by Jack Lee
Who could possibly be against freedom of speech in America??? Turns out some pretty important people are. The Mayors of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco told a business owner that he was unwelcome in their fair cities because he holds the wrong opinion; he supports marriage between a man and a woman. For that… he’s banned from these communities. For that… he’s been publicly denounced. For that his religious and moral beliefs are challenged, even though over half of America agree with him.
ABC News: “Boston Mayor Thomas Menino was the first mayor to come out against Chick-fil-a after the restaurant’s CEO Dan Cathy said this month that he was “guilty as charged” for supporting “the biblical definition of the family unit.”
Menino wrote a scathing letter to Cathy last Friday urging him to keep his restaurant out of Boston.
“I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston,” Menino wrote. “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.”
Menino clarified his remarks on Thursday, noting that while he use the “bully pulpit” to discourage Chick-fil-A from coming to Boston, he would not deny the restaurant the necessary city permits to open in the city.
Days after Menino’s harshly-worded letter Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (left) levied his own criticism at the restaurant, saying he does not believe Cathy’s comments “reflects who we are as a city.”
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. “And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.”
San Francisco became the third city to turn a cold shoulder on Chick-fil-A when Mayor Edwin Lee tweeted his distaste for the company’s anti-gay stance on Thursday.
“Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn’t share San Francisco’s values & strong commitment to equality for everyone,” Lee tweeted, adding in a subsequent tweet, “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”
Now here’s a letter from Mr. Joe Getty, formerly from Chicago and now living in Sacramento to the Mayor of Chicago….
Subject: Opening a business in Chicago
Hello: I’m very interested in opening a business in your beautiful city and I have a couple of questions and requests.
If it’s not too much trouble, could you please send me the official list of political and social opinions that I must hold in order to open a business in Chicago?
It’s recently become clear that merely expressing an “incorrect” opinion could lead to me being barred from doing business there…or at least having to fight Mayor Emanuel’s disapproval every step of the way. It’s hard enough to start a business and create jobs without that kind of resistance!
I would just try to guess which opinions the government requires that I hold, but in a recent case, you folks made clear that an opinion held by half of Americans was completely unacceptable. Guessing which other opinions the government doesn’t permit would be tough! In the case I alluded too (involving the folks from Chick-fil-A) the “illegal” opinion was the same one held by the President of the United States, until very recently.
Perhaps you could put out a “government-approved beliefs” newsletter on a regular basis, so no one is engaged in unacceptable speech or thought. Those who repeatedly expressed views contrary to the government could be given special training and re-education so that they wouldn’t make silly mistakes anymore!
Again, thanks for your assistance. I look forward to being in compliance with all acceptable beliefs, so that I will be permitted to earn a living.
Regards,
Joe Getty
I recall a huge Republican protest against a business man building a Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan.
What does people being upset about an “Islamic community center” at ground zero have to do with anything? Did you make sure everyone who was upset about it was Republican? I find that very hard to believe.
In my opinion building that “Islamic community center” at ground zero would be like building a gun shop and shooting range next to that theater in Colorado. Maybe it is just me but I bet that would upset a few people. Still it has nothing to do with free speech. Oh and as far as I know the “Islamic community center” was given the green light. So what is your point?
Dear Jim,
When members of Chick-fil-A use passenger loaded commercial airplanes as bombs to destroy buildings full of my fellow citizens in SF and then try to build a triumphal Chick-fil-A establishment on the site of the destruction I may protest them too, jackass.
Well Jim when you start comparing apples to apples you will probably get a better response.
Toby,
There should be a gun shop and range built right next to the theater in Aurora Colorado, if not a conversion of the theater to such. That area was and is a gun free zone, which means that only criminals are allowed to carry firearms.
One or two concealed carry people in that audience who know when to make a head shot when required and have the skill set could have changed the outcome significantly. But only criminals were and are allowed to carry arms in that complex. That is why there are so many dead and maimed.
