Chick-Fil-Hate: A Fast Opinion on the Fast Food Fiasco

If you have been watching the news lately, you will have undoubtedly heard all the hullabaloo concerning Chick-Fil-A catching back-lash for its homophobic views.  The "hate" in the title has a double-meaning; it concerns both the homophobic position Chick-Fil-A has chosen to take, in addition to the aggressive flack it has received in doing so.  To catch you up to speed:  recently, the founder of Chick-Fil-A (CFA for short) has taken a stance on the gay marriage issue by basically saying "we do not endorse same sex marriage".  For those who are not familiar with CFA, the company prides itself on high-quality food, coupled with a family-friendly, Christian atmosphere.  For the most part, there's no point of contention here.  The food is good, and I know the staff to always be very friendly and helpful.  About the only inconvenience I've ever ran into was not having the option to eat their chicken on Sunday because they're closed, but I can't pick up model glue at Hobby Lobby due to the same principle, so I've learned to live with less business transactions on Sunday.

Recently, the restaurant chain has had its business with Jim Henson's company severed, due to Henson's stance that states they will not do business with CFA simply because they don't desire to support a business that backs “traditional” marriage-based groups.  Henson's company prides itself on supporting diversity, and a slew of different lifestyles.  CFA, in response, has placed up signs in some of its restaurants stating that they're recalling Henson's toys due to a manufacturing error that causes children's hands to become stuck in the bottom of their puppets.  While CFA may or may not be dishonest in the real reason for the recall, it's horrible timing to recall all of your former business partner's toys when they've decided to cut ties with you.  Horrible coincidence or a shoddy attempt to save face?  You decide...but that's not what we're here for. 

So, now that word has spread, campaigns are being levied after CFA, with many folks swearing to personally boycott the restaurant.  Of course, like many issues related to the gay marriage debate, religion is playing a large part, with critics stating that CFA's stance against homosexual marriage is nothing more than religious bigotry practiced on a large-scale, and CFA advocates firing back stating that the boycott is an impediment on CFA’s opportunity to practice its religious convictions.  The purpose of this blog is to explore that accusation, and to view the situation as we know it in terms of religion and liberty.

The first question one must ask one’s self about the situation is this:  is CFA's stance against homosexual marriage religiously based?  The obvious answer is 'yes'.  It's an answer that doesn't need to be explored too in-depth.  The owner is a conservative Christian, and he's admitted it.  That's dust in the wind at this point, and the company takes pride in its Christian heritage.  It's nothing we would have to prove, and he's perfectly within his right to enjoy his religion as he so chooses.  He's also within his rights to model a business based on his ideas, as long as it's not a violent one.

However, the real question is -- does CFA have the right to support the anti-homosexual view?  Again, the answer is 'yes'.  Many critics are outraged at CFA's position because we view our companies as fair and equal workplaces; an ideology that should somewhat reflect society as a whole.  We view companies as public entities that shouldn't discriminate, and to think that CFA would be giving money to discriminatory groups is abhorrent.  That view, though, comes with a few frills.  A privately owned company like CFA is completely in its rights to donate where they wish.  Any company can back an ideology of discrimination as long as it is not actively pursued in the workplace or in the company itself.  CFA can donate to the anti-marriage advocates, or even the Klan if they so choose...but they do so at their own peril, especially if public opinion is highly critical of such actions.  Public opinion can make or break a restaurant chain, even if it has no real bearing on the beliefs established by one’s business model.

The whole argument comes down to freedom, and if we place the notion of freedom into the equation, both sides are at a stand-still, with the advantage placed in the hands of the people only because the people can shut the business down by denying them patronage.  Both sides are in the right because they’re exercising their rights.  CFA has the freedom to support who they will, but they do not have the right to actively discriminate in the work place.  And, they don’t.  They hire homosexuals, atheists, non-religious folks, African Americans, Hispanics, male, female, and those who have alternative lifestyles – I’ve seen just about everyone represented in one CFA or another.  Yes, they have a dress code, and yes, they want to portray a conservative atmosphere (I applied for a job there myself, so I can attest to this).  However, they do not actively discriminate in their hiring practices to the best of my knowledge any more than your average company does.  The dividing line stands between active discrimination as opposed to backing a discriminating ideology.  Think about it on a personal level:  Joe Citizen can join the Klan, he's given the right to be a racist bigot, but he cannot violently act upon his discriminatory thoughts or ideas without there being repercussions.  The same with big business.  Individuals don’t want to be an accessory to something they find to be morally reprehensible, and that includes giving money that they know is passed on to serve ends that they’re aware of and knowingly disagree with.  As citizens, we can’t stop CSA from spending its money however it chooses, but we don’t have to continue giving them money.

