Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s ringing endorsement of the traditional family has caused quite a stir. More than a few of my Gen X and Millennial former students have vowed (on Facebook) never to darken the doors of their erstwhile favorite chicken restaurant again. I can’t help but wonder if they’re so scrupulous about the political views of the owners of all the businesses they patronize. (For the record, I doubt it. Also for the record, so far as market behavior is concerned, the consumer is sovereign and can make his or her decision on the basis of any information–or misinformation–he or she chooses. Of course, I’d prefer information to misinformation, but markets are imperfect.)
But various politicians–among them, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno–have also jumped into the breach on behalf of their offended constituents. To be sure, like their constituents, they’re entitled to say whatever they want. And they can even refuse as individuals to patronize Chick-fil-A. But when they make the move from voicing their opinions to denying a building permit, business license, or contract on the basis of Dan Cathy’s views, they have, as Eugene Volokh observes, run afoul of the First Amendment, which doesn’t permit viewpoint discrimination.
Does Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel really want to spend his city’s scarce resources defending this aldermanic act against a plaintiff with strong convictions, deep pockets, and a solid First Amendment claim?
My advice to the political leaders out there: Use this as a proverbial “teachable moment” about toleration and the limits of government. My advice to the aggrieved proponents of same-sex marriage: politicians with the courtier spirit displayed by Mayor Menino and Alderman Moreno are not your best friends. They’ll pander to anyone loud enough and powerful enough.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:01 am
Mayor Emanuel has come out against the chicken restaurant. I’m not sure how much he supports the denial of necessary licenses, but he did tell us that the restaurant’s values are not “Chicago values” because the owners “disrespect” our neighbors. He said something like it’s not going to be a good investment because it’s going to be empty.
I think saying someone doesn’t have “Chicago values” even as our “youth” are going around beating random people as a game and shooting children who get in the way of their gang wars is a bit rich.
A black alderman said the restaurant is welcome on the South and West sides though, and he also said something like “if they want to come down here, open a restaurant, sell sandwiches and employ people, then God bless them.” I don’t think too many of his constituents are all that upset about the issue of gay marriage.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:16 am
“I think saying someone doesn’t have “Chicago values” even as our “youth” are going around beating random people as a game and shooting children who get in the way of their gang wars is a bit rich. ”
Let alone the political culture. So what should we non-Chicagoans think of when we hear about Chicago values? Graft, cronyism, and gang warfare?
No, I know there are many good people in Chicago. But honestly, that horse is a little high.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:16 am
I don’t agree with Chick-Fil-A’s position but it’s their business.
I also believe that, after police and fire safety, the first priority of any politician is job creation and economic stability, especially today.
Government interference is both unconstitutional and irresponsible. Chick Fil A may not be able to touch Harold’s Chicken Shack in Chicago but there should be no bars to competition.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:40 am
Won’t Mayor Menino and Alderman Moreno look silly when it is discovered that the desire for Chick-Fil-A sandwiches is innate and immutable?
July 26th, 2012 | 10:43 am
I excerise a pro-cott with Chick-Fil-A. It’s the only fast food chain I go to anymore. I only seek out fast food when I have the grandchildren, but when I do, I’m looking for Chick-Fil-A. The place is always packed and with the nicest people, so I suspect I’m not the only one.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:47 am
I am in basic agreement here. Also, Chick-fil-A made a conciliatory statement days ago, without apologizing or disavowing any of their views on traditional marriage, and that should have ended things. If Chick-fil-A restaurants practiced some kind of discrimination, that would be one thing. But that’s not what this is about. This is just culture war nonsense.
Of course, people who want to boycott Chick-fil-A have a perfect right to, just as people have a right to boycott companies who make donations to Planned Parenthood.
There are times when opposite sides are better off agreeing to disagree rather than fighting to the death, and when the stakes are whether or not to eat chicken sandwiches, I would be inclined to agree to disagree.
July 26th, 2012 | 11:16 am
[...] Knippenberg talks about the Chick-Fil-A boycott on another blog page at First Things, Playing Chicken with the First Amendment. Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s ringing endorsement of the traditional family has caused quite a [...]
July 26th, 2012 | 1:00 pm
Don’t agree with Chik-Fil-A much, and don’t eat fast food (our boys read “Chew On This” by Wilson & Schlosser and swore off fast food about a year ago, and have held to it admirably despite peer pressure), but I am also disturbed by government officials making pronouncements like that on grounds irrelevant to their jobs.
