Now I am not here to talk about the issue on which they spoke out, i.e., "Gay Marriage." In my view they are entitled to hold whatever opinion they want and to express that opinion. You should also NOT try and draw any conclusions as to my own views on that issue from anything I write here.
Here's the deal, the owner and founder of Chick-fi-la is a devout conservative Christian holding very traditional and orthodox Christian beliefs. When he started his business he decided that it would be a grand experiment. He would run his business base on good sound business principles and (this is important) as long as they do not violate his conservative Christian convictions. He did this and he did it successfully and in this regard more people should follow his example.
Now, many years later his business is thriving and his convictions are still in place. Because of this he is interviewed and asked about the role of his Christian convictions in his business and he opening and honestly answers each and every question. Then, during the course of the interview he is asked his view on "Gay Marriage" and he just as openly and honestly answers the question as he has every other question he has been asked. So far, so good . . .not a problem. You need to read what he actually said to get the context. That's something apparently neither the mayor of Chicago or Boston has done . . . but then they are politicians and might not know the meaning of information it it true context.
Let's see what he did not say. He did not say that Chick-fi-la would not hire someone who is in a gay marriage, he did not say he would not serve someone who was in a gay marriage. Fundamentally what he said was that he did not believe that Gay marriage was legitimate under the principles laid down in the Bible. His view is that True marriage (some would say traditional) marriage is between one man and one woman. He is not commenting on "Gays" in particular, in polygamy, serial marriages, living together without benefit of marriage or any other of issue on which I am certain he has equally strong views.
You may feel that what he believes about these and any other issues you want to take up are important and maybe they are. But, for me, the issue is not what he believes but what these Mayors did. In their effort to be supportive to the Gay community which is within their rights they did something more egregious and dangerous. They did not express a personal view of support nor did they express their personal objection to his viewpoint. They did not just say "I for one" (individual) will not patronize his business and urge all you who agree with me to do the same. No they engaged in what is essentially official oppression.
How you ask? Here's how . . . when they reached down and picked up the official letterhead of the city of which they are Mayor, wrote their views upon it, signed their name to it as Mayor of the city, and released it to the press the were guilty of Official Oppression. They are entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to use their office in that kind of way. Today it is Chick-fi-la, who will it be tomorrow? I believe the City Councils of both cities should reprimand them both . . . not for their views but for the way the chose to use their office . . . they used it as a means of official oppression of a lawfully established business.
We cannot tolerate official oppression at any level of government. The government is there to serve ALL the people and not just the people with whom the Mayor agrees. As an officer of government they may certainly express personal views. They cannot, however, be allowed to do so in their official capacity.
There are a lot of reasons for objecting to these Mayors or any other government officials injecting themselves "officially" in any of these kinds of things.
Martin Niemöller spoke for me and thousands of men like me when he said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something--but then it was too late.
I do not want the government singling out one company or individual for attack. If there needs to be a policy then let the appropriate governmental body develop one. If there needs to be a law then let the appropriate government legislative body enact one. Let it be done in the "people's houses" (legislative bodies) after appropriate debate and discussion . . . . Not Mein Führer issuing and edict. This is the big issue here and a slippery slope we do not want to go down!
It is fine for non-governmental groups to oppose or support Chick-fil-a or any other business whose business model they do or do not like. It is not ok for Government officials to do so.
It is my experience that most of us can find a way to work it out. Truth is most of us are "a little bit country and a little bit rock-n-roll." That is, we want to live our lives somewhere in the middle. We do not want extremes to rule the concourse of our lives. And yes, I am aware that might mean that extreme in my mind might be a little to the left or right of where I am on an issue. But that's what makes for the debate isn't it . . . and debate is a good thing.
Here is my answer to the mayors and everyone else: If you are pro "Gay marriage" and don't like Truett Cathy's views . . . don't eat at Chick-fi-la . . . don't support them by patronizing them. If you are not pro "Gay marriage" and agree with Truett Cathy . . . then support them by eating there. If you don't care one way or the other what Truett Cathy thinks do what you want. As Shakespeare might say, "To eat or not to eat, that is the question." You make the call based on your appetite, your convictions or any other reason you choose. I'll do the same.