Think about it.
“Well Jim when you start comparing apples to apples you will probably get a better response.”
Probably true.
How about this:
“One Million Moms — a project of the American Family Association — is very angry at JC Penney … because the Texas-based department store has hired Ellen DeGeneres as a spokeswoman.
“Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families,” the million (or so) moms write on their website. “DeGeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there.”
One Million Moms is asking people to call JC Penney to complain. ”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-ellendegeneres-idUSTRE8111Q420120202
The bottom line is that the right to freedom of speech doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences, just it’s not illegal.
Apparently Mayor Menino of Boston found out that not all of the citizens he serves appreciated the dictator tenor of his remarks…some may even agree with the Chic-fil-A guy.
It’s one thing to protest the establishment or express displeasure and strong disagreement with the man’s opinion but attempt to deny him the right to open a business? Incredible!
Apparently there has never been a case of discrimination or ill-treatment to customers or employees at the stores so the opinion he expressed is just a personal opinion.
Have supporters of the gay community become just a little too tyrannical in their support and efforts to impose their values? I think so.
The Mosque at ground zero has opened (September 2011). The original partners parted ways. Daisy Khan and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, are no longer in partnership with the builder, Sharif El-Gamal a Brooklyn born Muslim who says they had “different” visions. He didn’t elaborate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20109949.html
I think the comments of those mayors are totally inappropriate. As far as I’m aware, Chick-fil-A has not been faced with charges of discriminating against gay employees or customers. Government officials are entitled to express disapproval of Chick-fil-A’s stance, but they are not entitled to threaten to use the power of the government against the company, as many of those comments imply.
Barry Deutsch, my favorite progressive blogger, agrees:
http://familyscholars.org/2012/07/22/speaking-of-chick-fil-a/
That said, Chick-fil-A’s behavior recently has been stupid and deceitful. After the Jim Henson company canceled it’s partnership with the restaurant because of its stance on gay marriage, Chick-fil-A falsely claimed that they pulled Jim Henson toys because of complaints about children getting their fingers caught in them. They even set up a fake Facebook account, claiming to be a Christian teen, to further the lie. The sock puppet account even cites “John 3:16” while lying!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179056/Chick-fil-A-denies-using-fake-Facebook-profiles-defend-company-anti-gay-marriage-row.html
I find the hypocrisy of lying whilst claiming to defend Christian principles more offensive than the restaurant’s stance against gay marriage. And frankly, I find this to be somewhat of a disturbing trend in the Christian right, especially among organizations who make a point of fighting against gay rights. (See the deceitful tactics of NOM, the American Family Association, Lila Rose, etc.) They seem to believe that “lying for Jesus” is acceptable.
I think Jim’s analogy is apt. Many political figures used their positions to make those behind the Islamic community center feel unwelcome in their community. This was just as wrong as the comments by political figures trying to make Chick-fil-A feel unwelcome.
Thank you Chris, I agree with you. Holding a mere opinion because of ones religious beliefs is hardly the kind of thing we should censoring. Like you say, there’s no evidence of the company ever discriminating against anyone for anything, so whats all the fuss about? And this is just the opinion of the owner, one guy. Why would these Mayors want to punish potential employees by denying them a nice place to work? The whole issue of censorship and ostracism smacks of something not akin to American ideals.
Imagine that, a progressive blogger charges CHICK-FIL-A with lying. And if CHICK-FIL-A issues a denial, then that is further evidence the lying charges are true.
Of course it all must be true, right?
Some dopes will believe anything and run with it as long as it serves their asinine editorial purposes.
Now GLAAD has launched a lawsuit against CHICK-FIL-A.
Try this alternate view from a gay black man on for size —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUmoTOujJ7Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player
You gotta love this guy —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkODT83SI38
Big difference between private citizens speaking out and elected officials taking official action.
Zed: “Imagine that, a progressive blogger charges CHICK-FIL-A with lying. And if CHICK-FIL-A issues a denial, then that is further evidence the lying charges are true.”
