The First Amendment and Chick-fil-A
I haven't posted anything about the Chick-fil-A kerfuffle since a) I don't eat chicken and therefore don't patronize chicken restaurants and b) I didn't think there was anything particularly surprising about the political leanings of the ownership. The only aspect of the whole thing that I'll comment on is the defense of the First Amendment that some Chick-fil-A supporters are shouting about. Huh? I haven't heard anyone say that Dan Cathy has no right to express his views on homosexuality. What I have heard and seen is people who refuse to spend their dollars on a product that, in whatever small amount, produces profits that are then donated to hate groups. Seems perfectly reasonable to me and has nothing to do with free speech - in fact, it's helpful to know these things so that we can spend our dollars more conscientiously.
For those who are taking Rahm Emmanuel and other mayors to task for suggesting that Chick-fil-A might not be welcome in their communities, I'll posit the following: if we were looking back at, say, 1969, and a mayor of a major city spoke against welcoming businesses whose owners actively, financially supported segregationist groups, we'd see them as heroic. I don't know anyone that regrets having boycotted corporations that supported the government of apartheid South Africa - I'm not seeing a big difference here. Money talks.
As for the numbnuts that are harassing Chick-fil-A employees, leave the kids alone and stop embarrassing yourselves.
As for the numbnuts that are harassing Chick-fil-A employees, leave the kids alone and stop embarrassing yourselves.
3 Comments:
I'm very proud that all these people standing up for Dan Cathy's First Amendment rights also did so for JC Penney when it hired Ellen DeGeneres as its spokeswoman.
Oh. Wait.
You'd feel differently if it were a conservative city alderman threating to deny a business license or zoning request to a gay rights supporter, though there is really no difference. The law should be free of opinion and only about the law no mater the political view point. I agree with the rest of what you wrote.
-Special K
Bzzzt - false equivalency. And I think you missed my point, which was that times change and we as a society tend (slowly) towards social justice (the politics of this are just an overlay). We look back at those who fought to give women property rights and voting rights as courageous (they weren't seen as such by the majority at the time or there would have been no fight). We look back at those who stood up and said "no more" to Jim Crow laws and other methods of depriving black people of their rights as on the right side of history. I've simply suggested that the same will be the case for people who stand up against social injustice in regards to sexual orientation. The politics are a sideshow.
Post a Comment
<< Home