Originally published by Communities At Washington Times.
SAN DIEGO, August 8, 2012 — A recent defense of Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy makes much out of the fact that his controversial interview with Baptist Press on July 16, 2012 never even mentioned same-sex marriage specifically, but rather the “biblical definition of the family unit.”
Reading between the lines, the mainstream media drew its own logical conclusion that this must include an adverse view of gay couples.
It is true that Cathy was not that specific with Baptist Press, but when asked for clarification on The Ken Coleman Show just a few days later, he did answer “Guilty as charged.” He also went on to say, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage … I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about”(Ken Coleman Show, 7-21-12).
Although critics of Chick-fil-A may be guilty of fishing for controversy, defenders would do well to avoid slicing and dicing. The point is not to highlight the fact that Cathy never intended to start an argument. The point is to defend the right of an American citizen to make any comment he wants regardless of chronological order.
Dan Cathy is entitled to his opinion. He should be allowed to express himself without having to worry about bully mayors.
Of course, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s letter to Cathy seems to indicate that he views himself as less of a bully and more of a freedom fighter.
“There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” Menino said. He also wrote, “We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.”
All public officials should have to take at least one civics class, with a possible history class thrown in as well. Perhaps in Menino’s mind freedom of speech isn’t one of the freedoms our Forefathers envisioned.
Menino’s modern history is as flawed as his understanding of the Constitution. The people of Massachusetts did not “lead the way on equal marriage rights.” This newer “Freedom Trail” was blazed by the courts. In Goodridge v. Department of Health the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that it was unconstitutional to forbid same-sex marriage.
Maybe we could over look such historical revision if it didn’t go hand in hand with the mayor’s exaggerated view of his own importance. So now a mayor has the right to tell somebody who can and cannot open a business in his city? Obama’s recent decrees, by which he ignores congress, doing as he wants, are inspiring the little dictators as well.
Not that any of these mayors are able to explain their authority to forbid a fast food restaurant. At least Mayor Edwin M. Lee of San Francisco seems to understand that he is only offering a strong suggestion. Others might call it a threat.
On Twitter he wrote: “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”
Of course illegal immigrants are welcome in San Francisco. It’s a sanctuary city. But an American businessman who believes (as Obama did until very recently) that marriage means men marrying women, need not bother coming?
Oh well. Let’s leave our hearts in San Francisco and drop in on the Windy City instead. A lot of wind blows from the mouth of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel these days. He said that Chick fil-A values “are not Chicago values.”
Hmm … Chick fil-A values are not Chicago values. Boy, you can say that again mayor! You must mean the kind of Chicago values where you invited the racist, antiSemite Louis Farrakhan to help with city security. Are those the values you’re protecting?
Our “brave mayors” should not pat themselves on the shoulder quite so fast. After all, it doesn’t require much courage in today’s politically correct climate to speak up for same-sex couples. Had they taken such a stand in the 60’s or early 70’s, before such endorsement became fashionable, back when gay people were coming out of the closet in smaller numbers, perhaps then we could have admired their courage regardless of our own personal opinions.
Today, there has been a role reversal. People who defend traditional values are the ones putting themselves on the line. But nobody on either side should be at risk when sharing a mere opinion. I don’t care if you’re gay or straight, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Christian or Atheist, all Americans must wake up and confront this assault upon freedom of speech.
The good news is that many have. People showed up for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day in mass, some of them waiting in line many hours at different fast food chicken stations all over the country.
Even John Stewart, no lover of Evangelical Christians or the politically conservative chimed in to support freedom of speech. “[I’m] pretty sure you can’t outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEO’s views repellant,” Stewart joked. “Not sure which amendment covers that, but it’s probably in the top one”(Daily Show 8-1-12).
It’s encouraging to see this public reaction. But it’s unsettling to realize that people are just now figuring out a key component to the militant gay agenda: They intend to make it against the law to even speak against homosexuality. Although the movement has gained more traction in recent years, the goals have been openly, shamelessly stated for quite some time.
“We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives” (From homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi in a speech for the National Press Club in Washington, 1987).
In fairness, it should be pointed out that militant gay activists do not speak for all homosexuals. Many gay people just want to be left alone. Others, such as openly lesbian radio talk show host Tammy Bruce, bravely challenge the militant agenda by writing books like The New Thought Police.
But the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so those few who push for censored speech are winning this battle. Critical disapproval of homosexuality is already against the law in Canada (Criminal Code Sections 318, 319, and 320).
America is fast on its way to embracing similar legislation under terms such as “hate speech” and “hate crime.” Congress passed a Hate Crimes Protective Act in 2009. Since violent crime is already punishable under the law, getting into the head of a person to interpret “hate” carves a thin line between hate crime legislation and hate speech legislation. Next time we may just see a law about “hate” even without the crime.
Ambitious California is already well along that road. It is now against the law to say anything disparaging against homosexuality in any California class room (SB 47). They are also trying to make it against the law in California for psychologists to offer reparative therapy to homosexual teens.
The jury may still be out on the actual causes of homosexuality. Is it a genetic predisposition? Is it a choice? Is it an unchosen predisposition caused by some childhood trauma as opposed to genetics? Can there be both genetic and psychological causes? Various opinions should be allowed to breathe. Ironically, those who would stifle debate do so in the name of tolerance.
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
Share this on