Zed, it isn’t just a charge from a “progressive blogger;” the comments from the Facebook account are there for the entire world to see, and it is clear that the Facebook account was fraudulent. It is possible that the account was made by a supporter of Chick-fil-A, and not the company itself; however, that doesn’t explain the discrepancy between Chick-fil-A’s and Jim Henson’s explanations for why the toys were recalled.
I haven’t had time to watch those videos yet but I will tomorrow.
Loved it!
“it is clear that the Facebook account was fraudulent”
“discrepancy between Chick-fil-A’s and Jim Henson’s explanations for why the toys were recalled.”
You believe whatever you want to believe, Chris, I could not care less how thin your “clear evidence” is or unimportant. I have already contacted Chick-fil-A begging them to put a restaurant in Chico, if only to watch progressive jerks from hell on the city council try to block them.
“I have already contacted Chick-fil-A begging them to put a restaurant in Chico,”
Zed, Chick-fil-A is a franchise. If you want one in Chico, pay the fee, and open one.
Great idea Zed, we could use a good chicken place in Chico. All we have is KFC, way too greasy.
Black Bear Diner opened in Paradise recently and Sonic in Oroville. Love their lime freezes! Why not here? Has our city council scared away anyone from coming here?
A lot of us women miss Gottchalks and were hoping they would reopen here after their reorganization, as they did in several other city they had previousely had stores located. The empty Mervyn’s store would be perfect!
Chico is a great place to live, but the city council sure hasn’t been welcoming to businesses and creating jobs.
Girlfriends and I will get together a couple of times a year and spend the day or weekend in Sacramento so we can shop at the stores we love and buy the items we want or need.
Walmart’s expansion was denied and there is that vacant field at it’s enterance where another nice store was going in, but abandoned.
Yes, I’m hoping we’ll have a new city council that will promote business and jobs growth to provide the revenue needed to support our city’s needs instead of increasing the taxes on those of us that are still here.
If they do raise our taxes, of course, we have the choice to vote with our feet and move to a location near or far leaving the city with even less revenues.
Zed, Antoine Dodson is hilarious as always. Although his argument isn’t very convincing. Yes, he can get married to a same-sex partner in certain states, but even there he cannot get federal marriage benefits because of the unconstitutional “Defense of Marriage Act.”
Did you hear about the death of Sally Ride, the first woman in space? It was only after her death that the public learned that she had a same-sex partner of 27 years named Tam OShaughnessy. Despite their longtime commitment, O’Shaughenssy will not be entitled to death benefits or Social Security payments. Is this just? Ride was an American hero who risked her life for this country. We owe her and her family more than this.
According to TIME, married opposite-sex couples receive 1,138 federal benefits. No married same-sex couple in any state can enjoy any of these benefits because of DOMA.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/27/domestic-double-standard-what-about-sally-rides-partner/
In most states it is still legal to fire an employee because they are gay, because sexual orientation is not considered a protected status like race, religion, or gender. Housing discrimination against gays is also legal in these states.
And Dodson says that he has the same rights as everyone else? I’m sorry, he doesn’t.
Of course he can eat wherever he wants, and I can understand his annoyance at others telling him he is doing something wrong by eating at Chick-fil-A. It’s dumb to expect everyone to boycott the same things, and activists who don’t get that are annoying.
“You believe whatever you want to believe, Chris, I could not care less how thin your “clear evidence” is or unimportant.”
But I have actually explained why I believe what I believe, and you haven’t. What about the fake Facebook account isn’t clear to you? Do you actually think it was legitimate, even though it was created the day of the comment and uses a stock photo of a t-shirt model? I don’t understand your argument.
I am not making an argument, YOU ARE. I reserve judgment. YOU jump to conclusions as they fit your mind set and silly agenda.
