Chick-Fil-A, Boycotts, and Defining Marriage
The big news recently is that the President of popular fast food chain Chick-Fil-A announced a belief that marriage should be defined as a union between and man and a woman. This announcement only confirmed what had been fairly common knowledge, and while it was unsurprising it set off a controversy on the internet with people tweeting copycat recipes and any number of people supporting and opposing the company's views. My question for you all is "Does the president of Chick-Fil-A's position on gay marriage matter?"
Personally I'm a supporter of gay marriage - I completely support the right of churches to define it however they want, but the government-issued marriage certificate has nothing to do with the religious sacrament and is more a statement of property rights and a fiscal relationship. I also know that 50 years ago people were making the same arguments against interracial marriage that they're making about gay marriage and the world hasn't come to and end in that time.
On the other hand, at the end of the day I haven't heard any evidence of Chick-Fil-A actively discriminating against gay employees or anything similar. They've supported politicians who are opposed to gay marriage, but I don't think there's any evidence of employment discrimination or harassment based on sexual orientation.
With that, I think a more important principle comes into play here. The principle that we should value our freedom of speech against all threats, not just the government. The President of Chick-Fil-A is allowed to express opinions I disagree with or even find offensive, just like comedians are allowed to tell offensive jokes, and radio hosts are allowed to use off-color language. When we stop letting people express themselves then we lose an important part of our culture, and I worry about all kinds of censorship: censorship from government, censorship from businesses, and censorships from special interest groups. People should be allowed to express their beliefs, regardless of how offensive we find them.
I'm torn on this issue to be honest. Like I said, I support gay marriage, or in the alternative think government should stop using the word "marriage" altogether and just change everything to a "civil union" while leaving marriages completely to the churches. As long as everyone has equal opportunities, then that's all that matters to me. But on the other hand I don't think people should have to santize their speech for fear of public retribution. People are free to organize boycotts of Chick-Fil-A, but honestly I think they'd be better off fighting those politicians who claim to support gay marriage in a soundbite yet are conspicuous through their silence when asked to actually stand up and take action.
What do my readers think? Help me figure this one out.
Stephanie Hein
6:13 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
They donate money to politicians who oppose gay marriage, so eating there makes me feel like I'm indirectly supporting politicians who oppose gay marriage. I'm uncomfortable with that, so I'm making the choice to boycott Chick-fil-A. I feel like this isn't any different from the people who are boycotting Kraft foods for the Oreo facebook picture and JC Penney for their Mother's/Father's Day advertisements.
John B
6:51 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
And you're saying that's a problem?
Dan Telvock
9:21 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
All I know is Chik-Fil-A ought to open on Sundays because they're losing big bucks not doing it! I want some chicken!
RACCAP
12:47 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Actually Dan, they have done numerous studies and found that they are not losing money. In fact the local store in the mall grosses more in six days than the other food establishments do in seven. This is fairly typical across the board.
Jason Atkinson
5:29 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Unless all the people that would go to Chik-Fil-A on Sunday are going on another day they normally would not go there (since they weren't able to go on Sunday), then obviously they are losing revenues. Just because the one in the mall is more successful than it's competitors in 6 days versus 7, does not mean they would not be even more successful if they were open 7. That argument just plain makes no sense at all.
Donna
8:51 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I know of some restaurants that are closed on Mondays.. why is there no demand for them to be open? I don't understand the problem with Chik-Fil-A being closed on Sundays--it is the owner's decision because it is his business.
Arnold Smithson
9:05 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Donna - I don't think anyone's saying it's not their choice, I just think more people eat out on Sundays and more people are around malls and whatever so there's more demand for Chick-Fil-A.
It's their choice, but that doesn't mean I can't crave their sandwiches on Sundays and wish they were open.
Garrett J.
1:28 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
It's a tough spot. What if you like gay people and Waffle Fries? Arby's doesn't like Christians, so to be super controversial we should eat from both places at the same time...
Arnold Smithson
1:31 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
How about Chick-Fil-A sandwiches and Arby's curly fries?
Lindsay
2:51 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
@ Garrett: Why doesn't Arby's like Christians? I'm not trying to start anything, I've just never heard of that before!
@Arnold: What about Arby's curly fries ON a Chik-Fil-A sandwich? Yum yum!
Arnold Smithson
3:58 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
OK, Lindsay has officially solved the thread. Lock down the comments Dan - there's an Arby's right next to a Chick-Fil-A on Plank Road, I'll see you all there.
Garrett J.
5:11 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I forget exactly the issue, but the president came out against Christians and Conservatives. Something to do with Rush Limbaugh. I paid about as much attention to it as I have this story. I still eat at both places. Curly fries on a Chick-Fil-A sandwich sounds pretty delicious.
Jason Atkinson
5:17 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Just not on Sunday :)
Jason Atkinson
5:27 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
People are free to say what they want, and should not be attacked for their beliefs. How is it any different to attack him for his beliefs, than it is wrong for him to oppose them for theirs? Everyone takes things personal these days. People don't need to be denigrated publicly for their opinions. If you don't wish to eat there, well that is your prerogative, and he took that risk when he came out with the statement, so be it.
I am with you Arnold, that it is 2 totally independent issues. I also agree that is you change the terminology, you have to do it in all cases, otherwise those with same sex unions are forced to feel like their relationship is somehow "less than" another couple's. I truly don't get the outrage against allowing same-sex unions for civil purposes. The only opposition is religion based, which is not supposed to be in play in politics in this country. It's not like the government is trying to tell the Catholic church that they must marry same sex couples in a Catholic ceremony, so I never understood why the conservatives are so against it in the first place.
