil unions, which are a parallel form of civil marriage) are traditionally a reserved power under our Constitution. In my view, Congress has no constitutional power to enact a national civil union law any more than it has the constitutional power to enact a national civil marriage law. If President Obama had proposed such a law, I would have opposed it.
Until 2011 Obama’s administration actively defended DOMA in courts. And as late as in 2004 another Democratic President, Clinton, who had signed and touted DOMA in 1996, advised Kerry to come out in support of state-wide constitutional marriage amendments. So, tell me Mr. Scharbach for whom of the above-mentioned Democratic politicians you did NOT volunteer, donate money, and vote for?
I voted for President Clinton, Senator Kerry and President Obama. I last voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 1980. Elections are binary, and like all voters, I have to pick from the choices presented.
But you miss the point, AG, when you work so hard to point out the obvious — Democratic candidates for President, while far stronger on equality issues than their Republican opponents, have not been perfect. That’s not news.
The point is that the positions of the parties on LGBT issues have been diverging for two decades, and are now stark.
There’s a reason for that. Like tens of thousands of other gays and lesbians, I have been actively involved in Democratic politics working toward a single goal — to move the Democratic Party in the right direction on LGBT issues. Working hard, we’ve been moving the party in the right direction, little by slowly, but steadily for thirty years.
I consistently encourage Republican gays and lesbians to get to work in the Republican Party, instead of sitting on their hands telling those of us who are working in the Democratic Party that we aren’t doing enough, fast enough. So, how about it? Are you involved in Republican Party politics, working to turn your party around? If not, would you consider doing something?
But now you wouldn’t even buy a chicken sandwich from a person with these positions.
You don’t need to imitate our San Francisco treat so slavishly, AG, putting words in my mouth when when I haven’t said them. One of him is enough for IGF. Try sticking to facts.
I’ve said nothing about the Chik-fil-a dust-up, other than that it is a tempest in a teapot that will go the way of Pickwick, and I’m not going to get involved in the chicken war.
posted by Houndentenor on
There’s a very basic logic flaw in this tired homocon argument. If one candidate is 89% in favor of gay rights, then because he’s not 100%, he’s no better than the opponent who is only 35% in favor. That’s BS. Rarely in politics (if ever) does anyone get a candidate they agree with 100%. If one is starkly better than the other, then he or she IS better. Acting as if there’s no difference between the two is absurd.
posted by Houndentenor on
How many of the folks in those long lines yesterday belong to the denomination (Southern Baptists) that called for a boycott of everything from Disney after Ellen Degeneres came out on her TV show? Or more recently threw a fit over Ellen’s appearance in a JC Penney’s commercial? I have relatives whose church is constantly telling them not to shop at certain stores because they have nondiscrimination policies for gay employees.
So they had no problem with boycotting others when they had a policy that was to treated everyone equally and fairly (which in no way violated anyone else’s rights), but now that people are using the same approach against a company they agree with, they call foul. I call bullshit. Hypocrites everyone one. I am surrounded by them (though not for much longer! Halelujah!).
But I think you are right overall on this, Stephen. A lot of people turned up, but the brand image has taken a hit. How good will this image be for them 10 years from now? Or 20?
posted by Jorge on
But I think that’s far too optimistic, given the reported comments by the lined-up out-the-door patrons of the fast food chain
“People can disagree on things and I am fine with that. But I don’t think it’s the place of our government to tell a business what to believe. And they have great chicken.”
“I don’t go to a restaurant and ask them every belief they have and then don’t eat there because their beliefs are not the same as mine.”
“The mayor said a totally idiotic thing that I found thoroughly offensive”
“I’m not sure I agree with his position on gay marriage, but I applaud the owner for speaking his mind, and that’s why I’m here.”
“We support tolerance on both sides.”
“Just because they don’t support gay marriage, it doesn’t make them a bad company,”
I’d be interested to know which reported comments you are talking about that have you so concerned.
If one candidate is 89% in favor of gay rights, then because he’s not 100%, he’s no better than the opponent who is only 35% in favor. That’s BS.
