I hadn’t really intended to do a post on Chick-fil-A because I regard it as a fairly unimportant sideshow, but a couple of things came up. A buddy of mine was hoping I’d address it, and Tipsy included some thoughts of mine in a piece wondering if anti-Chick-fil-A sentiment had its roots in “Christophobia.”
I never spent a lot of time thinking about Chick-fil-A. When I go to fast food joints, I never care much for chicken sandwiches, so it was never a store I was going to seek out in the first place. I had a vague understanding that the company had staked out a position in the culture war. Closed on Sundays, but not just closed, but closed so its employees could honor the Sabbath. That assumes a whole lot about your employees and your relationship to them. But, hey, whatever. None of my business, really. Hobby Lobby was more distasteful to me because of their even more rampant commercialization of their Christian-tribal affiliations. They, honest to God, sell “Test-a-Mints.”
But, then I became dimly aware that the owner of Chick-fil-A said something negative about whether our gay citizens should have equal rights. And, again, dimly aware that some big city lawmakers started showboating by threatening to use legal authority to impair the company’s ability to do business in their cities. And then very aware that conservatives were showing their solidarity by eating fast food chicken.
Meanwhile, I responded on Twitter to the event by being a smartass in the back of the classroom shooting spitballs. So, I can certainly understand Tipsy thinking I had stronger feelings on the subject than I actually do.
First, based on what I know, I can conclude that the city lawmakers are out of line; legitimately creating First Amendment concerns among those who care about such things. Second, I think gays and those who support them are acting in a perfectly rational and defensible way when they choose to oppose Chick-fil-A’s position and to seek to do the company economic harm through boycotts or whatever. Company owners aren’t inertly believing something in a vacuum. They’re taking profits and directing them to organizations and candidates with political influence which, in turn, help ensure that laws and policies harmful to gays remain on the books. You can pick a side, or not, depending on your policy preferences.
So, if you pick the side of the gays over the side of Christian culture warriors, does that make you Christophobic? No. For me, even though I don’t happen to believe in the divinity of Jesus, I’ll still happily attend the fish fry of a local church to raise money for the local homeless shelter. Some of my gay friends are devoutly religious, and I don’t shun them for that. Which, I think raises a central point in this debate: neither side of the culture wars has a monopoly on Jesus. This point was made rather well, I thought, by those taunting the Chick-fil-A solidarity people by pointing out that many of those who would routinely ignore the plight of the homeless and hungry rushed out to eat fast-food chicken in order to show their support for gay rights antagonists.
A business owner with strong religious beliefs causes me no concern; but commercializing the culture wars for political influence catches my interest, particularly when I’m opposed to your policy preferences.
tipsy, like most chick-fil-a supporters, is either misinformed or fails to understand the entire point behind the protest. it’s not merely about dan cathy’s ignorant opinions: it’s about CFA donating millions to anti-gay groups like the family research council. so a portion of any money spent at CFA goes to groups that are actively trying to demonize gays and pass anti-gay legislation.
Knowing Tipsy, I wouldn’t count on him being misinformed or failing to understand anything. He’s well-read and very smart.
His opposition to same-sex marriage comes from religious convictions and not from a place of hatred or malice. I respect his opinions, disagree with them, and regret that they contribute in a minor way to societal policies that cause the quality of life of my gay friends to be less than it might be.
stAlio: I have eaten at Chick-fil-A twice, I think, since it came to Lafayette, I did not eat there Wednesday. For that omission, religion is ironically the explanation (I was fasting), though aversion to long lines probably would have changed my mind had I headed out that way on a mission.I’ve indeed paid no attention to the history of WinShape’s (not Chick-fil-A, it appears) charitable endeavors, but it’s my perception that the boycott was triggered by Dan Cathy’s comments to a Baptist publication, the charitable giving excuse an afterthought fig-leaf. Has mainstream media misled me? I’m shocked!
Doug: Thanks for giving credit that I don’t hate or feel malice toward gays and lesbians. (“Some of my best friends and family” yarns omitted.) But marriage is a very unusual three-sided “contract,” and my opposition to same-sex *civil* marriage comes, insofar as one can separate civil and religious marriage, from law school questions like “what interest of the state warrants licensure, divorce laws and other state involvement in anyone’s marriage?” I am painfully aware of what a mess “straights” have made of marriage and sexuality, but it remains the case that sexually active men and women, in general terms, tend to make babies willy-nilly.
If marriage as we’ve known it were broken forever, of which I’m not convinced, I’d be more inclined to get government out of the marriage business entirely than to create a new entitlement to whatever percent of gays and lesbians wanted to solemnize a permanent relationship.
Nobody yet has offered what I thought were satisfactory answers to, first, what state interest warrants licensing and conferring any benefits on an intrinsically infertile relationship; second, on what principle should polygamy, incest and other erotic arrangements remain unlawful once we allow that subjective attraction and desire to marry are sufficient for same-sex marriage?
