Donald Perry VP of Corporate Relations at Chick-fil-A suddenly died of a heart attack amid the controversy of calls to boycott the restaurant due to the religious beliefs of their CEO and President Dan Cathy. Mr. Perry had been embroiled in the controversy about Mr. Cathy's personal beliefs about gay marriage. This is not only about the personal beliefs of President Cathy; this has everything to do with our freedoms. The boycott may wane but the political issues and attack on personal and religious beliefs will live on.
Chick-fil-A didn't hang out a shingle announcing the views of the CEO; there was no denial of service to anyone; no hiring discrimination based on sexual orientation. Most people go there for chicken, no lesson in morality or religion, nothing more.
This popular restaurant that serves great chicken has been chastised and quite literally run out of town because of religious beliefs.
Chick-fil-A was told to stay out of Chicago by Rahm Emanuel who said, "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values. They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you're gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values."
What are those values that businesses must comply with to meet that definition? Do people need to check their personal beliefs at the door to the city? And is there going to be a morality test in Chicago to pick and choose businesses based upon religion, national origin, or any of our protected classes? Will they conduct an audit of existing businesses to make sure they comply as well?
And in Boston, Mayor Thomas Menino announced Chick-fil-A doesn't belong there. It makes you wonder how far and wide this goes and what other businesses don't belong there. Menino has walked back his comments realizing that he did not have that power. But after the chicken is out of the coop, it's tough to get it back.
The power of our elected officials has eroded to the level of skimming our coveted First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, religion, and expression. We wonder what is next, banning of Muslims from doing business in Detroit, Jews doing business in Utah? What about Chinese restaurants? Does the city agree with their religious and political philosophies?
My philosophy is that we all have different views and convictions; live with it. Last year, President Obama held the same opinion as the president of Chick-fil-A. We have the ability to patronize who we want and who we don't, so be it. Boycott them if you want, but we all enjoy our freedoms and that includes the ability to purchase a darn good chicken sandwich if we wish to do so.
This is a sad casualty of a new trend of erosion of our freedoms. There is a troublesome focus on "broad brush" and sweeping power of some elected officials. We elect individuals to represent the views of their electorate... or not. Can they act on their personal views to the point that businesses are prohibited from doing businesses within their purview? We need be assured that the political wind doesn't blow too far away from the public. But I realize that we live by sound Constitutional principles. After all, our elected officials swear to uphold that very critical document.
The Muppets have even made the scene, severing ties with Chick-fil-A. They have said "What would Kermit do?" That is certainly their right but they have taken it to a level that mocks our freedoms. "Don't mess with the Muppets. You'll end up looking like a fool." But using character puppets for Heaven's sake, to joke and speak out against constitutionally protected rights on either side of that coin, sorry, not appropriately a laughing matter. And who is Kermit to make a fool out of anyone?
Potential Green Party presidential candidate Roseanne Barr tweeted: "Anyone who eats S*** Fil-A deserves to get cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ." She tried to walk it back but as we know, that chicken has left the coop. The message was received, enough said.
This matter is much larger than Chick-fil-A; the purchasing public has a short memory but this speaks volumes about our freedoms. Most of us believe in the philosophy of live and let live. Some believe, if you don't agree with me you should not exist.
Let's not erode our rights that we hold so dearly. Even the ACLU recognized that Chick-fil-A has a right to do business. And rest in peace Mr. Perry. You personally did not ask for this fight.
I hire Christians, but I don't approve of their lifestyle ...and I donate to anti-Christian causes, that promise to legislate away their rights.
I mean, what's the big deal, right?
I am further offended by your characterization of President Obama's views on gay rights. He has NEVER opposed the equal treatment of gay citizens. The fact that he specifically came out for gay marriage earlier this year was not a change in his position but an extra step in the direction he was already facing regarding gay rights. The idea that he would ever feel the extreme position that Mr. Cathy expressed is ludicrous.
The fact that Chi-Fil-A's freedom of speech rights have not been violated in any way (seeing as how no one has stopped them from doing business due to their views and that no matter what politicians may say, they cannot legally keep them out of any location where they would've been allowed before) seems to have escaped you. If heads of corporations or anyone in the public eye continue to make their views on controversial issues known they should expect that the public will answer with their own views, which may result in the loss of business. That is true freedom.
Heteros: "The mean nasty, people want me to share my rights. That's so unfair. Thankfully Wendy has voiced my haf-inteliigent views."
James Madison: "The rights of the minority shall not be subject to the tyrrany of the majority."
At the end of the day, we do this to share our thoughts and hear views that are different, not to participate in name calling and criticisms. At least most of us do not. We can learn from professional dialog but personal insults that you have done are really not in keeping with the spirit of formative thought. The effect is to dig in our heels and solitify our opinions. In other words, "trampling of rights" is not why we collectively participate in this type of dialog.
Despite the current, dire cultural urge to wallow in them, feelings (about capitalism and democracy) are still not as powerful as facts.
I believe that homosexuals and lesbians are guaranteed the right to formalize their relationships AS IF they were in fact, married. I believe the US Constitution gives them that right (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). But, they can not call their formalized relationships "marriages".
