NEW SMYRNA BEACH -- I am astonished that a statement of personal and religious belief by an executive of an American corporation, in this case Chick-fil-A, is being used as a clarion call to boycott and destroy the business. It is especially troubling that the people who are contesting this individual’s right to religious freedom and to speech based on those beliefs are doing so in the name of their own freedoms of expression and identity.
How can anyone sane not have a problem with this? Since when in America does your right to practice your religion and profess your beliefs become subject to someone’s opposing position? Do we need a refresher on the First Amendment to the Constitution, a grantor of rights to free speech, free religion, free assembly, free press and freedom to petition the Government for redress of grievances?
This brouhaha is not about same-sex marriage; it’s about free speech.
It is totally disconcerting to me that people who have long felt diminished and even persecuted by our culture’s norms, and only recently empowered to live openly, are striving to exert power by shutting down Constitutional guarantees to others. Should not we all be celebrating the opportunities afforded by our country’s willingness to evolve towards inclusion rather than exclusion?
Rather than boycotting a fast-food chain, would it not the be taking the higher ground to say, “Even though we disagree with the point of view of this corporation’s executive, we demonstrate our belief in inclusiveness by accepting it as his right to profess his beliefs. This is separate from the business and the products it produces.”
After all, no one is telling anybody that he has to eat there.
Instead, the reaction is “Keep your unwelcome beliefs in the closet or we will come after you and do our best to destroy you and all those who work for you and/or enjoy the products that your business provides.”
This just reeks with hypocrisy.
I cannot conceive of denying myself a service or product that is needed or appealing because of the personal point of view of some manager that has no bearing on the mission of the business. If the Chick-fil-A conflict was about dirty restaurants, tainted products, shady business practices or illegal discrimination against employees, I could understand trying to shut it down. However, taking a stance against free speech completely removed from the business when one is advocating for tolerance and acceptance is just strategically – and I state this based on my First Amendment rights -- stupid.