If there’s a government interest (pandering to one’s political base doesn’t count) that truly applies to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples alike, then please identify it, and let’s call the expanded thingy “civil union” or “domestic partnership” rather than having the state push up, once again, against the “wall of separation,” by using so evocative a term as “marriage.” (If the clergy at the United Church of Christ or Unitarian Universalist Fellowship want to call it “marriage,” they’re free to do so, of course.)
Mind you: I’m not saying I’m presently okay with government benefits to “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships,” but rather that if someone, some day, takes the trouble to identify a real state interest, than I’d still contend for a name less fraught with connotations from those quaint old days we called “Christendom.”
(For what it’s worth, my dance card’s pretty full, and I don’t expect to follow further comments here.)
the boycott has been ongoing for some time. it merely got bigger after cathy’s comments drew more attention to CFA’s history.
as for the dodge that CFA is somehow distinct from winshape (a nonprofit created and run by CFA)… give me a break!
I can accept that you were unaware that a lot of people have been aware of Chik-Fil-A’s donations to anti-gay causes for some time. But just because you saw some lousy reporting on it doesn’t change the fact that people have been choosing to not support CFA for a long time, and that the recent remarks just put a spotlight on it.
(And really Doug, I’m not trying to “do the company harm” by not eating there. I’m choosing not to give money to someone who I know is going to support something I disagree with. Some slight harm may result from that, but the important thing to me is I’m not supporting something I disagree with. Implying I have harmful intent is making a pretty big assumption. If I wanted to do CFA *harm*, there’s a hell of a lot more I could do in that respect.)
But the “state interest” dodge, eh?
Problem is, the state conferring benefits of marriage unequally is discrimination to start with. You’ve got it backwards: non-religious people don’t have to show a benefit to the state, the state has to justify why it’s only choosing to benefit a predominately-single-religion-based definition of marriage and denying equal rights to others.
Or in other words, we’re not here to serve the state’s interests. The state exists to protect all of our interests. And right now it’s only protecting the interests of a very white, religious group.
You know, like when interracial marriage wasn’t legal.
But then you go on about “intrinsically infertile” (post-menopause women shouldn’t be allowed to marry?), polygamy (actually, why should that intrinsically be illegal?), incest (what’s that got to do with marriage, exactly?). It’s the same slippery-slope garbage that allows certain people to insinuate gay people are pedophiles and into bestiality without having to have the courage to come out and say that’s what they really think.
It seems to me you’ve just done a great deal of mental gymnastics to avoid simply saying how you really feel.
Deliberately or sloppily, you have misapprehended the question of “state interests.” I don’t think the state should get involved in something in which it has no interest or insufficient interest. You’ve kicked up a lot of emotional dust, but have made no effort to identify what I called “a government interest that truly applies to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples alike.”
The state interest is straight forward and simple. And long recognized.
Marriage is a form contract establishing property rights, proxy desicion making rights, rights of descent, and providing for the recognition of the lineage and control of progeny. Only the last item is not present in same-sex couples, but it is not present in many opposite sex couples. The days of agrarian breeding are long gone in the US. Family size is shrinking and many couples are childless or are post-procreation subsequent married couples. In fact, Indiana law allows first cousins to marry after the age of 65. Procreation is becoming more tangential to the marriage form contract as time moves on.
The other arrangements you describe appear to be an attempt to invoke the “slippery slope” argument, a make-weight argument. Legislatures make judgements based upon the views of the voters. Courts make decisions based upon the state of society as it is exists. There are no slippery slopes. Things move up or down the slope because there are a mass of voters or special interests pushing them or blocking them.
No, I’m just not buying your tormented legalistic contortions, and neither are the other people that are rightly pointing out the basic flaw in your conclusion: it’s gender discrimination.
“For what it’s worth, my dance card’s pretty full, and I don’t expect to follow further comments here.”
And for some reason, whenever someone types something like that, it’s almost certain they’ll do the exact opposite.
Tipsy:
I once read that same-gender couples can achieve any of the same legal benefits as a traditionally married couple via lawyers etc. *except* the right to not testify against one’s spouse.
Also, it costs 50 times as much to do it via lawyers when a straight couple can go to the JoP and get married for less than a hundred bucks.
Marriage is a legal contract between two people, that is ALL it is. And saying I, Jane Doe, can’t marry Joan Smith *because* she is a woman is gender discrimination.
stAllio: I think your facts are wrong. CFA did not give any money to the FRC. If they did, please provide a link to that information, as your first link provided that CFA provided “millions” to other organizations.
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001
the information is in that first link that you claim to have read!
Excuse me, I misspoke. I meant to say that they gave millions to other organizations, not the FRC (I got distracted in the middle of my post, sorry). Unless you count $1,000 as “millions”. I have never even heard of the other organizations, so perhaps that is why you use the word “like”.
