Chickenhawks.
When did the last week in July become National Cheap Moral Posturing Week? First the NCAA made a show of its disciplinary actions against Penn State’s football program — steps taken outside its normal review process, and possibly its jurisdiction. And now a first-term Chicago alderman and the mayor of Boston have threatened to block the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A from setting up shop in their municipalities — because the company’s owner, Dan Cathy, told the Biblical Reporter: “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” In a subsequent a previous radio interview, he said, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’”
Mayor Thomas Menino’s objections to those remarks surfaced in a spirited letter he sent to Cathy after rumors circulated that the chain was scouting locations for its first Boston restaurant. “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” Menino wrote. The mayor offered no evidence of discriminatory practices on the part of the company. Six days later he softened his tough talk, apparently after being reminded about that pesky First Amendment. Block a business for operating in Boston because of its owner’s religious beliefs? “I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there,” he said, adding: “I make mistakes all the time. That’s a Menino-ism.” Good to know.
But what about Moreno-ism? In Chicago, Chick-fil-A already operates one restaurant, and the company has secured zoning for a second in the 1st Ward, but it must obtain additional approval from the City Council in order to complete construction. In such cases, the council almost always defers to the local alderman’s judgment. In 2010, Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno was elected to represent that ward, recently gerrymandered in a way that happens to protect Moreno’s Latino support. And it seems unlikely that his promise to scotch Chick-fil-A’s plans will cost him many votes among his young liberal constituents. “Because of this man’s ignorance [Cathy's], I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward,” Moreno wrote in an op-ed the Chicago Tribune declined to published today (registered users only). Giving voice to anti-gay-marriage advocates’ worst fears, Moreno called Cathy’s comments “bigoted” and “homophobic.” According to Moreno, Chick-fil-A executives assured him that they would take no position on gay rights, and would not discriminate against anyone at the restaurant. Yet the alderman promised: “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward.”
Reached by phone, Moreno’s spokesman Matt Bailey called the executives’ assurances “lip service.” Why? Because Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm, WinShape, donates to causes that support Cathy’s view of marriage (including half a million to a group that excludes gay athletes, and a thousand bucks to an outfit that works to “cure” gay people of their sexual desires). I pressed Bailey on the distinction between a business owner’s personal religious beliefs and his company’s practices, but that didn’t seem to register. What really galls Moreno is Chick-fil-A’s charitable activity outside his ward. (I don’t know whether Moreno’s area of moral sensitivity extends to Chicago’s two Apple stores, or whether recent reporting on the company’s factory conditions led him to threaten sanctions against the company.)
But, more important: Does the alderman have any evidence that Chick-fil-A has discriminated against the people the corporation most affects on a daily basis, its employees or customers, on the basis of their sexual orientation? “I don’t know of any cases of discrimination,” the spokesman told me. Did he bother contacting the one Chick-fil-A restaurant in Chicago to see how they do business, or to learn whether they’d fielded any complaints from workers or patrons? No, according to the spokesman.
At first, Moreno appeared to have the support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel — who campaigned for two presidential candidates who opposed gay marriage at the time, and who now welcomes crime-fighting assistance from a man with a history of anti-Semitic ravings. Emanuel declared, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members.” (He, too, later softened those comments.) But the operator of Chicago’s only Chick-fil-A location begs to differ, and she’s seeking an audience with the mayor to clarify the restaurant’s policies and practices. In a press release, Lauren Silich (full disclosure: I know her husband Steve, though I haven’t spoken with him in years) insists the restaurant is dedicated to “serving all of our guests with honor, dignity and respect…and our passion is building leaders for future generations, regardless of sexual orientation or beliefs.” What’s more, “We hold fundraisers for hospitals, schools, fallen police, and we donate to a wide variety of causes, including everything from churches to gay and lesbian organizations.”
