Posted on

Chick Fil-A vs. the Intolerant Zealots on the Homosexual Left

Well, folks, it looks like the true colors of the so-called “gay rights” activists are being revealed once again. But, quite unlike the dazzling, glittery display of rainbow colors the roads are splattered in after one of their rip-roaring “pride” parades (as if you can be “proud” of something that is supposedly outside of your grasp), it’s not exactly the prettiest sight in the world.

And what, precisely, has motivated them to take to the streets, bang their upside-down pink triangle drums with fervor, and gallop all over town saddled on their sparkly unicorns and Barbie Doll coaches?  The president of Chick Fil-A, it seems, has ruffled their feathers. (And for those of you who’ve been living under a rock: Chick Fil-A sells first-class chicken sandwiches – mostly in the country bumpkin south, but with a few restaurants here and there throughout these fruited plains of ours.)

So, what did Dan Cathy – Chic Fil-A’s proud president and self-avowed conservative Christian – say that was so … offensive to the sensibilities of these so-called champions of “diversity” and “tolerance?” Why, he didn’t – gasp! – tow the Officially Approved Line of Opinion™ on marriage. In fact, he kinda sorta agrees with most dictionaries’ interpretation of the term. You know, the one that says marriage is the union of a man and woman in Holy Matrimony and, well … that’s the end of it. He doesn’t really see gays getting hitched as something to twirl in a pirouette à la seconde over. Uh-oh. I think he just committed, like, one of the gravest offenses ever imaginable. That sacrilegious freethinker! To the purple-starred, My Little Pony dungeon with him!

Before I go any further, I just want to make one thing clear: I don’t agree with what Dan said about gay marriage. I’m kind of on, well … the “queerish” side of things myself, being bisexual and all. And, I’m not exactly Mr. Stoic Alpha Dude. All the Hello Kitty pictures plastered on my wall, Powerpuff Girls DVDs, and glossy bead-adorned bracelets are testament to that. Skittles!

But who am I to cast off all conflicting viewpoints as heretical thought crimes unbefitting of modern political discourse? There’s always civil dialogue to be had about the things we don’t always see eye to eye on, and the only reason anyone would want to shut out opposing views is because they’re insecure about their own beliefs. If you truly believe, in your heart of hearts, that you are right, there’s no need to fear a feisty intellectual challenge now and again. But if you know you’re standing on a weak and frail foundation with your arguments, you’d understandably want to portray your “adversaries” as unspeakable Ministers of Hate™. Those who know they’re preaching the truth should have the courage of their convictions, to debate their opponents on the philosophical battlefield – not cower in fear and run away at the first sign of confrontation.

And what kind of close-minded uptown elitist thinks the “traditional” view of marriage only refers to making the wedding chapel hetero-exclusive territory? Turn off your Lady Gaga playlists for a second and read Cathy’s actual quote before rushing to scribble devil horns over a photo of him you printed off the Internet. When Cathy quips that so many of his staff members are still married to their first wives, and that he thanks the Good Lord above for that, he’s also condemning no-fault divorce and the breakdown of the family unit that it has spawned. Does that mean he hates, like, half the couples who marry and end up calling it quits only a few weeks in? (Okay, well, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but you get my point.) No, but it does mean he holds the personal belief that it’s best for them to do everything in their power to rekindle the flames, to keep it together before saying to hell with it so rashly, as so many have done. When a bride and groom say “Till Death Do Us Part,” it shouldn’t be a mere symbolic gesture that your mean old uncle snickers at in the pews because he knows it’s a bunch of hooey. It should be a serious commitment that you keep your word to uphold.

And I’m pretty sure it means that we shouldn’t be marrying barnyard critters and fifty-five people at once. That’s pretty much something everybody can agree on.

How Dare You Take Offense To Me Parading In the Streets with Nothing But a Thong (and Making Out with My Gay Lover Right In Front of Your Kids)? Bigot!