My thinking on this Chick-Fil-A deal is that if one business is only 35% against gay rights, that does not make him the same devil as someone who is 89% against gay rights, just because he is not 100% in favor of gay rights. The problem with the “donates to anti-gay groups” argument is that it is extremely vague. That vagueness suggests that there is nothing legitimate behind it and that it really is all about marriage.
posted by JohnInCA on
If donating to FRC is about more then donating to anti-gay causes then FRC hides it rather well.
And call me a pessimist, but based on Dan Cathy’s comments, and the comments of his father, and the chain’s lack of a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, and their donations to anti-gay groups, and their exclusion of gay couples from their little retreat, and so-on… I’m pretty sure it’s pretty tame to estimate they’re only 35% against gay rights.
posted by Jorge on
but based on Dan Cathy’s comments, and the comments of his father, and the chain’s lack of a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, and their donations to anti-gay groups, and their exclusion of gay couples from their little retreat, and so-on… I’m pretty sure it’s pretty tame to estimate they’re only 35% against gay rights.
Someone needs to tell that to the uppity liberal mayors and New York’s uppity City Council speaker who are making this about gay marriage.
It is far too late for context, and “donating to [so-called] anti-gay groups” is far too little. Almost all of the groups in question are being portrayed in the media as simply anti-marriage. If there are bigger beefs with them, those need to be explained outside the echo chambers of the gay-allied left. The only group that explicitly stands out in a different way is Exodus International. But I’d point out that we have recently been reminded that it’s been run by a gay man for years; the right has its own echo chambers on that group.
Dan Cathy’s comments are a different story.
posted by carl magnus on
I’d be interested to know which reported comments you are talking about that have you so concerned.
…the trucker turned to Andrew confidentially and said, “If I see one more faggot at a Chick-fil-A protesting, I’m going to be sick.” …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-controversy-employees-speak-out_n_1729968.html
posted by Jorge on
That’s a very short list. The only thing I’m impressed by is Mr. Miller’s cloud-colored glasses.
posted by Don on
I find the basic republican mantra “I want government out of people’s lives as much as possible” very persuasive. Unfortunately, in practice, that is rarely the case. What they work toward is government out of the lives of certain groups of people in hopes of getting their vote. Then they want intense intervention in everyone else’s lives so they can get the votes of people who want that, too.
Theoretically, evangelicals would be a better fit with democrats. They both believe in legislating “what is right” for society. But their belief system is so draconian that they would never find a home with groups outlawing discrimination against women, people of non-white races, and gays. Unfortunately, without such laws, people with draconian belief systems will attack.
In practice, republicans do not want less government. They never have. They want less government for me, and more for thee. Unless, of course, we’re talking about the tea party. Then it’s: lower my taxes and your government benefits. But I digress.
Whenever a friend of mine goes on a horrific tear that government intervention doesn’t work; it just messes everything up – I laugh and say “I agree with you completely! So why did we go into Iraq again?” If ever there was a government program that failed miserably, that should be the sterling example. Even assuming the intentions were good, the result was disastrous. And yet, many still believe that what we need are more government interventions (militarily) in other people’s lives. Why? Because defense money helps buy votes. That is why they abandoned the “conservative” idea of as little war as possible, but a full-throated one if necessary.
I am heartened by recent events that have gotten many, many republicans out of the “less government” closet and called on the hypocrisy of their own movement. So many fiscal conservatives have stomached intense government intervention in people’s lives (sex, abortion, gay rights) for decades just to get enough votes for a tax break. That is changing. And if their voices get loud enough, I might become a swing voter.
But until human beings begin to reconcile their inner hypocrisies better, politics will always reflect them as they are.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The efforts by just a handful of our erstwhile friends (or, less charitably, pandering politicians), has cost us dearly and could very well undermine efforts in Maryland, Minnesota and elsewhere to fight anti-gay-marriage initiatives. We know who are enemies are; but with friends like these, we could be sunk.