July 26th, 2012 | 4:45 pm
The place is always packed and with the nicest people, so I suspect I’m not the only one.
Well, that’s the problem. Gay activists like knowing that if they go into a business that displays a rainbow symbol, that they will find others who share their beliefs and values. Just as Christian businesses sometimes identify themselves as Christian.
Displaying or announcing an affiliation can be a way of “filtering” – not only attracting those with similar values, but also repelling those with dissimilar values (notice, it is a form of discouragement that is entirely voluntary, and does not violate any discrimination rules).
But some people don’t like the idea of everyone being allowed to migrate toward and into communities of shared values. They like being able to do so themselves, of course – but they don’t like rival values having equal freedom.
Some people genuinely believe that everyone should share their values.
You see this in certain right wing organizations (Westboro Baptist being a conspicuous example), and you see this in the desire to hurt, restrict, limit, or otherwise mess with Chik-fil-A.
There is, to my knowledge, not a single shred of evidence that Chik-fil-A has broken any rules. It’s purely thought crime stuff: you are not allowed to believe things contrary to what I tell you are the right things to believe.
July 26th, 2012 | 5:17 pm
Why not? To them, even broken windows have value. Especially when the glazier is the government itself. It justifies the job and make even draw the job away from its other responsibilities, justifying new opportunities for the glazier’s associates. This kind of progressivism cares nothing of public service. They care only for control.
July 26th, 2012 | 6:05 pm
Westboro Baptist does not represent any right wing organizations that I know. Yikes!
July 26th, 2012 | 11:41 pm
Menino, Moreno, and Emmanuel are manifesting a pair of attitudes common in the Democratic Party and most potent in the gay lobby: no appreciation of the reality and legitimacy of political pluralism and an inclination to put political graffiti on every available surface of the public square. The First Amendment is implicated only if they are using the regulatory bureaux of the municipal government to harrass Chick-fil-a. More troubling is the deficit of a culture which is necessary for electoral and deliberative institutions to operate well and to be sustained over time by something other than crude balance of power. Liberals younger than Nat Hentoff do not get it because they fancy they own the place.
More than a few of my Gen X and Millennial former students have vowed (on Facebook) never to darken the doors of their erstwhile favorite chicken restaurant again.
Heckuva job, Brownie.
July 27th, 2012 | 8:56 am
Here in South East Michigan, Oakland University has a Chick-fil-A facility in the student union. Easy prediction: it will be closed by the beginning of the new school year. The above commenters know it is one side that began the fight; it is one side that will never agree to disagree; it is one side that spends considerable time obsessing and hoping for just such “opportunities.” It’s an election year after all. And that’s the problem for one side. They can’t help themselves and in this election year the results may not be what they want. First the HHS mandate, then the insult to small business owners, now this. If ever there was a campaign that needed to discipline the troops this one is it. Problem is the general can’t help himself either. I don’t see this as an opportunity because it just such tactics as we will see in coming days that have bullied our First Amendment into the scared kids corner of the playground. And the bullying won’t stop. It hasn’t for three decades.
July 27th, 2012 | 11:32 am
Won’t Mayor Menino and Alderman Moreno look silly when it is discovered that the desire for Chick-Fil-A sandwiches is innate and immutable?
Best line of the day.
July 27th, 2012 | 3:26 pm
Graham Combs (writes)
“Here in South East Michigan, Oakland University has a Chick-fil-A facility in the student union.”
I am from Michigan myself. The Oakland University Chick-fil-A is the closest location to were I live. I will eat there next Wensday for the Buy-cott. I will bring the entire family including my aged Mother.
Interestingly enough I have two cousins who go to school there and this will be added reason to visit them and see the campus. One of them is openly gay & involved in campus politics. I’ll have to see if he’s willing to join us for a free lunch!
“Easy prediction: it will be closed by the beginning of the new school year”
I dont agree.. I think it can weather the storm. Oakland is largley a commuter school and dosent have a politized campus enviroment. They also have legal contracts with the University for specific terms of several years that cant be broken without do cause.
Furthermore; any abandonment of current or subsequent agreements would be grounds for a lawsuit on both veiwpoint discrimination & religious discrimination grounds.
July 27th, 2012 | 4:10 pm
A smattering of ‘liberals’ who aren’t thrilled with Boston and Chicago:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/07/27/boston-chicago-go-off-the-rails-on-chick-fil-a/
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/26/rahm_emanuels_free_speech_attack/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/chik-fil-a-homophobes-have-rights-too
I note in passing that there are those who write for first things who are fine with politicians weighing in on what gets built where, though:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2010/08/12/the-great-muslim-disconnect/
Neither hypocrisy nor integrity are limited to one political strain.
