Chick-fil-A flap reveals opponents' intolerance
E. Thomas McClanahanChalk this up as another example of how we often say about others what most applies to ourselves. After Chick-fil-A chief Dan Cathy said he opposed gay marriage and backed the “Biblical definition of the family unit,” a Chicago Alderman declared that he would deny the company a permit to open a store in his ward.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel made similar noises about thwarting the company’s efforts to expand. Ditto for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.
Emanuel and Menino have backed off their initial knee-jerk reaction, but it was revealing nonetheless. How much more intolerant can you be as a public official than to say, “I don’t agree with your stand on (choose an issue), so I’m going to use my power to shut you down”? It’s one thing for people to organize boycotts and protests, but bullying on an official level is banana-republic stuff.
The Chicago alderman, Proco Mereno, has acknowledged that under the First Amendment he couldn’t deny Chick-fil-A a business permit based on Cathy’s gay marriage views. But he said he would still fight the company.
Mereno said he couldn’t back a company that won’t pledge not to discriminate — even though Chick-fil-A says it treats every person with “honor, dignity and respect, regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”
How much smarter would it have been for these politicians to simply say, “We strongly disagree with Mr. Cathy’s views, but his company is welcome to invest in our town, employ our citiizens, and see if it can build a market.”
William R. Nelson
9 months, 3 weeks agoI guess jobs and tax revenue are so plentiful in Boston and Chicago that Emanuel and Menino can unilaterally decide which successful businesses will or will not open in their respective fiefdom.
I’m glad they changed their tune, but this speaks to a larger philosophical gulf in the conservative VS liberal divide:
Conservatives treat citizens as adults who can successfully manage their affairs by voting with their feet and wallet.
Liberals treat citizens as children who need to be managed by their political betters via more restrictive policies and laws.
And so it goes…
Mark Hastert
9 months, 3 weeks ago“Conservatives treat citizens as adults who can successfully manage their affairs”
…then let people manage their own affairs and make an adult choice of who they marry and stop forcing them to defacto follow your religious beliefs. Chick-fil-A’s actions belie their espoused philosophy.
People on either side are allowed their freedom of speech and to patronize the businesses they want to. With business you speak to them in the only language they understand, your money. the best way to counter negative reaction to Chick-fil-a is for their supporters to dine there every night…. but be sure to take you statin drugs.
Matt Henry
9 months, 3 weeks agoNelson is right in that conservatives do believe in certain fundamental building blocks of a society, like the traditional family as the unit that holds a society together, and must be protected.
But it is those on the left who believe that average people are incapable of making their own choices. Nanny Bloomberg is now encouraging hospitals to keep formula under lock and key so that new mothers will make the “right” decision and breastfeed. A classic case of an elitist thinking he knows what is right for everyone else. And the list is myriad.
Conservatives believe that a very few, core elements of society must be protected and then let a free people thrive. Liberals believe in “you didn’t build that” statism where the individual has no meaning and certainly no intelligence when compared to their betters in the state machinery. And God knows they have no tolerance for those who don’t agree; Chick-fil-a treats their employees and customers with respect despite differences between them. Can the same be said of the boycott-happy pc nazis who don’t agree with them 100%?
Kent Mueller
9 months, 3 weeks agoMark….Mr. Cathy was speaking as a private citizen, if that is possible for a CEO in this sad day and age. Look, I have no problem with gay marriage. But, he spoke his opinion, and the left hates that someone expresses an opinion different from theirs.
Please tell me what Mr. Cathy did to be “forcing them to defacto follow your (his) religious beliefs”. How does “Chick-fil-A’s actions belie their espoused philosophy”? What has Chick-fil-A done or said that would cause you to say that?
Will you answer those questions? You made some very serious accusations.
Where is the tolerance the left usually calls for? Even Democrat mayors and aldermen are getting into the intolerance game. Until the mayors walk their statements back.
Dear Mr. McClanahan: Thanks for a most thoughtful editorial. For once, I fully agree with you—I usually don’t!! There is a frightful quality of “thought control” among the modern PC Police—these individuals pretend to want “tolerance” and “diversity”—what they actually want to do is use state power to forcibly silence all who dissent from them. For the PC Police, having abortion legal and the growing acceptance of gay marriage is not enough—they also want all those who oppose abortion and gay marriage to be silenced. What we need in this nation is more journalists like Mr. McClanahan who will stand up to the PC Police the way that the late, great Edward R. Murrow stood up to the “Anti-Communism Thought Police” in 1954. Take care!! Sincerely and Respectfully Ernest Evans
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 3 weeks agoWhat people need to do is to shop at C-f-A this Wednesday to show their APPROVAL of the company.