So, assuming Silich’s comments are accurate, what is Moreno talking about? Where is the discrimination he keeps mentioning? Did he even bother contacting the only Chick-fil-A in Chicago to see how they do business? No, his spokesman told me. He didn’t.
It’s bad enough to see liberals acting so illiberally. And it’s good to see Menino and Emanuel have come to their senses. But to see a Chicago pol flailing so miserably — it’s downright heartbreaking. If you’re going to go that far out on a limb so thin, you best find out whether it’s the last one on the trunk. Or at least avoid sawing it off yourself. Maybe Moreno will have a constitutional conversion experience before he comes up for reelection in 2015. If not, he may come to find his campaign posters stuffing the trash bins he distributed, emblazoned with his photo.
I am in DC this summer, and went to Farragut Square one day for lunch, where all the food trucks line up, including a Chick-Fil-A truck. Someone dressed as a cow (encouraging everyone to eat more chicken) was next to a PETA person protesting the “Eat More Chicken” theme of Chick-Fil-A.
Free speech in the nation’s capital!
The cow lady was amenable to having her picture taken on an iPhone with th PETA lady, but the reverse wasn’t true. The PETA lady didn’t want to be seen with the cow lady. Although fame may have worked its magic: they appeared together in the pages of the Post.
Thanks for this forthright criticism of idiocy.
Chick-fil-a** has the right of free speech (it be a people, ya know) and so do those who disagree with its real and implied positions.
Speak up and speak out and be prepared for the freely spoken reactions. Don’t forget that money is a protected form of speech, even money spent to bash your speech.
BTW, where can one find a Chick-fil-a** grease house? We don’t seem to have them out here on the Left Coast. Color us lucky, I guess.
Chicago’s First Ward provides a prime example of the superiority of machine politics based on honest graft and corruption over reform politics based on ideology, indignant moralism and liberal intolerance. If only we could return to the halcyon days of “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathhouse John” Coughlin! Merino’s contemporary First Ward is defacing the reputation of its storied predecessor, the 1890′s First Ward.
http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2408.html.
The link should be:
http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2408.html
The grandstanding in Chicago and Boston was off-putting, and, of course, the attempt to keep a business from operating in your city over religious and political differences does rather violate that “pesky First Amendment.” Plus, any move that seems, even partially, to legitimate NOM’s “we’re the real victims!” hysteria is a bad move by equality advocates.
That being said, Cathy’s comments–and donations to organizations like Exodus International–can fairly and accurately be described as “bigoted” and “homophobic.” Giving money to an “ex-gay” outfit and describing same-sex marriage legislation as “shak[ing] our fist” at God goes well beyond support for the supposed “biblical definition of marriage.”
Finally–the mayors of Chicago and Boston were engaging in some cheap moral posturing for political benefit. No doubt. But I really wouldn’t put the NCAA sanctions on Penn State in the same category. They enabled a child rapist for years to protect a football program. If the NCAA wants to grandstand against that, well, I say they should knock themselves out. That does not belong in a category with Rahm’s comments on a fast food chain. Just doesn’t.
and so do those who disagree with its real and implied positions.
But its not ‘free speech’ if the government punishes you for uttering it….
Hi, Grant, Moreno’s op-ed did appear in the print edition of this morning’s Tribune. The piece is available here (it may not be viewable to non-subscribers, although I believe you can subscribe for the content free of charge): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0726-moreno-20120726,0,3773507.story?dssReturn
Directly beneath it in the print edition appeared this piece by Eric Zorn, a Tribune columnist of progressive tendencies and a long track record of promoting gay civil rights, including gay marriage, headline “Moreno lays an egg opposing ChickFila”
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/07/fil_a.html
Thanks, Jim. An earlier piece mentioned that the op-ed had been sent, but not published. I wonder if the Trib decided they had to run it, given the heat. I’ll update.
Of course, the challenge for the Catholic church is to figure out how to oppose gay marriage without being, or appearing, bigoted and homophobic.
