Fellow Watcher's Council member GayPatriot chimes in on the issue of Chicago and Boston using the power of government to bully Chick-fil-A just because its owner is a devout Christian who supports traditional marriage:
If you don’t like the fact that Chick-Fil-A’s president is a “devout” Christian who supports traditional marriage, then don’t buy his company’s product, but don’t attempt to impose your views on the rest of us by demanding that cities not grant permits to further franchises.
If cities determine to grant no business licenses to companies because of their management’s controversial politics, then we’d have to demand that cities grant no further licenses to Ben and Jerry’s franchises.
That said, the left-wing politics of that company won’t stop me from stopping by one of their stores on those occasions when I have a craving for a dish of chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream.
Amen. I'll personally boycott various products if something the company or owner says/does that pisses me off. But I'm not gonna lobby my legislators to ban these products just because I have an issue with their politics. Chick-fil-A employs and serves gay Americans, just like it does all Americans. This, despite its owner's personal belief about traditional marriage. (A belief, by the way, that our own president shared up until a few months ago, and that almost half of all Americans still share.)
And, FWIW, in a debate last night on one of the pundit shows, the person supporting Chicago and Boston kept yammering about "discrimination" and "marriage equality." To that last point, his opponent asked, "Oh, then you support my desire to marry two women?" Flustered, anti-Chick-fil-A person stammered, eventually saying "We're talking about committed couples ..." Really? But why? If "marriage" is not to mean what it has for thousands of years, then why can't a man who wants to marry two women be included under the mantle of "marriage equality?"
As I've opined many times before, gay Americans seem to be obsessed with the term "marriage." Why not concentrate on the 14th Amendment aspect of the issue -- equal protection? It is not a separate but equal situation akin to that with blacks and whites; unlike skin tone, gender actually is a basic human difference. It's like radical feminists "arguing" that there's no difference between the sexes, that it's supposedly a "social construct." Of course, if we eliminated separate sporting events -- women's vs. men's golf, tennis, soccer, basketball, etc. -- there would be no females participating in these sports ... a small consideration such feminists and radical egalitarians always seem to gloss over. And why wouldn't there be any females in these sports? Because of the INHERENT gender differences which make men stronger and faster, that's why.
Get it? Men and women are different. It's a biological fact. "Marriage," as it's been defined for millennia, is between people of two biologically different genders.
Nevertheless, personally I could ultimately care less what two loving adults do, whether it's called "marriage" or whatever. It's none of my business. But it is my business if "progressives" use the coercive force of government to punish people (and businesses) for their beliefs -- especially beliefs which are quite mainstream ... and have been so for time immemorial.
UPDATE 2: It's not OK (if you believe in traditional marriage) to own a business like Chick-fil-A in Boston, but apparently it's just fine and dandy to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a mosque -- a mosque where one of its "spiritual guides" had this to say about homosexuality:
“[A homosexual should be given] the same punishment as any sexual pervert . . . Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them.”
As Insty notes, "Gay hatred's OK if it's diverse gay hatred.Posted by Hube at July 27, 2012 10:24 AM | TrackBack