What I've noticed is how the reaction to Cathy's comments (i.e. the boycott, the accusations of bigotry, the mayor's of Boston and Chicago making statements) has been labelled as 'whining', 'ridiculous', even 'intolerant'. Many have said that homosexuals and liberals were trying to deny freedom of speech to Cathy and to his company.
Noticeably, when a minority group denied equal rights raises it's voice and opinion, it gets labelled and is told to 'shut-up' ( I actually saw Facebook posts of this nature). Then the battle cry of free speech is raised (rather ironically) as though the Christian Right were being denied its voice somehow.
I think somewhere in the mix of some people's bickering, name calling and pettiness, both sides have let this get away from the real issue. We all know we have the right to free speech. Everyone seems to be exercising it really well lately. However, it seems that what is being confused as denial of free speech is simply the consequences of speaking. Whenever someone or a group say something someone else or another group doesn't like, there are always risks of reaction. This is just human behavior. Now, I'm not condoning name calling and personal attack here, but we must realize that there are going to be various kinds of reactions (no matter your platform).
For example, just within the last month when Oreo posted a picture of a 'Pride' cookie on its Facebook page, people began posting. Notably, many people said they would stop buying Oreo cookies, and there were some rather hateful remarks. And, let us not forget in the late 90s when the Southern Baptist Convention voted to boycott Disney because of Disney's support for same-sex couples and because Ellen DeGeneres outed herself on her ABC (Disney-owned) sitcom. The Southern Baptist Convention was making its statement against what it saw as sinful. Obviously, the Right has had a history of making its points be heard too.
Underneath all of the reactions, though, is the real issue. The real issue is about equal rights under the law. It is lawful for a man and woman to get married; however, it is not lawful for a same-sex couple to get married. It is even banned, a bold, forbidding, and denying move.
Why is it that those who believe in what they call 'traditional' marriage want to deny marriage to those who do not share the same view? How does allowing same-sex couples to marry affect the heterosexual couple's right to marry? As far as I know, no homosexual is asking married straight people to give up their rights to marry and their rights to share the legal benefits of that marriage. No one telling straight married people that their choice is bringing God's judgement on a whole nation. No one is telling straight people that their desires are unnatural or disordered. No one is telling straight married people that they are the only choice for raising children. No one denies straight couples the right to be on an insurance plan together, file taxes together, or to be involved in medical decisions together. No one tells straight married couples who are together for many years that they cannot be part of their partner's funeral.
Yet, all of this is ok when applied to gay people. It is ok that private corporations and churches and affiliated organizations work to keep gay people from having the same treatment as straight people. This is what is at the root of this issue. Organizations like Focus on the Family work to legislate their view of morality, thus denying loving same-sex couples the right to be a legally recognized family just like their straight next-door neighbors.
Interestingly, Focus on the Family says that there are health benefits for 'married men and women' which include the following:
- Higher levels of physical and mental health
- Longer lives
- Happier, healthier and less violent relationships
- Greater emotional support
- Lower levels of depression and suicide
- Reduced risk of either perpetrating or suffering a crime
- Increased individual earnings and savings
**Borrowed from 'Talking Points (Marriage)
Though this group posits the benefits of marriage, they work to deny same-sex couples the same benefits. Not only do they believe that marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman (which is fine if that's their belief), but they support legislation that makes this the rule for all others (which is not so fine). And to this organization working to deny equal rights goes some of Chic-fil-a's money.
So, for me, as a consumer, my only way to 'vote' on this issue is to choose where to put my money and where not to put it. In this era, it is very difficult to make ethical choices about how we spend. We often don't know where our products come from. However, if what I do find out about a company is disagreeable to me, I can choose to redirect my money to other groups that match my values. Though this has been labelled 'ridiculous' or 'whiny', all of us have this right. Today, many who side with Chic-fil-a showed their support by lining up and buying chicken. Many who don't side with Chic-fil-a have chosen not to go there. This is how consumerism works in a free society.
All the while I've become more reflective about all the verbiage used during this latest skirmish in the so-called 'Culture Wars'. I think an analysis of this most recent episode in our history and counter protests to other historical liberation movements would be profitable. Perhaps this could be my MA thesis work. Perhaps this could be my contribution to the movement.