Chick-fil-A, perhaps the only fast food chain whose politics are more disgusting than its food, presents an interesting example of how people perceive political hot potatoes differently.
Those on the left focus on the bigoted views of the Christian fundamentalist owners who don’t believe in marriage equality. And those on the right tend to zero in on the punishment being threatened by elected officials for the business’ intolerance toward same sex couples.
It’s a fast ball down the middle for anyone interested in presenting a complicated social issue as being more nuanced than simply good or bad, right or wrong.
But that’s not the tack the Providence Journal took when its editorial board decided to tackle the issue. The Projo rightly called out pols who would punish Chic-fil-A for its bigoted views. Unfortunately it wrongly neglected to mention anything about Chick-fil-A’s bigoted views.
Here at RI Future, where we vehemently support marriage equality and often purposely focus ire at those who don’t, we did a better job at showing both sides of this issue! Something is seriously amiss with the marketplace of ideas when a left wing blog presents both sides better than the statewide daily newspaper. (In the Projo’s defense, the paper did run at least one AP story on the issue. Forgive me for not linking to it, but they’ve made it pretty hard to find).
If you’re interested, here’s a much better perspective on the issue.
Well stated.
I personally feel that Mr. Cathy’s comments and views are medieval and couldn’t disagree with them more. As a result, I will avoid doing business with the restaurant that makes money for him.
It sets a very dangerous precedent for city mayors to ‘ban’ businesses from their city based on the views of the owner. My understanding is that Chick-fil-A has not violated any laws regarding hiring practices or employment discrimination generally (although my information is spotty and indirect at best in this area). If the franchisees get the proper permits and operate the business within all the applicable laws, then no politician has any right or authority to deny that business a license to operate based on the view of the company’s owner.
Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with a mayor or other politician expressing the view that their constituents won’t like or patronize a business owned by an avowed bigot. As long as it ends there and doesn’t carry over into city policies, everyone’s entitled to express their opinion.
Before we turn Dan Cathy into a First Amendment patriot, I was just wondering: How many of the people who crowded CFA yesterday to support free speech were among the mob demanding to have Bill Maher drawn and quartered 11 years ago? Given the career he’s had since ABC fired him, how did that work out for the right? (Best part: when he promotes his theater and casino gigs at the end of each “Real Time,” ever notice how many shows he does in red states?)
Well, well, well. So Dan Cathy is a bigot for his stand stand on “gay” marriage. By that logic, the President of The United states, Barack Obama must have been a bigot for 3/4ths of his first term, because until about 6 months ago, HE opposed gay marriage. What are you going to do now, ban me too?
“What are you going to do now, ban me too?”
And so begins the martyr’s posturing in the wake of RTW’s inevitable banishment.
“Barack Obama must have been a bigot”
Not an uncommon sentiment among progressives, before Obama’s change of position and to this day.
“Not an uncommon sentiment among progressives, before Obama’s change of position and to this day.”
It’s amazing how an impending election and a bumbling fool for a VP will change your position.