“Bigot” isn’t a word that should be thrown around like just another name you would call your mother-in-law during a family dispute about which house you’re going to open presents at Christmas morning, or a silly name you would tease your friends with during a game of schoolyard tag. (“Na-na-na-na. You can’t catch me … bigot!”) No, it means much more than simply opposing somebody lifestyle’s choices as “immoral” or having certain standards about what constitutes a valid marriage. It’s not something you would use lightly, in front of anyone who so much as squirms uncomfortably when you, like, tear off your lesbian girlfriend or gay boy toy’s shirt on the couch and slobber all over that person or something.

If Cathy had called for, say, pinning down gays to telephone wires with ropes, strapping giant boulders to the end, and chucking them in a river, that would be “bigotry.” If Cathy had called for stoning them to death, as many radical Islamist nations do to their gays, that would be bigotry as well. If Cathy had sent a letter to Congress asking them to start laying the groundwork for a step-by-step “faggot-dyke” deportation program, that, too, would represent an irrational prejudice on his part. We’d all toss and turn in our beds at night if he chopped up their guts and organs with a seven-pound axe and mixed it together in a stew for his own sick, twisted pleasure. If he had said something like, “Everyone take a chainsaw and decapitate the first dude who so much as speaks with a phony, manufactured lisp!” we would be right to call him a bigot. If he had done any of these things, as a matter of fact, the vitriol and animosity expressed by these rank-and-file activists so far would be justified, and they would be right to boycott Chick Fil-A. I would back them every step of the way if that were the case.

But there is no evidence whatsoever – zero to speak of – that Cathy, who was only sharing his own personal viewpoint on the matter, has discriminated against gay customers or job applicants in any way. He has never refused to serve someone because they were gay. He has never denied somebody an over-the-counter job or managerial position because they were they gay. In fact, the company will attest that, despite whatever views its employees or franchise owners have, discrimination against any group of people – black, white, gay, straight, man, woman, or pink with purple polka dots – will not be tolerated.

Progressives would surely be surprised to learn that members of a Chicago branch actually hold fundraisers in support of LGBT “rights.” It would be pure stupidity from even a competitive standpoint to say something like “get the Hell of out here” as soon as a rainbow-shirted chick holding hands with her pierced-from-head-to-toe butch girlfriend made their way to the cash register. Even gay marriage opponents would cringe at that sort of treatment.

Dan Cathy is anything but a hate-filled bigot. Sure, he reserves the opinion that two people with the same set of body parts between their legs don’t belong at the altar, holding hands before a priest or Las Vegas lad wearing an Elvis costume, exchanging vows and preparing to say, “I Do.” But you won’t see him vilifying those he disagrees with as the spawn of Mum-ra or wishing for the Good Lord to clog up their arteries or something. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the noisy, drum-banging rabble-rousers who pervade the ranks of Progressive “gay rights” activism – by no means a representation of all the community has to offer.

Breaking News, Everyone! Chick Fil-A’s Spokesman Has Passed Away. Lets All Take This Moment to … Have a Good ‘Ol Fashioned Sadistic Chuckle. Take That, Grieving Friends and Family!

Not only are queer Democratic diehards respectfully shaking their heads in disagreement and voicing their blazing, passionate opposition to what Cathy believes, which is their God-given right, but they’re also promoting an abhorrence of the man the likes of which has yet to be seen for most defenders of “traditional,” heterosexual marriage. A not-too-trifling portion of them seem to want him thrown from a tower hanging above the clouds and his bones crushed upon impact. And if they’re not wishing it, they’re at least gleefully fantasizing about it.

When tragic news broke out that Chic Fil-A spokesman and VP executive Don Perry – the pleasant voice you hear before a wholesome PBS kids cartoon on the company’s advertising slot– croaked from a heart attack, left-wing “gay rights” activists almost instantaneously began throwing around the most vile slurs imaginable. They immediately seized upon this untimely death to piss on the dude’s grave by making sick, twisted jokes about him getting his divinely-ordained “just deserts” for his boss’ non-profane, perfectly non-threatening statements – and his refusal to speak out against it, as if mere silence on this issue means you like to burn rag dolls of Elton John and Sara Gilbert in effigy when no one is looking.