In my view, it has been missing a golden opportunity. The Boy Scouts’ recent announcement reaffirming its ban of gay scoutmasters and members strikes me as – there is no softer word for it – homophobic. How many Catholic schools host scout packs? It would be appropriate for the nation’s bishops to speak out strongly against the Boy Scout policy, and even to threaten to disaffiliate its schools and parishes from the Boy Scouts because of this policy which, in my view, runs counter to Catholic teaching.
Moreno’s op-ed is not going to help matters for him. I guess if I were in Chick-fil-A’s shoes, I’d sue.
“But its not ‘free speech’ if the government punishes you for uttering it….”
Free speech cannot be prohibited in advance, i.e., censorship, but can be punished after the fact.
Slander. Libel. Crying “fire” in a crowded theatre.
Ask Julian Assange.
“BTW, where can one find a Chick-fil-a** grease house? We don’t seem to have them out here on the Left Coast. Color us lucky, I guess.”
The chicken nuggets are really good at Chik-Fil-A. You can check the store locator on its web site. Sadly, I guess I won’t go there now.
But as long as White Castle stays non -controversial, all’s right with the world.
Jim Mc, Irene beat me to the punch in answering your question about where to find Chick-fil-A’s. As she says, you can look at the store locator. A national map is here: http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Press/Map.
As you’ll see when you click on the link, this bible-grounded, bible-believing, right-with-God fried-chicken sandwich emporium dominates in my part of the country, the bible belt. Where many of us like our fried-chicken sandwiches with a side of bible-based prejudice.
Just as we used to love our fried-chicken anything meals, we white Southern bible-quoting Christians, with a big side of racial discrimination, when we either completely excluded people of color from restaurants, or graciously allowed them to order food out of demeaning little windows at the back of restaurants in which they were not allowed to sit down.
Because the bible must be believed and hewed to, you understand.
In my state of Arkansas, local GOP leaders are now crowing about how they’re flocking to Chick-fil-A every chance they get, and intend to keep flocking: http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/07/27/amazon-founder-backs-same-sex-marriage-vote.
Precious few Southern mayors or Southern liberals dared open their mouths about the restaurant discrimination (or back-of-bus discrimination, or water-fountain discrimination, or interracial-marriage discrimination) when it was challenged in the 1950s and 1960s. Southern writer (and out lesbian) Lillian Smith got herself branded a “queer” by “liberal” editors of major newspapers, including the Atlanta paper, when she dared open her mouth, and found herself blacklisted for years–leading to her famous plea, How am I to be heard?
I.e., how am I to be heard when the people who profess to be educated/tolerant/liberal, and who control the institutions that disseminate information and foster public discourse, shut me out completely?
To some of us watching all of this unfold lately from the vantage point of what we remember well from the middle of the 20th century, there are some uncanny resonances of things that never quite change.
Nicely put, Mr. Lindsey; in many ways a disappointing thread!
After Irene’s and Bill’s responses, I stand by my original statement: when it comes to the availability of Chic-fil-a**, color use on the Left Coast lucky. Very lucky. Very, very lucky!
Of course, we have our own Carl’s Junior out here, which was started by that good right-wing Katlick, Karl Karcher. But I never eat there, either.
http://readinggroupguides.com/guides3/fast_food_nation3.asp
Perhaps it’s worth noting that Alderman Moreno lends credence to the controversial view espoused by the US bishops’ ad hoc committee on religious liberty, that religious freedom is more at risk than most people realize.
No. Because he will get his hide handed to him in court.
Remember, Emanuel is Obama’s man. Chances are, neither gets it. Illiberal liberals, surely. I’m a little surprised you’re surprised, tho. These politicians blow in the wind of their supporters – that’s their universe.
Community sympathy is often with losing legal causes, Grant. The wind is blowing in Moreno’s direction. Give it a few years.
Bob, thanks. I’m glad you found my comments helpful.
