If we’ve heard it once, we’ve heard it a thousand times: The American Left and the self-described liberals who inhabit it are open-minded, inclusive and tolerant. As we’ve come to learn, however, that tolerance only extends to those who agree with their worldview.
The latest conservative in liberals’ crosshairs is Chick-fil-A’s President Dan Cathy. An interview with the Baptist Press has caused a firestorm after Cathy stated he was “guilty as charged” in his company’s support of the traditional family.
For these remarks, boycott campaigns have raged across the internet as outraged liberals call the company and its president “hate mongers,” “bigots” and other, unpublishable, epithets. Many liberals have stated they will no longer “support” Chick-fil-A, perhaps under the mistaken impression that it is a charity, not a restaurant, a business that doesn’t need supporting, but patronizing.
Cathy’s remarks have been portrayed as “anti-gay” when in fact they are merely pro-traditional family. People can disagree with an action, position or lifestyle without being “anti-” something. Those who are pro-life aren’t anti-woman, those who are pro-family aren’t anti-gay, and those believe in the importance of hard work and dedication are not anti-poor.
The Left’s view on Cathy’s remarks show just how intolerant and sophomoric their ideology really is. Not only do they have no problem with Ben & Jerry‘s publicly and vocally supporting a position on gay rights, they laud their public stance. They “support” that company because its owners and founders follow the straight and narrow on what is “politically correct.” Others that deviate feel the wrath, as Chick-fil-A is now experiencing.
To my personal disappointment, the company has apparently buckled and released a statement that it will no longer become involved in partisan disputes, even though the company itself never did. It was the Left who involved the company in the dispute, and did so only because its president was “wrong,” according to their social views. Companies like Ben & Jerry’s have never, rightfully so, been terrorized by the Right for holding an opinion differing from their own. Some (like myself) have personally chosen not to buy their product, but a wholesale boycott was never issued in response to the personal views of its founders.
Many on the Right and Left continue to express disappointment about the polarization of American politics during the last several years, but it’s actions such as these that tear Americans apart. The campaign built to destroy Chick-fil-A has made patronizing what is, apparently, a very tasty chicken restaurant, into a political statement. There are enough things in our world that are controlled by political animosity. Chicken nuggets shouldn’t be one of them.
'Cathy stated he was “guilty as charged” in his company’s support of the traditional family.' n nGay marriage is a danger to the traditional family? Just who is being intolerant?
Hillel, yes, homosexuals trying to change the definition of marriage as it has been for several thousand years threatens the traditional family because it distorts reality. You homosexuals in the street know perfectly well that what the elite, political homosexuals want is not acceptance, what they request is not tolerance–rather they demand admiration and so attempt to throw their perversions in our faces all the time. They, and you, think that you can convince normal people that the homosexual is just fine, regardless of what the CDC statistics about depression, sickness, disease, early death. Read Matt Barber's Open Letter to Homosexuals.
…and those who support separate but equal schools and buses and housing aren't anti-black, they're merely pro-white, or better yet, pro-tradition! Homophobia and racism can be quickly cured through THE MAGIC OF SEMANTICS! n nYou can twist your logic in a pretzel all you like, but specifically denying ONE group of Americans more than 1,000 federally mandated civil rights is ANTI-something. You might think gay people don't deserve civil rights, you might think gay people are going to hell, you might think they deserve to be treated as second-class citizens. You can think all of those things, and you can even lobby to put your own wishes into law. But please, at least have the guts to stand up and admit it. Shout it from the rooftops: I THINK GAY PEOPLE ARE LESS WORTHY THAN OTHER AMERICANS! I THINK GAY PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS LIMITED! THEY ARE NOT EQUAL TO ME! If you think it, have the guts to admit it. But let's put aside this "pro-traditional family" BS, shall we? Give me a ring when you want to ban divorce by constitutional amendment, and execute adulterers, and ban all non-procreative sex even within marriage, and maybe then I'll take you seriously. n nTry this: Stand in front of one of your gay friends — I'm sure you have gay friends, right, because you're SOOOO not anti-gay — and tell them to their face: "I BELIEVE YOU DON'T DESERVE THE SAME CIVIL RIGHTS AS ME BECAUSE…" and fill in the blank. Let me know if they buy your "pro-family" argument. I know you don't want to be seen as bigoted in any way (who's the politically correct one here?), but look in the mirror and be honest. If this is how you really feel about gay marriage, fine, but then learn to accept the fact that thinking gay people deserve fewer civil rights IS anti-gay. Own it. Say it with me now: "I *am* anti-gay." Don't like the sound of the truth? Then re-examine your politics.