In my blog, I use the term "pairrage". This to me, makes a great deal of sense. In one word it indicates a formalized union between partners of the same sex. Two of the same kind is a pair. So, If you want to be "parried" and have the same rights as if you were a married couple, I think should be able to do that. But you should not refer to your relationship as a marriage. It is a parraige.
Here's a news flash for you: English is a living language. That means it is susceptible to change. So that may be the definition of marriage today. 20 years from now, that definition can, and likely will, change. I'd suggest you accept this fact instead of living in denial.
We need to be very careful when considering a designation (such as "domestic partnerships") that grants the same benefits as marriage. Federal Judge Reinhardt's ruling in Perry v. Brown (2012) revealed that such domestic partnership laws are a Trojan horse for changing the definition of marriage.
When there is no difference between domestic partnership benefits and marriage benefits, then there is no longer a "rational basis" for the state to deny the label of "marriage" to describe homosexual unions.
I don't think many people (if any) are boycotting or flexing their alderman privileges (municipalaties, not "the government") because of someones convictions and exercising of their first amendment rights. They are doing these thing because of $2,000,000 worth of net working capital spent on hate groups whose only job is to hinder minorities' civil rights to marry the people that they love. For you to say that they are being "driven out of town" just because of their religious beliefs is incredibly dishonest. We don't don't in a theocracy, CFA doesn't understand this and clearly neither do you.
It is easy to say that you have nothing to do with how a company spends your money or a company's value does not effect you. It is easier to simply brush it of like that. However, I do not use HSBC because of their less than enthusiastic effort to prevent money laundry. I do not shop at Walmart because of the way they treat their employees. Of course these values and practices from these companies have nothing to do with me, but as people say: every time you spend money, you just cast a vote on what kind of world you want to live in. If no one stands up for the right thing, things that do not concern them, then I don't think humanity has any chance on surviving. Sure, it is the opinion of a CEO, but he knows that his voice must be heard given his social and business position. It is a hateful message that was sent to people that they are doing something wrong by loving someone. If no one ever stand up against this chicken chain what is next? CEO of Wendy's supports wars? CEO of KFC supports rapes? If a hateful opinion voiced in public should not have any consequences, we are living in a very scary world.
Let me see if I can explain this more simply: people have the legal right to shun speech from others that they disagree with; governments do not. Your mayor can legally express his opinion as a citizen (and I stress that word) of Boston, but he cannot use the power of his office to do so, which would include official declarations from his office.
And for the record, I'm a bisexual woman in my second marriage. But I still feel no need to "boycott" them for simply disagreeing with me, my lifestyle, and my past. ,')
Second, this can be a zero-sum game. People who boycott Chick-fil-A can, for example, can take their business to Subway, McDonalds, Taco Bell, maybe a locally-owned restaurant, etc, etc. Boycotting Chick-fil-A doesn't equate to boycotting fast-food (or "slow" food) everywhere. That can go for boycotting any type of store. CEO of an electronic store upset you? Take your business to their competitor. In short, there doesn't need to be a loss of economic flow with a boycott like you imply.
Let me see ... I can sit here and talk about how I'm bisexual, but they don't have the right to talk about how they're heterosexual? I can talk about how I'm an atheist, but they can't talk about how they're Christian? I can talk about how I like my relationships consisting of multiples, but "God" forbid they should talk about theirs consisting of two people? What the bloody hell is THAT?! In my native country, we call that a double-standard. Actually, no, we call that stupid.
But do please have fun boycotting a business on the behalf of many people with alternative lifestyles who largely don't give a bloody crap in the first place. :)
Here's something to think about: once you fork the money over and receive an item in return its no longer *your* money. Your connection to said funds is now OVER. If the bloke (or company) choose to spend it on hookers, livestock or what-have-you, its got nothing to do with you. But most likely, the majority of the money is going to payroll (employees who likely NEED those jobs), inventory and overhead.
I think part of the disconnect I feel to the bruhaha is the fact that I see life as being too bloody short to worry about where some bloke might spend the profits he's earned. I don't have the bloody time to research every company I patronise or product I buy to discern where those profits go (though it's nice that you've got that kind of free time). Perhaps it's also a tad that I, myself, wouldn't enjoy the scrutiny paid to the purchases *I* make with my earnings.
But mainly, I think it's bloody nosy of you all to concern yourselves so overmuchly with this tripe. Its ridiculous. But what the hell ~ since we're all scrutinising what those blokes do with their funds, what do YOU spend your money on? Unless you'd appreciate a critical eye on YOUR purchases, I'd avoid critising others.
Including you. As I explained to someone else, boycotting Chick-fil-A does not equate to boycotting fast food altogether. If I had been a regular customer of Chick-fil-A and decided to boycott, I could take my business to a competitor. There doesn't need to be a stoppage of economic flow because of this...especially since this deals with food! People have to eat, so they have to go somewhere else (even if it is to the grocery store so they can make meals at home). And Chick-fil-A is a small business??? Please! Now you're just being silly.
It would have been more appropriate to keep that to himself and a close circle of like minded people.
If you haven't noticed, our world is evolving and most citizens don't like seeing others put down because narrow minded people who still live in the past and feel threatened by evolution.
Do you own Chick-fil-A stock?