However, the religious aspect of CFA is blatantly obvious, and from the citizen's standpoint, it's a two-pronged social battle -- a battle between pro-gay and anti-gay folks, and Christian and secular points of view.  One only needs to hop onto Facebook and read the comments to see that the majority argument has been made concerning the religious angle.  And it should rightfully be pointed out that, if the religion did not exist as the main contributing factor, CFA may very much not be facing the issues it is now. 

As a citizen, though, I have to applaud my fellow humanity for deciding to boycott CFA.  I, as a person, cannot convince Joe Citizen to change his racist ways, but in the same manner as Mr. Citizen can freely express his views, I can freely express my disgust for his views.  I can stop doing business with Joe because I decline to have my money support his views.  I can turn my back on Joe, I can refuse to do business with him, and Joe can be driven into obscurity for his bigoted ways.  That is perfectly legal.  We can do the same with CFA.  I've heard quite a few comments that "this is another form of religious discrimination!"  Is it?  Wouldn't the better question be "who discriminated first?"  Or...what is the source of the original mode of discrimination?  Theism.  Christianity.  Religion discriminates all the time.  Homosexual, folks of another race, gender, religion, or creed -- every type of discrimination has a Biblical basis.  It isn't difficult to find verses supporting it.  I would start in Leviticus, personally. 

What we're seeing here isn't reverse discrimination – it’s normal folks taking a stand against a company that, even though its in its right to act how they wish in this situation, we don’t have to condone it or continue to support it.  There isn't one element in CFA's discriminatory policy that isn't rooted in Christianity and that, therefore, makes this partially a religious issue.  We're seeing people stand up against discrimination perpetrated by the religious practices of another to begin with.  One could argue in the whole gay marriage debate that religion doesn't factor into their belief, but you show me one argument against homosexual marriage that isn't fueled by personal religious beliefs, then you'll have set a precedent for a new argument that most folks aren't aware of.

Both factions are in the right here, legally.  Ethically, morally, the people have the advantage because they're doing nothing more than cutting off funding to a company that will forward that money to groups that we wouldn't normally support.  I'm thankful our constitution allows us the freedom to stand up and turn our backs on those we disagree with, just as I'm thankful that our private businesses can donate to whomever they wish.  However, I reiterate a personal theme of mine:  standing up and backing our beliefs always comes with a set of consequences.  CFA's consequence for standing for their convictions will be to lose business.  Such is the way the game is played and it shouldn't be any other way.

Atheist Discrimination: Reflections on Work and Domestic Settings

Recently, in conversing with some of my friends and associates, it seems our group has received a small bit of attention.  While this is a wonderful start to the Owensboro Freethinkers, and the more attention we can receive, the better, it has had some ramifications – both positive and negative – for individual members.  Interestingly, these ramifications echo a national trend of discrimination experienced by atheists from theists who feel threatened by our position, or otherwise just want us, as popularly stated on a well-known YouTube meme, to just “shut up”.  While the stories of these individuals are not for our focus, there are a couple of common threads echoed in the stories that I myself can attest to, and two of those threads upon which we will focus are the work setting and family relations.

I have to tell you a little bit about myself for before I jump into the meat of this blog.  For those who don’t know anything about me, I am an outspoken agnostic atheist.  I treat all ideas equally within their respective realms: all genius ideas are worthy of my respect and admiration; all fantastic ones are worthy of criticism and ridicule.  As an outspoken atheist, I usually have a no-holds barred attitude in matters of religion, and I love learning new ideas.  As such, I have shared the new ideas I have learned while questioning the old ones, popular and not, and while I was yet still in contact with my old theistic community, those ideas earned their scorn, frustration, and chagrin.  For about two or three years, I had sporadic contact with them, but we all eventually parted ways – they mostly in frustration, and I myself equally frustrated that, while my ideas were seemingly so common-sense to myself, they did not change any minds.  Looking back, I should not have expected it to be so. 