I’m trying to understand all this. I am a Christian, I go to Church regularly. I believe in God, I study the Bible and I try to live by Gods wishes. Nobody is perfect, we all fail in the eyes of the Lord. If the Bible says a “marriage” is between a man and a woman I believe it because God said it. There is nowhere in the Bible that God says he “hates” anyone or is “anti-gay”. I think the people that are outraged don’t understand the Bible, maybe they don’t believe in God?? Mr.Cathy, evidently believes in God and what is written in the Bible. He should be allowed to believe without being chastized. I love my gay nephew, his living arrangement is his choice and his business and I don’t interfere in it. I have to answer to God one day for my choices not someone elses. I love people and trying not to judge, I wish we all could do the same.
Chris: ” It is possible that the account was made by a supporter of Chick-fil-A, and not the company itself…”
Many things are possible. For instance, it’s also possible that the account was made by a gay rights activist with the intention of accusing Chic-Fil-A of lying!
Chic-Fil-A was very busy yesterday as Americans came out in droves to show support for the fast food company.
“Did you hear about the death of Sally Ride, the first woman in space? It was only after her death that the public learned that she had a same-sex partner of 27 years named Tam OShaughnessy. Despite their longtime commitment, O’Shaughenssy will not be entitled to death benefits or Social Security payments.”
We also don’t know the sexual orientation or living arrangements of other people in the public eye…because it is not relevant to their contribution or job…nor is it anyone’s business. She was a very accomplished human being with a life worthy of biography. Book, memoir, movie, wikipedia entry…these are the the usual was that people learn about the personal lives of such persons.
Roommates who live together for many years (and do not engage in sex with each other) also will not be entitled to death benefits or SS payments…they can make private arrangements and would be financially able to do more IF the government would get out of the business of arranging peoples financial lives.
“I’m trying to understand all this…If the Bible says a “marriage” is between a man and a woman I believe it because God said it.”
Connie, nowhere in the Bible does it say that marriage should be restricted to “a man and a woman.” In fact, as I’m sure you are aware, the Bible speaks approvingly many times of marriage between a man and multiple women. Many of the Bible’s most celebrated figures practiced polygamy.
Today, however, most Christians believe that polygamy is a relic of an ancient time, and that it is in fact immoral; even sinful. I’m not aware of any Biblical support for the position that polygamy is a sin, but it’s still a position that most Christians hold.
Marriage in the Bible is different from today’s marriages in too many ways to go into here. To name just a few examples, there are passages commanding men to marry their brother’s widows, and rapists to marry their victims. These are not portrayed as mere options; these are orders, allegedly from God himself. And this doesn’t even get into all the ways that women were deprived of rights within marriage in Biblical times. Marriage has changed throughout history, in very fundamental ways. These changes have mostly been for the better, as they have expanded freedom, especially for women.
If Christians can see the aforementioned aspects of Biblical marriage as relics of an ancient time, not relevant today, why can’t they also see the prohibition of homosexuality in the same light? Leviticus, which contains the strongest statements against homosexuality, also has equally strong condemnations against eating shellfish and men growing beards. These condemnations are not taken seriously by virtually any Christians today. Why are the condemnations of homosexuality considered to be so important, while the others are not? I think this is because homosexuals are a minority group, and it has historically been very easy to discriminate against them.
And this doesn’t even get into the problems of basing U.S. law on the Bible. Even if you do believe homosexuality is a sin, it does not follow that gay marriage should be illegal. If you believe our country should have religious freedom, you should not try to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. Marriage law in the U.S. is not based on the Bible. Divorce is legal, even though Jesus himself explicitly condemns it. Adultery is legal. Re-marriage is legal. Inter-faith marriage is legal. Many Catholic charities refuse to allow gay couples to use their adoption services, but when was the last time they refused to let re-married couples adopt? Or inter-faith couples?