“God hates homophobes,” one Tweet “fearlessly” proclaimed. One comedian said, well of course bigotry is stressful. Countless others took this opportunity to have rude fun at the deceased’s expense saying things like, “God’s coming after all you assholes,” and that some form of karmic retribution was culpable for his demise. Cathy’s statements do not even remotely come close to this unacceptable level of moral righteousness and hate directed toward a single group of people because of the views they subscribe to or the way they choose to live their lives.

You’re Under Arrest For … Hurting My Feelings

But this is what is happening to Cathy, who’s only crime was one of thought – a commonly held belief that has held steadfast for over three millennia and is shared by people of more faiths than you can count on one hand. Opposition to it in history has been nearly universal, sometimes inexcusably bigoted and to the point of actually excluding those who intermingle, lock lips, and rough house under the bed sheets with the same sex – and sometimes not. Yes, bigotry still exists today, however, and those who slay or massacre innocent gays and lesbians simply by virtue of the way they choose to express themselves should be roundly condemned and held accountable for their sickening and distasteful acts. Gay bullying is still a problem in our schools.

Nevertheless, it is possible for someone to view homosexuality as a Biblically sinful lifestyle without actually wanting to hook gays up to a torture device or even just write them off as friend material. The very same principle applies to divorced couples, chronic adulterers, former pick-pocketers, binge drinkers, gambling addicts, and porn watchers, all of whom are engaging in unspeakably immoral behaviors in the eyes of many Christians.

Uh-Oh … Their CEO Prefers New Moon to Breaking Dawn. Guess I Won’t Be Shopping There Anymore.

Self-proclaimed, rainbow-waving acolytes everywhere are sounding the battle drums for a nationwide boycott of the fast food chain – which, although perfectly legal and within these folks’ rights, is over-the-top PC drivel. This bizarre notion that we should refuse to buy a company’s products simply because of a single representative’s political stands or personal opinions is insane. By that standard, liberals should stop asking Domino’s to deliver them freshly-baked, simmering hot pepperoni pizzas just because its founder was a hardcore Christian fundamentalist who opposed the slaughtering of unborn children, a near unchallengeable religious sacrament among those on the Left. No more custom-made tuxes from Urban Outfitters, seeing as its owner was a Santorum campaign bundler. No more Rush concerts, no more South Park episodes, and no more tickets when “The Price is Right” (now hosted by comedian Drew Carey) comes to town, seeing as every single one of these things has unabashed libertarians – those dastardly Social Darwinist, free market “radicals” – working on the crew.

If we were to follow this tortured logic, defenders of “traditional” marriage shouldn’t stop at Starbucks for a cup of coffee anymore, throw General Mills cereal in their shopping carts, or sign up with AT&T for its state-of-the-art phone service, seeing as all of these companies have boasted about their unequivocal support for marriage “equality.” Conservatives should avert their eyes whenever The Simpsons comes on, seeing as, the show is the work of a bunch of flaming Harvard liberals – with the exception of a few token right-wingers (like John Schwartzwelder, the man who has written more scripts for that show than anyone). We should be picketing outside the theater whenever one of Steven Spielberg’s delightful films flashes across the big screen, seeing as he’s been a Clinton campaign donor for years.

As one Atlantic columnist put it, though, this “boycott culture” of ours is out of control. If we were to turn down every scrumptious dish, every edge-of-the-seat film, every tear jerking novel, every technological marvel of a phone or computer, every trendy ride, every glamorous outfit, every product you can possibly name – that is made, cooked, invented, designed, crafted, drawn, or thought up by someone we disagree with … well, that would be a pretty miserable and unfulfilling life, wouldn’t it?