So why did I tell that background story?  As an outspoken atheist, I have been a victim of discrimination.  Now, the discrimination I have received, I wouldn’t call “aggressive” and, really, most of the push-back I’ve felt has been very passive, so I have no real complains.  I have thick skin – I can handle it.  I’m using myself as a point of reference, though.  In my experience, folks mostly talk about me behind my back (they’re usually too cowardly to approach me in person), but I haven’t been chased down by the villagers with pitchforks and scythes in hand, nor have I been broken on the wheel a la the Spanish Inquisition…yet.  We’re very thankful for the separation of church and state on this one, so the atheist’s personal safety is relatively guaranteed (and those who threaten it suffer legal consequences).

However, in forming the Owensboro Freethinkers, I have invited potential discrimination upon the group, and us as individuals.  Everyone lives their own lives the way they feel is best, but there are consequences for being vocal about what we think, feel, and how we believe.  My hope was to create a haven for fellow unbelievers or pro-rationalist and scientific minds to meet amongst friends, to toss ideas back and forth without having to have “God” interjected into the conversation and be judged when we reject it.  We are slowly growing and we’ve been successful in our endeavors.  But, the protection provided by our group only extends so far.  We as individuals, especially the atheists of the group, will face discrimination on a personal level.

The real question, albeit it is rhetorical, is “why”?  Nearly 80% of the population identify themselves as Christian in this country.  The U.S. Constitution guarantees you and me the same protection on a national level when it comes to freedom of speech and the right to have our own opinions on religion.  On the state level, it’s a different issue (though it shouldn’t be because state law cannot conflict with national law via McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819).  Legalities aside, theists usually discriminate for many reasons, but there’s one grand unifying theme behind it:  atheists are a threat to theists – plain and simple.  If we were not perceived as a threat in any way, shape, or form, we’d be free to practice our beliefs (or lack thereof) with few consequences.  However, because we atheists can successfully challenge the idea that God exists, why would theists take the chance to introduce that element into their work places and, even worse, why tolerate it from their own family, who under theist doctrine, is one cohesive unit made to glorify God?  Discrimination happens when atheists take a stand one way or another and, commonly, it us usually initiated or spear-headed by theists. 

Let’s look at the work setting first.  Quite a few folks see religion in the (secular) work place as a non-issue, which I believe is the correct analysis, because there’s no rational reason it should be.  As an atheist, I don’t discuss religion at work…unless I’m asked.  I do not flaunt my atheism into the work place, and I wish I could say that theists don’t do the same, but many do anyway.  As an atheist, when I’m on the clock, I couldn’t give a damn what anyone believes, unless it directly impacts the work that we have to do.  I have nothing to convince my fellow employees of, nor do I view them as potential converts.  I don’t have that drive to bring up the topic of religion so that I can change their minds on it.  I don’t bring it up when it can jeopardize my job.  That’s called ‘tact’.  However, sometimes conversations come up, and folks are placed on the spot.  I have told individuals that I’m an atheist when I am questioned, because I see no reason to lie.  Most folks are cool about it (I worked in a warehouse during the weekend, so they weren't the church-going crowd).  However, there were a few that freaked out, and one or two that treated me a bit differently after.  As an atheist, I don’t shun people because of their beliefs, nor do I see what belief in a god has to do with how an individual performs their work.  It's a non-issue that, sadly, becomes an issue at the discretion of theists.  Even mentioning activities remotely associated with atheism can shoot one’s self in the foot when seeking employment.  I made the mistake recently of placing that I began the Freethinkers on my resume to show community activism, and when I was asked to explain it, the interviewers cringed.  Needless to say, I didn’t get the job.  My bad – I learned my lesson.

Active religious discrimination in the work place is illegal under state and federal law.  This extends to a lack of belief as well.  However, I am pressured to hide my lack of belief in person, lest it offers a reason to not hire me.  Work place discrimination for atheists is common enough to be an issue.  One only has to log onto YouTube or Google websites like ExChristian.net to hear testimonies of folks who have lived through the same.  I haven’t had it occur too much to me, though, but to those atheists who have had it occur, all I can say is: we all pay the price for our convictions or lack of a belief, especially if we stand up for them.  It’s up to the individual to decide how they want to deal with how they believe, but the consequences still stand.  It still doesn’t make the discrimination right, though, and we should not be afraid of addressing it as it occurs.  Maybe more of our members have stories of discrimination in the work place, and while it doesn't happen as much compared to the family setting due to rules and regulations, it does still exist.

