Posted on 08/06/2012 5:56:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
If the media reports an earthquake was a breeze in the forest, did the earth still move? I’m not sure TownHall Finance is the natural venue for that question, but I’m also not sure why the Denver Post—my local paper—put a significant political and cultural event on page umpty-something, in the business section. If you didn’t see it with your own eyes, you might have missed something big last week. Under fire by gay activists and their media amplifiers, Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy unapologetically confirmed he supports the biblical definition of family as he understands it. This modern heresy quickly went viral. Reaction was harsh. Big city mayors and councilors channeled Al Capone with a badge: “Don’t file no stinking permit applications in our town, Chick-fil-A!” Pundits nodded righteously. But, what happened next didn’t follow the script.
Backlash welled up, not just from social conservatives, but fiscal conservatives and libertarians, outraged that politicians would trample the First Amendment, brandishing political litmus tests for the right to do business. Social media and web commentary buzzed with rebellion. A great day of fried chicken and Chick-fil-A appreciation was proposed.
Last Wednesday, I met friends in north suburban Denver at about 11 to beat the rush. Fail. The lot was packed, the drive-thru and building tightly coiled by a boa of cars, tail extending to the street. Inside was standing room only, with a switch-back line that triggered post-Disney traumatic stress. Yet, amid the din, cheer was high. The besieged staff moved helpfully and efficiently, and the line shuffled like a smooth deck of cards.
The friendly mob cycled through, holding steady in size the hour I was there. Judging scientifically by anecdotal Facebook posts, it stayed that way all day and evening, at every Chick-fil-A around Denver, throughout the state, and across the nation. The outpouring was unforeseen, the magnitude unimaginable. The chain’s coffers got a short- and probably long-term boost.
After 20 years around politics, I’ve seen how activists can generate pretty good ink just from a press release and 50 people on the Capitol steps in front of a borrowed guitar amplifier. I also know how hard groups sometimes have to hustle to assemble their 50. So I was eager to see what the media would make of this human tide.
Thursday’s Denver Post business page answered: “Coloradans voice their opinions on Chick-fil-A; Outlets flooded by supporters and opponents.” Not even close. Without space to fully deconstruct, I’ll acknowledge the article did say the crowds were large and the protesters few. But the headline and details caught maybe half the story and missed the essence. A few thoughts, on the event and the coverage:
Especially without any central organizer or major media promotion, the numbers were staggering, and broadly replicated across the country. If a protest warrants a story, this event deserves a Pulitzer-nominated multi-part investigative series.
It wasn’t a forum about the First Amendment, Cathy’s marriage views, or even political bullying. Whatever their motivation, the crowd arrived as a smiling, hungry lunch and dinner crew. It was a massive show of implicit support and protest, for reasons that deserve examination.
My table included a friend who supports civil unions, one for gay marriage, and one who thinks government should get out of the marriage business, letting people and churches make their own agreeable arrangements. We didn’t discuss the fourth person’s view, or anyone else’s that day, because lunch was don’t ask don’t tell.
It’s clear many diners intended to rebuke bullying politicians and the un-American idea that approved political views are required for permission to be in business. Does this resentment go further, and reflect anger at transgressed lines between private and public management, corporate and government bedfellows sharing money, policies, and favors? Is that resentment building toward a November eruptian?
Another strong positive is rejection of a vicious double standard: One side airs views through a respectful media, while others get vilified for different opinions. It’s breathtaking that liberals seek to redefine fundamental cultural concepts and muzzle the opposition; those who question or disagree should be attacked and cowed into silence, even while they speak for majority opinion. That happened with California’s ballot measure on marriage, as more than one financial supporter was hounded from high profile jobs. Wednesday was a salutary fist at that ugly trend.
Finally, what to make of the subdued coverage. Did our scribes not recognize an important cultural moment? Because it doesn’t interest them or flatter their vision? That’s the fish-don’t-know-they’re-wet view of media bias. Or, do they know full well and work carefully to contain the story? Of course, either way, the effect is the same.
“You don’t need Pelosi’s endorsement to bad mouth KFC.
Yum Brands pledged $80 mil to the Clinton Global Initative”
I’m not defending KFC... I’m saying leave unconnected utterances out of it.
Be very clear on what one is calling punishment for.
It is in my view, once again, a symptom of a sense of entitlement that transcends the law, the notion of a civil society, and the Constitution. The reaction against CFA is the perfect paradigm of leftism.
The left thinks it is smarter, therefore it thinks it has not only the right to its opinions, but the right to enforce them upon others, and further, to squash the Constitution by muzzling the freedom of speech and opinion of others. And they don’t even think about it; they don’t weigh their reaction against any external set or hierarchy of standards. Because they do not have one.