We need to show our support for a company that values traditional marriage. Let the thugs of Chicage and Boston be thugs; we can be supportive consumers and make this Wednesday a record day for C-f-A!!!
Rachel Elaine Hines
9 months, 3 weeks agoI don’t agree with the views expressed by Dan Cathey and since I have known about them for years, I have not patronized his restaurants. I feel that he is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to then take my business elsewhere, a decision based as much on my disgust for Mr. Cathey’s views as on the fact that I don’t want my money given to a business that will then turn around and donate it to organizations that actively work against equal marriage rights.
I don’t agree with the mayors in Chicago and Boston, however. It is one thing for private citizens to boycott and quite another for public authorities to use their power to block a business.
And I love what Mark Hastert wrote. He is absolutely right.
Mark Hastert
9 months, 3 weeks ago“But it is those on the left who believe that average people are incapable of making their own choices.”
So Matt I’ll say it again. let them make their choices about who they love and who they marry. You make your’s too.
What you and other’s (see Kent) refuse to acknowledge is that you’re beliefs are based in your particular religion and by attempting to legislate your religion you violate other’s rights to believe and practice anything different. You go practice your religion, let others practice their’s or practice none at all. Get it?
Kent Mueller
9 months, 3 weeks agoRachel,
Please read the portion of my earlier comment stating that I am supportive of gay marriage.
Ok, now. You said that you have known about Mr. Cathy’s beliefs for some time. Good for you for being a knowledgeable consumer. I have no problem with you avoiding his restaurants. I also agree with your disagreement with two mayors doing what they did in their official capacities. My question to you on this issue is this. Since you vote with your feet and not patronize Chic-fil-A, would you also not vote for either of those two mayors if you were a citizen of one of those cities? Think about that, please. I don’t think you could, if you are also avoiding Chic-Fil-A locations.
Also, you said you agree with Mark. I asked a couple of question of Mark that he has not been able to respond to as yet. Since you agree with him, could I get your answers to my questions. I will await Mark’s.
Here goes. Here is what I asked Mark about his remarks. “Please tell me what Mr. Cathy did to be “forcing them to defacto follow your (his) religious beliefs”. How does “Chick-fil-A’s actions belie their espoused philosophy”? What has Chick-fil-A done or said that would cause you to say that?
Will you answer those questions? You made some very serious accusations.”
Ok, those are my questions to Mark. Since you said you agree with him, I am interested in your response also. Thank-you in advance.
Kent Mueller
9 months, 3 weeks agoMark, be more careful about what you say I believe. Didn’t you read what I wrote? I said I have no problems with gay marriage. Yet, you write “What you and other’s (see Kent) refuse to acknowledge is that you’re beliefs are based in your particular religion and by attempting to legislate your religion you violate other’s rights to believe and practice anything different. You go practice your religion, let others practice their’s or practice none at all. Get it?”
Why did you include me in that, Mark? I’m not imposing my religion on you or anyone else. You totally ignored what I said, and chose to smear me.
Is this where you do the honorable thing and apologize? You did call me out by name on that, Mark. Do I hear an apology?
Kent Mueller
9 months, 3 weeks agoMark, along with your apology for severely misstating my beliefs, would you answer the questions I asked above. They are eminently fair questions. You made some very specific allegations and I am asking that you back up those allegations.
Matt Henry
9 months, 3 weeks agoIt is no secret even in the hallowed halls of academia that our unique American culture’s morays of right and wrong trace themselves through a long history of Judeo-Christian belief systems. Those opposed to gay marriage are no more imposing their religious beliefs on someone else than is someone who stands opposed to murder, which coincidentally happens to be God’s sixth commandment, or theft which is the eighth.
And as to your charge that my beliefs are based on a “particular” religion, you would be hard pressed to choose which of the major world religions or any of their offshoots that I am, because they all, for the most part, stand opposed to gay unions.
Ross Douthat had a pretty great opinion piece in the NYT just a couple of days ago on this issue. You ought to look it up. It makes it pretty clear that it is folks like you, Mark, who are the intolerant ones.
Steve Alleman
Kansas City
9 months, 3 weeks agoCathy believes gay people do not deserve the right to marry. This is an intolerant viewpoint. I don’t oppose his right to state his views, but I insist on my right to point out that they are intolerant. Cathy wishes to deny gay people the civil rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. Only inside the wingnut bubble is opposition to intolerance considered an example of intolerance.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 3 weeks agoNice try Steve…
Gay “marriage” IS NOT a civil right. This canard has been dreamt up by the far left to try and justify how it is so wrong to deny these people the label of “marriage”. These people want everyone to view them as “normal”, which they are not.