I'm having this conversation right now with gay friends on my Facebook, where this is posted. Try again. n n-Bethany Mandel
And if one of those friends wanted to get married, would you refuse to attend? How exactly does this kind of friendship work? Do you allow them in your pro-family home, even if there are children around who might get the wrong idea, that they're regular people just like anyone else?
As someone who must view objections to the recognition and affirmation of gay marriage as unworthy of any respect, of course you can't imagine how any right-thinking person would allow such a "retrograde" attitude to intrude upon a friendship. But in fact "this kind" of friendship (the image of someone in a lab coat, holding "it" at arms length with tongs in disgust comes to mind) works like every other "kind" of friendship: friends owe each other not only their love and support but also their honesty
I get it, Bethany, especially after reading your Facebook conversation. It's hard to admit unpleasant things about ourselves, and you're very invested in the notion of NOT being anti-gay. You have gay friends. You insist that you would have been willing to grant the gays near-equality (separate but equal) if only they didn't have the audacity to insist on being recognized as actually 100% equal to you, JUST AS GOOD as you, worthy of the exact same rights. I get it. You want us to believe that your motivations for opposing civil rights are not based in bigotry. I'll let you keep that veil on for a moment, since you're not ready to remove it. But here's an idea: Maybe, must maybe, you can see that even if your motivations are somehow pure and positive and loving, the actual THING you are supporting for all these noble reasons is, in fact, anti-gay. There's just no other way to paint it. You can justify it, you can explain it away, you can give me your very good reason and point to your gay friends for their, um, very qualified support. ("Thanks for coming to MY wedding, gay friends. Sorry I will fight against your right to have your own wedding. Nothing personal! Kiss kiss! Love you!") But in the end, for whatever reason you want to call it, you are opposed to equal rights for gay people, and that is anti-gay. Even if your motivation is pure, that's just a fact. You're absolutely entitled to feel however you want, and absolutely entitled to fight for whatever you want to fight for. But when you start claiming black is white, it's enough already. At least be honest. You oppose civil equality for gay people. Period. Enough with the verbal gymnastics and the excuses about your motivation. It might make you feel better to think you're not a bigot as you strip away your friends' rights, but it doesn't actually make the people you're hurting feel any better to know that you're taking away their rights with love in your heart.
Hey, Wayne, YOU fight to ban divorce and we'll continue fighting the homosexual and homosexualist nonsense.
Chic Fil -A is the best – straight, gay or bi or anything else you want to label yourself; who cares what Cathy's views are as long as he keeps making the best chicken sandwich, cole slaw and fries in America. Also, he's closed on Sundays because of his faith. If that upsets you do Chipolte or Wendy's on Sunday.
Yes, it does annoy me they're closed Sundays. But that's my problem.
Yeah, me too. This religious stuff interfering with my Chi Fil A on Sunday is really annoying. I hang around their parking lot on Sunday until I can't take it any more and then go to the nearest Wendy's.
LOL — really!
"Those who are pro-life aren’t anti-woman, those who are pro-family aren’t anti-gay, and those believe in the importance of hard work and dedication are not anti-poor." Maybe "some of those who…" or "many of those who…", but a categoric "those who are X aren't Y" is nonsense, when knowing that someone is "X" is more likely to be "Y" than is somebody who is "non-X." n nAnd do Ben and Jerry, who years ago sold the company they founded to a huge international company, Unilever, have any say in the company's policies today? Cathy is still very much a part of the company he founded and the company continues to reflect his "values" in ways that are there to be seen, e.g., not being open on Sundays.