It makes no difference if the person who weaved together your stylish sweater is a liberal, conservative, Muslim, atheist, or Christian. It’s still stylish nonetheless. The only thing that really matters when we’re trying to decide whether or not to buy this or that product is the quality of its features, its distinct attributes, and whether it suits our needs. Does it get the job done? What’s the price tag? Can I get a better deal elsewhere? Unless the person’s political or religious views mean they’d drown a box full of puppies or take a few boxes of TNT and blow up a school full of innocent children in a heartbeat, one’s stance on the issues is pretty much irrelevant. I should judge a company’s products on the virtues – the merits – of what it assembles and puts together, not on whether the head honcho and I take the same position on capital gains, Medicare reform, or what dress looks best on Katie Holmes’s little daughter Suri. We’d probably all starve to death and go our whole lives without touching a mobile device if that was the case.

Sir, You Are In Violation of Zoning Code 2468: Having An Opinion That Offends Me. Shoo.

Apparently, though, a bundle of mayors in this country want to ban Chick Fil-A from so much as opening up shop in their cities. It’s as if America’s bustling metropolises are their own personal political fiefdoms, if you will, where anybody who expresses a viewpoint that doesn’t conform with the ideological sympathies of the self-anointed “kings” and “princes” who rule over these little mini-empires must be cast out, shut down, chased away, and burned at the allegorical stake. They must be banned simply for even daring to set foot on their turf. They’re mad with power, and the unwashed rubes will be damned if they even slightly deviate from the sacred political creeds of their Royal Highnesses. National Review hit the nail on the head when they called this brouhaha a “Chicken Inquisition.” That is precisely what it is.

The mayor of Boston, who in recent days backpedaled from his absurd chest-thumping, is forever on record as saying that Chic Fil-A would not be permitted to get anywhere near the Freedom Trail, or any other part of Boston, for that matter. He would deny them all the requisite permits and licenses, not because their applications were not up to scratch (as if you should need the State’s permission to trade what you have to offer with willing customers, on a completely, one-hundred percent mutual and voluntary basis), but simply because its CEO’s “offensive” comments about gay marriage were inconsistent with the “city’s” (read, Mayor Manino’s) sacred orthodoxy. We promote openness and inclusion, he said, not prejudice against some people for whatever gender they fancy. (Apparently, though, it’s perfectly fine to exclude people who adhere to a more traditionalist Christian worldview on the hot-button cultural issues of our day.)

Funny how this didn’t sound off any alarm bells when he handed over $1.8 million worth of land to the Islamic Society of Boston, a group with a spiritual adviser on its payrolls (or, at least for quite some time) that was more of a “homophobe” than Dan Cathy ever was. The mayor even showed up at the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Not only did this “spiritual adviser” have peaceful moral and philosophical qualms with gay marriage and homosexuality in general – a completely legitimate, defensible, if incorrect position – but he also said that the crime of “gayness” should be enough to throw somebody off a cliff or incinerate them alive. It should be treated just like any other sexual offense. Surely, Dan Cathy would rush for the toilet or trash bin to blow some chunks if he heard those remarks. Any civilized person would.

Chicago, too, was trying to block construction of Chick Fil-A eateries on the basis of its owner’s politically incorrect views on same-sex marriage. One ward leader said exnay to green-lighting the privately-funded project, not because Dan Cathy ran afoul of the law, but because, again, the neighborhood would weep a river of tears if a “bigoted” homophobe dared to invade their space. Mayor Rahm Emanuel concurred, saying that Chick Fil-A’s Christian conservatism was not representative of “Chicago’s values.” (And if by that, he means the rampant street crime, innocent little kids getting their brains blown out in the crossfire, gangs terrorizing frail old men and ladies, record levels of poverty, and the corrupt inner-workings of the mafia-esque city government, thank Heavens that isn’t the case.)

