 |
|
In response to criticism of the Cathy statements, politician, minister and former Presidential candidate hopeful Mike Huckabee nominated August 1, 2012, as "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." My local Chick-fil-A store reported that over 6000 fellow South Mississippians expressed their opinions by eating lunch there that day. The company reported that many stores had historic sales for the event, and that some stores even ran out of food. On August 4th, "gay rights" supporters staged a poorly-attended same-sex "kiss day" at stores nationwide. They didn't necessarily buy anything, they just expressed their opinion, whatever it was, by purposely grossing out the other customers.
The day after "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day," Adam Smith, the treasurer of Vante, Inc., a private medical device manufacturing firm in Tucson, Arizona, asked for a free cup of water in the Tucson Chick-fil-A drive through. He then recorded himself mercilessly berating the young lady Chick-fil-A employee who gave it to him. "I don't know how you can live with yourself and work here," he said. "I don't understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values." He then posted his rant on his website, perhaps not the brightest move of his career. He later posted a rationalization of his destructive actions and and justification of his asinine behavior as an "apology." In my opinion it didn't wash.
Mr. Smith just "didn't get it." Plus, he's just plain wrong. Chick-fil-A is in the business of selling chicken. It is, by any reasonable measure, an excellent corporation with excellent corporate values. It took the industry lead, ahead of McDonald's, in average sales per restaurant in 2010, making an average of $2.7 million per restaurant. It gets 10,000-25,000 applications from potential franchise operators for 60-70 slots it opens each year. Its restaurants are clean, cheerful, and inviting. Its employees are agressively well-mannered and friendly. Its food is healthful and delicious. It contributes generously to community activities. If you don't trust my opinion, visit their restaurants and form your own. The company's official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." How could anyone find fault with those things?
Mr. Smith also failed to recognize the implications of the disparity between the number of people who showed up for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and those who participated in the "kiss day" three days later. The numbers speak for themselves; the majority of Americans just don't like the idea of same-sex marriage, even though it is a recognized civil right. Whether they're "right" or "wrong," that's their opinion. The minority in favor of same would probably do well to practice a little more diplomacy, like other miniorities that have been successfully integrated into US society, and unlike those that have marginalized themselves outside it since 1864. If they want to be accepted by others, they need to demonstrate why that would be a good thing for the "others". Being intentionally obnoxious doesn't seem to be working very well - for any of those still on the outside wanting to come in.*
Vante Corporation's response to violation of its corporate values was direct and to the point; it asked for Mr. Smith's resignation, he refused, and they fired him. "The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner," the company said in its prepared statement. "Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others."
At issue is the national controversy about what is commonly called "same sex" marriage, that is, the legal recognition of a matrimonial union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Since "being married" confers certain legal status that is not available to unmarried people (such as the ability to file joint tax returns) upon the partners, the question invokes civil rights concerns, as well as those involving free expression and religious belief, not to mention love.
What seems to have been lost in all the discussion is that "same sex" marriage has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. It has to do with equal protection of the laws. Some people who, for whatever reason, claim to be homosexuals, or "gay," (whatever that may be), or to engage in homosexual behavior (ditto), certainly appear to find legal recognition of same sex marriage personally appealing, for obvious reasons. As a historically disadvantaged minority, their civil rights are entitled to "heightened scrutiny." But nowhere that I know of is there any legal or social requirement that same sex marriage should or can be contracted only between homosexuals or that homosexuals may contract marriage only with another individual of the same gender. The argument for same-sex marriage is very simple: If the state prevents you from marrying somebody because of his, her, or your gender, the two of you are being denied the equal protection of the law, and that is unconstitutional. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, last sentence - look it up. You don't have to be "gay," you just have to want to marry somebody who wants to marry you, for reasons that seem good to you both.
What is relevant here is whether Mr. Cathy has the right to: believe certain things that may or may not have religious implications (yes), to express his opinions on these things (yes), to base them on his religious principles (yes) and to use what wealth, prestige and power he has legally to influence others, including legislators, to share them (yes). Others get to agree or not. That is the essence of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Similarly with Mr. Smith, neglecting for the moment whether his right to express his opinion extends to harassing an innocent employee for something over which she has absolutely no control. One might also overlook the concern that she might might lose her job if she responds in a way her employer considers inappropriate, Regardless, Mr. Smith has a right at least to express his opinion. He has an absolute right to maintain that "This is a horrible corporation with horrible values." He surely has a right to demonstrate his ignorance ("I don't know how you can live with yourself and work here," and "I don't understand it"). He also had a right to record himself doing that, and release it to the public. This, of course, demonstrates the intrinsic social value of the First Amendment; Mr. Smith freely and voluntarily confirmed to the entire civilized world that his behavior is a shining example of those who are known in the aerospace safety business, my professional specialty, as "stupid assholes."