July 27th, 2012 | 6:16 pm
No business should be prevented from opening because of the political or religious beliefs of its CEO.
Ways to express displeasure with Chick-Fil-A include
1) avoid going there. However, this usually hurts the local franchise owner rather than the corporation itself
2) host a gay party there. Bring your rainbow flags and have some fun.
I’m a Popeye’s Chicken man, myself, so I’ll avoid Chick-Fil-A on principles of taste.
July 28th, 2012 | 8:19 pm
“This is just culture war nonsense.”
Indeed! We can thank Mayors Thomas Menino, Rahm Emanuel and Alderman Joe Moreno for playing.
ACLU surprised me, defending Mr. Cathy’s statement, protected under the First Amendment:
“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, told Fox News. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.” (Source:http://www.christianpost.com/news/aclu-new-york-mayor-defend-chick-fil-a-against-threats-to-block-expansion-79007/#28z925qPuAKdUrTY.99)
In reply to Joseph Knippenberg’s observations of his former Gen X/Millenial students denunciation of Chick-Fil-A: it is a herd mentality; Facebook is almost like a vacuum. Gen X/Millenials strive for affirmation and by going against the grain, for example, saying on Facebook “I will still eat at Chick-Fil-A” is a social media faux pax.
This Millenial is certainly heading to Chick-Fil-A’s Appreciation Day on August 1, 2012, a suggestion by Mike Huckabee (gasp! The culture war continues.)
July 29th, 2012 | 1:05 am
2) host a gay party there. Bring your rainbow flags and have some fun.
This is what the Golden Rule is all about.
Because we all know that gay-friendly places would love it if their ideological rivals did something like this to them.
I used to think that it was possible to be a good person even if you weren’t religious or didn’t believe in God. But if you examine the success of “The Enlightenment”, what you really find is that those who are “enlightened” have sophisticated justifications for why they, alone of all mankind, are not bound by “the golden rule”. It is, shall we say, a side benefit of being “Enlightened”.
(I understand Protestants once enjoyed the same vicious superiority relative to Catholics, who in turn once enjoyed the same vicious superiority relative to Jews. Apparently having unique, direct access to The Truth – and thus being entitled to abuse the less-enlightened – is part of the normal process of birthing a new religious tradition.)
July 30th, 2012 | 11:50 am
Blake –
You mean like the Westboro ‘Baptist’ Church? Or these people, or these people, or these people?
Dude, you can call out any behavior you dislike. Go for it. But I can’t help but notice that you only seem to call it out when people you disagree with are doing it…
July 30th, 2012 | 12:41 pm
Jason,
“ACLU surprised me, defending Mr. Cathy’s statement, protected under the First Amendment”
The ACLU’s action shouldn’t have surprised you. Despite the demonization of liberals prevalent among many conversations, liberals frequently defend conservatives and conservative causes. Such defenses are part of liberal principle. Thus, while liberals urged the Supreme Court to allow Westboro Baptists to continue shouting their hatred, it was conservatives like First Things who urged the Court to deny Westboro Baptists of their free speech and religious liberty.
July 30th, 2012 | 10:57 pm
Well Michael, I am surprised!
Here’s ACLU being liberals in 2010, from National Review:
“The ACLU now seeks to unilaterally rewrite a federal emergency-medical-treatment law passed by Congress in 1986 to mandate that all hospitals provide abortions. But for more than three decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, federal law has firmly established strong conscience protections for individual health-care providers and hospitals who are reluctant or unwilling to “counsel, suggest, recommend, assist or in any way participate in the performance of abortions or sterilizations contrary to or consistent with” their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” (Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255945/aclu-s-unholy-war-catholic-hospitals-michelle-malkin)
I wonder what you mean by liberals: the classic liberal or the new liberal, practicing (allow me to borrow from R.R. Reno) “moral minimalism”?
In reply to your statement of the Westboro Baptists, I stand with Supreme Court Justice Alito dissenting alone in ALBERT SNYDER, PETITIONER v. FRED W. PHELPS, Sr., et al. He writes, “Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace [to bury the dead] without harassment does not undermine public debate.”
Certainly, the Westboro Baptists have the right to free speech under the First Amendment but in doing so abuse the law and tar the sacred. Why else would they picket funerals except to get a reaction? Is that true charity, in the Christian sense, not the bastardized secular version? (Although I am not a lawyer, I know the Supreme Court does not have the last word and that the law is not always perfect; they have failed to protect life by prematurely passing Roe v Wade.)
