My Take on Chick-fil-a

Yes, in this country we have freedom of speech, and it is one of the most important rights that we have. But with that right comes responsibility. Just because you CAN say something doesn't mean that you SHOULD. For the record, hate speech is technically protected by the First Amendment; that doesn't mean that you should use it. Does anybody remember Don Imus and his remarks about that black basketball player in 2007? But even though the First Amendment technically protects hate speech, that is not what it was intended to do. The First Amendment was designed to protect people from oppression by the secular and religious authorities. Once upon a time, people like Galileo were placed under house arrest for claiming that the earth goes around the sun. Once upon a time, people like Martin Luther were excommunicated for standing up, criticizing corruption, and voicing their convictions. Once upon a time, people like Giordano Bruno and Savonarola were burned at the stake for what they taught and for what they believed. 

The statue of Giordano Bruno in Rome's Campo de' Fiori

The Burning of Girolamo Savonarola in Florence, 1497

Ratified in 1791, less than a hundred years after the Salem Witch Trials, the First Amendment was designed to protect us, life and limb, from intellectual oppression and persecution. It is one of our most sacred laws in the land. It is designed to keep us free from the fear that people live with every day in North Korea and Iran, and from the fear that the name of Nazi Germany still inspires in us. The Chick-fil-a controversy is NOT an issue of freedom of speech. Dan Cathy is NOT being being put on trial or persecuted by the government for his remarks. Like it or not, there is no denying that his right to speak his mind is protected by our laws, nor is that right in any way in jeopardy by our government. And I believe in that right. But for his abuse of the responsibility that goes with that right, I say he's an ass. And I'm exercising my right to say that. Whether he's an ass of the gluteus maximus or of the barnyard variety, I leave to my readers to decide. I exercise my right bluntly, but with a modicum of class and verbal ambiguity. Words are dangerous, especially to the one who speaks them, and their use requires tact, which is an important lesson that I am always learning. If Don Cathy makes an ass of himself, that is not a crime. I don't think he should go to jail for it, nor is he likely to. But he still made an ass of himself. Would you want to do that?

I want to make an analogy here. In one of my college classes, I heard the opinion of someone from South Jersey who announced that he flies the Confederate flag. He claimed that he does so because to him the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hatred and slavery but a symbol of states' rights. Well, I can support someone's belief in the rights of states, but there was a flaw in this young man's logic:  because his claim ignores the fact that the right that the Confederate states wanted was the right to own another human being. The claim by those who fly that flag today (some of them here in New Jersey) obscures the real issue of the 1860's, which was NOT the right of states to secede from the Union but the question of whether we are going to recognize another human being as a full and equal human being under the law. The country was NOT divided by the issue of states' rights but by the issue of slavery vs. abolition. And the issue at hand is NOT one of freedom of speech or freedom of religion but of whether or not we are going to butt into another person's life and call it law and righteousness. The issue is whether or not we are going to fully end decades of ignorance and centuries of shame and oppression and finally recognize another person as a full and equal human being, even if we do not understand one of their basic instincts. I never understood why people love football, but I don't think it's morally wrong. I don't understand what people like about hamburgers—I find them rather dry—but I don't think that the tastebuds and preferences of hamburger lovers are morally degenerate. But that is what has been imputed to gay men and women for centuries. THAT is what this issue boils down to, nothing more, nothing less.

In the past, the Bible has been used (on television) to justify slavery. I can remember a video clip from a class or a documentary, in which a Southern politician or reverend went on television during the Civil Rights movement and read the Biblical story of Noah's curse of his son Ham and used this passage to justify the slavery of black people by whites. Nor, apparently, was this man the first to do so; see the Curse of Ham. But we did not let that interpretation win out in the 1960's. We recognized it as bigoted, oppressive, and wrong. We followed Martin Luther King instead of the segregationists, whose names we do not even remember. For centuries, the Bible has also been used to justify homophobia. Are we going to let that interpretation win out? Are we going to use the Bible to justify the Inquisition once again? There are other alternatives. Hatred does not have to win out.

Even the Jim Henson Company is on board with the Chick-fil-a boycott. This tells us something: a company named after a man who spent his life educating and entertaining children does not want those children to learn to hate themselves or others and to stifle their own happiness, creativity, and growth. Dan Cathy is wrong. You do not have the right to tell someone else he or she cannot get married. No one has that right. In the words of Toula's mother in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, "No one has that right."