To Boycott or Not? — Chick-fil-A and the Salvation Army — on Prejudice and Getting Along, even When It Hurts a Bit

© 2012 Peter Free

 

02 August 2012

 

 

Citation — to an overview of the Chick-fil-A gay marriage controversy

 

Ben Brumfield, Eat Mor Chikin: Chick-fil-A's stance on same-sex marriage faces test, CNN U.S. (01 August 2011)

 

 

Theme — seemingly easy moral conundrums often become complicated enough to make one actually think

 

I detest bigotry.  And I particularly despise it, when bigots blame God’s instructions for their nastinesses.

 

On the other hand, I have found — presumably through the process of becoming both aged and increasingly aware — that moral dilemmas have an uncanny way of becoming so nuanced that simple-minded responses to them are only rarely appropriate.

 

Take the national tempest regarding Chick-fil-A President, Dan Cathy’s, unsurprising announcement (to a religious media outlet, at that) that he personally supports traditional marriage.

 

His statement seems to have swept opposing political sides, regarding gay marriage, into a national frenzy of self-proclaimed good versus evil.

 

So, what to do (as a moral being)?

 

 

Disclosure

 

I support gay marriage as a basic human (legally accorded) right.

 

But I recognize that the Judeo-Christian marriage concept has a couple thousand years of religious history that went into making it.

 

That means that many people are loathe to separate marriage’s allegedly religious origins from the secular ethical principles that I would bring to the concept as a civil rights-minded attorney.

 

This is an issue in which religion and bigotry cross in ways that are not persuasively cognizable as being right or wrong.  (Even though I am certain that, with the passage of fifty or more so years, today’s dilemma will seem absurd.)

 

First, what did Mr. Cathy actually say to set this fracas afire?

 

 

Citation — to Dan Cathy’s statements to the Biblical Recorder (and reprinted in the Baptist Press)

 

K. Allan Blume, ‘Guilty as charged,’ Dan Cathy says of Chick-fil-A’s stand on faith, Biblical Recorder (02 July 2012)

 

K. Allan Blume, 'Guilty as charged,' Cathy says of Chick-fil-A's stand on biblical & family values, Baptist Press (16 July 2012)

 

 

Really? — This fuss is about Mr. Cathy’s mild statements to overtly Christian media?

 

If you read what Dan Cathy said, you would have to be a complete ignoramus to be surprised that he holds the position that he does.

 

Speaking otherwise would be as shocking as the Pope announcing that indiscriminate, condom-wearing sex with multiple elves was supported by church doctrine.

 

 

So why the widely reported tumult?

 

Those of who support basic human rights are offended, when other people say that some elements of the human population are unworthy to marry.  That is about as deep a slam as one can make at another human being.

 

The offensive disrespect is worsened by attributing it to God.  Attribution to the Deity divorces the prejudice involved from the requirement that discrimination be supported by reason and fair-mindedness.

 

So, I support gay activists in their boycott of the restaurant chain.  Social tolerance will probably evolve faster, if people visibly stand up in defense of their human rights.

 

But, on the other side (of reasoned societal perspective in this instance), Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against gays and lesbians in its restaurants.

 

Nor is the franchiser out and about physically harming elements of our population.  All Mr. Cathy implied was that he does not approve of gay marriage.

 

So, on a personal level (as a heterosexual non-activist type), what should I do, if anything?

 

 

Parsing the moral dilemma — for those not directly affected by either of its prongs

 

This is the nuanced part of this essay.

 

Chick-fil-A is an exceptionally good fast food chain.  It is excellent, in my considerable experience with it, because of its overtly Christian orientation.

 

Note

 

You can read about the values that Dan Cathy insists the chain follow, here.

 

The chain’s employees consistently treat customers with genuinely patient courtesy and sincere helpfulness.  So, when I want to be treated well, and when I want an easily obtained dose of confidence in American youth, I go there.  The food is decent, too.

 

In light of these facts, a moral dilemma takes shape:

 

Am I required to financially attack the excellence-making philosophy of this fast food chain, simply because it contains an unfortunate element of ordinarily quiescent bigotry?

 

The conundrum is similar to that posed by watching NFL quarterback Tim Tebow’s blatantly Christian-oriented displays on the football field.  For me, his antics slop over into the public space in a way that arouses fear of what might happen, if the whole American population were to follow (diversely conflicting) suit.

 

Alleged showmanship aside, I have long admired Tim Tebow and consider him (like fellow quarterback Sam Bradford) to exemplify much of the best of America’s youth.  Certainly, Mr. Tebow’s missionary upbringing strengthened the admirable traits that he probably was born with.  Like Chick-fil-A, Tebow’s religion is a strong pillar supporting his exceptional personal example.

 

For me, the result is respect and discomfiture in the same package.

 

 

“Pete, what does mention of the Salvation Army (in your essay title) have to do with any this?”

 

Some years ago, I had to decide whether to continue contributing money and possessions to the Salvation Army.  The ethical issue was the same, allegedly biblically-based prejudice toward homosexuals, many of whom have been close friends.

 

My decision then forecasts my conclusion now.  The Salvation Army has a deserved reputation for effectively aiding people in need.  See, for example, CharityWatch’s rating of the organization, here.

 

Should I attempt to undercut this omnipresent charity, despite the quantifiable good that it does on a daily basis, simply because it is occasionally oriented in religiously directed ways that I think are harmful?

 

Probably not.

 

Unless, of course, I can find an equivalently helpful charity that accords better with my personal ethics.

 

 

Tolerance — can be a prickly endeavor

 

Tolerance and moral purity do not go together.

 

One of the discomfitting things about American political and religious cultures today are their shared emphasis on purity of position.  This leads to irresolvable discords that bind us backward.

 

Tolerance, by definition, means that we embrace friends who see and act differently than we do.  That principle applies in the Chick-fil-A dilemma.

 

I am not about to slam people who do objectively definable good in the world.  Even when their “goods” come at a price of some probable wrongs.

 

I have yet to meet anyone wise and competent enough to do only good.  And I know no one who can define perfection.  Perfection (if it exists) changes so quickly, in the flow of moments, that it lies out of humanity’s unquestionably blind grasp.

 

 

The moral? — Just because “you” think differently than I, doesn’t make you my enemy

 

Tolerant example is sometimes a good way to contribute to social and ethical progress.

 

I will occasionally continue to eat at Chick-fil-A.  Respect and embrace of others will go with me, through its doors.  Perhaps, with time, inclusivity will triumph over marginalization.

 

That said, I would not dishonor a gay protest outside a Chick-fil-A by passing through it.  These are my friends, too.  And they deserve much better than they so often get from the decidedly and ignorantly self-righteous.

 

What in myself do I overlook with comments such as these?