Yes, I find threads like this disappointing. I do so for this reason: in our culture, we continue to let the political and religious right frame discussions such as this one as discussions about religious freedom rather than as discussions about solidarity with those experiencing oppression.
By “we,” I mean liberals. We keep doing the work of the political and religious right for them, by letting them frame discussions such as this in ways that disguise considerations about standing in solidarity with those experiencing oppression.
As a result, Catholics, including well-educated ones who profess to be motivated by compassion, present themselves to the world as those for whom keeping anti-gay discrimination alive is a matter of faith. When the Vatican appoints the ilk of Bishop Cordileone to the archbishop’s seat in San Francisco and we aren’t in an uproar at this new slap in the face for gay Catholics, we only reinforce that judgment about who we are and where we stand.
My point in looking back at the history of the Civil Rights movement in the American South, through which I lived, is to note how predictable this behavior is on the part of liberals who never want to stand up to the powerful status quo by standing unambiguously with those on the margins. And who can always find excuses for the powerful status quo, no matter how much it oppresses those on the margins.
In the world in which I grew up, all social institutions, including the courts and the judicial institution, reinforced racial prejudice. To speak out against those institutions and prejudice took real commitment and real courage.
Just as I imagine it did to speak out against slavery in the 19th century, when those opposing slavery were considered fringe kooks even in places like Boston, until Harriet Beecher Stowe began to shift the conscience of the nation about slavery. The assumption that the rights of property owners must never be abrogated in any way, and are the most central rights of all in our society, long served slaveholders well. Slaves who managed to escape from the slave states and make their way north were likely for many years to be apprehended and sent back to slavery, as political leaders, judges, criminal justice officials in the northern states actively colluded with slaveholders in keeping the slave system alive.
Since the rights of property obtain always and everywhere, and must never be challenged.
I keep this history, and the easy acquiescence of liberals in attitudes and practices that deny justice to others, in mind as I look at a wealthy corporation which gives millions of dollars to groups promoting anti-gay discrimination succeed in presenting itself as a victim of attacks on free speech.
When the real matter at hand is whether oppression of targeted minorities is justifiable, and what that oppression demands of us by way of response, as Catholic followers of Jesus.
I think what this thread reminds us is that no one has cornered the market on being “oppressed”, though some people feel the need to think they have.
O sweet mother of Aesclepius, do you think a goddamn fastfood restaurant is being oppressed? Or was that just another “liberals are being illiberal because they won’t give bigots the room to be bigots in peace” line of b.s. that for some reason so many seem to think is a rhetorical grenade?
Guess what? Rightwing Christians are not oppressed. They are oppressors. That is plain, that is simple. You know who is oppressed? Gay people. And yet, when ever anyone wants to step up and point out that truth, they are suddenly the gay gestapo, there to grind down those who want to stick up for that eternal minority position (you know–the status quo).
And William Lindsey is right–Jesus Christ, erstwhile claimants to progressive politics: nut up and look in the mirror. That ugly face you see is the person who has decided to carry the banner for a fried chicken chain in the face of people who actually suffer.
It appears the lesson here is that businesses have no business moralizing. Their business is to peddle their wares. I’m sure we would not want a religion we don’t agree with moralizing for “us”. Sometimes it’s hard to see the other side…still…
See what I mean? Remember when our rallying cry was “Live and let live”? Now it’s “Live, and let’s try to bully everyone who disagrees with us by calling them bigots.” We need to engage with more confidence than that.
When was “live and let live” ever your rallying cry, Mark? or
And you’re employing the same kindergarten logic I was talking about before: when someone who gets his lunch money taken away every day finally punches the bully in the face, he is not bullying the bully. When oppressed groups stand up against bigots, they are not being bigots. I’m calling people who oppose gay rights bigots because they are bigots, the same way I’d call a racist a racist or a misogynist a misogynist. Don’t like it? I don’t give a tinker’s damn. You have the right to espouse your views, but it makes me happy that more and more people will label them for what they are: bigotry.