Here’s what bugs me on what you call the “civil union thingy”, Tipsy: Back in 2007 a collection of lawyers, heads of the three Indiana “family values” groups, and a couple of sponsoring legislators told the General Assembly that SJR-7, the predecessor to HJR-6, the so called “Indiana Marriage Protecton” Amendment, would stop the courts from imposing “civil union thingies” but that as a necessary part of the public policy debate the lawmakers would be free to enact them. One attorney said that he’d looked at the laws of other states and the proposal was far more moderate than excessive anti-gay attemps.
That was then…..fast foward to today…..HJR-6 also now would take away the ability of the Legislature (and who knows who else) to fashion civil unions or much else. It uses the exact words of what had been call less moderate, anti-gay measures.
And will any of them even acknowlede that kind of change was involved or more significantly WHY?
So much for representative domocrary in Indiana……apparently not worth a the cost of a chicken sandwich.
I haven’t got a clue WHY, Don. I’m not familiar with HJR-6. I had no role in writing SJR-7 or HJR-6. My opinion on SJR-7 was on the effect of someone else’s work if it were adopted.My opinion on HJR-6 hasn’t been solicited by anyone.
Tipsy: No intent to infer that your role was more than an expert legal opion concerning the work of someone else. At the time I and others disagreed with it, but only because it contained a phrase (“or other Indiana law”) when seemed to suggest that if applied to the legislature also. You felt that term simply required precision in such a law so that there was nothing for courts to interpret. Something that reasonable people (by definition a term including you and me…..what else!) could disagree on.
Since you indicate you’re not familiar with it, the first sentence of HJR-6 is essentially the same as SHR-7 in defining marriage. And that does limit the legislature. But then this now follows:
“A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”
Hence the observation that the old claimed distinction between courts and the legislature is no longer there. Doug will just have to weigh in as to whether or not it has anything to do with fast food chicken sandwiches.
Suggestion – before you comment on the CfA hoorah, you might want to:
A) Look up what Dan Cathy actually said; and
B) Check out CfA’s employment and service policies
You might want to use this newfangled interweb thingie for this purpose.
[Facts – how DO they work?]
This 2007 Forbes article looking into their employment practices isn’t exactly soothing.
Also, too: no need to be a dick. Had you been so inclined, you could have quoted whatever you thought was relevant and stated what you believe their employment practices to be.
I’m sorry to have given offense where none was intended – I was aiming for ‘banter’ and ‘snark’ and obviously missed my mark.
Here’s the Baptist Press article/interview that apparently kicked off this whole nine-day wonder:
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271
Here’s Chick-fil-A’s FAQ page for ‘Current News’, which touches on their service policies – there are a number of other categories presenting their corporate positions on various topics:
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/FAQ#?category=1
The Forbes article was interesting, but I did not see it as reflecting very negatively on the company – most companies of any size are subject to a certain amount of litigation, and the article did not much address the merits of the particular case mentioned except to note the assertions of the complainant, and the fact that a settlement had been reached.
I think this whole war for/against CFA is more for outside sources, and I detest both of them doing this. Like many issues, the pro/con groups have found a battleground to posture over.
I don’t buy the idea that a significant portion of people really look at the CEO of a company and buy or boycott based on their measure of the person.
I strongly suspect many of the people protesting CFA own iPhones, a device that was created while Steve Jobs was CEO. That guy was a total asshole to his employees, family, and sometimes anyone else in his path that fell below his standard for perfection. Yet, our love for the device his company created outweighed that. See how big the jerks that run Verizon or AT&T are, and so on, and you’ll quickly realize that the only way to avoid giving money to a CEO you completely despise is to live on a self-supporting commune.
So Cathy didn’t do anything to create the battleground himself, by his statements and using CFA money to fund anti-gay groups?
How much of Apple’s money was used to fund anti-gay lobbying groups?
Either you didn’t really read about this, or you didn’t understand it.
Other than your second-to-last paragraph, I completely agree with your position.
Generally, comments like: “these people should focus on real problems like poverty and hungry instead of gay marriage problems” are reminiscant of the guy speeding that tells the cop “you should be worried about murders and rapes, not my speeding.” If we could cure poverty by eating at Chick=-Fil-A every once in a while, the world would be a better place.
I will say this for Chick-Fil-A — it was great when they opened at Castleton Square in the 1980s, so those of us high schoolers hanging out there could spend zero money but be well fed because the store was constantly handing out free samples.
I’ve actually been to the Dwarf House in Hapeville, Ga., otherwise known as the original Chick-Fil-A. I went there because I had car trouble driving through Atlanta, and the restaurant was next door to the repair shop. I recall a glassy-eyed minister’s wife from Wisconsin accosting us and talking very weird Jesus to us. However, I don’t believe Dan Cathy sent her. Or, now, maybe I do.