A game of chicken

I am going to weight in on the Chick-fil-a controversy.

One: They have a right to believe anything they want and to express that belief.  I believe it is protected in the Constitution of the United States.

Two:  Those who disagree with them have the right to believe anything they want and to express themselves accordingly and that, too is protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Three: I believe that other organizations such as Facebook et al, who have pulled the plug on Chick-fil-a for their stand have the right to do that, just as the advertisers on shows like Rush Limbaugh’s have the right to pull their advertising from his hate mongering messages. But those who wish to stay and advertise there with him, have that right, too.

So, where does that leave us?

If you so desperately disapprove of a company’s stance on something, then by all means do not support that company. If you find their corporate creed and their political action donations offensive, then you should vote your conscious and withdraw support from their products. But remember, they have the right to hold those beliefs. Right or wrong, so long as they do it lawfully.

You want to shut down Rush? Go after his advertisers. You want to shut down the bigoted Chick fil-a, quit buying their delicious sandwiches. (If you don’t, try putting the slaw on the sandwich-ummm good.) But remember, this works both ways. So you have to be willing to have your ideals and ideas boycotted at some future date by those who disagree with you.

Think of it as quid pro quo for karma.

I’m not sure who makes a chicken sandwich as good as the guys from Atlanta. I guess nobody. So a lot of you are going to have to look around and find a replacement sandwich, which fills the bill, as they say. Or you are going to have to say, I don’t mind crossing the lines and eating at a company who promotes hatred, bigotry and backward thinning in the name of religious freedom. (By the way, be careful, there are a lot of them. You might go hungry and under clothed for some time.) But that is America. They have a right to do what they do and you have a right not to buy their products if you do not want to.

That being said, I do believe mayors and city councils and others who would prohibit a tax-paying corporation from coming into their communities are wrong. It basically is saying, you have to think and believe just as we do, or you can’t do business here. That, too, is wrong. And dangerous. Why?

Besides being un-American, it can easily be turned around against you and your movement. Say you stand against Capital Punishment. And let’s say you run a series of very successful shops. You use the money you make to campaign against the killing of prisoners by the state. (Okay, I’m with you, I’ll buy your products.) But now Houston and San Antonio and Dallas and Pittsburgh and God knows where else decide that they believe in Capital Punishment and will not allow your business to open in their cities. Oops!

You are being singled out because of your beliefs. You are being persecuted because of what you hold to be a moral right. You are being denied the right to run a business because of a political stance. Wrong.

Turn about is only fair. Even if the beliefs are wrong. And that’s why this whole business of public institutions getting into the fray is wrong. Facebook is not a public institution. It is a business. They have the right to express an opinion and to run their anti Chick-fil-a message and procedures just as you do. It is their money and their game.

But Chicago, Santa Monica, San Francisco, Boston, and other municipalities are walking a fine line by entering this argument. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, who I rarely agree with on anything, said, “You can’t have a test for what the owners’ personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city…You really don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit. That’s just not government’s job.” It doesn’t feel American either.

I agree with His Honor this time. I think it is not in the best interest of our country to so engage our public institutions. What’s next? Congress entering the fight? State legislatures? I hope not.

My argument is not whether gays and lesbians should or should not have marital rights in our country. That is for another column on another day. My argument is that the discourse and the actions of that discourse should be carried out with the understanding that both sides have rights. And what is good for the goose shall sometimes come back and work quite well for the gander.