After being pressed on the matter, Moreno (the ward leader) quickly went into that suspicious defensive mode a kid goes into when the teacher doesn’t buy his lame excuse for not turning in his assignments (trust me, we’ve all been there), and claimed that, well, it had more to do with “traffic” than anything. Really? That’s not what you mentioned after your emotionalized, knee-jerk reaction to this series of supposedly “outrageous” statements.

If it truly was the case that the denizens of Chicago would be so disheartened by Cathy’s supposed black-hearted “homophobia” they wouldn’t even bother to walk through the door, what harm would come of letting Chic Fil-A build the place? It’s not as if this establishment is being supported by Chicago taxpayers. If it really is a “bad investment,” as Emanuel roars, so what? Bad investment for whom, really? The company’s CEO? The shareholders, who should be frantically selling their stocks to whomever will buy them right now, if that’s the case? The salaries and benefits of staff members, who would face cutbacks in their paychecks after thousands of dollars are poured down the drain? How would the Chicago budget be affected in any way, shape, or form? What strain would this put on the pocketbooks of those who live in the area? None whatsoever, you say? Then why the hell is it any concern of Rahm Emanuel’s that Chick Fil A’s is a bad friggin’ investment in that city?

Maybe our friend Rahm is afraid that he’s wrong about the booths possibly being “empty.” Let customers vote with their wallets and decide for themselves if they want to eat there, even if the CEO has some qualms about their supposed “core” values. Maybe, just maybe, some Chicagoans are self-professed Christians who don’t exactly like the “in your face” attitude of some in the LGBT community. Maybe some Chicagoans don’t give a flying hoot whether or not some business owner serving them up a tasty, delectable, mouth-watering meal says Bono is the capital of China or that it’s terribly evil for a person to dye their hair purple, as long as they can dig their teeth into a nice, juicy chicken sandwich.

The only way we can find out if Rahm is right is if Chick Fil-A is given the chance to strut its stuff. Otherwise, who are we to say that its sales aren’t going to take off? That’s none of our business. Are we really living in an age where the unguided, spur-of-the-moment predictions of imperfect, flaw-ridden politicians is regarded as superior to the mechanisms of the marketplace, which are coordinated by strictly determined price signals and all the rest? I mean, seriously?

Rahm has no objection, however, to inviting Louis Farrakhan – an anti-Semitic black supremacist who took the president to task for his “evolutionary” stance on same-sex couplings – to help curtail Chicago’s horrendous crime rates.

To top it all off, the mayor of San Francisco is absolutely incredulous that the company would dare even consider nesting in his neck of the woods – when, all the meanwhile, folks are quite literally squatting to take a you-know-what on the city’s escalators. Apparently, he has no sense of priorities whatsoever.

Our Diverse and Open Society Has No Place For This “Family” Or Whatever It Is

When Dan Cathy and others say that Chick Fil-A operates on Biblically-based principles, they’re not referring to some kind of clandestine, behind-the-doors plot to oppress gays or something. There’s a huge difference between opposing the redefinition of marriage, a sacred institution in many Christian circles, and kicking gays – or anyone for that matter – out of your restaurant for not conforming to your rigid ideological worldviews. But when Cathy says “Christian values” inform every decision the company makes, he’s not bluffing. Try driving down to one of their outlets on any given Sunday and see if you manage to catch a “We’re Open” sign on the front door. The Sabbath as a day of rest is one set of verses from the Book of Genesis Cathy and his cohorts don’t mess around with.

Taking on mountains of debt and not following through on your payments is something that franchisees are strongly advised against, for fear of invoking the Lord’s wrath. Community activism aimed at “strengthening” the family unit is a proud Chick Fil-A tradition. Whether you agree with this business strategy or not is up to you. But to call it “hateful” really misses the mark.