32 or so states have spoken that it is to be forbidden by so stating in their respective constitutions, or in your world are intolerant. Luckily MO is one of these states!!!!
Matt Henry
9 months, 3 weeks agoChuck calls Cathy’s position an “intolerant” viewpoint, casting “intolerance” out there like it is a obvious evil. This is as if “intolerance” is not blitheringly common in everything we do as our society has become less and less “tolerant” of individual liberty. I’m not allowed to smoke while on a park bench. In New York I’m not allowed to choose the size of my own drink. I can’t buy porn at the convenience store. I’m not allowed to do drugs even though I harm nobody but myself. A woman is not allowed to be a prostitute, you know, not allowed to do what she wants with her own body. I can’t even drive my car without wearing a seatbelt or a motorcycle without wearing a helmet when, if something goes bad, I am the one who has to suffer my own decisions.
And shall we get started on the nature of political correctness? Did you see the recent article about how any mention of the President’s big ears is racist? Please.
Don’t speak to me about intolerance from people like Cathy until those on the left quit judging every little decision anyone happens to make.
Phil Cardarella
9 months, 3 weeks agoTough choice as to who is dunber, the CEO or the politicians talking retaliation.
Frankly, there are a dozen reasons to avoid Chic. Lousy fries may top the list. The desire to NOT subsidize a guy who disrespects our neighbors may come next.
You know, the guy could have just kept his mouth shut on the subject. It is not like he is generally consulted on moral issues or marital ones. Lord knows he does not question the marital status of the folks who roll out of bed and head in to buy a sandwich.
But, George, civil marriage — gay or not — IS a civil right. It bestows certain rights and responsibilities under the laws of our land.
Each religious group may be free to deny CHURCH weddings to folks for reasons good or bad. Divorced Catholics have felt that discrimination for centuries — ever since the Pope couldn’t take Henry XIII’s bribe money, much as he wanted to. But athists and agnostics and people in a hurry can just be validly married in the eyes of the law by a judge.
In places like France, a church wedding is not a valid marriage. There must be a separate civil ceremony. In the USA, we allow ministers to perform both a civil and church ceremony at the same time — which may account for your confusion.
But, there is no more legal justification for denying valid civil marriage to a gay couple than there is to deny civil marriage to a person who is divorced — even a divorced hetrosexual Catholic bent on going to Hell for love.
Matt Henry
9 months, 3 weeks agoI’m not saying I disagree with Phil, but I would love to know why Gay marriage is a civil right? Is there something constitutionally that says this?
As for legal justification, if it is against the law in a state to allow a marriage to a gay couple but not to a divorced person, is that not by definition plenty of “legal justification?”
Not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t know where your legal justification or clear civil right is coming from.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 3 weeks agoLet’s see phil, did I say no to civil UNIONS? No. I agree that people have the RIGHT to say who can make medical decisions for them, whom to leave assets to etc.
You are trying to twist this into approving gay marriage, which, as you should well understand, is unconstitutional in MO. Isn’t it?
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 3 weeks agoDon’t forget everyone…. Tomorrow is National Chick-fil-A appreciation day. Frequent one close to you and tell them why you are doing it.
We need more people to publicly stand-up against the radical lefties as Mr. Cathy is doing!
Mark Hastert
9 months, 3 weeks agoLet’s distinguish marriage as a legal binding of two persons from the sacramental marriages blessed by a religion. A church has every right to deny the latter to anyone they wish, gay, mixed race, or a divorced Catholic but marriage as a legal civil entity is a different matter. I said before lets separate church ans state. Practice your religion as you wish but don’t force others to practice it.
Their fries really do suck.
Steve Alleman
Kansas City
9 months, 3 weeks agoIf the government sanctions marriage, then marriage must be made available to all citizens. Many states used to have laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying each other. Those laws were held to be unconstitutional, the principle being that marriage is a right and citizens must be allowed to marry freely. Gay marriage is not a civil right; marriage is a civil right.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 3 weeks agoIs there ANY policy issue you libs do not bring race into Steve?
You should get some coaching from lewis who is a master race-baiter.
Kent Mueller
9 months, 3 weeks agoMark, you are avoiding my questions and comments. You made an accusation about me that isn’t true. I would like you to address that. I also challenged you on your misrepresenting the Chic-fil-A issue. Please respond? Especially to your accusation of me.
