Skip to comments.Chick-Fil-A Fail: How we can do it better the next time around
Posted on 08/15/2012 10:28:47 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Thinking Out Loud
There were so many things I could have written about today: openly lesbian Tammy Smith's promotion to the rank of brigadier general and the fact that the military is still intact after DADT, or Thomas Beatie's (once dubbed the "pregnant man") divorce court struggles due to Arizona's confusion about his gender, or perhaps the fact that NBC's Olympic coverage actually included mention of out gay Olympians. Instead, I'm still stuck on Chick-fil-A.
Oh, that's so last month. Let's move on already!
I argued with myself about this. On one hand, it was hardly a lunch counter sit-in. It had no gravitas - it was about fried chicken for God's sake! It involved the Palins and people tweeting pictures of waffle fries to the world. Chick-fil-A support rallies have come and gone and Rahm Emanuel has already forgotten his pledge to keep Chicago Chick free.
On the other hand, did we win or lose this one? No one told me. I get the distinct feeling we lost. Last I heard, the far right has claimed the right to jump up and down about protecting free speech and have redefined "bullying" to refer to how the LGBT community is frighteningly intolerant of traditional values.
Yeah, I think we lost. While Chick-fil-A probably lost the LGBT part of their market, they're not licking their wounds about it. No one learned any lessons on either side and the divide between us with regard to LGBT people remains as wide as it ever was.
I implore everyone not to let this moment go completely to waste. There are some big lessons we can learn from our Chick-fil-A outrage:
First, never let anyone tell you that supporting bigotry means supporting free speech. There is a difference. Imagine if Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathy went on record about an alien abduction experience or, say, a very special love for plush animals, you can bet that no one would line up at his store to support his free speech rights then.
What the pro-Chick people were saying, bottom line, was that they agreed with Cathy. This had nothing to do with Cathy's free speech rights, but their own free speech rights. They are absolutely entitled to eat as much chicken as they like to show they don't like same-sex marriage (seriously, go right ahead if you think it will stop the gays...), but don't let them pull us into a red-herring argument about the Bill of Rights. When we look like we're silencing people, we play right into an increasingly popular trope about the liberal elite imposing their agenda on average Americans.
This was our big - albeit understandable - mistake, focusing solely on Dan Cathy's words and not on his actions. We looked like we just wanted him to shut up, when in fact he was speaking for a lot of ordinary Americans. The argument stalled out right there.
We'd have been better off if we took Chick-fil-A on for all the atrocious things it's done through its charitable foundation, WinShape. I discussed this in a previous column, but in short, WinShape has put millions toward "ex-gay" therapy, stopping same-sex marriage and fighting against LGBT equality. It has us in its crosshairs. Cathy's words are so insignificant in light of what Cathy's checkbook reveals that they hardly merit more than an audible sigh.
Still, in this ADD-friendly, 140-character news cycle, glib comments ricochet and amplify almost instantly, while an IRS 990 form showing charitable income and expenses doesn't trigger the same shocking umbrage. But it should.
This brings me to the second big lesson we can learn: the only way to show the world that our lives are not appropriate fodder for debate are to tell our individual stories. Forget throwing accusations about whose words are more offensive to whom - that's only helpful for talking head arguments on cable TV. Get over being offended; be honest instead. Talk about the lives that have been damaged by praying the gay away, or families that have been torn apart by discrimination, or the kids who have tried to kill themselves rather than accept their beautiful LGBT selves. Tell your story. That is free speech at its most powerful.
Offer Free Water Day and keep the cameras rolling.
Let' review. It's not appropriate for folks to talk about your lives. The way to remedy that is ... talk about your lives.
Your damn right you lost, Abby, because this was a fight YOU started, that never needed to be fought. It really was a simple case of a devout Christian just voicing his personal views, and the HomoNazis decided to try to destroy his family business. And they pressured their political allies to join in on the bullying, this time adding illegal political pressure to try to get a Christian to renounce his beliefs.
