If you don’t like Chik-Fil-A, don’t get one

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.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “If you don’t like Chik-Fil-A, don’t get one

  1. The people who are being discriminated against are the gays who want to be legally married. It is precisely the discriminatory policies/legislation pursued by certain politicians — and supported by CFA — which are at issue.

    No one ever said “if you don’t like it don’t get it” can be applied to any statement. If you don’t like to kill people, don’t do it yourself? If you don’t like to own slaves, don’t own one yourself? Not exactly liberal (or conservative) statements. Neither liberals nor conservatives are known for arguing that such a phrase can be tacked on to any statement.

    When people talk about tolerance, they mean the tolerance of people that doesn’t cause or allow harm. We don’t “tolerate” racism or domestic abuse. Of course, in the case of abortion, the question is whether you believe a fetus is a human; if you do, of course you’d be against it and if you don’t, then you might not be.

    So to get back to the issue at hand, the question is whether you believe gay couples getting married constitutes some form of societal harm or malady.

  2. “The people who are being discriminated against are the gays who want to be legally married. It is precisely the discriminatory policies/legislation pursued by certain politicians — and supported by CFA — which are at issue.”
    I’d agree that that is the real issue at hand, but what I was addressing, though tongue-in-cheek, was the incredible reaction garnered on CFA’s Facebook page and elsewhere that they “hate gays” and other such aspersions that don’t really address the actual reasons for their stance…which is another argument altogether.

    “No one ever said “if you don’t like it don’t get it” can be applied to any statement. If you don’t like to kill people, don’t do it yourself? If you don’t like to own slaves, don’t own one yourself? Not exactly liberal (or conservative) statements. Neither liberals nor conservatives are known for arguing that such a phrase can be tacked on to any statement.”
    I’ve only ever seen the phrase applied to abortion, but it seems like this would be a similarly applicable situation (and I disagree with the phrase itself, no matter where it’s used–my point is that if it’s all that good a suggestion for pro-lifers for something they disagree with, then it would seem an appropriate response to the CFA corporation’s donations. And I agree–it can’t blanket apply to everything, but I would say it’s because it is a misunderstanding of the nature of moral controversy in the first place. Even conservatives.

    “When people talk about tolerance, they mean the tolerance of people that doesn’t cause or allow harm. We don’t “tolerate” racism or domestic abuse. Of course, in the case of abortion, the question is whether you believe a fetus is a human; if you do, of course you’d be against it and if you don’t, then you might not be.”
    I’d argue that we do tolerate racism, even though it is caustic and odious; but it also withers rather quickly in the free marketplace of ideas. We don’t tolerate domestic abuse because it is exactly that–abuse. And I think your analysis of the divide on abortion is what makes the “if you don’t like it” line incorrect, no matter who uses it.

    “So to get back to the issue at hand, the question is whether you believe gay couples getting married constitutes some form of societal harm or malady.” I agree–but I think that most of the people up in arms on CFA’s Facebook page are not terribly concerned about that. I don’t even care for the idea of boycotts, regardless of reason. I know General Mills recently was targeted for a boycott; my stance is that companies will get their money one way or another and unless they’re doing the Soylent Green thing, or selling Republic Subligars to everyone, I probably won’t withhold their goods or services.

      • Well, I argue they should out of a sense of fairness. Why should anyone be afforded those legal protections? We believe families strengthen our communities and our society. At the end of the day, gay families really aren’t that different from straight families.

      • Again, why? When we give privileges to marrieds it is because they provide with the next generation and improvement of both persons. How do same-sex attracted people do that?

        Also, David and I were roommates before I got married. Should we have had those benefits just for being roommates?

  3. Well, the big issue seems to be that they donate to Christian organizations that advocate the killing of gays in Uganda via a bill that calls for the hanging of homosexuals due to the ridiculous argument that we are all evil pedophiles that want to rape their children. It really has little to do with marriage.

    • Uganda? Seriously? It’s been three years since the bill was introduced and shot down, and the last time it was introduced in February of this year, it didn’t get a bit of media attention for the same reason that it likely won’t go anywhere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s