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.
No comments:
Post a Comment