In this episode, the ACLU is protecting Chick-Fil-A’s President Cathy the right to say he believes in the biblical definition of marriage. Mr. Cathy is defending the sacredness of marriage that is the bedrock of society, which ACLU fails to realize; the classic liberal defends the sacred, that which is good, true, and beautiful.
The liberals you speak of, I known not.
July 31st, 2012 | 1:38 pm
Jason,
One of the things I respect about the ACLU is that they make everyone angry at some point, including me. While the organization is fundamentally liberal, it works according to its own logic and is willing and perhaps even eager to anger other liberals as well as conservatives. They don’t mind being unpopular.
So yes, I’m not happy with their decision to try to force hospitals to violate their conscience on abortion, but I still admire the organization’s integrity and fearlessness.
I get tired of watching people turn absolutely everything into conservative v. liberal, good v. bad. I think Reno’s formulation of moral minimalism is his way of justifying separating the liberals he likes (who all live in the past) from the liberals he doesn’t (who all live in the present).
August 1st, 2012 | 1:28 am
Dude, you can call out any behavior you dislike. Go for it. But I can’t help but notice that you only seem to call it out when people you disagree with are doing it…
I believe that if the mayor of any major city were to declare that gays (or blacks, or Muslims, or Jews – etc.) were not welcome to do business in that city, and were to declare that the mayor intended to use his position to deprive a member of that group of the necessary permits – solely because that member had displayed the traits peculiar to that particular identity – if such a thing were to happen to any identity other than evangelical Christian, it would not be enough to simply point out that there are conservatives who disagree with the position.
I believe that if it weren’t for the double standard – if Christians were granted the same civil rights protections that gays, blacks, Muslims, and Jews are entitled to – an investigation would be warranted, and punishments would be called for.
Because even the declaration itself would be viewed as a civil rights violation.
Even the act of saying such a thing – with obvious intent to intimidate (don’t even think about applying for a permit in this town!) and the obvious intent to denigrate (your kind are not welcome in this town) is itself the sort of act that would be recognized as criminal, if it were aimed at gays or blacks or anyone else on the “right” side of the double standard.
August 1st, 2012 | 3:16 pm
Big deal. The owners of the chain didn´t “condemn marriage”, they just transferred money to anti-gay marriage organizations. Poor misinformed students on facebook.
About the actions of this mayors, I think the Huffington Post on the issue is very good and clear: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/shut-down-chickfila-prope_b_1703781.html
August 2nd, 2012 | 1:04 am
“… it [the ACLU] works according to its own logic..”
Exactly. If one believes in objective truth, then there exists “something” outside of ourselves from which we all draw nourishment and can agree upon.
Where does ACLU derive their moral compass and logic? It just does not make any sense how an organization (and that goes for any political party or individual) can be described as fearless and admirable by advocating abortion. It is cowardice and goes against reason.
August 2nd, 2012 | 5:49 am
Big deal. The owners of the chain didn´t “condemn marriage”, they just transferred money to anti-gay marriage organizations. Poor misinformed students on facebook.
Yes, how dare anyone exist that does not support YOUR position.
How dare anyone give money to an organization that has a position you don’t like!
It must be nice to have the power to say “This is what I believe, therefore it is a civil rights issue and nobody has the right to dispute it.” Everyone else in America – even blacks – have to establish civil rights via due process, but you have the right to simply make a decision as to what you think people ought to be entitled to, and BOOM! anyone who disagrees can be run out of town, tarred and feathered, or deprived a business license.
And this is called “Diversity”.
August 2nd, 2012 | 10:48 am
Jason,
“It just does not make any sense how an organization (and that goes for any political party or individual) can be described as fearless and admirable by advocating abortion. It is cowardice and goes against reason”
I don’t agree with abortion any more than you do, but I do believe that some pro-abortion advocates have solid reasons for supporting it. Those reasons are wrong, but the people holding them are being reasonable.
I think anyone who generates heat and stands their ground is being brave. I don’t have to agree with someone to admire their character.
I know that some people like to portray their opponents as being beyond reason and as being weak, but I’m not one of them.
August 2nd, 2012 | 12:21 pm
Blake –
How you got that from the article he linked to is beyond me. It says the exact opposite of that.
Viewed? Possibly, by some. Successfully prosecuted as such? Well, I can’t think of an example of such… can you point one out?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact