Thursday, July 26, 2012

Chick-fil-A and Intolerance of Intolerance

The Mayor of Pittsburgh has joined the Mayors of Chicago and Boston by informing Chick-fil-A that its leaders’ stand on same-sex marriage is not welcome and thus their chain is not welcome in their respective cities.

I think this is a very dangerous slippery slope.

For starters, there are the legal and constitutional ramifications of governments that punish companies for the beliefs of the leadership of those companies.  I’ll leave that subject to the experts in those respective fields.

But if we are now going to start a moral crusade by punishing every company whose leadership has beliefs that we don’t agree with, then let’s line up the leadership of the Fortune 500 and fry them now because I’m sure every company has a leader who has a belief or who has committed some act that someone doesn’t agree with.

I happen to know that the CEO of one of the largest companies in the world has a significant hash pipe collection.  Does this mean that if we are strongly anti-drug that we will stop buying the products of that company?  Would someone consider this leader’s values to conflict with our “war on drugs”?  What about the paradox for those who work for the company who have to undergo drug screening?

Secondly, when Chicago Mayor Emanuel said that Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values, I’m not certain who appointed him the de facto representative of everyone’s values on every issue.

I’m not even certain what Chicago’s official values list looks like.  Can someone point me in the direction of this official list?

Thirdly, it’s easy for many people to get behind the mayors of these cities and support their pro-same-sex message.  After all, it’s always easy to get behind someone and support their message when you agree with THAT message.

But what happens when at some point down the road, mayors or other government leaders decide to take similar action for other areas of moral judgement based on THEIR opinion and you suddenly discover that you don’t agree with THAT particular choice?

It will be too late to do anything, because we will have enabled them by our support or apathy in this instance.

There is also an irony in the Boston mayor’s comments – to preach intolerance of other people’s opinions because we feel they are intolerant of ours is to hope that two wrongs make a right.

Weren’t we taught as children that this doesn’t work?

Whether we strongly agree with or disagree with an opinion is one thing.

However, when a government threatens legal action over the opinion of a citizen or when it claims to represent everyone’s values and morals is another.  Such assumptions have the potential to destroy the great nation built upon ideals such as the First Amendment and the belief that through the expression and debate of opinions, a great nation can learn to strengthen itself.

But then again, yelling at people who disagree with us appears to be the norm these days.  Maybe the people of the great nation of the United States of America would prefer to intimidate anyone who dares to have a difference of opinion.

And if that’s the case, I wonder if it’s only a matter of time before the First Amendment and the Second Amendment collide.

Whether that happens or not, when the day arrives that we are not entitled to our own opinion, it will be a sad day indeed.

Maybe that day has already arrived and we just don’t know it yet.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

 

Addendum: July 27, 2012

The bashing of Chick-fil-A continues, as does the rhetoric and the false information suggesting things about Chick-fil-A that are not true.  I wonder what social cause these government representatives will embrace next. 

There is another slippery slope here.

What happens if a mayor or other politician with intent to run for election / re-election discovers they have a powerful opponent in a particular organization’s leadership and uses the guise of a “social cause” to discredit / disempower their opponent?

Would the average voter be able to see through such an act?

I highly doubt it.

What happens if the same politician leverages an emotionally-loaded cause to “use” the electorate, playing on their feelings and emotions while vaulting the politician in their campaign, all the while leveraging an issue that the politician doesn’t actually care about?

Ah … I forgot.

That would be politics as usual.

Final thought

Someone told me I was brave for publishing this because I said what they wanted to say but were afraid to do so for fear of backlash.

While I didn’t say anything that was controversial, such a comment reflects the possibility that perhaps the sad day has indeed arrived where differences of opinion are truly not welcome.

What is also sad is that I don’t see the leadership in Washington, either incumbent or challenger, make any comment that would demonstrate their desire to stand with the law and the Constitution on such a sticky matter.

But such wishy washy behavior would be politics as usual also.

8 comments:

  1. Harry,

    So these leaders want us to follow their lead? To what end? There are TOO MANY VALUES that would need to be cataloged in order for a govt "to get it right." That would mean more and larger govt. Sorry, let the market place of ideas and values decide the outcome of this battle. If people like it, it'll stay, if not, it'll lose and disappear.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point, Kevin

    And if past behavior is indicative of future performance, many politicians example of morals and values leaves a little to be desired (or a lot in some cases).

    Create a Blessed day.

    Harry

    ReplyDelete
  3. Harry,
    Great post. The people that want to use government as their attack dog and point it towards groups or businesses that they don't agree with often forget that the attack dog is collectively owned and has no real loyalty.

    I find this particular situation interesting because basically what I'm hearing is, "We don't agree with the opinion that government should be used as the arbiter of who can marry. So, if you hold that opinion, we want to use government as arbiter or who can do business based on your opinion."

    Fighting fire with fire makes more fire that can get out of control. Fighting government force with government force makes more government force that can also get out of control.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well said, Nathan.

    And once we've "let slip the dogs of war", there may be no pulling them back.

    When it comes to same-sex marriage and the stand by some of these mayors, think of this. The US military for years had an anti-gay policy, whether explicitly stated or disguised under DADT .... but the same mayors didn't tell the US military that they weren't welcome (even though the discrimination is the same).

