I try to avoid politics here. Its just so depressing. The chance that someone will read and become "converted" amount to slim and none. Besides, as we all suffer information overload and can access news instantly, who, exactly, remains "uncommitted"? Unless you just don't care or you never form opinions without knowing what Kim Kardashian thinks. (Hint: she doesn't think-she has people who do that for her). You're so damn touchy. People see "I disagree with your strongly held views for the following reasons" but they read "you're an immoral degenerate fascist." Besides, who fundamentally changes their fundamental beliefs? So why I should waste time lecturing you on politics escapes me. Far better to write about how Patrick Swayze really shouldn't have worn that black leather Terminator outfit when he went to ask Dr. Houseman to give Baby another chance after the, well, you know episode. After all, Baby's got just as big a heart as her horrible older sister Lisa, but can sing and dance way better. See, that's how my writing can make the world a better place.
But this whole Chick Fil A nonsense, with our nation's lonely eyes turned to a fast food chicken peddler as the symbol of moral outrage or decency, depending on your view, went WAY too far to ignore.
I know a lot of you think that prohibiting same sex marriage is right up there with enslavement or virgin sacrifice, and you're frothing at the mouth that anyone could even tolerate an opposite view. But, some think its a legitimate topic to debate, and if you possibly can get past the "that guy's evil and horrible; no, THAT guy's evil and horrible" approach, its an interesting debate. But it became about...chicken.
How did it ever get this far? Well, here's how the controversy arose.
For those who don't like to click links, the Baptist Recorder, an on-line journal, interviewed Chick Fil A's President, Dan Cathy. The Baptist Press reprinted this article. Now, this was just a general interest piece on a Baptist businessman. The Baptist Press, which doesn't exactly have People magazine's circulation, prints these articles all the time, with the interview subjects all saying pretty much the same thing. You don't exactly read the Baptist Press to find 10 ways to please your man in bed, or its secular humanist CEO interview series. Or for its incessant "up with gay rights" commentaries. Anyway, Cathy said:
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit.… We are a family owned business, a family led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
Well, the broader media picked up those comments and all the sudden it was like stampeding cattle through the Vatican. Come to find out, Chick Fil A contributed to pro-family/anti-gay marriage groups. So...the Muppets (!!) backed out of some sponsorship deal. I had no idea they were gay. Bert and Ernie, sure. But Oscar the Grouch? He's far too cranky to be gay-friendly. But this pushed them over the edge. The Mayors of Boston and Chicago decreed that they would fight any further Chick Fil A expansion in their towns, failing of course to note the irony of excluding people because they don't believe in inclusion (like the crowd scene in Life of Brian, "you're all individuals!" "we are all individuals!"). Politicians everywhere jumped on the bandwagon. The Mayor of Washington D.C. condemned Chick Fil A as "hate chicken." No, really, he said that. A Philadelphia alderman vowed to prevent Chick Fil A from expanding in Philly. Activists announced a gay "kiss day" where they would go to Chick Fil A restaurants and...kiss. Sort of a cross between the Occupy movement and the Pride parade. Predictably, the Daily Show weighed in (against Chick Fil A, I know, shocking!), late night comedians piled on...pretty quickly, the entire liberal establishment had leveled its fire straight (heh, heh) at Chick Fil A. Haven't heard from Matt Damon yet, but I'm sure he's working on a statement. I haven't heard when the "kiss day" will happen at your local still anti-gay (at least, officially, wink) Catholic Church. Or Texas A&M. Others have asked customers to boycott Chick Fil A. Including the guy who plays Andy Bernard on the Office (the "Nard Dog"), whose name absolutely no one can remember. Boy, Chick Fil A's on its last legs now, huh?
Cue the backlash. The anti-gay crowd (sorry, the "free speech crowd") started organizing to support Chick Fil A. US Senate candidate Ted Cruz's supporters vowed to eat at Chick Fil A. His opponent, David Dewhurst, followed suit. Dewhurst is used to following, so that's no surprise. Oh, and how funny is the Dew, richer than Calvin Coolidge (put together!) eating at Chick Fil A? That's like Baron de Rothschild having the fried cheese sticks and three for one happy hour watermelon martinis at the Grapevine Chili's. Rick Santorum organized a pro-Chick Fil A twitter campaign. Camera hog Sarah Palin made one of her trademark imperial visits to a Chick Fil A. One group rallied supporters to attend "Chick Fil A Appreciation Day." By all accounts it was a rousing success, with drive through lines snaking around the block at many establishments. I was hoping it would happen the same day as the gay kissers. That would have made for a good confrontation. Like when the Blazing Saddles cast fight spilled onto the set of the 30s musical. The "French Mistake" indeed. "Piss on you, I'm working for Mel Brooks!'" Finally, the ACLU got in on the act, supporting Chick Fil A's free expression rights. Great. You always want the one group who supports the Klan on your side. And who supports the Illinois Nazis.
This has become one of those modern American flare ups, where people become utterly outraged and incensed over some random happening, which generally has been going on for years. The usual suspects turn it into a good old fashion lynch mob, demanding instant and immediate change (primarily hounding the target from our midst), politicians eagerly lend a hand and promise a thorough investigation and swift change, and cowardly advertisers cringe in fear that their association with the target could hurt profits. Then everyone forgets all about it two weeks later after something really important happens. Like Christina Aguilera showing up "fat" (you know, a size 2) to the Grammys, or Justin Bieber clubbing with Kim Kardashian, or Oprah having a summer special with Miley Cyrus and Taylor Lautner. Remember the Gulf Coast oil spill? Rush saying mean things about a law student? I thought not. "Yeah! We're going to get him! This is outrageous! I'm never listening again and OH MY GOD is Mario Lopez on Dancing With the Stars?!!!??" Ours is not a country that keeps its eyes on the prize. Except when the prize is fighting to keep Olive Garden's never ending bread sticks on the menu.
Enough putting it off. Let's look at how both sides have totally botched this thing. Not so much to debate the substance. You believe what you want to believe. I'm not here to convert you (see above). No, there's some other things we need to address.
First off, the backlash to the backlash has gone a wee bit far. The anti-gay marriage/pro-Chick Fil A people have characterized those who refuse to patronize Chick Fil A over this as religiously intolerant, and of deny seeking to Chick Fil A its free speech rights. I know, I know...they're not real Americans. Like there's some Constitutional definition of a "real" American. I miss a lot of things because of work and my busy napping schedule, but I missed the announcement that guess in 21st century America, you can't spend your money at only businesses that share your values because that would deny a business' free speech rights. Too bad, so sad. Free speech rights don't require anyone to listen to the speaker, much less to buy their chicken. The politicians who want to kick Chick Fil A out of town are depriving Chick Fil A of its rights. But not consumers who decide to buy their fast food chicken somewhere else. This still isn't Russia, and you can spend your money however you like, on legal pursuits of course, for whatever reason. [Oh, except you have to buy health care insurance or you'll pay a penalty. Errr...its a tax...never mind.] If you don't want to spend your money somewhere that opposes gay marriage, or supports the troops, or sponsors the Boy Scouts, or that drove out local businesses, or whatever, by all means, take your stand. There's millions of other places where you can buy a marginal chicken sandwich.
Besides, the outrage is a litle too much. "How DARE you crticize Chick Fil A!!!" Kind of resembles when you're caught in a lie and rather than confessing, you go on the attack. A real lawyer's move. Look, let's just call this what it really is. A lot of the pro-Chick Fil A fervor has nothing to do with protecting free speech. I doubt these people attend ACLU rallies, or praise cities that tolerated Occupy rallies earlier this year. They'll defend your right to say something...as long as what you want to say isn't on their "sin list." Most of these people would jump at the chance to ban the New York Times or MSNBC or any other Pravda-esque liberal rag, just because they disagree with the point of view expressed. (Its un-American). This is about opposing gay rights, or even gays themselves. They oppose any fleeting mention or depiction of sexual subjects (while of course yukking it up over shows featuring graphic violence). These people have seen gay rights going from pretty much being able to beat the ever loving crap out of gays with impunity to gays possessing close to equal rights in many ways. Its pretty clear all legal distinctions will disappear within the next 10-20 years. The anti- crowd probably feels the urge to make a last stand somewhere, and sawing the pro- crowd off that limb that is Chick Fil A must seem very tempting. But its a little too dramatic. Very gay, actually.
But of course, the morally superior progressive crowd, tearing up their rotator cuffs from so much self back-slapping, so much better in every way than neanderthal conservatives, have once again managed to outsmug even themselves. The same sex marriage boosters lost this battle when Chick Fil A and free speech became the focus. We're not talking about how gay marriage is totally awesome wonderful cool. We're talking about chicken. And free speech. And local governments trying to run businesses out of town when they don't hold the "right" views (which suspiciously coincide with the views politicians think will elicit the most votes). And whether you're supporting evil when you buy two for one hate chicken. The pro- crowd lost the topic. They came off as picking on a seemingly otherwise responsible company, flogging it for holding beliefs that, right or wrong, millions of Americans share. How did they lose the topic? By going totally over the top. The pro- crowd totally over did it, like some overwrought Susan Hayward moment (trust me, that was really funny). Kicking Chick Fil A out of town? Boycotting it? Denying its rights to conduct business? Launching into self-righteous moral harangues? Because its management expressed a view many others share. What, no setting its management adrift on an ice floe? How's all that going? Well, its caused the opposition to harden its views. That is all. I seriously doubt its changed one person's gay marriage views. It sure hasn't changed Chick Fil A's. Or the Boy Scouts' views.
Quite to the contrary, the only thing the pro- crowd has accomplished is driving up Chick Fil A's sales as the anti's eat more chicken. Is that a thing now? Insults? Threats? Opportunism? Killing the opposition with saturated fat? King never condemned his enemies. They beat him, jailed him, reviled him, spied on him...you name it. He prayed for segregationists and forgave them. He knew he needed to convince whites that segregation was wrong. Its hard to convince someone to change their mind when you're attacking them personally. King persuaded through example and conviction. I doubt he'd have run around squawking about "hate chicken." (Get it? "Squawking"..."chicken"? Hello?) But that's not "debate" anymore. I am not more likely to believe your opinions if you call me "evil" when I don't. Go figure.
Some Chick Fil A employees no doubt oppose Mr. Cathy's views as well, as one manager urgently told an on-line site. More than likely some of Mr. Cathy's family members and shareholders disagree with him as well. And while punishing Chick Fil A through boycotts and local government discrimination might slightly impact Chick Fil A's top management who advocate this philosophy, it could well wind up causing some innocent fast food worker to lose his or her job.
Symbols provide a powerful means to convey a point, and a movement sometimes must personalize its enemy to present the conflict more dramatically. The Civil Rights Movement could yak about equal rights all day, but it didn't reach whites emotionally until images surfaced of Bull Connor directing fire hoses and police dogs at peaceful protesters, or thick necked cops pushing around ministers and kids. This sickened Americans. Picking a target to personalize what you may characterize as anti-gay oppression? Ok. Good job, good effort. But Chick Fil A is the wrong choice. It gives employees Sundays off. It employs thousands. It donates to some worthy causes. Some people like its food. Whatever you want to read into "family friendly," many think that beats "not family friendly." Also, Chick Fil A serves gay people, employs gay people, and promotes gay people into management. Its not like they've bullied gay students, or drug gays on a chain behind a pickup truck. Has it broken any laws? Its not smashing gay customers' heads, or refusing to hire gays, or turning away gay customers. Is that even illegal? Its not making them sit in special "gay sections." You know, like at Fashion Week. Its not trying to "convert" gays. Its not like Chick Fil A flooded the airwaves with anti-gay messages. Its ads don't show chickens stomping on Madonna posters or pecking Anderson Cooper to death. It hasn't sponsored Richard Simmons video burnings or protested at the Tony Awards. Did anyone but hard core activists even know Chick Fil A had this position? Its President simply expressed an opinion that he prefers the "traditional" view of marriage, and it has provided charitable donations to like minded organizations. This view, I might add, expresses his religious beliefs, and a substantial number of Americans support this view even today. The United States' Government's official policy for the military until earlier this year was also consistent. So Chick Fil A wasn't exactly the best candidate to designate as "evil incarnate."
Besides, the whole "we'll make this business pay for its evil, "hate the people" views is a little selective. Where's the righteous indignation that stops these people from wearing Chinese sweatshop clothes, i.e. just about everything in your local mall. Or shopping at local business-killing WalMart or Starbucks or Applebee's. Or eating near-toxic McDonald's imitation beef-product, derived from Brazilian cows ranged on cleared rain forest land. Or driving pollution causing SUVs, or buying Nike slave labor shoes. Or watching Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan movies. Well, if they made any. Or using animal-tested medicines. The Chick Fil A hubub represents an aberration. Most people just don't care about a company's "beliefs" when they decide where to purchase goods or services.
And when are we going to kick the Catholic Church out of town? Or the Islamic Circle of North America. Or Orthodox Jews. Or the black pastors' group that just formed to oppose President Obama's support of same sex marriage. Or Louis Farrakhan, who criticized President Obama for endorsing same sex marriage (where was the Farrakhan boycott?). Remember how the Mayor of Chicago is so opposed to Chick Fil A because of its gay marriage stance. Yeah, he recruited Farrakhan to participate in an anti-gang initiative. So I guess there's one guy who opposes gay marriage that's still welcome in Chicago, huh? Oh, Farrakhan hates Jews too.
A sizable and growing number of Americans clearly supports same sex marriage rights, but not until very recently that any state recognized same sex marriage, it has never been enacted in a vote, it remains illegal in most states, and a substantial number of Americans oppose it. Opposing gay marriage cannot constitute some sort of outlandish, wildly out of touch, fascistic, oppressive belief shocking to the conscience. Future generations may well regard it that way. But in 2012, it is not some fringe opinion. That Chick Fil A management would hold such views does not rise to the level of offense.
Plus, Chick Fil A sponsors the Peach Bowl (actually they renamed it, which IS evil), pitting a top ACC team against a top SEC team, as well as two "Kickoff Games" to begin the college football season. So that gains it considerable extra credit.
OK, I'm just assuming people quit reading awhile back, so I'll leave it there. Gotta go turn my house into a bunker to protect me from the inevitable protests.
Next-either Mad Men, or something more frivolous. Like "A Few of my Favorite Things."
2 comments:
I agree with you. This is typical America. We just LOVE debating gay marriage and abortion. EVERY election. Forget homelessness, poverty and other important, pressing needs. I swear, it's always back to gay marriage and abortion.
Totally impressed that you threw in the Susan Hayward, starlet reference. Shocked and surprised that anyone other than myself would know who she was.
Found her to be equally beautiful as Vivian Leigh. Was fond of her movies in my teens/early 20's. She often played alcoholic, distraught women in tragic circumstances. The quintessential "drama queen", wouldn't you say?
But you were teaching us a legal lesson about free speech, right?
Post a Comment