Sorry for the blog absence. Non-blogging life has kept me busy and some illness didn’t help. But I want to make time to say this. You need to eat at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday. Liberal, conservative, you need to do this.
Liberals had been complaining that Chick-Fil-A is too conservative for a while now. The first hint is that they are actually closed on a Sunday. Seriously, who does that anymore? Most retail and dinner establishments are open at least for a while every day of the week, but not those rebels at Chick-Fil-A. And then its President, Dan Cathay, poured kerosene on that slow burning fire by saying that
"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."
Cathy explains that the company that his father created and the one that he now runs is possible because of family and the support that families offer.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that … We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy said.
Well, that needless to say infuriated many gay rights advocates, and even fairly conservative or libertarian types I respect deeply like Gabriel Malor. And while I just kind of wish we could choose where we eat based on what tastes good at a good price, a boycott like this is part of the ordinary ebb and flow of politics. Each person decides what is important, what is worthy of boycott and they carry it out. A boycott is a form of protected expression that I only wish we had more respect for, even if I am sick of every meal being a matter of a cause.
But then things went further than that. Chicago City Alderman Joe Marino said more or less, “that’s a nice restaurant chain ya got there. Shame if something happened to it.” Okay, what he actually said is contained in this passage:
On Wednesday, Moreno did not dispute that Cathy had the right to say what he said. But, Moreno said, “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you’re not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago.”
Chick-fil-A has obtained a zoning permit for the restaurant but needs approval from the City Council to divide the land, Moreno said. And in a city where the City Council rarely go against the wishes of the alderman, Chick-fil-A needs Moreno’s help.
Got that? You have a right to freedom of speech, but then if you do, we will use the law to harm your business. Mayor Rahm Emanuel tried to dress this up as a simple matter of economic management:
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel expressed similar sentiments to the Chicago Tribune, which first reported Moreno’s efforts this week. He said the comments “’’disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents,” and therefore building the restaurant in Chicago “would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”
Really, Rahm? You think that you know the market better than the people at Chick-Fil-A do, who are actually gambling their money on this? Doubt it, and I doubt that this was based on any study, but instead based at best your gut reaction and at worst a cheap attempt to dress up punishment for speech as something else. And even if it was based on the most scientific study, the reality is the whole thing is based on the estimated effects of speech on sales, and thus it is still viewpoint-discrimination.
Which means that this attitude goes as high as the White House level. Or do you think he just gained this lack of appreciation for the First Amendment since he left his job as Chief of Staff?
And while Alderman Moreno then tried to dress it up as a concern for discrimination, that is post hoc rationalization. When he first discussed it, he clearly was angry at Cathay’s expression. And do I have to point out that these men are angry at Cathay for... agreeing with the state of Illinois? Gay marriage is not recognized in that state, you know. So right now as we speak surely gay people are arguing that they should have the right to get married in Illinois, and Rahm and Moreno want to punish people economically when they say gay shouldn’t have the right to get married. Well, that is one way to win the debate, isn’t it?
Meanwhile in Boston “Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald he would block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city.” I suppose that since gay marriage was forced down the people of Massachusetts’ throat on a ridiculous claim that the founders of their constitution intended to require gay marriage, at least Menino has the virtue of disliking Cathay’s disagreement with official state policy. But that doesn’t mean that Cathay doesn’t have a God-given right to disagree with that state constitution (however twisted by their supreme court). Thankfully Mayor Menino has since backed down but if his city ever denies a single permit to Chick-Fil-A, he has opened his city to obvious First Amendment litigation. Meanwhile I myself saw the Mayor of San Francisco tweet out the following:
Some have complained when I highlighted this that there was no direct threat to take official action, but the law and ordinary people are not that stupid. When the mayor of a city tells you tell you to stay out of town, it carries a threat of official action. That is why public officials have to watch what they say. It’s the price of the job and the power they have eagerly sought.
Of course I kept waiting for the ultimate fascist mayor, Michael Bloomberg, to say something stupid, and... amazingly he didn’t:
Bloomberg, meanwhile, took to the airwaves in Gotham and said he’d welcome Chick-fil-A into Manhattan with open arms. The billionaire businessman-turned-New York mayor said Menino, along with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee, are wrong “to look at somebody’s political views and decide whether or not they can live in the city, or operate a business in the city.”
Which is weirdly... exactly the right thing to say. So for a moment I was impressed by Bloomberg finding a limit to his fascism. Then I remembered: among fast food restaurants, Chick-Fil-A is probably one of the healthiest places to eat by my estimation. So my guess is his fascistic desire to regulate your heath overcame his general fascism. I mean this is a guy who goes beyond the nanny state to the full-on nursing state, so I think it is fair to say that is where his true obsession lies.
So a number of conservatives have suggested that we do a “buycott”—essentially the opposite of a boycott—where everyone intentionally goes to Chick-Fil-A and gives them their business to show their support this Wednesday. I admit I wasn’t terribly interested in that when the only issue was Cathay’s support for traditional marriage, going back to my belief that every meal shouldn't be a cause. But this isn’t about that any more. This is about Mr. Cathay’s freedom of speech, and well, that’s kind of an issue with me.
So whatever you think about gay marriage, I ask people that believe in freedom of speech to come to Chick-Fil-A and order something this Wednesday. Show these petty fascists that this kind of bullying actually helps the businesses they seek to punish. In other words, give them the benefit of the Streisand Effect.
And the good people in those communities need to run these people out of office. They need to show less tolerance for those who are intolerant of differing views. Because it is elementary but apparently too many people just don’t get it: freedom of expression is essential to democracy itself.
They syllogism is simple, but it bears repeating:
1. The right to vote implies the right to choose freely on every subject relevant to that vote.
2. The right to choose implies the right to receive information and hear arguments about that choice.
3. We cannot receive information and arguments about the choices we make in our democracy unless people are free to express themselves.
4. Therefore freedom of expression is essentially to democracy.
And so when an official seeks not only to regulate behavior but even opinion and expression, then that person is seeking to create a very real tyranny, to strike at democracy itself. And we should have absolutely no tolerance of that.
So yes, even if you support gay marriage—hell even if you are gay—get a sandwich at Chick-Fil-A. Because this isn’t about gay marriage anymore. This is about freedom of speech.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence. If you would like to donate and help my wife and I in this time of need, please go to this donation page. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates. And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here. And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed communication. I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on his property. Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him. Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision. Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report. And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request. As you will see by the time I am done telling my story that this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.
0 comments:
Post a Comment