I haven't patronized Chick-fil-A but now that I've learned that intolerant liberal bigots are calling for a boycott I'll now have to buy and eat as much as I can afford.
YOU WILL LOVE IT!!! And what you are proposing is called a BUYCOTT, as opposed to the Ben and Harry's, or whatever the name is, BOYCOTT.
Lots of chest thumping, lots of drama — note the SHOUTING CAPS — and very little sense. n nThe commissars who run the gay marriage political campaign have dictated that one cannot be pro gay rights and anti gay marriage at the same time. Why? Semantics indeed! The basic question of whether gay marriage is in fact a right has gone begging, behind the shrill voices of the movement aimed at making the usage of the word its validation. n nThey want to get married for reasons having nothing to do with civil rights but rather a peculiar fancy common to some but not all gays. Having a ceremony, which they can any time, feathering their nest, which they can any time, playing husband and wife, which they can any time — all these are not enough. They want and therefore demand that their fancy be fulfilled 100% by having it recognized by the state. And to win the polemical war they do what abortion advocates do — they claim it as a sacred right. And they thump their chests and go hysterical when anyone dares gainsay them. I've even heard a "gay holocaust" predicted if they don't get to be married officially. n nGay marriage opponents may be wrong, but they are not ipso facto homophobes, though this is how the gay marriage campaign seeks to portray them. It is indeed possible to believe strongly in gay rights — and that the rights of gay couples can be and are recognized individually on the merits — and at the same time believe that gay marriage is overreaching. But try to hold a reasoned debate, outside a court that's been venue-shopped, with the mob that is the gay marriage advocacy, and you'll be torn to pieces.
If anything, the bullying and accusatory tone of wayne1234b and BruceGodfrey prove, rather than refute, the intolerance of some advocates that same sex unions be given the same status as marriages, right down to the name of the relationship.
For the small percentage of the 2-3% of the population that is gay that wants same sex marriage, I say: sorry but sometimes you can't get what you want. Bottom line: Your relationships aren't important enough to society and civilization to warrant all the energy wasted on this issue. Live, love who you want, be happy and and protected by law from violence. Just not as a married couple.
That may be the best summation of this issue that I have read.
Well, yeah, I suppose we can expect the liberals to continue to *be* patronizing.
I don't boycott liberal companies (which are about 95% of all companies), and I disapprove of the Left using the boycott to punish those with whom the disagree. And also, if Americans need jobs, is it not a fact that Chick-A-Filet employes many people? Is that bad? Is KFC holier than Chick-A-Filet?
They did the same thing to Arizona when they passed the new illegal immigration law a couple of years ago. They put pressure on people to boycott the entire state. The liberals say they want the economy to improve, yet they turn around and try to cripple the economy of an entire state that refuses to fall into line with their views.
Hey, wise: If by speaking "out against equality" you mean Dan Cathy's support for marriage as it has existed these many thousands of years in all societies, except the ones that withered away from their decadence, you ate stretching yourself, contorting yourself out of shape. Keep it up and you will get a hernia from trying too hard. This family, and for the sake of the ignorant, that means a mother and a father and the children, LOVE Chick-Fil-A and go there, 30 miles away, whenever we can. As to Ben and Harry's ice cream, or whatever its name is, there are too many other great ice creams and we don't patronize companies that want to change what marriag really is. There is no equality for elephants in the definition of marriage and there is no equality for homosexuals either. Homosexuals and homosexuality are sterile, except for the disease they produce and spread.
I'm sorry but elephants are four legged animals. Homosexuals are human beings and as such should be treated like human beings. Guess what? My 'traditional' family had a mother and a father. My mother was sterile due to an accident she had as a child. Did that mean that she should not have been allowed to fall in love and marry? Does it mean she and my father shouldn't have been allowed to adopt me and give me a home where I could grow in the loving environment of a family that my biological parents weren't able to give me? I think boycotting Chick-fil-a is stupid. They are allowed to have their own beliefs just as I have mine. I have liberal friends