Chic-Fil-A Aftermath: Objections and Responses

WOW.

Thank you so much for the overwhelming support. People are reading and learning. That’s what The ReBoot is about: looking at common trend of thought in Christianity and holding them up to the light to see if they honestly reflect Christ. To wrap up, let’s look at some common objections to the pushback on Chic-Fil-A in general and my blog in particular. If you haven’t read yesterday’s post yet, take a look here.

1.) The Southern Poverty Law Center is a left-wing group that inappropriately labels groups as hateful.

The SPLC states clearly on their site that a group isn’t labeled as a hate group for maintaining that homosexuality is unbiblical. I also mentioned that in my post.

In looking at the organization’s site, I assumed that someone could brush it off as simply a  “liberal” site.  Since that was the case, I enacted one of the oldest rules of journalism: confirm through two or more sources. I knew that if these were legit sources, they would appear elsewhere. If you type in the names of those quoted on in Google you’ll find them in other places besides the SPLC. Besides, even if the SPLC is overtly liberal, it doesn’t negate the content and meaning of the quotes from the Family Research Center.

To save you some trouble, here is a pamphlet. It was quoted a couple of times on the list in yesterday’s post. Google entire quotes and see what pops up. Sure, some of the sites may not be reputable, but a lot are. Research various medical organizations and look at their opinions concerning the various issues that I addressed. Also, if you find one where the Family Research Center recants on their stance of homosexual men being pedophiles, let me know. I haven’t found one yet.

It’s appalling and sad to me that so many people (especially blacks and other minorities) can read false facts of a group of people being scientifically linked to harming children and shrug it off as not hateful. In that case, is the Klan still a hate group today? They aren’t killing folks anymore, at least not in massive numbers. If Burger King gave money to groups that called black men porch monkeys and said they were naturally prone to be lazy, poor fathers, and sexually deviant because of their blackness, i’m sure the conversation would be different.

2.) LGBT people are playing the victim.

I discuss my problems with the term “anti-gay” and express my concern about city governments banning Chic-Fil-A on shaky legal grounds. I know that some people representing and advocating for the LGBT community are behaving incorrectly concerning this issue. There are extremes on both sides of the argument.

For example, I strongly disagree with the plans for people to go into Chic-Fil-As this Friday and go on a kissing spree. It’s countering one extreme with another, and that helps no one. It also confirms negative stereotypes about gay people, that they are sexually driven and inconsiderate about flaunting their sexuality.  I would be equally upset if a pro-gay group tried to ban the Bible.

However, two wrongs don’t make a right. I believe that as a nation are so polarized that we automatically demonize another point of view without using the good reasoning skills that most of have us to fully understand a point before disagreeing. Does someone calling you a bigot because you disagree with gay marriage make it okay to empower hate speech or unfair treatment of a whole segment of society? I don’t understand how one incorrect action gives the other permission.

I also think people are lacking empathy in this situation. If you wanted some recognition and someone put forth time, money, and effort to make sure that didn’t happen, wouldn’t you be upset? If someone were spreading mistruths about you to support their efforts to block your recognition, wouldn’t you be upset?

Lastly, it’s common practice for a majority group in power to accuse the minority group of “playing the victim” when they campaign for more rights. But that is for another post.

3.) LGBT community is hindering free speech. I support this hindrance with my post.

At the risk of being too forward, this situation cannot be about free speech because free speech was never the issue in the first place. The point of my post wasn’t to argue against Dan Cathy’s stance (although I disagree with the way he frames God’s judgment), but to highlight why a large portion of people have an issue with Chic-Fil-A as an organization. Cathy donates coperate funds to organizations that 1.) Actively work against rights for gay people and/or 2.) Have dubious reputations. Thus, the LGBT community is upset and wants to bring awareness.

Dan Cathy was never kidnapped, silenced, killed, or otherwise bullied by the government. That’s what the first amendment protects you from. If you express an opinion that I don’t agree with, I also have the first amendment right to publically disagree, and you have the right to publically disagree with my disagreement. Yes, I know there is some suspect dealings with Chic-Fil-A openings around the country, but it doesn’t affect the organization at large.

Let’s be honest here. Chic-Fil-A Appreciation Day was to support Cathy’s message, not his right to free speech, since that right was never on the table to begin with. Personally, I’m appalled that prominent Christian leaders are saying that it’s a matter of opinion. That statement is incredibly misleading. Just make sure you understood exactly what Cathy said before you throw your whole weight behind his stance. Check out this article by the Huffington Post to get some clarity on that. I don’t deny Cathy his right to express himself, because it would also jeopardize my own.

4.) There are more important things to talk about

I understand that point of view, however, it doesn’t fly all the way with me. I believe in the fair treatment and uplifting of EVERYONE. The black kid in the hood. The white poor family in the trailer park. I’m concerned about gun laws and student loans. A lot of people are, and so are people in the LGBT community. Funny thing is, a lot of the other issues that people point to as “more important” than this one are the very ones that harm us all, regardless of sexual orientation or religion. But again, the extreme polarization in our society hinders us from seeing that.

I’m leery of saying that one form of hate or destruction is worse than another. It is all bad. Unfortunately, I can’t write about everything in one post.

So, why speak up at all then? I’ll close with this quote attributed to Martin Niemöller, who was a German pastor and social activist:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Chic-Fil-A Aftermath: Objections and Responses

  1. I have thoroughly enjoyed all of these posts. I may not have agreed with every single sentence, but I have been enlightened and inspired. I hope to enjoy your non-Chick-fil-A posts just as much!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s