How did we get the point where governments weigh in on an owner’s morality as a reason to infringe on that owner’s rights to take part in the free market? This kerfuffle started when Dan Cathy, CEO of Chik-fil-A made these comments on The Ken Coleman Show and reported on The Christian Post:
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,’” Cathy said. “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
Here is the actual interview if you’re wondering whether or not Dan Cathy has horns, two noses or something weird sticking out of his ears:
Dan Cathy and Chik-fil-A are entitled to their opinions. I would think everyone would agree that their opinions and beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, are valid opinions. They are not advocating the beheading of those who do not believe as they do.
But what does surprise me is that anyone can believe that the government should or does have the capability of preventing Chik-fil-A from lawfully operating their business in any neighborhood across this nation. Unfortunately, some politicians think they have this authority. Before getting to those politicians, though, let’s see if Chik-fil-A’s corporate managers or their policies and rules are violating any laws.
First, I cannot find anywhere any allegation, any court cases or any other administrative proceedings indicating Chik-fil-A discriminates in their employment practices. They don’t discriminate against anyone in violation of federal or state law.
Second, I know for a fact they don’t discriminate against patrons based on race, sex, national original, or for that matter, one’s sexual preferences. How do I know this? I’ve been in Chik-fil-A on numerous occasions, once with a friend of mine who is gay. Guess what? No inquisition took place prior to him placing his order. He was not asked his sexual preference nor was he refused service because he was gay. I have seen Blacks, Latinos and women in Chik-fil-A. Amazingly I’ve not witnesses any discrimination in Chik-fil-A. They actually seem happy to take everyone’s money.
So if they’re not violating any federal, state or local laws, then why is Boston Mayor Menino vowing to keep them from opening a store in Boston? The Mayor claims that “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”
I guess Boston is inclusive only if your opinions match the Mayor’s opinion.
In Chicago, the same nonsense.
Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A’s effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy’s remarks last week that he was “guilty as charged” for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
Seriously? You’re going to block a legitimate business because you disagree with the owner’s opinion? Oh, it’s Chicago. Guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
What’s really going on with this story? I think two things. One, people are pandering to gay rights activists. Two, politicians who disagree with others’ opinions believe that somehow the government can establish what is acceptable opinion and what is unacceptable opinion.
Not only is this Orwellian, but it is the slippery slope of politically correct bias that is quickly becoming the ruination of this nation.
Private individuals can boycott and deride. But when the government gets involved in punishing thoughts we enter dangerous territory. Government cannot and should not regulate this free speech.
FOLLOW UP, Thursday, July 26, 2012:
Mayor Menino admits that he can’t actively block Chik-fil-A and that he “made a mistake” in saying that he could. Good for you, Mayor.