Mark Hastert
9 months, 3 weeks agoGee Kent I think what I wrote is pretty clear. The main reason opponents of gay marriage cite is their interpretation of the Bible. They want to make it illegal (see defense of marriage act) purely on that basis. Therefore, the religious beliefs underlying the law are imposed on gays. If I wasn’t clear I hope I am now. I only made a reference to your comment, not an accusation. Touchy-Touchy
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 3 weeks agoKent,
Why do you give him ANY comments? After he vented against we old people again, I said no more talking to him.
He’s the type that should be shunned IMO….
Kent Mueller
9 months, 3 weeks agoMark, you included my name in an accusation about the legislative imposition of religious beliefs. I have never discussed my religious beliefs here, assuming that I even have religious beliefs.
It’s one thing to incorrectly paint with your broad brush by saying conservatives believe this or that. But you used my name very specifically when you made very specific statements. Am I being touchy, touchy? Damn right I’m touchy about being slandered by you.
So, Mark. I suggest that you don’t ever again use my name when you make claims as to how I believe unless you are very sure what you say is true. What you said was not true.
Mark Hastert
9 months, 3 weeks agoNo Kent, I referenced your comments not your beliefs. My point had to do what other call “Tradititional Marriage” Kent this is simple but I appreciate the chance to make the point again despite it being off topic.
Opposition to marriage rights are founded in biblical interpretation. Attempts to make that into law are in essence, attempts to make non-believers follow a religious belief to which they do not ascribe. You wrote that people have a right to their opinion, they do, but I’m saying that the aren’t entitled to write that opinion into law. Get it? I’m looking for folks to acknowledge the simple fact about the opposition for what it is, religion, nothing more. For the first time the majority of Americans support marriage rights, it’s no longer consensus. Also, for the sake of clarity, I’m not saying that Chick-fil-A should be denied building permits or harassed by local government officials that would be as bad or worse. Cool your jets, it’s not all about you.
Kent Mueller
9 months, 3 weeks agoQuit your lecturing there, Mr. Mark. You don’t need to lecture about religion. It is very tiring. You painted with too broad of a brush and everyone knows it. You had no idea, other than an assumption, what my beliefs are on gay marriage.
Mark Hastert
9 months, 3 weeks agoAs usual, Kent you missed the point entirely. You wrote “Please tell me what Mr. Cathy did to be “forcing them to defacto follow your (his) religious beliefs”. How does “Chick-fil-A’s actions belie their espoused philosophy”? What has Chick-fil-A done or said that would cause you to say that?”
So, I was answering to that. You appear to have not understood my point. Everybody is trying to obfuscate and distract from the fact that Mr. Chick-fil-A and others would legislate their religion. No one is denying their right to free speech. I understand that you have no objections to marriage equality you’re clear on that. But that isn’t my point, it never was. If you haven’t got it by now then I guess you just won’t. I don’t know what or if you believe about any religion. For all I know you’re a Druid or a Warlock, or an atheist, or the High Priest of Isis, it doesn’t matter. Get it?
Kent Mueller
9 months, 3 weeks agoMark, you have yet to explain what Mr. Cathy did to force anyone to defacto follow his religion. You also have not explained how Chic-fil-A’s actions has belied anyone or anything. What Chic-fil-A actions. Not what you perceive, what they have done.
I understand being a CEO is a 24 hour job, but his interview was as a private citizen, not speaking on behalf of the company.
Would the violations you say Chic-fil-A have committed go so far as to breach federal discrimination law? To what actions are you referring?
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 3 weeks agoYesterday’s National Chick-fil-A day was a whopping success.
We will see how tomorrow’s kiss-in day compares. I can’t wait to see the crowds, what, 2/3 people maybe.
Oh, the intolerance of the left….
Yesterday the American people stood up to the latest version of the “Thought Police” in the most moving assertation of American ideals of freedom of thought and speech since the late, great Edward R. Murrow took on Joe McCarthy in 1954. From the interviews in the media, a lot, perhaps most, of the record number of people who went to Chick-a-fil yesterday weren’t concerned about gay marriage; just as Joe McCarthy’s opponents were not Communists. No, they went because in America no one has the right to use state power to stifle free speech—and the merit of the issue is irrelevant, in America all people have the right to believe what they want. Hopefully, this massive national outpouring of support for Chick-a-fil is the beginning of the end for the Politically Correct Thought Police just the way that Edward R. Murrow’s 1954 broadcasts were the beginning of the end for Joe McCarthy’s Anti-Communism Thought Police. Take care. Sincerely and Respectfully, Ernest Evans