What you've managed to do is lose and lose big. Because you managed to unite devout Christians and other people of faith, and then bringing people who didn't really give a damn, one way or another, about so called "homosexual rights," along with civil libertarians who actually care about individual religious rights, and you managed to REALLY piss us off at you. Any time you raise your head to speak your mind now, people are going to be VERY cynical and wary of anything you say.
Simply put, you and yours tried using the same tactics the Nazi Brownshirts used against Jews (and the communists) in 1930s Germany. And that really pisses many of us off.
And you're very wrong on 2 points. Number one, lessons WERE learned, and you managed to open the eyes of many people who USED TO BE SYMPATHETIC to your cause, which brings up the second point. You're VERY WRONG saying "the divide is as wide as ever." You've managed to open a fissure into the grand canyon. The divide you created by labeling traditional people of faith as "haters" and family groups as "hate groups" has probably set your cause back at least a decade.
What the gay community doesn’t understand, is that spending our money is part of our first amendment right. We, as well as Cathy have the right to donate to which ever charity that we wish. The Supreme Court agrees with this when they recently upheld the decision about donating to political parties and campaigns.
>>Yeah, I think we lost<<
As always, the liberal left (OK, an admitted redundancy), sees itself as “we.” The geys are a tiny % — less than 2%,,
WE won. We (the non-gay 98%) made it clear we understand what marriage” is and why it is important as a stabilizing force.
If you want to send you5r gay-supporting libtards screaming into the night, ask this simple question: “why 2?”
I have yet to get an answer and I have a nephew who is self-identified as gay. He can’t answer that question.
This is the part that gets me, they scream that their private life are private, and yet want to BROADCAST it to everyone, and DEMAND that you like and accept it.
“Thomas Beatie’s (once dubbed the “pregnant man”) divorce court struggles due to Arizona’s confusion about his gender,”
I’m thinking Arizona isn’t the only one confused in this situation...
>> First, never let anyone tell you that supporting bigotry means supporting free speech.
FO, asswipe. The 1st Amendment is NOT subject to your pathetic, self-serving interpretation.
Not only THAT-—define bigotry. How can it be BIGOTRY to call an unnatural, debasing, vile behavior— what it really is?-—EVIL.
It is Common Sense-—not “bigotry”. Religion and Natural Law Theory—both allow us to define what is Right and Wrong-—and both say it is a vile, unnatural act of idolatry and immaturity.
More of the destruction of the language by these followers of that Communist Harry Hay, who was sodomized as a boy and wanted the “Right” for all people to commit sodomy legally-—like they did in Ancient Greece—which includes the pederasty, always, because it is learned behavior from child abuse.
Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.
The author is pathetic. It appears she thinks the Chick-Fil-A episode had something to do with “free speech”. (Of course, the author also probably agreed with Sheryl Crow a few years ago when she claimed that Walmart’s decision to not stock her CD was a suppression of her “free speech”. One of the songs on Crow’s CD smeared Walmart, by name, for selling firearms.)
Normal Americans noticed that the guy who runs Chick-Fil-A supports traditional family values and puts his money where his mouth is. Normal Americans noticed this ONLY BECAUSE militant homosexual activists brought it (loudly) to the public’s attention for the purpose of expressing self-righteous outrage and calling for a boycott and promoting gay “marriage”. (Most people will sympathize with us, won’t they?)
They love to stick a thumb in the eye of normal, traditional Americans (or “breeders”, as they’re known in the gay “community”.)
And so the public took sides. And Chick-Fil-A won in a landslide because most of the public is still comprised of normal Americans who have been creeped out - - naturally, instinctively, creeped out - - by homosexuality since they were little kids. And most grew up to believe that a penis is just not meant to lay in a pile of another man’s sh**.
There’s a reason homos stay in the closet. It’s because they’re ashamed of themselves. (The only reason homos throw “pride parades” is to promote the self delusion that they are not actually ashamed of themselves.) They are ashamed of themselves because they realize fully that they are anthema to nature’s plan for survival of species. They are sexual deviates. Perverts.
“Free speech”? That was barely a sidebar in the Chick-Fil-A story.
Sorry, I’m dense this morning.
What does “why 2” mean?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.