There are real inconsistencies in how gay couples are treated by the religious right, compared to how other allegedly “sinful” couples are treated. No one has proposed voting to annul Newt Gingrich’s marriage to his former mistress, for instance. These inconsistencies cannot be fully explained by mere religious conviction. There is a special emphasis on denying gay couples their civil rights. It is no mere coincidence that gay people have been historically marginalized and persecuted to the point where homosexual sex was a crime in most states until just recently. There is an almost obsessive focus on gay people stemming from the religious right that doesn’t add up to me.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Many Christians are trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with their beliefs that gays deserve equal rights. Many gay Christians are asserting that they can be both gay and Christian. I predict that within the next thirty years, we will see a majority of Christian churches change their stance on this issue. The condemnation of homosexuality will be read similarly to the condemnation of eating shellfish–as a relic of an ancient time, not relevant to today. Some denominations already preach this interpretation of scripture.
If churches don’t do this, they will continue losing young members at even greater rates than they are today. It’s no longer “cool” to hate gay people. When I was a kid, it was; my niece’s generation thinks differently, and that’s a good thing. I’m amazed and impressed by how much has changed in less than twenty years. I hope that churches will re-focus on the message of love that Jesus preached, and move away from preaching an outdated interpretation of the Bible which serves to alienate people from the church and deprive people of their civil rights.
Tina: “We also don’t know the sexual orientation or living arrangements of other people in the public eye…because it is not relevant to their contribution or job…nor is it anyone’s business.”
Ridiculous. If what you were saying was even remotely true, the tabloid industry wouldn’t exist. Public figures wouldn’t thank their husbands and wives whenever they got an award or accomplish something great. We wouldn’t learn presidents’ wives’ names in history.
Sally Ride’s fellow astronauts certainly weren’t shy about their relationships–there’s even a documentary, “Apollo Wives,” in which many of these wives talk about how they were unprepared to deal with all the publicity they received after their husbands went to space!
Your idea that we don’t know the sexual orientation of other public figures is so ludicrous, I can’t help but laugh. You are trying to draw some kind of equivalence between the problems gays and straights face–as if these groups are equally reluctant to talk about their relationships and romantic lives. You can’t possible be that stupid. You know damn well that gays face much more pressure to keep their romantic lives a secret–to stay “in the closet.” Anderson Cooper only recently came out as gay–does anyone need to “come out” as straight? Do straight public figures make it a habit of keeping their marriages secret until the day they die? Of course not.
There is no comparison. I’ve said it before, but I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish by playing dumb.
“She was a very accomplished human being with a life worthy of biography. Book, memoir, movie, wikipedia entry…these are the the usual was that people learn about the personal lives of such persons.”
Riiiight, because biographies and movies never go into the romantic lives of their subjects. Again, you can’t be this ignorant. Are you being intentionally dishonest to make your point? Do you think people reading what you wrote will be gullible enough to fall for what you’re saying? I just don’t get it, Tina. I don’t get how you can write the things you just wrote here, and not feel a sense of shame over how dishonest you’re being and stupid you are making yourself look.
“Roommates who live together for many years (and do not engage in sex with each other) also will not be entitled to death benefits or SS payments…”
Oh, good Lord. Are you really comparing roommates to married couples now? And they say liberals are the ones who denigrate marriage…
Tam was clearly more than a “roommate” to Sally Ride. The two were in love and in a committed relationship. They were not allowed to cement that relationship into law because you and others who agree with you have put extra roadblocks in their way, roadblocks which do not need to be there, which serve no rational purpose, and which we could easily take away. Don’t try to escape responsibility for your actions by drawing a false comparison that doesn’t make any sense. Your glib “roommate” comment is insulting to Ride, to her partner, and to loving married couples everywhere.
“they can make private arrangements and would be financially able to do more IF the government would get out of the business of arranging peoples financial lives.”
Absurd! Again, there are over a thousand federal benefits that married couples get that cannot be privately contracted. Death benefits and social security payments are just two of those. I can’t believe you’re trying to spin this to fit your narrative of big government–that doesn’t even make any sense!