See, this is what’s driving me batty about the whole Chick-fil-A brouhaha. Too many people, on both sides, are treating it as a single issue, to be met with either “We’re on Chick-fil-A’s side” or “Chick-fil-A delenda est.”
That’s wrong.
There are two very distinct issues or questions here. Mixing the two of them, intentionally or emotionally, makes this not only a false “decision,” but is downright dangerous to our society. Here goes:
Issue #1 – Does Chick-fil-A get a pass for its religiously-motivated activities?
The “case” against CfA is a combination of thing. Some folks have claimed, disingenuously, that this is all about the company’s President / COO Cathy saying that he and the company support “traditional Biblical marriage” in an interview with a Baptist magazine. Leaving aside the question of what “traditional Biblical marriage” really means, what it means to the Evangelical Right is “one man, one woman” marriage.
If that were all that was going on here, that would be one thing. But CfA has a charitable arn, the WinShape Foundation. That Foundation gives millions of dollars each year to evangelical family/marriage organizations which, among other thing, work to prevent marriage equality laws from being passed, and rolling back those laws which have passed. In at least one case, one of the recipients is also involved in gay deprogramming activities.
Now, personally, I find that all reprehensible, and CfA’s social activities, even if driven by the religious beliefs of its founders / executives, deserve, even require, a social response.
Some have argued that, since this is based on religious belief, criticism of CfA is religious discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment. The latter is plainly inaccurate (though see below), since we’re talking about individuals and groups of individuals expressing their criticism, not the government acting to suppress religious activity. Indeed, the First Amendment and freedom of expression protects critics of CfA as much as it protects its supporters.
If those individuals choose to boycott CfA, that’s not only their prerogative, but I applaud them for taking action, not just words. I feel the same way about folks on the Right who were threatening boycotts of JC Penney or Starbucks or Home Depot because of their gay-friendly corporate efforts. I disagreed with the substance, but I admire the dedication (even to a wrong-headed cause).
Similarly, supporters of CfA are certainly entitled to eat there five days a week if they choose, just as some folks made a point of going to the dreaded Starbucks in order to support their corporate stance.
I don’t plan on eating at CfA any time in the future, and I’ll let anyone know why if the subject comes up.
To argue that CfA shouldn’t face any criticism for its social activism, even if religiously motivated, is not only hypocritical (since many of those saying that have been whole-heartedly speaking out against companies that are socially active for gay rights), but simply wrong-headed. If you have a right to speak out based on your beliefs, I have a right to speak out based on my beliefs. Hopefully we can do so in a civil fashion, but regardless, you don’t get to expect my polite silence any more than I get to expect yours.
Social actions have social reactions. If I call you ugly, I can’t hide behind my religion and say that my faith drove that judgment therefore you have no right to be ticked off at me, or to not give me a birthday gift this year. I will leave it to others to say whether CfA is acting hatefully, but they are certainly acting in a way that invites social action in reply.
Issue #2 – Should Chick-fil-A be blocked by the government?
This is where the complication comes in. “CfA is hateful,” its opponents say (with some justification). “They are hurting people we know and love, and so any means necessary should be used to oppose them.” And so we’ve had mayors and aldermen and the like saying, “You guys are saying and doing things that aren’t in line what what we think our communities stand for and what I believe in, so we’re going to keep you from opening new CfAs in our city/neighborhood/borough/area.”
I said above that social actions drive social reactions. But this isn’t just social, this is governmental. And the government, in this case, works under special restrictions. I already mentioned that the First Amendment protects you from governmental actions against you for your speech and faith. The Fourteenth Amendment also protects you from the government by requiring “equal protection under the law.”
In other words, if you or I go before the government about something, we cannot be treated differently without an objective basis for doing so.
In the case of building permits and zoning laws, there are objective and time-tested reasons for doing so. It will have a traffic impact. The nature of the business will impact the neighborhood, based on size or clientele or the sort of thing the business sells or does.
But those rules have to be equally applied. If you want to ban fast food shops in order to keep CfA out, that’s fine — as long as you’re also turning down applications by Burger King and McDonald’s. Otherwise you’re going to be faced with a suit based on Fourteenth Amendment claims.
And shutting out a business for the expressions of its president, or because of what they do legally in the way of political and social activism, is going to get you a suit based on First Amendment claims.
Now, if CfA is actually doing some illegal, that’s different. If it’s violating the law in how it’s spending its foundation money, or if it shows a unique and substantial pattern of wrongdoing in its local operations, then you’ve got an objective basis for nailing them to the wall and keeping them out of town. But neither appears to be the case with CfA.
(Yes, there have been allegations and some employee lawsuits that are fairly unique, but not a large number and not so much as to stand out from what I suspect you could find filed for a variety of other reasons against other fast food locations.)
“But they’re hateful,” the opponents say. “We cannot let them get away with that.”
And I agree. But that’s addressed in the first issue above. As soon as you get the government involved, things become sticky. And dangerous. Because it’s a sword that cuts both ways.
Let’s say that, instead of CfA wanting to open up a shop in Boston, it’s Starbucks wanting to open up a shop in Birmingham, Alabama. And the government official in this case was saying, “No, we don’t want your kind here. You represent values that are in opposition both to our community and to me, and we feel your destructive and harmful social policies have no place in our town.” I don’t want to see that happen, but it’s using the same subjective personal beliefs as the basis for who gets treated how by the law.
“But we can objectively, demonstrably say that anti-marriage equality groups are harmful to others.” Well, you can probably convince me of that, but I strongly suspect you’d have a hard time convincing a court that it’s enough to overcome the Equal Protection clause. And those who oppose marriage equality, and homosexuality in general, claim to have all sorts of “objective” ways of demonstrating their point, too. I’ve yet to see any that I don’t consider bullshit, but not everyone would agree with me on that.
Taking governmental action against Chick-fil-A is not only arguably unconstitutional, but it’s wrong and it sets (or furthers) a dangerous precedent of allowing personal belief and community bias/preference to play a role in how government treats others.
* * *
Social actions cause social reactions. That’s what society is about. There are two issues here: a question of social discrimination vs. legal discrimination.
- It’s okay, in principle, for individuals to socially discriminate. It’s even laudable to be angry and to respond in a social fashion — through letter-writing campaigns, boycotts, badmouthing to your neighbors — to companies that do something you disagree with, even if their motivation in doing so is religious in nature. It’s also okay to respond favorably in a social fashion to companies that do something you agree with.
- It’s not okay for the government to legally discriminate except for clear, objective, even-handed reasons. Doing otherwise, even if you get away with it, allows other folks to use the government to do the same thing to you. And they will. (And they have, and you probably thought it was wrong then.)
To which I’ll add:
- Don’t be a dick. Especially if you’re trying to stake a claim on being righteous. Fight the good fight, but watch out for collateral damage. Don’t be hateful in the cause of fighting hatefulness.
For mayors to threaten legal blockage of CfA locations was a dangerous and illegal overreach, and fueled the persecution complex of right-wing Christians. Though there is evidence that CfA does practice hiring discrimination, but by means of an intricate interview process.
I have no problem with CfA funding their political goals, as long as they understand we’re going to point at them and point out what they did and why it was wrong. And boycott them (like there was ever any chance I’d eat one of their sandwiches anyway).
But my main dissatisfaction lies elsewhere. It’s with individuals lining up behind CfA to say they support anti-gay bigotry (OK so far) and then crying foul when someone calls them “bigot”. (Wait, what?)
Agreed, George.
Oh, and a Mother Jones article arguing basically what I did on Issue 2 (for my future reference).
OK, regarding your second point, let me throw this out:
My home state of California has passed a proposition which provides the state with money to fund anti-tobacco ads. One of the justifications for this is that tobacco use results in health issues which cost the state money; discouraging tobacco use, therefore, would reduce such costs to the state.
In a similar fashion, the city of New York is proposing a regulation that will ban the sale of large sizes of soft drinks in restaurants. This proposal uses the same justification – consumption of large soft drinks results in health issues which cost the city money, and therefore prohibiting the sale of large soft drinks would reduce costs to the city.
Could one argue that these laws are selective? In the same way that it’s bad for some politicians to want to ban a Chick-fil-A from opening while allowing similar businesses to operate, could one claim that it’s wrong to champion an effort to air anti-tobacco ads while not airing anti-Twinkie ads, anti-fireworks ads, and anti-Little League ads (Little League can result in injuries, you know)?
@John – I don’t think so. I also think the two sets of laws are different from each other as well as from the CfA case. Let me see if I can articulate some factors:
1. The adverse health effects of tobacco are generally accepted by authorities. That CfA’s activities are specifically harmful is not widely accepted (some even think they are positive).
2. Selling tobacco is not a constitutional right, while free practice of political speech and religious beliefs is. The barrier to affecting the former is lower than the latter.
3. It would be absurd to suggest that a law to protect from harm is inappropriately selective if it doesn’t protect from all harm.
4. The NYC regulation is more open to criticism here because it tackles the matter in an absurd fashion; it doesn’t prevent refills, it doesn’t prevent ordering multiple drinks at a time, it exempts soda purchased from a store or convenience shop, it only tackles sodas that are served side-by-side with more sugary drinks, it includes diet sodas along with sugared sodas, etc. Fast food operators could, I suspect, argue that they are being unfairly singled out (as if someone passed a law restricting the speed limit, but only for GM cars).
Excellent points.
Perhaps the NYC proposal can be justified by the claim that while the law is imperfect and will not stop the consumption of soft drinks, it will presumably reduce their consumption (from the people who for some reason are unable to buy 2-3 16 oz drinks to make up for the 32-48 oz drink they can no longer buy).
Personally, however, I wonder if the reverse will be true. When the record industry agreed to post explicit lyrics advisories on their music, the thought was that this would discourage purchases of such items by younger listeners. In actuality, they became major sales incentives (I even remember one 80s band trumpeting the fact that its record contained backwards masking.)
I wonder if in New York City, the “cool” thing will be to buy 10 soft drinks at one time. It would be a perverse “win-win” – city officials will claim that they’re clamping down on sales of large soft drinks, while restaurants will rake in the profits from the many small drinks that they’ll sell.
I can’t imagine it will significantly reduce soft drink consumption, esp. given the availability of refills.