Some thoughts re: Chick fil a news

Yes, I am going to post about the Chick-fil-a thing going on. I did not originally intend to, but after reading various articles, facebook posts, mocking pictures on both sides, etc, I've decided I want to. There are some things about this debate that have been bothering me a lot, and I want to address them. And yes, I do have a strong opinion when it comes to LGBT rights, so this post will come across as "biased" (although what isn't?), but I want to make it clear that I think there are two separate issues regarding this whole thing, and I want to address the second. I'm not going to write about gay rights, as there are many articles and youtube videos all over that say what I think about that, and I don't have much to add what they have to say; instead I want to write about a second issue that has come up regarding the recent news with Chick-fil-a, and I think seems to be largely ignored in this whole debate.

Many of the responses I've been reading includes phrase that people are tossing around, regarding those being denied their "first amendment rights." I have trouble seeing what all this stuff with Dan Cathy has to do with the first amendment, which is the right to free speech. The way I see it, people (or maybe it's just me) are getting more upset over where a fraction of the money spent at Chick-fil-a actually goes, which is to their philanthropy, the WinShape foundation. There is nothing illegal about what they do, and it is Cathy's choice to donate to the organization he sees fit. However, as I personally do not agree with many of WinShape's views and actions, most notably their strong stance on "traditional" marriage, I do not want to spend my money at Chick-fil-a knowing that a portion of it, however small, goes to that organization. (not to mention the large amount of money that WinShape has donated to other organizations such as Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council, which are, if anything, far more vocal on their views of "family life" than WinShape). And quite frankly, if someone chooses not to spend their money at Chick fil a simply based on the company's statement, or even be vocal in response to his views, then that is also their choice, just as it is Cathy's choice to make a statement in the first place. 


(I would like to add that Cathy's relationship with this foundation is nothing new; the only thing has has caused a stir recently is the combination of Henson's withdrawal of the Muppets toys and connections from Chick fil a, the response of Chick fil a to that withdrawal, and the letter from the mayor of Chicago). 

In making this decision to not buy from Chick-fil-a, I am not trying to say that Dan Cathy is wrong in voicing his opinion, regardless of whether or not I agree with it. We all have the right to do the same, which is a wonderful (and powerful) right. But just as Cathy is allowed to choose where he donates the profits of his company, I am allowed to choose where I spend my money. The whole "first amendment rights" argument I've been seeing annoys me for that reason. People tend to throw the phrase around to validate their opinion, or invalidate those who argue with them (he's being denied his first amendment rights because he is under attack), but my decision (I can't speak for everyone) is not the result of Cathy saying what he believes, but of where some of my money goes. And I can't feel good about giving my money to organizations like WinShape and Focus on the Family when I disagree with their statements so strongly. Whether or not they are wrong for doing so, I retain my right to choose where I buy food.

Again, I'm not really going to get into the subject of gay marriage. I am glad that Chick fil a does not discriminate based on sexual orientation when they hire; I do respect them for that. I could write paragraphs delving into Biblical arguments explaining why I believe using religion to argue against homosexuality is kind of silly (throwing out the standard Leviticus passages about pigskin, stoning, and rape, or Paul's views on women), but I'm not going to. I could also argue about civil rights, and genetics, or choices (rather, lack thereof), but I also won't do that. That is kind of irrelevant to this post. If anybody wants to hear my arguments, they're welcome to send me a message, and I will write them back with much more than they asked for. I would add that I genuinely respect all religions, and even would consider myself a Christian, just as much as I would consider myself someone who believes in the power of questioning. But in all honesty, I think that those who would agree with me would already be agreeing with me before reading what I have to say, while those who would initially disagree would not be swayed by what I have to say, because it would not be anything that they have not heard before, and I don't think I have the eloquence to write it very persuasively. I'm not one for debate.

I also do not think that my not eating at Chick-fil-a will change anything. I dislike the word "boycott" for what I'm doing here, because it implies that I believe this will cause a change. I don't think it will-- not from my part, anyway. I never ate there much in the first place, anyway, although I do like their chicken. So why am I not eating their food? Put simply, I just can't feel good about myself if I'm donating (however marginally) to a cause I absolutely do not support, and there really isn't much more to it than that.