I hate to say it, but I think the forces of righteousness got beat in the Chick-Fil-A brouhaha. I realized this when a co-worker came in with her god-bothering Chick-Fil-A take out. She sat in a hot car in a long line to buy a lunch she would never have eaten if not for the hullabaloo about Chick-Fil-A's gay unfriendly political stance. She was proud of eating that crap, and I'm sure Jesus was right proud of her. I doubt it was very good. Serves her right.
Damn it! I think we've all been punk'd. Those of us who support marriage equality* have been provoked into outrage. Those others who oppose gay marriage have been provoked into buying a chicken sandwich and probably some truly awful waffle fries just to show their support. All this for a company that set out to enrage a growing segment of society that is tired of unjustifiable discrimination. It's hard to believe it wasn't intentional. And considering the results, I have to hand it to them. The guys who run Chick-Fil-A know damn well that we don't have to choose between two fast food joints, but between dozens of them. A significant and loud minority is all they need to make a pile of dough. It doesn't matter if they seem intolerant to most of us, because most of us weren't going to eat at Chick-Fil-A anyway. I wasn't. I'd love to boycott Chick-Fil-A, but I can't. I don't eat there. I can't stop eating there. I can't remember the last time I had a Chick-Fil-A. I seem to remember that the chicken sandwich wasn't all that bad, but the fried potatoes were terrible. (The soft drink was just a soft drink.) A very successful business, and some very wealthy individuals, get to play the victim. They were helped by politicians expressing the desire that this gay-unfriendly business stay the hell out of their towns. I understand the sentiment, but politicians can't keep businesses from opening up in their communities on the basis of their protected speech. If they tried--and they won't because their lawyers won't let them--Chick-Fil-A could easily sue, and win, and get its attorney's fees paid for by the cities. You want to do something, politicians? Add "sexual orientation" to your city's civil rights ordinances. Then if Chick-Fil-A does come to town, they can preach the hate, but they can't practice it. Don't give the opponents of gay marriage a chance to say our side is for suppressing political speech. If it weren't for free political speech gay people would still be in the closet. Conservative spokespersons gave away probably millions of dollars worth of free advertising. The more we push a boycott, the more the religious and conservative among us feel compelled to show their support for the downtrodden multi-millionaires by buying a chicken sandwich and conspicuously carrying their lunch in the bag for the next week or two. They will buy a crappy lunch they most likely otherwise would have bought at a more convenient location. They are serious about this. It's a clear win--financially--for the bigots. It was an advertising campaign, a damn good one, paid for by supporters of marriage equality. We never should have let a chicken sandwich become a symbol of intolerance. We screwed up. I'm not sure how we should have played it. I think some of the things that were done made sense. Chick-Fil-A has earned a great deal of ridicule. Humor at their expense is appreciated. The cure for speech we don't like isn't censorship, but more speech. I don't confuse a boycott with censorship. As a private individual, I have the right to refuse to do business with people I don't like for whatever reason. But with politicians writing fiery letters on official letterhead, it's hard to maintain the distinction. But let's face it. We lost this public relations battle. Chick-Fil-A is laughing all the way to the bank. We got punked into supplying them with advertising and publicity, and conservatives got punked into buying, if not actually eating, a crappy lunch. The big winner of this battle is Chick-Fil-A. And I'm not happy about it. Will ______________________ *I don't know why I use this politically correct formula. Some people think it sounds better than "gay marriage." Gay marriage somehow seems like a special right. But it's not a special right for gays. Of course, I'm for straight marriage, too, but straight people don't have any trouble getting married. Nevertheless, the change in the law that I support is the legal recognition of gay marriage. There's no reason hiding behind a vague phrase like "marriage equality" just because it fares better in focus groups. You know what I want. I'm for gay marriage. For that matter, I'm also for letting Muslims and that remnant sect of Mormons hiding out in Utah have plural marriage if they want to. If a guy and three or four women want to be married, it's really none of my business. Nobody suggests I get to have a say in whether a guy and four women can live together in sin. Why do I get to say they can't get married? As long as they're consensual grown-ups they can do whatever they want to. I just realized I never posted about gay marriage, or even marriage equality before. I was for gay marriage before it was cool. Some think it's just because I'm a litigator, and gay marriage plus about five years would mean gay divorce. Gay divorce will be a lucrative field someday. The "gay divorce(e)" is a valued part of my future client base. I won't deny that factors into my opinion. But even if not for the many bucks I would get some distant day in the future, I'd be for gay marriage anyway. Things are trending our way. At the turn of this century, support for gay marriage was so small that the idea that we'd ever have it seemed to be a pipe dream. Today, we have narrow pluralities in favor of gay marriage. Demographics are with us, too. It is the older members of society who oppose gay marriage. Younger people support gay marriage by sizeable majorities. It's not likely those young people will be changing their minds. The real question for me, of course, is whether gay marriage will come soon enough to put any money in my pocket. I'm cautiously optimistic. Will
1 Comment
Harold Hill
5/14/2014 12:22:50 am
Don't blame Chick-fil-A. You got flimflammed by the 4th Estate, of which you are merrily a member. They used to call that being hoisted on your own petard.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
O. Will LaquelleBusy practicing law. Specialize in Motions for Extension of time. Archives
June 2016
Categories |