So let me issue forth a few words on the Chick-fil-a situation that has exploded over the last few weeks.
Chick-fil-a is a privately held company that runs a chain of fast food chicken themed restaurants across the country. The Cathy family that owns the business is well know for their social conservative stands, so it was really of little surprise when the President of Chick-Fil-a Dan Cathy announced his opposition to marriage equality. The Henson Company, founded by Jim Henson, who supplied Muppet toys for the Chick-fil-a equivalent of Happy Meals, announced that while not trying to break their contract with Chick-fil-a they stood with marriage equality and were donating the proceeds from their business arrangement to organizations that promoted sexuality equality.
So far all we have here are private companies and individuals exercising their first amendment rights. (For the record I stand with the Henson Company, but for regular readers I suspect that this is hardly surprising.)
Supports on both side of the argument have announced plans to mobilize with their money by either refusing to do business with Chick-fil-a franchises or promising to do increased business at the stores. That is all well and good too. That is a perfectly valid form of expression that carries a powerful impact.
I have very serious problem with the two liberal mayors who have waded into the scrum, not as private citizen, but as representatives of government. The mayors ofBostonandChicagohave announced that they are seeking to prevent the expansion of the Chick-fil-a brand into their cities. They have announced that they will use the machinery of government to try to achieve the ends, and this is flatly wrong.
I have already stated that I stand with the proponents of marriage equality, but I must denounce the actions of these two mayors,
Think about what they have actually proposed. That the government should punish private individuals, in a direct and harmful manner, for expressing opinions that the is unpopular with these particular politicians. This is an abuse of their position as public servants.
I think that the position held by the Cathy family is wrong, hurtful, and are in general demeaning, but they have a right to those opinions. I believe in equality for all, that why I stand with marriage equality, but that also means I stand for all people to have their voices free from government intimidation. All supports of freedom should denounce these mayors, while supporting equality in all its forms.
As a free person, I intend to never eat there again – even though I like their products. That is the only response necessary. It is true that the other side MIGHT have more staying power – but, over time, I doubt it.
Brad Said:”It’s interesting to note though, the only reason the threats of politicians to withhold business licenses from Chik-fil-A are unconstitutional, is because corporations are in some aspects legally treated as people. ”
I don’t think that is true. I think legally a case could be built that the Mr. Cathy and the Cathy family are being harmed directly by the government’s illegally restricting, or trying to at least, and that would give them standing and harm. No requirement at all to see Chick-fil-a as a person.
Glad to hear it.
It’s interesting to note though, the only reason the threats of politicians to withhold business licenses from Chik-fil-A are unconstitutional, is because corporations are in some aspects legally treated as people. That’s right. Even though the business is privately held, Chik-fil-A is indeed incorporated…
http://free.salesfuel.com/companies/Chick-fil-A-Incorporated-1913886.html
The Chik-fil-A controversy is a perfect example of why complaints that corporations are treated like people are silly complaints. The attack against Chik-fil-A was intended to punish the owners for their political speech, even though it was an indirect punishment. Without rights for corporations, the politicians could have succeeded in the Chik-fil-A attack.