Cathy’s family-owned company gives billions of dollars to supposedly “anti-gay” groups, says the Progressive LGBT community. But since when does taking a moral stance on something you believe in automatically make one “hateful” of any person who doesn’t agree with you? Saying that Christians who fall under the more traditionalist camp are “anti-gay” for opposing gay marriage makes about as much sense as saying that I’m anti-store-bought, factory-manufactured milk for preferring my dairy beverages out of the bulk tank. Sure, I think that the traditional homogenization process sucks the flavor and nutrients out of perfectly good milk, but that doesn’t mean I automatically run out of someone’s house screaming, “She’s a heathen, I tell you! A heathen!” as soon as I find a carton of Dean’s 2-percent milk on her refrigerator shelf.

If you take an actual gander at Dan Cathy’s history of charitable giving, so-called “anti-homosexual” activism is a drop in the bucket compared to the plethora of other reputable causes that he shells money out of company profits – and his own income – to finance. Assistance for college kids who can’t afford tuition to go to college, marriage counseling sessions, homes for the less fortunate, child camps – anyone who thinks that “family values” merely refers to supposedly backwards, alarmist, outdated notions of the “danger” of the “homosexual agenda” in our society needs to get their head out of the sand and take a look at the real world. Preventing marriages from fizzling out for the sake of preserving family stability is something that anybody of any political persuasion can get behind.

“Traditional” marriage refers to more than just the genders of the participants (although to many Christians, I must note, that is important). It also deals with such “antiquated” values like fidelity, commitment, honor, respect, persistence, honesty, and kindness to your better half, male or female.

It’s Called A Mirror. Look In It.

Fortunately, not all liberals are joining the dark side on this one. The ACLU, Amanda Marcotte, Jonathan Turley, and others are saying, “Hey wait, a minute. If a city can punish a business – like, through denying a license for example – simply because a company owner’s opinions make them cringe, doesn’t that open up a Pandora’s box? Couldn’t this, I don’t know, set the stage for a flurry of political abuses, including blocking the construction of a restaurant or store because its owner supports gay marriage?”

In the tipsy-turvy, upside-down world of some Progressives, however, “tolerance” means tolerance of their beliefs, their policy prescriptions, their cultural viewpoints, their ideology. It doesn’t mean they have to tolerate what you have to say, what you think, how you feel. If it conflicts with their underlying agenda, then it automatically means the person expressing those opinions is, by definition, an intolerant, racist, bigoted, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic hatemonger whose attitudes have no place in modern socio-political discourse. They won’t stop until all of America is encompassed under an ideologically uniform, touchy-feely, fuzzy-wuzzy, politically correct paradise of material equality, social “justice” (on their terms, of course), and, well, total and complete “tolerance” of anything that doesn’t have to do with traditional values, promotion of the family as the bedrock of a virtuous society, the Christianity of the so-called “regressive” past, philosophical resistance against abortion-on-demand, or anything else that challenges their narrow-minded dogma.

I’m not exactly known among friends as a straight-as-a-whistle manly man. But the gay lobby better start practicing what it preaches with this whole “tolerance” thing. Otherwise, prepare to watch the hypocrisy blow up in their faces.

Advertisements

About Phil Van Gheem

I’m a 19-year-old boy who, after escaping the public school system, came to realize how truly brainwashed I was. For over twelve excruciating years, my educators conditioned and programmed me to worship the State and all of its “wonderful” programs and initiatives. I was truly convinced it took a big, compassionate government to take care of the poor and needy, and that we’d all die instantly if any of the State’s regulations, taxes, or programs were abolished tomorrow. Now, after discovering the wisdom of the American Founders, I realize that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have. Increased State control in the name of “security” comes at the expense of personal freedom. And the State, more often than not, is an enemy rather than a friend. It siphons off resources from the wealth-producing private sector, constantly infringes on the rights of private property owners, divides us into pressure groups who constantly loot each other for our own self-serving interests, holds back the living standards and prosperity we would otherwise enjoy, and worsens the problems it purports to solve. As government grows, liberty contracts. And I’m no longer willing to stick my head in the sand and ignore the State for the monstrous and diabolical institution it is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s