That is better, and I will substitute. I use 'sick' twice - any other suggestions?
What the MSM found out the hard way is this: They carry the water for the gay cause, but by doing so they grossly inflate their influence on society. So when such a scenario comes up, the gay cause doesn’t have a chance, and their media supporters were caught up a creek without a paddle.
I do wish more conservatives would properly recognize what the movement is really about. Much of society long ago recognized that there was considerable value in having something resembling generalized reciprocity on behalf of permanent family units; one major purpose behind government acknowledgment of marriage is to allow those who would bestow benefits upon the heads of a permanent family unit to distinguish those who qualify from those who do not.
What proponents of "gay marriage" are really seeking to do is compel those who would voluntarily bestow benefits upon what they would recognize as permanent family units, to also bestow those benefits upon couples whom they would not so recognize. The issue is not what gay people should be allowed to do among themselves--the issue is the extent to which others should be involuntarily compelled to regard their unions as being the equal of marriage.
I have no problem with laws which would allow any couple to register as a civil union for purposes like hospital visitation, survivorship, inheritance, etc, without regard for sex or sibling/cousin relationship (if parent/child relationships could be so registered, many such "relationships" would likely be formed as an inheritance-tax dodge; it would probably be best to disallow such relationships unless or until tax laws are changed so as to not encourage such a thing). Indeed, there may be some situations where it might be entirely reasonable for siblings to establish such a relationship (e.g. if two siblings, both with children, are widowed, it may be logical for them to share a household, and for each to want the other recognized as guardian of the children in case of death or incapacity. Curiously, however, proponents of same-sex marriage consistently seem to insist that civil unions should be unavailable for siblings, perhaps because if they were available to siblings, they would not imply legitimate sexual relations.
Ah, don’t tell me they misspelled “Chick-fil-A” in the dang headline.
“Curiously, however, proponents of same-sex marriage consistently seem to insist that civil unions should be unavailable for siblings, perhaps because if they were available to siblings, they would not imply legitimate sexual relations.”
Excellent analysis and I am in full agreement with all you say - as for the above passage, obviously if all they were really seeking were some legal benefits as per passing of property, hospital visitation, civil unions would serve them fine, even if granted to non-sexual couples such as siblings or even mother/daughter who are both widowed.
But we both know what their beef is: They are looking to be normalized and celebrated, and to transform marriage, and thus society itself. And they do not give a hoot n holler about any siblings needing civil unions.
They sure did and probably don’t have spellchecker
I do have to confess that “Chick-fil-A” is a clumsy name for a restaurant. It took me a while to remember how to spell it. :-)
I think the author couldn't wait to undercut the anti-homosexual marriage message.
As Rush sometimes says: your post ——> “RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON.”
Though I agree with what you posted I thought maybe a little more perspective was in order.
There are 1614 CFA stores according to Wikipedia. If every store had 1000 people throughout the day, that would have been 1.614 MILLION people. I went by the CFA closest to me, at 7pm and 9pm. Both times they had OVERFLOW parking in neighboring lots, with HUNDREDS of people waiting to get in. At 7pm the line of cars was about 1/2 mile long.
If we double the 1.614 number (which I think is probably accurate) that would be 3.2 Million people.
Heres the perspective part.
There are approximatly 310 million people in the US. 3.2 million is about 1% of the entire US population.
Much larger than any rally in Washington, EVER. All within days. Mike Huckabee made the idea of August 1 being Chick Fil A appreciation day on July 22. TEN DAYS LATER millions show up.
My point being, don't sell the day short. This wasn't a few hundred thousand people. This was closer to a few million.
:-)
I did the same math you did, but I wanted to be conservative.
I literally looked up the number of stores and multiplied by how many went to the local CFA, just as you did. :-)
The difference between US and THEM is very simple. If we disagree with a Company's Policies, we choose not to spend our hard earned Dollars there.
We don't paint hateful Graffiti on the walls of their buildings, we don't harass their customers, we don't call in Bomb Threats and we don't engage in Lewd Public behavior that would offend both the young and old Patrons of that particular Business.
Our ENEMIES, and that is exactly what they are, do the opposite.
My point was that its wrong to punish a business, its employees, and suppliers for what someone not even associated with it says about it.
I just got around to reading this thread, since bookmarking it on the 6th.
Just as an aside, another source of healthy fast food is Arby’s. They have good lean roast beef sandwiches that you can have plain or add your own toppings. Also healthy salads. Just stay away from the cheesy topping versions and the fries.
No, I haven’t any interest in the company, I just like good roast beef.
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.