{"id":28748,"date":"2012-08-02T20:50:44","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T02:50:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=28748"},"modified":"2014-11-05T13:44:08","modified_gmt":"2014-11-05T20:44:08","slug":"the-two-chick-fil-a-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/08\/02\/the-two-chick-fil-a-issues.html","title":{"rendered":"The two Chick-fil-A issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>See, this is what’s driving me batty about the whole Chick-fil-A brouhaha. \u00a0Too 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<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

That’s wrong.<\/p>\n

There are two<\/em> very distinct issues or questions here. \u00a0Mixing the two of them, intentionally or emotionally, makes this not only a false “decision,” but is downright dangerous to our society. \u00a0Here goes:<\/p>\n

Issue #1 – Does Chick-fil-A get a pass for its religiously-motivated activities?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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. \u00a0Leaving aside the question of what “traditional Biblical marriage” really means, what it means to the Evangelical Right is “one man, one woman” marriage.<\/p>\n

If that were all that was going on here, that would be one thing. \u00a0But CfA has a charitable arn, the WinShape Foundation. \u00a0That Foundation gives millions of dollars each year<\/a> 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. \u00a0In at least one case, one of the recipients is also involved in gay deprogramming activities.<\/p>\n

Now, personally, I find that all reprehensible, and CfA’s social activities, even if driven by the religious beliefs \u00a0of its founders \/ executives, deserve, even require, a social response.<\/p>\n

Some have argued that, since this is based on religious belief, criticism of CfA is religious discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0Indeed, the First Amendment and freedom of expression protects critics of CfA as much as it protects its supporters.<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0I disagreed with the substance, but I admire the dedication (even to a wrong-headed cause).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0If you have a right to speak out based on your beliefs, I have a right to speak out based on my beliefs. \u00a0Hopefully 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.<\/p>\n

Social actions have social reactions. \u00a0If 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.<\/p>\n

Issue #2 – Should Chick-fil-A be blocked by the government?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is where the complication comes in. \u00a0“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.” \u00a0And 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.”<\/p>\n

I said above that social actions drive social reactions. \u00a0But this isn’t just social, this is governmental<\/em>. \u00a0And the government, in this case, works under special restrictions. \u00a0I already mentioned that the First Amendment protects you from governmental actions against you for your speech and faith. \u00a0The Fourteenth Amendment also protects you from the government by requiring “equal protection under the law.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

In the case of building permits and zoning laws, there are objective and time-tested reasons for doing so. \u00a0It will have a traffic impact. \u00a0The nature of the business will impact the neighborhood, based on size or clientele or the sort of thing the business sells or does.<\/p>\n

But those rules have to be equally applied. \u00a0If you want to ban fast food shops \u00a0in 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.<\/p>\n

And shutting out a business for the expressions of its president, or because of what they do legally<\/em>\u00a0in the way of political and social activism, is going to get you a suit based on First Amendment claims.<\/p>\n

Now, if CfA is actually doing some illegal,<\/em>\u00a0that’s different. \u00a0If 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. \u00a0But neither appears to be the case with CfA.<\/p>\n

(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.)<\/p>\n

“But they’re hateful,” the opponents say. \u00a0“We cannot let them get away with that.”<\/p>\n

And I agree. \u00a0But that’s addressed in the first issue above. \u00a0As soon as you get the government involved, things become sticky. And dangerous. Because it’s a sword that cuts both ways.<\/p>\n

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.” \u00a0I don’t want to see that happen, but it’s using the same subjective personal beliefs<\/em>\u00a0as the basis for who gets treated how by the law.<\/p>\n

“But we can objectively, demonstrably say that anti-marriage equality groups are harmful to others.” \u00a0Well, you can probably convince me<\/em>\u00a0of that, but I strongly suspect you’d have a hard time convincing a court that it’s enough to overcome the Equal Protection clause. \u00a0And 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.<\/p>\n

Taking governmental action against Chick-fil-A is not only arguably unconstitutional<\/a>, but it’s wrong and<\/em>\u00a0it sets (or furthers) a dangerous precedent of allowing personal belief and community bias\/preference to play a role in how government treats others.<\/p>\n

* \u00a0 \u00a0 * \u00a0 \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

Social actions cause social reactions. That’s what society is about. \u00a0There are two issues here:\u00a0a question of social discrimination vs. legal discrimination.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It’s okay, in principle, for individuals<\/em> to socially<\/em> 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. \u00a0It’s also okay to respond favorably in a social fashion to companies that do something you agree with.<\/li>\n
  2. It’s not<\/em> okay for the government<\/em> to legally<\/em> discriminate except for clear, objective, even-handed reasons. \u00a0Doing otherwise, even if you get away with it, allows other folks to use the government to do the same thing to you<\/em>. And they will. \u00a0(And they have, and you probably thought it was wrong then.)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    To which I’ll add:<\/p>\n