Sunday, July 29, 2012
Chic-fil-A: Tolerating v. Condoning
Mt Formspring inbox still frequently receives requests to clarify my position on gay marriage. Some supporters of gay marriage do not appear to know the difference between tolerating and condoning a certain thing. The problem in differentiation is relevant to the current chic-fila-a bruhaha, so it seems like a good time to address matters once again. Cast aside my true belief that government ought not regulate marriage at all. Marriage is a cultural/religious institution that predates government in the first place. There is no conceivable way any government will relinquish it power to regulate marriage, so there is no sense in even discussing the idea further. I do not condone gat marriage. I am a traditionalist who believes marriage is between a man and a woman. The idea that homosexuals should be able to marry is relatively new. Even ancient societies well accepting of homosexuality drew the line at marriage. However, when gay marriage is legalized--not I say when, not if--I will bebop along as I always have. What I have just demonstrated is the difference between condoning--the act of approving--and tolerating--enduring something one opposes. Chic-fil’A’s critics do not have to condone the company’s support for traditional marriage, but they do have to tolerate it. Unfortunately, there appears to be an epidemic among progressives that tolerance is allowing something they do not like, not trying to either change it or, failing that, get rid of it altogether. It is my understanding the Chic-fil-A COO said in a radio interview a few weeks ago when asked about the company’s Christian philosophy of business and support of traditional marriage, “Guilty as charged.“ Cathy’s answer set off a firestorm in which the mayors of Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago declared a ban on Chic-fil’a in their cities. Chicago in particular is an eye opener. Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Chic-fil-A;s values are not Chicago’s values. Amazing, considering native son Barack Obama was against gay marriage until joe Biden forced his hand six months ago, and Emanuel recently welcomed raging anti-Semite and gay marriage opponent Louis Farrakhan. Chicago values, indeed. Boston and Chicago have recently backed off the idea of banning Chic-fila-A when it was pointed out government cannot prevent a private company from doing business because of a difference in political opinion. No less an organization than the ACLU spoke up in Chic-fil-A’s favor. But the declaration by progressives Chic-fil-A ought to be banned for its political opinion is out there and telling. You must have the proper opinion or else. For the sake of full disclosure, let me say I like Chic-fil-A. I probably get food from there once or twice a month. I have done so for many years in three different cities in which I have lived. I appreciate the company’s Christian convictions, because they are also mine, but it would not matter to me if the company pushed another agenda or none at all. I eat there because I like the chicken sandwiches or the occasional nuggets. I have no emotional investment whatsoever. I am only commenting on the general principles involved. Those general principles are free speech and free enterprise,\ regardless of whether the entity in question shares what you deem the “correct” opinion. If there are any out there upset at what I have written here, I am genuinely curios as to why. Do you have a reason beyond chic-fil-a holding a different viewpoint than yours? Because to my knowledge, the company has never refused to hire gay employees. I am confident if they had, whoever was turned down for the job would have been hauled on MSNBC by now. I am also confident chic-fil-a does not refuse to serve homosexual customers. If the company has taken any actions beyond donating money to pro-family organizations, I am unaware of them. If anyone cares to enlighten me, please do. While you are at it, explain how any opposition to gay marriage is comparable to, say, iran lynching homosexuals for their sexual orientation. I am interested in why proponents of gay marriage see the opposition in nothing but absolutes, because that is pretty much where the criticism of gay marriage opponents is headed.