    I think people also need to be careful when allowing someone to fight on their behalf. Oftentimes the person we are hiding behind is actually fighting for their own benefit, not the people they claim to be serving, and this doesn't come out until later.

    Take care and create a great day!

    Harry

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Harry,

    First off, Mayors don't have the power to stop a particular business from opening up. They know it. We know it. It is political theater.

    Secondly, the use of political theater to oppose all kinds of private practices has been going on for centuries. This is far from new. Ever wondered why 98% of all fast food restaurants in the South of the USA are owned by white folks, while over 50% of the employees and customers are black? Where you been, Harry?

    Third, if Chick-fil-a's CEO was shown to have a hash pipe collection, I'm sure some folks would stop eating at the restaurant. That would be their right. If KFC's CEO publically admitted to viewing porn, I'm sure other folks would stop eating at KFC. That would be their right too. If I want to stop eating at Chick-fil-a, that is my right.

    I don't think it is wrong to be intolerant of intolerance. I have no problem with free speech. The CEO has the right to put his personal money wherever he wants, and to direct corporate money to non-profits that he believes in. The general public has the right to judge him on the basis of his values and his contribution habits. That is free speech too.

    Oh, and while mayors didn't oppose the military, some universities did. Recruiters were kicked off of campus while DADT was in place.

    Governments always fight on behalf of their voters. It is their job. It isn't always right... sometimes the voters are wrong. But democracy works that way. It's messy. But I don't oppose democracy just because it's messy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Nick,

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

    A couple of thoughts to note in my response:

    1. I never tell someone his or her opinion is wrong. I may differ in opinion but I only point out that someone is wrong if they are referencing an established fact incorrectly.

    2. I prefer to discuss the opinions and facts directly without personal attacks, explicit or implied, against the owner of those opinions and facts. Once I start attacking the individual, I am attempting to use intimidation and not persuasion and facts to make a point and so I stay away from such attempts.

    Now, on to your points (your comments between || ||):

    ||First off, Mayors don't have the power to stop a particular business from opening up. They know it. We know it. It is political theater. ||

    While I indicated in my blog that this is political theater, I checked with a former mayor in NJ and he indicated that they DO indeed have the right to do so, knowing that it can be fought in court and can be a political minefield if the decision goes against them legally or publicly.

    || Ever wondered why 98% of all fast food restaurants in the South of the USA are owned by white folks, while over 50% of the employees and customers are black? ||

    Two comments – what is your point and can you point me to the survey or study that shows this to be the case?

    ||Where you been, Harry?||

    Unnecessary comment that has nothing to do with this discussion.

    To be continued ........

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...... continued from previous post

    || If I want to stop eating at Chick-fil-a, that is my right. ||

    Agree 100% - that is democracy in action. Someone makes a choice and the other side makes a choice in response. I have never disagreed with this nor stated that I was against it. I am concerned about GOVERNMENT making the choice on our behalf, as I believe I clearly stated.

    ||I don't think it is wrong to be intolerant of intolerance.||

    I merely find it ironic that when one person says they believe in “x” and they don’t tolerate any aberration, that the other side says that we cannot be intolerant of others when making the statement is a statement of intolerance. It solves nothing and instead of dialog, starts an intense argument where everyone is shouting and no one is listening.

    || I have no problem with free speech. The CEO has the right to put his personal money wherever he wants, and to direct corporate money to non-profits that he believes in. The general public has the right to judge him on the basis of his values and his contribution habits. That is free speech too.||

    Agree 100% - but again, I am not referring to what the general public did. I wrote about what elected officials did.

    ||Recruiters were kicked off of campus while DADT was in place. ||

    A small action taken by educational institutions. I was referring to the mayors who didn’t take any large-scale action then because they knew they would lose.

    ||Governments always fight on behalf of their voters. It is their job.||

    I don’t believe this is universally true.

    || It isn't always right... sometimes the voters are wrong.||

    This is a grey area that can be debated forever. How do we know when voters are wrong? If government is representation for the people by the people, I would expect that if voters are wrong, they put the wrong person in power as well as a byproduct of being wrong. If politicians see voters as wrong, is it merely perspective on the part of the politicians or is it convenient to suck up to the voters and do something other than the platform that they ran on, citing that the voters are wrong?

    This is a difficult area with no clear right or wrong answer.

    ||But I don't oppose democracy just because it's messy. ||

    I didn’t say I opposed democracy. In fact, it is because I believe in it that I wrote this blog. The political theatrics being attempted by these mayors is in violation of the First Amendment and various laws of the land (as pointed out by legal authorities). Where is our democracy if the laws of the land can be violated by the people whom we vote to uphold them?

    Create a great day,

    Harry

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bottom line for me ... politicians don't always do what we want them to do, an unfortunate byproduct of the imperfections of the system itself and imperfections in human beings.

    However, when there is a possibility that the politician may be overstepping legal boundaries (either in the interests of voters or for personal interests, sometimes with a blurry line between them) then I have an issue with turning a blind eye to their actions.

    ReplyDelete