Abe–
Alas, it appears my meager attempt to raise the level of conversation above the name calling and ad hominem has failed, miserably.
But one can’t engage with a confidence one does not have.
Meager is the right word, but better luck next time, O Champion of Discourse.
“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, told Fox News. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”
The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz told Fox, but said that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.
Read more on Newsmax.com: ACLU Backs Chick-fil-A Against Rahm Emanuel’s Threatened Ban
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Abe, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I think the M. Proska writing so eloquently here about bullying might benefit from reading some of the bullying remarks the other M. Proska has made continuously on CW threads for lo many months now.
Having been the direct object of several of those remarks by the other M. Proska, I remember them well–and think the anti-bully M. Proska might find them instructive to study as classic texts in how to bully, badger, belittle, name-call, and dismiss from conversations.
All in the name of liberal tolerance and liberal inclusivity, bien entendu.
W. Lindsey–
Huh?
@M. Proska: Huh?
Do you mean you were unaware that there are two M. Proskas writing on these threads–one that practices overt bullying, and one that decries bullying?
Yep.
Forget the Proskas.
I thought the appointment of bishop Corleone to SF was stunningly insensitive to the pastoral needs of that community.
Just more shattering of the christian community in the name of definitive doctrine.
The mayor o’ Boston has a right to diss Chik-Fil-A, and Chik-Fil-A has a right to spend its foundation money on whatever it wants that’s legal. Moreover, it is not news that Chik-Fil-A has long hawked its Christian principles, and its stand on pro-family issues oughtn’t to be a big surprise. (Our Feminist Conspiracy Stock Buying Club looked into this company as a potential investment years ago.)
I think consumers should be more concerned with what’s actually IN Chik-Fil-A and how it provides info to consumers about the nutritional value of its goods.
A look at the nutritional info for it’s classic chicken sandwich on the Web site (you have to drill down a bit to find it) does not include the percentage of calories from fat. (You can find this out by multiplying the grams x 9 to get the calorie count, so fat content is about 30 percent of total calories). It also gives you the sodium content (1400 mg), but does not tell you what percent that is of the recommended daily intake (2300 mg, so more than 50 percent of what you’re supposed to eat).
A McDonald’s hamburger is 210 calories with 80 calories from fat and with 20 percent of the sodium intake. So much for Eat Mor Chikin.
Chik-Fil-A has fresh food, from what little I’ve had. Forthcoming calorie count would be good. Thank you for bringing clarity to this thread, Jean. I just received an invitation to join Call to Action and have been examining the website. Anyone familiar? It seems to have a resurgance in view of the Pope/bishops stance on the nuns and their righteous activities.
Denise, I’ve never seen a Chick-Fil-A in my neck of the woods, so can’t speak to “fresh food.”
McDonald’s has a pretty good “fresh” Caesar salad, which I usually get with the grilled chicken and only use 1/4 of the dressing packet.
No fast food joint really posts this information where you, as a consumer, can see it when you’re making your purchase. But I think the way nutritional info is posted on various Web sites indicates how forthcoming some of these companies are.
I’m not happy with the way Chick-Fil-A gives you the required numbers, but forces you to interpret them. McDonald’s PDF of all its products makes for easier comparisons and better info.
Food for thought. Hee.
The appointment of Archbishop Cordileone to San Francisco makes it look like the Vatican has decided to start a war in the American Church, or at least the California one, but I’m not quite convinced that it is. I fear that Pope Benedict has slowed down (to try to put it diplomatically), and I’m hoping that while he is on vacation the power brokers at the VAtican have managed to slip this appointment past him. Even among conservatives Cordileone sounds extreme. Rocco, of all people, refers to Cordileone’s “orthodox” beliefs — I mean that *Rocco* put the word “orthodox” in quotes when referring to Cordileoni. Sounds like the man’s a demon.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/
But we digress.
Oops – - that made it sound like I’m glad the power brokers prevailed. Not so! I’m just hoping that the appointment was made because Benedict didn’t realize the sort of man was approving. I just don’t think it’s like his normal self to crash down on dissenters, not since he became pope, anyway. Though (horrid thought!), maybe he’s reverting to his old bash-the-dissenters self. Sigh.
Mark, as an elaboration of what I intend when I speak of bullying:
I’d like to invite you to think about the “some people” device you use to refer to me in a comment above clearly responding to me and aimed at me. It’s a device you have used before in engaging me and my comments on these threads.
I sign my name to what I post. I have a name.
I’m not merely “some people.” I’m who my signature says I am.
I’d propose to you that when someone signs her or his name to a comment, and makes her or his identity known in a public discussion, it’s more than a little demeaning and unwelcoming to come back with the “some people” meme.
Imagine someone walking into a room of cronies, of club members, in which her name and identity are fully known. Then imagine one of the cronies, the club members, the old boys, saying as this person walks in, “Well, some people surely do walk funny.” Or, “Some people seem to smell.”
The “some people” meme used in this particular insider-outsider way is a bullying tactic designed and intended to let those being designated as “some people”–whose names are right there in black and white in front of all those to whom the “some people” is addressed–that they’re unwelcome.
Less than. Outsiders. Judged and found wanting. Not worthy of conversation.
I find this bullying tactic unhelpful in discussions that aim at being catholic, just as I find unhelpful the equally demeaning way in which some posters on some threads at Catholic blogs will do everything possible to avoid engaging a poster they disdain by name, while they respond to others’ comments by addressing them by name.
These are the tactics used by cronies in clubs to marginalize those they want to treat as unworthy of membership in a club. I find them, to be perfectly honest, a little juvenile.
I don’t think BXVI should get a pass for the Corleone appointment -as also his friendMueller who thinls it’s obvious that men and women are equal in the church,
It’s all about the CDF cast of mind – to the top – remove Bishops like Morris et al who question and install the trads who will impose.
Ross D, today can bring up Chick fil a as part of the religious liberty fight against secularism but the changing world of today on issues of gays, among other things, is not an eveil empire to be fought with.
William—
There’s no need to think my comments may apply only to you. I’m sure you’d agree that I mean them to apply to some other people too. Listing them each individually would be quite time consuming (in fact, I don’t even know all their names).
And I hope your last comment was not designed and intended to make me feel unwelcome in these parts. I know some people could interpret it that way.
“in our culture, we continue to let the political and religious right frame discussions such as this one as discussions about religious freedom rather than as discussions about solidarity with those experiencing oppression.”
So Grant is a denizen of the Religious Right?
“Guess what? Rightwing Christians are not oppressed.”
According to whom?
Do terms like “yokel” or “Bible thumper” or “trailer park trash” ring any bells around here?
“You know who is oppressed? Gay people. And yet, when ever anyone wants to step up and point out that truth, they are suddenly the gay gestapo, there to grind down those who want to stick up for that eternal minority position (you know–the status quo).”
Sorry, but I think it’s possible to simultaneously support full civil rights for gays, and robust religious freedom. I don’t think it’s even that hard.
If you run your car off the road and into a wall, you can scream, “Who put this wall here?!” and kick it really hard and cast all the aspersions you can think of on the people who built it. Or you can drive around it.
The wall in this case is the United States Constitution. Drive around it.
I guess for some it’s so easy to be the right and correct.
But I think both in tone and comments Jim’s approach is both insensitive and simplistic respectively.
If these right wingers were really about standing for the principle of freedom and not about their ox getting gourd-they would not be pointing fingers at muslims-as Huckabee has repeadedly done in this Chic Fil A matter .And they would not be trying by hook and by crook to stop the building of mosques throughout the country.How dare you pick on christians-he is saying-don’t you know it’s those muslims you should be harassing!