Stephen, seriously, get a grip. The Chik-fil-a dust-up is going to be a three week wonder.
posted by Doug on
Stephan is always trying to blame the left for the sins of the right. That way he doesn’t have to look in the mirror and see himself staring back.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The anti-gay bigots are lined up at Chick-fil-A, but so are large numbers of conservative leaners who don’t want liberal government dictating what people can say and think (lost in all this, of course, is the fact that Chick-fil-A, as a corporation, gives millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations).
Patronizing Chik-Fil-A to show support for free speech is kind of foolish, don’t you think? I do.
Dan Cathy’s stated views are appalling. But Dan Cathy is no worse than half a dozen other (e.g. Brian Fischer, Peter Sprigg) conservative Christians who pound the anti-gay drum, and he’s certainly not as offensive as Fred Phelps. Like Fred Phelps, Dan Cathy has a constitutionally protected right to say what he wants to say about us or anything else. If Cathy wants to claim that God is going to destroy the country because the biblical penalty is not extracted, well, God bless him. We’ve heard it before and we’ll hear it again.
Equally appalling are the threats “Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanual and a handful of other Democratic officeholders in various liberal jurisdictions to use zoning laws against Chick-fil-A“. As was the case with the efforts to shut down Fred Phelps in his protest of military funerals, the proposed cure is worse than the disease, and constitutionally impermissible.
But that’s no reason to rush off and eat suicide food (as my doctor calls fast food in general) or to put money Cathy’s pocket, given the way in which the money is used. Cathy is a far-right, fringer who is, as Stephen points out correctly, using his company to dump gobs of money into far-right anti-gay fringe groups. The “large numbers of conservative leaners who don’t want liberal government dictating what people can say and think” might be better served to stop and think for a minute, rather than knee-jerk patronize, but that’s their business, I guess.
In my view, the Chik-Fil-A dust-up is a three week wonder, no different than Lester Maddox’s Pickwick adventures. It is a circus. It will have no lasting effect in our progress toward equality.
The most likely lasting effect of the flap is that Type II diabetes rates will increase among hard-core anti-gay Christians. It won’t stop the march toward equality.
It is beyond me how it has become a flash point when there are serious issues at hand, and serious work to be done.
But so be it.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Personally, I think that if a business is going to follow the rules, i.e. anti-discrimination laws, then I do not think that government should ban them or (for that matter) beg, plead for them to come in.
Again, I know young/working class gay people who have essentially had to work for either Chick or a similar ‘Christian-fast-food’ type place (Pizza Ranch is big in the Midwest). In some of these communities, these sort of fast food places can be the main employment option (especially with the economy being what it is).
For gays what want to pay rent, afford food, water, utilities, gas, etc they often find themselves having to work for a ‘Christian’ company that is anti-gay and that, probably would, want to fire them or send them to be cured.
The owners of some of the main Pizza fast food chains are (I been told) very right-wing, but they are a bit more tactful about it and
most gays probably do not feel guilty about eating at Pizza Hut or Dominos.
The Mc Golden Arches does have a gay-inclusion non-discrimination policy and does, generally, pat itself on the back for its hiring diversity policies.
I cannot say I know much about the policies of either big fast food chains. Beyond, what I hear from employees or my own personal experiences.
posted by Infovoyeur on
I saw the Guru recently (got in on a cancellation) and s/he said:” Verity, conjoin two things wrongly separated, and cleave apart two things wrongly associated.” The latter meant in this case, a person’s “personal nature/attributes,” and the person’s “contributions to the social.”
Picasso, Eliot, Waugh, etc., were like misogynistic antisemitic etc., but they produced valid art. That is what matters, their social input.
Baseball player John Rocker disparaged minorities, ethnic groups, sexual derivants, etc. For this he was roundly disparaged. Wrongly, I think. The only relevant question was, Can he play ball? That was his social contribution.
The management guru Peter Drucker reminded there is no Renaissance person, nobody perfect on all spokes of the wheel.
Chick-a-fil provides foodstuff of arguable nutritional value but apparent taste-value to many. This is its contribution. And for mayors of Chicago and Boston to suggest blocking C-a-F in their jurisdicions, this seems Nanny-State madness of tolerance acceptance celebration Respect etc. gone haywire (as so many good social traditions do.)