Lindsay
1:05 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Sure, people have the right to say whatever they want, but they also must understand that other people have the right to respond to whatever it was that they said. One cannot expect one's intolerant views to be met with tolerance.
Jason Atkinson
4:54 pm on Tuesday, August 7, 2012
While I don't agree with Mr. Cathy's definition of marriage (in a civil sense anyway), isn't it his right to have those views? Labeling his beliefs as intolerant is in itself pretty intolerant, isn't it? Apparently everyone is tolerant of others, until people disagree with them...
Tony Hill
10:06 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Another good blog Arnold. I've enjoyed your posts a lot the past few weeks. They're very rational, thought provoking explanations of your opinions on recent issues. They're also great at sparking good discussion, both on the computer screen and off. That being said:
I have to agree with you 100% on this one. Equal rights are equal rights. That doesn't matter if we're talking about marriage regardless of a couple's gender, or free speech.
I'll still be answering my Chick-Fil-A cravings, whenever they strike...and the lines aren't too long.
Arnold Smithson
3:07 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Thanks for the kind words Tony. This one's a tough issue for me and I'm glad it generated some interesting and high-quality discussion.
Lamont Johnson
10:50 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
"Does the president of Chick-Fil-A's position on gay marriage matter?"
I think it does. If he is going to call himself a Christian he should definitely hold to the standards thereof.
As for being open on Sunday's, either you to young to remember the Blue Laws or you aren't from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Sipowitz
3:21 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
As a full supporter of gay marriage equality, let me just say that I still plan on getting my spicy chicken sandwich with some waffle fries everyone once in a while. If you do all your business solely with those that you agree with politically, you're going to find yourself in a tight spot trying to pick up groceries or filling up your gas tank.
That being said, my issues with Cathy and those who share his values is that the idea of "supporting traditional marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with denying others' rights to the legal and financial benefits granted to others. You do not "support" a certain idea or way of life by banning all alternatives. For example, I believe that eating properly and cooking meals at home is the best way to go; but nothing about that belief makes me want to ban restaurants or fast-food chains that serve poorer quality and less healthy stuff (I already mentioned I partake in the occasional fast-food meal). If one wants to "support traditional marriage," they can do so all they want! Praise it in your churches, teach it to your children, etc. But that has nothing to do with denigrating a group of people simply because they don't share those same values.
Another important thing to note here is that it is not just Dan Cathy that people take issue with. It's the fact that he uses his corporation to support those ideas. The donations he makes come straight from Chick-fil-a, not his personal bank account.
Lindsay
3:46 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Well said!
Tony Hill
6:38 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
I agree as well, and, as been said here already, the religious and legal issue of marriage needs to be separated. The rights of loved ones for benefits and recognition should be blind to religious dogma. As a Christian, this is a complex issue for me. The Bible teaches it as a sin, but God gave humanity free will. The freedom our country claims to have, and was founded on, should give the right to live as they want. Dislike the sin all you want, but it’s not our place to punish, or judge, the sinner.
As for where Mr. Cathy donates his money, or the company money in this case. It's his to spend. I'm sure many companies with religious (not just Christian) ties donate their money similarly. I really fail to see what's special about Chick-Fil-A, as opposed to the opinion of people at large.
There will always be stubborn people, but over time they become the minority and forced to accept the changes around them. It's entirely possible the evolution of our culture towards equality in marriage will be viewed as being very similar to the civil rights process of last century (an ongoing process).
Tony Hill
6:49 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
I’m surprised and heartened to not have seen the cries for punishment (boycott) from elsewhere around the web continued here. So, I thought I'd bring it up to get some other viewpoints. :)
Chick-Fil-A has always admitted their strong ties with religious communities, but that has never affected their ability to create one of the top companies in the United States. Mr. Cathy and his company (as Arnold stated) have never shown a history of discrimination against any group in their business activities. The quote that has caused this issue to become public was made in an interview with the Christian Monitor, an obviously Christian media outlet where leaders across the nation interview regularly. This wasn’t a pulpit, a rally, or a political event.
The idea of boycotting over these statements, as has been circulating in the media (grain of salt), is baffling to me. Before I could even consider such a thing, I'd have to ask several questions about the circumstances here.
1) What changed to warrant this, if it’s Chick-Fil-A’s conservative social beliefs, why are they such a surprise? These beliefs have never been a secret.
2) What does a boycott really hope to accomplish? Fire their owner and CEO? Recant their own beliefs? Drive them out of business?
3) Where should people be free to offer their alternate viewpoints, and be free of reprisals, if not among a community of peers?
Mike Hirsch
5:20 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
The response to Chick-Fil-A appreciation day was amazing, I was glad to show my support.
My daughter worked there at 14 yrs. old!
I am a member of two religeous non profit unincororated associations in the Commonwelath of Virginia, one a church and the other an alliance, each has this bylaws statement:
"STATEMENT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF REGARDING MARRIAGE
We affirm a Biblical definition of marriage as being a lifelong union between one man and one woman. We further affirm that marriage is the only legitimate and accepted sexual relationship."
All members of the alliance freely make the following affirmation:
"Part III – Affirmation
I subscribe to the Constitution and Bylaws of the _____ and by God’s grace, I will support _____ and _____-sponsored activities unless my conscience prohibits me from doing so, in which case I will inform the officers of the association in writing of that scruple."
In this way we stand indivisably in agreement and respect each others conscience.
The inclusion of these statements in our bylaws is a Consitutionally lawful way of protecting the organizations comittment to their sincerely held religeous beliefs and values as expressed in their constitutions.
Mr. Cathy expressed his views and those who published them exercised thier Constitutional right of Freedom of the Press.
Freedom of Speech, Religeon, and of the Press.
God bless America, and God bless Chick-Fil-A!
Thanks Patch for objective reporting!