Holy crap, I can’t believe we’ve hearing so much about Chick-Fil-A lately. Not that I mind–it makes my usual daydreaming about Chick-Fil-A seem less weird.
To sum up: the mayors of Chicago and Boston have said they don’t want to allow Chick-Fil-A to open restaurants in their cities because the president of the company has said he and the company support traditional marriage. Also, the mayor of Washington DC, not wanting to get left out of all the fun, calls Chick-Fil-A “hate chicken,” adding the kind of later-day fascist, demagogic panache that Chicago and Boston were lacking.
Boston mayor Thomas Menino has since stepped back from his initial statement, since folks started pointing out that in a free country with free speech, you can’t really prevent someone from doing business because of their political or religious beliefs. Even the Boston Globe, not exactly a newsletter for religious conservatives, didn’t have any standing to threaten Chick-Fil-A:
But which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.
…using the power of government to freeze the company out of a city sends a disturbing message to all businesses. If the mayor of a conservative town tried to keep out gay-friendly Starbucks or Apple, it would be an outrage.
Yes, it certainly has been a blitzkrieg of stupidity from gay-marriage supporters over a fried chicken restaurant that everybody already knew was run by conservative Christians whose views weren’t surprising to anybody. As a clever post on Facebook noted:
All this fuss does is pull back the mask on what the gay-marriage movement really is. It even caused some speculation from gay marriage supporters like Sarah Hoyt:
So, what’s behind this? How the hell do I know? I don’t have the time to study the org chart for the company, so at least one of these might be wrong, but several reasons I could put forth would be: someone inside the company wants to oust the current owner; someone outside the company wants to damage it – competitor or disgruntled employee; or this is the equivalent of the “war on women” and someone wants to distract you from the economy and remind you some people out there don’t approve of gay marriage.
Of course, there’s another hypothesis. It’s Machiavellian, but not out of the question: one of the people who thinks gay marriage is dangerous because gays will become this little thought-enforcing army forcing even religions that disapprove of homosexuality to perform gay marriages has started this campaign to show how hysterical and unstable y’all are.
Those are interesting possibilities, but Sarah misses the driving force behind inquisitions like this because, as a gay marriage supporter herself, she gives other gay marriage advocates too much credit for the purity of their motives.
As all of this rigmarole makes abundantly clear, the whole gay marriage thing isn’t about marriage at all. It’s about forcing people to say that homosexuality is good and fine and just like heterosexuality, and shutting up people who refuse to toe that ideological line.