Despite being on vacation, I worked some at home Wednesday for my day job. I had decided to head over to the Chick-fil-A outlet at the mall, but first I did a post on what seems to be the only arm in the Democrats’ arsenal for the 2012 Presidential Election Campaign: Their “Kill Romney” strategy. It was discussed by Politco as far back as last August and seems to be influencing every aspect of political life in this country.
Unfortunately, the effort to boycott Chick-fil-A by pro-gay marriage groups fits precisely into that same profile for political activity. Add to that support from the mayors of Boston and Chicago, who were joined later by the mayors of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and you have a full-blown political strategy unfolding daily. This amounts to working to silencing anyone with whom you don’t agree and seeking to destroy any political figure who you think might get in your way.
First, with respect to the Chick-fil-A happening, let me say that I can love people regardless of their sexual orientation and still despise efforts to change the institution of marriage. Furthermore, in this country no one has the right to deny others of their freedom of speech, their right of association, and their right to spend their hard-earned money as they choose. Guess what! The head of the ACLU in Chicago agrees! Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post Blog:
The mayoral decrees are making for some strange political bedfellows. The Illinois office of the American Civil Liberties Union sees in Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s move to block Chick-fil-A a “constitutional problem with discriminating against someone based on the content of their speech.” The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), hardly a natural ally of the ACLU, couldn’t agree more.
Now on to Wednesday’s activity in which I ate my first sandwich ever at Chick-fil-A. Hearing about the call from Mike Huckabee for a ‘Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day’ and seeing references on Twitter, I decided I had to go do my part. Here is a video that I took on arriving at our closest outlet that is about six blocks from our home:
I also took a few pictures.
Also to support free speech, our son and daughter-in-law were gone for three hours and spent 2 hours in line herding their four kids, including year-old twins before learning Chick-fil-A only had fries and chicken nuggets left. The menu choice was of course fine for their oldest two for whom chicken is at the top of their list of all time favorite foods. After another half hour later they had their food and while they were eating the manager announced that he regretted to tell those still in line, but that all their food was gone. The interesting thing here was that they had received their weekly shipment the day before.
To make sure friends and family understand my position, I posted the following as a comment on a friend’s Facebook page and then on my own status:
I thought others here might like to see my explanation of my views on the Chick-fil-A happening yesterday.
The wonderful thing about our great county is that we can spend our money as we like and patronize whatever businesses we choose. As far as boycotts go however, we need to differentiate between the owners, the companies themselves, and the workers who work there. In the case of Chick-fil-A, add to that the local franchisee who pays the corporation for the right to operate the local outlet.
The opinion that has so many people up in arms is not a policy of the company, rather it is of Dan Cathy, the company’s chief operating officer, who, just like us, has the right to believe as he chooses. To boycott the company that he leads spreads the hurt across many more people than him, which seems a bit extreme, given than it is his opinion being expressed and not that of the company. Even if the company leadership has chosen to donate money to causes that some of us might find objectionable, a boycott hurts many more people than just corporate leadership.
A quick search revealed this analysis from someone who is sympathetic to the notion of gay marriage, but who finds the boycott misplaced.
The author points out the the few pennies denied the individuals actually responsible are insignificant compared with the various people such as innocent employees who would be affected in a boycott who. The piece is well worth the read in its entirety.
I also was impressed with this explanation from David French of Evangelicals for Mitt, who says, “ If the price of public participation is the loss of your job, fear for your physical safety, or an inability to participate in the economic life of the country, then people will tend to stay silent.” I could not agree more!
Finally, as to the outcome for our grandkids who were bored to tears in the line with their parents, I actually like the way that the concept of free speech made its way through their 5-year old and 4-year old filters. They recounted upon returning home that they had learned about good words and bad words, i.e. people can say what they want, but nice people will not say bad words. What a clear explanation on the way the Obama’s “Kill-Romney” campaign strategy is unfolding.