I understand that the CEO of this chain is a 'traditional marriage' advocate and I can appreciate his rights for freedom of speech.
I also understand that now with Citizen's United being the law of the land, corporations are now people.
Are we REALLY going to use a fast food chain to draw battle lines on a issue that has NOTHING to do with food? If the CEO wants to express his personal opinions and beliefs, then go right ahead. But I can't agree to a company endorsing discrimination simply because a person in a place of power has the opinion that he does..What about the significant opinions of the other workers of the chain? Is the chain anti-gay or just the CEO. I haven't seen the offical mission statement from the company, but if it includes political issues in the statement, then I'm sure the company will be fined for discrimination.
I also can't abide by the comments of certain city mayors that are telling Chick-Fil-A to GTFO of their cities.. Boston mayor Menino has been known to say things that are not in the best interest of the residence of boston and I beleive that his comments on this is in the catagory of 'not good for Boston'.
You can disagree with a person's ideas and beliefs, but that does not give you providence over another's life, business or choices. I can see taking action if Chick-Fil-A wont serve a person just because he or she is not hetero. Thats a different story then the speech being made by the CEO. Menino has been more confrontational on this issue. If people want to eat there and know that their money is going to a cause that they don't or do beleive in, then that's their choice.
What ever happened to free market? I thought that was one of the tenets of this country. Free market.... I keep hearing that over and over. Well, let the market solve this issue. If enough people boycott the chain, then changes will happen..Or if enough people support the chain, the same thing will happen..The Montgomery Bus Boycott comes to mind.
With Palin, huckabee and others coming to the aid of the resturant and hosting rallies for their cause, I feel like once again we are missing the big picture when it comes to these discussions. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you want to color it. I've read about the civil rights movement and all the talks that went along with it.. In the end, the rights of blacks were upheld and the dissent would comment on how this is the end of the world as we know it...Well, yeah it is..and its not..I can't find a single federal law that legalized 'interracial marriage' or made it crime. I can't find a single federal law besides the unconstitutional DOMA that is on the books on a federal level.
I don't listen to Rush and I find alot of the things he says to be vulgar, idiotic and incendiary. So do I promote a rally to get him off the air, or just not listen to him? I can't understand the calls made after the Fluke incident asking rush to get off the air. Just because you don't agree with a persons beliefs, does not mean you can use force to prevent them from saying what they want. Many people don't listen to Bill Maher..I never miss his show. This doesn't mean others should force me to stop watching a show I like because their ideology is different then mine..HOWEVER, they need to understand that they have a right to say what they want, and I have a right to do the same.
At the end of the day, I hear the same argument from the opposition..That this is against their religious rights..I disagree.. This is not against anyone's religious rights, its against the basic rights of a group of american citizens. The same battle has been going on since the start of this country, the actors have changed but not the argument; blacks, muslims, irish, german, dutch, italian..communists..and now its gone into the realm of religion v civics. Its unconstitutional for one group to be given rights another group does not possess..
Religion is being used and abused in this case and the dissent is trying to forge this into an anti-religion debate when this argument is baseless and factless. No one is telling churches that they need to marry homosexuals and no one is telling religious organizations what to do..These are private companies that are in business to provide a service for profit. The distinction is small but important. When religion is injected into a debate that is not inherently religious, it provides fodder for both sides and does not move the conversation to a resolution.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote "“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
What the hell does a fast food resturant have to do with religion or civil rights? It doesn't, its just a red herring to detract from the real debate at hand. Its there to flare tempers and tug at people's core beliefs instead of providing a foundation for productive debate.