Waffle Fries With a Side of Freedom: The Chick-fil-A Pickle

I like Chick-fil-A. Always have. Probably always will. Before last week, there was no question in my mind where I would go if I were in the mood for some chicken fingers and a sweet tea (except for Raising Cain’s in Dinkytown. No question). Now, incredulously, I find myself in danger of making a “statement” by my choice of chicken.

When my friend told me last week, in disgust, that Chick-fil-A was “anti-gay,” (his words, not mine) I wasn’t surprised. I knew of Dan Cathy and his views and was aware that there was never any attempt to hide the fact that Chick-fil-A is an unabashedly Christian owned and operated company. As such, I was sure that the gay-marriage and gay-rights issue was going to come up sooner or later. However, when my friend told me that Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel, the mayors of Boston and Chicago, respectively, had publicly criticized and verbally banned the chicken chain from opening stores in their cities, I had to take a moment and gather my jaw from the floor.

Luckily, my friend and I, while having extremely differing viewpoints on most political issues, are intelligent and civil enough to where we can have discussions, often heated, with no fear of getting personal. So what followed was a lengthy discussion of the appropriateness of both Chick-fil-A’s gay-marriage comments and the ensuing firestorm of response. I’ll spare you the lengthy details, but he sided against Chick-fil-A, stating, “I have no tolerance for intolerant people.”

Now, this individual is quite smart and has a fondness for wordplay, so I assume he meant the statement somewhat as a joke, but he raises an interesting point that plays into my opinion on the matter:

The backlash against Chick-fil-A from gay-marriage supporters and gay-rights advocates has been so severe, yet I can’t understand why. I mean; I understand that millions of people are very passionate about gay-rights and believe that homosexuals should have the right to be legally married, same as heterosexual couples. I get it. What I still can’t understand, and this goes for some people on the opposite side of the issue as well, is why anyone would be so vitriolic towards an individual or group that holds a differing opinion.

Last time I checked, this was America. We have this nifty little document as part of our history called the Constitution. The First Amendment to that beautiful document says:

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Through the years the wording and meaning of this sentiment have been diluted down to communicate, at it’s simplest, that under the Constitution of the United States of America, all Americans have the right to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly.

Perhaps I’m wrong on this, but under that umbrella I would put the right to hold an opinion on a divisive social issue. Therefore, although certain individuals may disagree, Dan Cathy is allowed to have whatever opinion he wants regarding the gay marriage issue. He doesn’t believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry under the same definition as heterosexuals. That’s his right. Conversely, to the millions of people who disagree with Cathy and think he’s wrong, they’re entitled to that right too. The beauty of America is that we all have the freedom to disagree. Unlike some fascist and police-state governments, we, as Americans, are supposed to be able to believe whatever we want and likewise be able to vocalize those beliefs. That’s a beautiful thing.

So as far as two sides disagreeing on a polarizing issue, I say “so what?” That’s America; but to major cities placing “bans,” official or not, on a business chain due to differences in belief? That truly makes my head hurt and I think both mayors should be publicly chastised. I repeat, they are entitled to their opinion, but this now has gone beyond the “gay-marriage issue.” When local governments declare a ban on a private business, it’s no longer a “gay-marriage issue” but now a freedom of speech and free enterprise issue.

Business should be allowed to operate in America regardless of the founders’ personal stances on political issues. If all business CEO’s had to unanimously agree on all issues political, religious, and otherwise, America wouldn’t exist.

Now, inevitably the anti Chick-fil-A activists may argue, “Well, what if a business opened up that was owned and operated by [insert any controversial group here, but for the purpose of this argument we’ll use:] the KKK and espoused their beliefs?”

Well, first I would say you’ve already lost your argument. Chick-fil-A, unlike the KKK, is not discriminatory in nature. Dan Cathy never said that his business ever has or will refuse to serve homosexuals or publicly discriminate or mistreat them as such. Therefore, it remains a free enterprise issue in addition to a matter of freedom of speech.

I’m continually baffled by individuals that, when faced with a divisive issue, take sides with such fervor and are livid when anyone else disagrees with them, as though their opinion suddenly holds more cosmic authority. To clarify, I am not criticizing all opponents of Chick-fil-A. As stated earlier, disagreeing and even protesting is their right. However, I still am asking for someone to point out exactly how it makes sense to hate and ridicule an individual or company because they’re not as “tolerant” as the individual would like.