Chick-fil-A: a homosexualist step too far?

Howard Sutherland writes:

Columnist Star Parker has this to say about the overbearing response of movement homosexualists and their political water-carriers to Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s affirmation of traditional marriage:

The current hate campaign being waged by homosexual activists against fast-food chain Chick-fil-A, because of the firm’s Christian values, may well turn out to be a bridge too far. The effort may prove to be a setback for homosexual activism.

Do you think Parker may be right? I certainly hope so, and in a healthy nation she would be. But we know America is not a healthy nation now; if it were, the notion of homosexuals “marrying” each other would not even be a topic of discussion, much less full-bore activism and suppression of dissent.

As I say, I hope Parker proves to be right. I’m not sanguine, though. I thought when homosexualists started to demand homosexual “marriage” that ordinary people would recoil from such an obscene absurdity and tell them to back down. But now, even though electorates will not vote it in, most people do not reject its imposition by judges or—as in the case of New York—bought state legislators. Culturally, this outlandish phenomenon is rapidly becoming a new “normal,” and most people appear to accept it, if not welcome it.

I used to the think that the homosexualists would be successful to the extent they asked only for tolerance, and that they would get in trouble when they started to demand affirmation and public approval. I could not have been more wrong. And that’s why I fear Parker is over-optimistic here. Would love to know what you think.

- end of initial entry -

August 1

Ken Hechtman writes:

Of course it’s going to be a setback but not for the reason Mr. Sutherland suggests.

Wanting affirmation and approval aren’t a bridge too far. Most people are freer than you’d think with those things. But acting like a gang of bullies is a bridge too far. Nobody likes a bully.

If the anti-Chick-Fil-A campaign had been organized as a boycott, the optics would have been perfect. The victims of the story would have been the poor oppressed gay couple down the street who just wants to get married in peace. A billion dollar corporate bigot could have been cast as the villain. Instead, as soon as Rahm Emmanuel and the other big city mayors join the pile-on by withholding business permits, they’ve done the impossible. They’ve turned Dan Cathy into a sympathetic figure.

Dan R. writes:

The nearest Chik-fil-A is 65 miles from me, but I’m on vacation and will gladly drive there today—it’s “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day”—for a Chik-fil-A sandwich and, by doing so, express my support for the right of a business owner to hold an opinion that doesn’t conform to the latest in political correctness. It also helps that I’ve had many Chik-fil-A sandwiches and and happen to like them. Homosexuals deserve some compassion because, in my humble opinion, I truly believe they were handed some bad cards in life (and I do not mean being “born that way,” as the reigning expert on the subject, Lady GaGa, contends), but this homosexual boycott, with its contempt for the spirit of the First Amendment, does not. I’m of course curious whether there will be lines to get in, and whether there will be any confrontations. Mike Huckabee’s declaration of Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day explicitly asks people NOT to bring signs and NOT to treat it as a demonstration, but rather a simple gesture of support for the right of a business to express its beliefs in an atmosphere free of intimidation. Like it used to be in that increasingly archaic concept known as America.

Buck writes:

For my two cents, Star Parker is over-optimistic and unrealistic. Though I wrote here that there is a tangible positive reaction to Dan Cathy’s stand for traditional marriage, it’s a reaction that’s decades too late and too little. Buying chicken as comfort food doesn’t get traditionalist conservatives elected and legislating.

Decades ago, when radical, recalcitrant homosexualist were restructuring and reorganizing into a political force, it was already too late. The only debate then was whether or not NAMBLA was going to remain at the head of the party to tarnish their new respectability and to confuse the politicians. When it got that far, traditionalist anything had already been coldcocked and has yet to get back on its feet.

Homosexuals came out and crossed over into the illegitimate new mainstream that replaced a dead American politic. Modern liberalism crowned the queen of the left and gave her the keys to the court house and church. Nothing is going to stop the mainstreaming of homosexuals as an entitled minority long due some form of reparations and a long reign along side the other and confused minorities. There’s still plenty of guilt to be Harvey milked and homo genized (XXX).

Alexis Zarkov writes:

Most definitely a step too far, and a big one. UCLA professor of law, Eugene Volokh, specializes in First Amendment law, and his work is frequently cited in court decisions. He’s written about Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno’s intent deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in his ward based on company president Dan Cathy’s statements about homosexual marriage. Volokh wrote,

This [the permit denial] is just appalling. A government official thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business. Because he’s “sure the majority of” his constituents find the owner’s “comments and attitudes repugnant,” it’s just fine for him to use the coercive power of the government to block the business from opening up a store. His “belief in equality is resolute,” and that apparently justifies him discriminating against businesspeople for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out. They “should really reconsider [their] platform on gay issues,” or else the government of Chicago will exclude them from the alderman’s ward.

As I noted before, such a viewpoint-based denial of a business permit is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. But that doesn’t seem to bother Alderman Moreno, because his “principles” seem to demand this sort of unconstitutional behavior. As I said, just appalling.

Evidently San Francisco mayor Edwin Lee doesn’t think the First Amendment applies to his city either, because he tweeted, “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.” The city officials in Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston have set themselves up for a lawsuit. It would be a slam dunk. New York mayor Bloomberg has more sense, and has wisely not followed their lead. I’m surprised we haven’t heard from the Berkeley City Council (I regard San Francisco and Berkeley as the Gog and Magog of the Bay Area). Perhaps they have more sense too.

This time the homosexuals have, “jumped the shark.” They are going to boost Chick-Fil-A’s business all over the country. Even in liberal cities. I’m looking forward to the Grand Opening of one on August 16. I suspect they will be mobbed.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 31, 2012 02:23 PM | Send