I suspect that the Vante Corporation is not a government entity, and, as such, had a right to fire him as a way formally to promote its own corporate values by disassociating itself from the inappropriate actions (as opposed to the opinions) of stupid assholes. Mr. Smith has a right to express his opinions, but he has no right to be protected from the consequences of doing so. If he does it in a socially unacceptable manner calculated to intimidate young girls, he may get what he deserves, whatever it is.*
The cities of Boston and Chicago are government entities, however, and they have no more authority to inhibit free speech of corporate executives by threatening the livelihood of their corporations than they do to prohibit preaching of Scripture by threatening to shut down churches, synagogues or mosques. Even the suggestion that they would attempt to do that is at least a gross abuse of governmental authority. Of course, here again, the First Amendment works in the public's favor. Now everybody has additional verifiable evidence to form their opinions regarding whether Thomas Menino, Joe Moreno and Rahm Emanuel (not to mention their public supporters) are also stupid assholes, unfit for reelection, as well. We'll see how this plays out. (Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel didn't seek reelection, and Joe Moreno lost the 2019 Chicago aldermanic election to Daniel La Spata.)
I find it ironic that Conservative Biblical fundamentalists like Dan Cathy have been precisely the facilitators of same sex marriage to begin with. Although most religious people in the United States seem to consider marriage to have something to do with religion or God or the Bible, all but a few of them have turned their solemnization of marriage completely over to civil authority, which is bound by civil law, the most basic of which is the US Constitution, not the Bible. This includes specification of how to recognize and protect the relationships involved and the rights associated with them, determination of who can be married (and to whom), identification of what documentation identifies the spouses and their children, and enumeration of what rights and obligations are conveyed by being married in the first place.
Civil law doesn't get to consider "what God wants," because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (First Amendment) Because of the ongoing controversy, millions of dollars of taxpayers' money are being and will be wasted on totally unecessary lawsuits to define the precise limits of these principles, but The People don't get a vote either way. Unless the states change the United States Constitution, them's the rules.
In Windsor v. United States, the United States Court of appeals for the Second Circuit found: "But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce and dissolve a couple's marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door."
It is difficult to understand how the fundamentalists can logically claim that this matter offends "Christian values," since they themselves have been ignoring Matthew 5:32, 19:6, 19:9, Mark 10:9, 10:11, 10:12 and Luke 16:18 for generations. It seems to me that they have only themselves to blame for the consequences of turning their religious rituals over to their government. They wrote the Constitution and made both civil and their own church laws, after all. Now they have to live with what they have voluntarily done. Instead of eating chicken, it seems to me that they should be eating crow.
One group of religious people who have not turned their solemnization of marriage over to civil authority is the Catholic Church. Any Catholic who attempts a marriage (to anyone) in a ceremony without the Church's participation and blessing generally excommunicates himself, just like Mr. Smith did with the Vante corporation. The Catholic Church takes its corporate values very seriously! A Catholic simply cannot marry a person of the same gender, no matter what. The Church just won't condone such a union! The People don't get a vote here, either. Catholic belief is based on Scripture (including Matthew 5:32, 19:6, 19:9, Mark 10:9, 10:11, 10:12 and Luke 16:18), not popular opinion. The Catholic Church encourages "gay marriage" as the lifetime, exclusive union, in love, honor and fidelity, between one "gay" man and one "gay" woman. That's their opinion. Of course, there are people who claim to be Catholics but aren't, just as there are others who claim to be Christians but aren't, but those are expressions of opinion, also.
It works the other way, too. The Catholic Church has been marrying people for hundreds of years without the consent of civil authority. The most obvious examples are marriages between "persons of color" and white people which, until recently, were just as illegal in my home state of Mississippi as same sex marriages. The First Amendment applies here, as well. The state said the people were single, and could legally be married to only certain groups of prospective spouses. The Church said they were married for life to each other. Neither side really cared what the other thought. That's the American way.
As for the "kiss-in," it, too, was an expression of opinion, namely, that deliberately annoying other people, with malice aforethought, by doing something in public they find revolting and disgusting, is a wise idea. Actually, I happen to agree. It identifies those people as also a bunch of stupid assholes whose peculiar ideas should be opposed however possible, especially where they come up for a vote. The rule is, you have a right to offend me and other voters as long as you don't violate the law, but you don't have the right to make me like it, and especially not to force me to vote the way you want.
That's my opinion.
* In an interview with Nick Watt on ABC's program "20/20," broadcast on March 27, 2015, Mr Smith lamented the fact that his public rant not only lost him his six figure salary and stock options with the Vante Corporation, it has also prevented him keeping any job at all since then. He explained to Mr. Watt, "I don't regret the stand I took, but I regret the way I talked..."
He still didn't get it, but seems to have learned something since then, but maybe not enough.