Chick-Fil-A-Holes: A Commentary

Leave a Comment
The United States has a long tradition of sensationalized and exploitive journalism.  Today the top news in our country centers on the socio-political beliefs of a fast food chain.  Yes, that’s right: more people are talking about the close-minded, bible-endorsed intolerance of the Chick-Fil-A CEO than they are anything else.  This is absurd for a number of reasons.

Chick-Fil-A is a Business

It is simply bad practice for a fast-food entity to make any sort of political declaration.  They are a business.  Their only purpose, should be, to make money.  Yet, their CEO is so overcome with antiquated standards that he injected into his business something that could potentially damage it.  It stands to reason that refusing all people the same rights to marriage is more important to him than his livelihood.

The First Amendment

I agree with the First Amendment.  No one’s thoughts or beliefs should be encroached upon, or otherwise silenced in this country.  I fully back Chick-Fil-A in exercising their right to free speech.  But, when someone’s belief is based on hate and intolerance, a backlash needs to be expected.  Say what you want, when you want, to whomever.  It is our right to do so.  But, sooner or later you need to examine whether or not what you’re saying makes you look like an asshole.

Intolerance Does Not Need a Holiday

I am talking about “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day.”  Forget the absurdity of having a holiday with the term “Chick-Fil-A” in its title.  Focus instead on what this means.  People came out in droves not for the sole purpose of buying chicken sandwiches; they came out to say, “I don’t think same-sex couples deserve the same rights, treatment, or quality of life as opposite-sex couples.”  It is nothing more than a hate-based demonstration, the profits of which are flooding into the pockets of Chick-Fil-A.  A clear line is being drawn down the center of the country dividing us into two groups: those that understand what “equal” means, and those that misinterpret the bible.  I would go so far as to say that the difference is between right and wrong.

The mentality of not providing one group the same rights as another, but pretending to, goes back to 1890.  The popular way to say it was, “Separate but Equal.”  Here we have civil union, but not marriage.  And in some cases, not even the prior.  While the current segregation method does not include separate water fountains or assigned seats on public transportation, the segregation is clear.  The arena is the institution of marriage.

What is Gained?

Politicians like Romney are using this whole thing as a way to gain voters.  And, hey, that’s fine.  That’s part of the game.  It is, however, morally reprehensible to harness the intolerance of many as a means to an end.  It is undignified and without moral.  Rather than choosing to be a leader, to educate the country on lifestyles that are not instantly apparent to those having lived sheltered lives, who are brought up in a field of bigotry, Romney is choosing to lead them further into misunderstanding.  He is endorsing intolerance and providing validation for bigotry.  It is not because he is a Republican, a Mormon, or any other label.  It is because he does not understand the concept of all men being created equal.  That goes for all those that willingly congregate at a fast-food chicken joint in the name of intolerance.


Post a Comment