The dynamic is different in the family, though.  There’s no legal precedent or law that I'm aware of that guarantees freedom of expression in the family unit, especially if you’re a minor or are living under the graces of one who pays the bill.  Any atheist with an idea of the law understands that if you’re 18 or over, and you’re living with your parents or someone else who owns/rents the property, you’re at the mercy of their whims, as unjust as they may appear.  However, let’s remove the legalistic element and just look at the family as a unit.

My personal testimony:  I live on my own, so I’m free to express my views, though my views can affect my family, and they do.  For a long time, I posted remarks critical of religion on my Facebook page, and some of my relations were not too pleased.  Never be friends with your family on Facebook -- that's a golden rule.  However, my family and I had never talked about religion before (we still do not), but I am the black sheep because I have been vocal about my atheism and I have no apologies.  I have had violent threats, insults hurled, and basically every other harsh word one can toss in hopes to convince me otherwise of my position.  Nothing rational, mind you, just intimidation and threats.  

So, what's the point?  I have never once said to any family member:  “I can’t associate with you because you’re a theist”.  Why?  Because that's asinine...and kind of petty.  If one takes the time to search the internet and read testimonies, guess which side of the fence usually shuns the other?  If you said “theists”, you are correct.  Whether it is a Mormon family releasing their child because of their unbelief, or an Amish community shunning an individual, or a Pentecostal father kicking their son or daughter out of their house because of their disbelief, I have never read a testimony of an atheist removing someone from their family because of differing beliefs.  Atheists don’t have that precedent…though I’m open to the challenge of being proven wrong.

Atheists don’t see the world as a dualistic battle between good and evil, nor do we see our own family as loyal followers of moral lightness and darkness.  And, unless you’re directly harming us as individuals or our society as a whole, most atheists don’t see theists as a threat.  I, as an atheist, view humans as individual beings, and I value diversity.  Atheists can draw the distinction where they can respect the person but abhor an idea they hold, and still live and let live.  The theist world view is fundamentally different.  Atheists don’t assume that folks worship God or the Devil and we don’t see people in terms of their loyalty to one deity or another.  Theists do.  Most atheists see the world in shades of grey, whereas the Biblical basis for theists and how they view it is pretty black and white.  One is either for God or against him in theism and the Bible makes it pretty clear how to treat those who avidly speak out against theism (1 Corinthians 5, Paul instructs his followers to expel a wicked man from them; 2 Corinthians 6, Paul instructs Christians not to be “yoked” with unbelievers).  We are, according to theists, the “fools” who say there is no God (Psalms 14:1).  Christ himself said in Matthew 10:34-38:  “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.  Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”  Theists are taught to create a dividing line for humanity; an “us vs. them” mentality.  And while they’re taught to do it out of love or concern for the soul, the actions are rarely indicative of what most people would consider to be love.  Atheist discrimination in the family is the direct result of the religious creating divisions that don’t really exist.

I have never found the Atheist text that stated: “our freethinking, non-theistic ways have come to turn man against man, and anyone who does not subscribe to atheism is not worthy of your time or effort – thus sayeth Richard Dawkins, amen.”  It doesn’t exist.  We value humanity as full human beings – not pawns in a cosmic war who are expendable due to theological disagreements.  For those who have experienced discrimination at the hands of their family, it is truly tragic, but it’s the price we pay for unbelief.  Atheists aren’t petty enough to throw our own blood under the bus for a dichotomous good vs. evil belief system we can’t even prove.  Theists who do deny their own family for their unbelief should heed the words of their own Bible:  “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you”. (Matthew 7:1-2)  Atheists believe we have only one shot at life here on earth; we don’t devalue our love for our family because of ideology.  Life is too short to have that emotional blood on our hands.

These are just two realms where I’ve had something to say on the topic of discrimination.  I don’t hold any misguided apprehensions or views about it.  If an atheist is out in the world, not insulated, and they are independent, or if they have theistic family, or live in a theistically slanted community, that atheist will, if they open their mouths and are in the minority, experience discrimination from the majority religious.  Why?  Because we question matters, and it's uncomfortable for theists to have their beliefs questioned.  I can only speak for myself, but I would never trade the process of critical thought for social acceptance, but that’s why the Owensboro Freethinkers are here.  We value differing opinions, we value critical thought, and we don’t discriminate against people.  We're a little too far advanced in human history to justify it.