Earlier today, I made a facetious post on my Facebook page regarding Chick-fil-A's abhorrent policy--of promoting illiteracy and bad spelling. I was trying to lighten the public mood, as so many people seem to be up in arms about the recent controversy surrounding Chick-fil-A's support of anti-LGBT organizations.
Being a Gay guy, I guess I should be rallying hardcore against this company with its delicious waffle fries and a lemonade sweet enough to make one slap his own mother. Do I give Chick-fil-A my business? No. And I haven't for about fifteen months. That's my personal choice. Regardless, a part of me defends Chick-fil-A in this battle. And it is based on the same principle that causes me to defend Fred Phelps and his Wesboro Baptist Cult--err--Church:
Their freedom of speech.
Being a former "card-carrying member" of the American Civil Liberties Union (only 'former' because I got tired of being hounded by them for more money), I completely agree with their stance on this issue: cities like Chicago and Boston are wrong in their attempt to single out a company and, due to their belief system, attempt to deny them permission to operate their business where they choose.
While thousands of LGBT folks and myself appreciate that mayors and other civic leaders are speaking out on our behalf, I believe that this is an assault on free enterprise. These reactionary declarations against this one particular business amounts to skating on very thin Constitutional ice.
Chick-fil-A is not a public company, folks. It's not on the Stock Market Exchange, which means that it is free to do what a few select officers and shareholders want it to do. If the public doesn't like it, they don't have to patronize it. The Cathys have never made any attempt to mask Chick-fil-A as a business with opportunistic principles: if a fast-food business closes in observance of the Sabbath, I think that's a pretty good indicator that it is a Christian-owned and managed business. Truett and Dan Cathy make no apology for this--and frankly, I give them integrity points for sticking to their guns.
That doesn't mean that I agree with them. It is financially idiotic for a business to throw away the opportunity to earn more profit on any given day. It is also an absolutely moronic business decision for the head of a company to say anything other than "No comment" when asked about the company's stances on controversial issues. While Chick-fil-A is seeing its supporters out in full, bad publicity IS bad publicity. (Notice that you haven't heard a peep out of Wal-Mart on this issue.) If Chick-fil-A stuck to making waffle fries and sandwiches without rendering judgments on societal issues, they wouldn't be so knee-deep in chicken shit.
As American consumers, we have choices--in most cases, plenty of them. I don't begrudge anyone for eating at Chick-fil-A: it's their choice. The consumer has the right to be informed, though, and if a company or organization chooses to air its belief system, the public has the right to respond by continuing to frequent their place of business or go elsewhere. Wesboro Baptist Church probably isn't the best place for me to visit for my wedding needs: I know where I'm not wanted. Still, I'm not going to waltz in there and demand that Fred Phelps perform my ceremony. I would be infringing upon both him and his "church's" freedoms of speech and religion--and I would be wrong to do so.
Chick-fil-A and other businesses like it are ultimately going to be on the wrong side of history regarding same-sex marriage. Chick-fil-A does not support LGBT Equality, but the United States does not regulate the microphones of the businesses within its borders.
Discrimination is (and should be) un-American. ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) should definitely be passed in order to prevent firing based on sexual orientation. But limiting a business' participation in capitalism by telling it where it cannot operate and basing that decision solely on its controversial views?
That's un-American, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment