Voltaire on Chick-fil-a

I should take a moment at the start to commend Chick-fil-a on two things. Firstly they do not discriminate in their service, if they did then they would have debased both the issue and themselves. Secondly I am impressed that (Jim Henson fiasco aside) they have handled their criticism correctly.

It is rare that so many people have such twisted opinions over a topic that seems to delineate itself quite as nicely as the Chick-fil-a debacle. The normal system of simply standing up for what you believe in seems to have become convoluted as the issue of free speech has arisen.

Chick-fil-a and its COO Mr Dan Cathy have issued a statement in response to critics of its charitable donations to anti-gay/anti-homosexual marriage campaigns. The statement stated that:

We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives,’

“We don’t claim to be a Christian business, companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are. But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles.”

“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,”

“Chick-fil-A serves all of our customers, team members and potential team members with the utmost honour, dignity and respect.”

“At the heart and soul of our company, we are a family business that serves and values all people regardless of their beliefs or opinions,” Cathy wrote. ‘‘While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees.” 

They gave a reasonable statement and one that many who would not normally be interested in such issues have noticed and been appeased by even if they do not necessarily agree with their views. These people have subsequently seen any criticism of Chick-fil-a as an affront to the free speech Chick-fil-a have exercised. The issues however, run deeper than that.

Therein lies the problem. In a world where social media has allowed the propagation of one view to spread en-mass an idea, or opposing ideas, often gain a quick foothold. The flip side of that is that any speech by either side is too often taken to mean the desire to not have the opposition state theirs. I am opinionated enough to blog therefore I hold my own views up as ideal but whilst economic views can always be challenged social ones are often tough to accept as potentially incorrect. The idea of others disagreeing is anathema to the average blogger and those people who hold such views must be proved wrong, its human nature. However the transcendent concept must always be Voltaire’s motion that we can despise a view but defend the people’s right to hold it (succinctly summed up by Evelyn Beatrice Hall).

Chick-fil-a are free to hold these views. If they do not act on them I don’t even have an issue with a company any more than a person who makes such a statement. What does begin to take the proverbial biscuit however is when they make donations labelled charity to companies such as WinShape who funnel their donations into campaigns that oppose gay marriage rights and advocate the use on conversion therapy.

These two causes not only prevent some from getting their fundamental rights to marry but can cause long term mental issues to those who feel pressured into conversion therapy. Many places use methods that are unfounded and none have been broadly accepted in the scientific community.

Whilst I do feel that there is a fundamental logical and moral flaw underpinning both those causes others do not, whilst they are sanctioned Chick-fil-a also has the right to donate to them.

The rest of us however have the right to oppose this, to fight this, to even mock it. It is not necessary for something to be illegal to be wrong. If you feel the urge to back Chick-fil-a then yes you are agreeing with their views because nobody is taking away their free speech. This issue is not the twisted political ideal vs opposition many have played it out to be it simply comes back down to backing gay rights or not.

Follow me on twitter at @TheTomAtkinson

For further reading

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175587/Chick-fil-A-President-fast-food-chain-Dan-Cathy-OUTS-company-ANTI-GAY--proud-it.html

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271

http://thelastword.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/23/12911924-muppets-to-chick-fil-a-cluck-you?lite

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activists-demand-removal-of-chick-fil-a-from-college-campuses/

North Carolina ~ Amendment 1 is not a Political Issue

It is a weird feeling, having knowledge that you are better than someone else. You might know you have superior skills or a better knowledge of a certain subject, but this is a different sensation entirely. It has to be proven too you and not by you. This was done today by the 61% of voting North Carolina residents and the result of the vote on amendment 1. Details of which can be found here.

In short the amendment states that there shall be no legal recognition of marriage that is not between one man and one woman.

This law was passed and demonstrably proved that religiously motivated bigotry is still a potent force in modern American politics. Why religious you ask? Admittedly there will have been some people who were voting for secular reasons. They enjoy a more pure form of bigotry which is, happily, rare to find in a human.

To lack the religious motivation in this issue leaves you free of any perceived obligation to vote for such a proposition. Your views on humanity are solely your own and you have deemed a group who are no different to you, apart from their choice of partner, to a life where they are unable to act in a manner of their choosing. This is made sadder by the many major publications linking homophobia to a rejection an inherent truth in the phobic. The secular choice to vote, therefore, was made simply because homosexuals were deemed different. Any decent human would reject such a philosophy and most do.

Religiously motivated bigotry on the other hand will have made up a far larger proportion of the voters today. Indeed the religious majority of America is so huge that many may have been motivated by religion to vote against the amendment. Unfortunately the bible is quite clear on the subject of homosexuality and those who felt religiously motivated by the bible will have overwhelmingly have voted in favour of the amendment.

As a child I remember standing in a teachers office, being introduced to the ideas of politics, as I was asked; “In a democracy should the wishes of the majority take precedence in all matters of law?” Foolishly at that stage in life I answered yes. Since then my views have matured and I realised what a beautifully ignorant answer that was. The moment of being asked that question came unbidden to my mind upon hearing of the bill passing in North Carolina. A large group for whom any result in the poll would have little effect voted and came out overwhelmingly against the minority of whom most if not all would be affected most profoundly.

A minority may be protected by the majority so long as the majority understands the plight of the minority. Unfortunately this rarely happens. In the case of gay rights the religious majority in America means that even with tolerant Christians understanding is unlikely

Why is it that in a country where no religion should have precedent over another, as one of its founding principles, an issue that has nothing to do with religion is up for debate? A marriage is the union between two people who are in love and wish to express that love in its purest form. They vow to love each other forever and two such people should be able to take on the legal rights that such a marriage imparts.

Were religion the sole arbiter of moral rights then the individual sects would be able to deal with the issue of gay marriage however they choose, of course there would be many differing views at different churches because you will be hard pressed to eliminate the few churches that do believe in the right of gay people to be married and more that do not respect the right of people to be gay at all.

Fortunately the church doesn’t have the monopoly on marriage, I hope people are not stupid enough not to realise that atheists get married too. Hence I justify what I said; this issue is not a religious one. Religious nuts who would rather deny homosexuality’s existence than explain to their children that sometimes guys called Bob fall in love with guys called Matt should definitely not be allowed to say that two people cannot wed have no right to take away Bob and Matt's rights. They may be prejudiced to their hearts content but should not be able to affect the law of the land to enact those views.

In the, now more distant, event of gay marriage being legal nobody else will have a devalued marriage, nobody will become gay simply to take advantage of this new provision, nobody will have their religion taken away from them. All that will happen is that Bob and Matt can go home as a married couple and enjoy all the same benefits, rights and respect that their neighbours Chris and Mary get.

I feel thoroughly vindicated in saying that I am a better person than those who voted for amendment 1. It was an action whereby people exercised their right to vote and in doing so removed the potential of equal rights for others. It illustrated either an extreme stupidity or an extreme lack of humanity.

It is both disgusting and, in the light of today’s events, illuminating to discover the last amendment to change the definition of marriage that occurred in North Carolina, it defined marriage as between two members of the same race.

Please follow me on twitter @TheThomasAtkinson