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.
