The old zen question of “What is the sound of the other shoe dropping?” has finally been answered.
And it ain’t pretty.
Ever since the abortion controversy ignited in the 1970s, those of the pro-life persuasion were told “If you don’t like abortion, then don’t get one.”
As though that was all it was: a mere dislike of abortion. The rationale was that even though a person’s own stance on something was that it was wrong, they shouldn’t prevent anyone else from getting it.
Well…fast foward to this month when Chik-Fil’A’s president went and made a statement about his–and his company’s–stance on same-sex marriage (SSM), and all hell breaks loose.
Chik-Fil-A’s facebook page instantly turned into one more battlefield between those who disagreed on SSM and whether or not the stance was bigoted, hateful, etc.
And suddenly, the rhetoric changed. What happened to the notion that if you don’t like something, you just shouldn’t get it? If those who oppose CFA’s stance, they just shouldn’t get CFA. Easy peasy. But that’s not what we’re hearing…at all.
Instead we get the shrill Greek chorus of “hate and bigotry,” despite the fact that 1) nobody is being discriminated against, either in being served or employed, and 2) no matter what stance a company takes on a given issue, somebody out there won’t like it. (At this point the claim of discrimination would be leveled against those affected by the politicians and legislation that CFA endorses, but it certainly isn’t a matter of ‘hate’ or dislike of gays. It’s a matter of what they think is the accepted biological and societal role of men and women, families, and the raising of children.) All of this flies in the face of the “If you don’t like it, don’t get it” rhetoric, which has conveniently vanished.
Nor is it tolerance in any meaningful sense of the term. Tolerance is patience; it is the stance that while a given thing is (or could be) mistaken, it is allowable. But tolerance is not what is being shown to CFA: rather, intolerance is being shown to them, and I would say that bigotry–the complete intolerance of an opposing view–is what is being shown to Chik-Fil-A instead.
Tolerance ceases to be tolerance if it uses intolerant methods, even when something deemed ‘intolerant’ is addressed. But if they were consistent, those who oppose Chik-Fil-A would leave them alone and just not get food there. What’s good for the conservative goose (as we’re told enough in the abortion debate) ought to be good for the liberal gander.