I was going to leave this topic alone because I don't want
to stir the controversy even more, but I find myself compelled to voice an
opinion. I keep reading various other
opinions, mostly ugly and hateful, and it leaves me with one burning question -
why do those who demand tolerance and understanding refuse to display that same
tolerance and understanding?
I'm talking, of course, about the controversy created when
Chick-fil A President, Dan Cathy, responded to a reporter's question about the
issue of gay marriage. Mr. Cathy dared
to give his honest opinion - that he supported traditional marriage due to his
Christian beliefs. Whether you agree
with him or not, does not Mr. Cathy have the right to his own opinion and
beliefs? And does he not have right to
incorporate those beliefs into his business practices if he so chooses?
Chick-fil A has operated their business with Christian
morals and values since its conception.
They do not open on Sundays,
instead remaining closed in observance of the Christian day of worship. Personally, I find this refreshing since the
company obviously worries less about profits than they do about worshiping the
God of their beliefs. I don't see this
as a bad thing.
To my knowledge, Chick-fil A does not discriminate against
homosexuals, either in service or in hiring.
During a lecture once in Alabama, a spokesperson for Chick-fil A said "If a man's got an earring in his ear and he
applies to work at one of my restaurants, we won't even talk to him." Tracy Baim, an LGBT blogger for the
Huffington Post, finds this to be bigoted and hateful. Interestingly, Publix Supermarkets, one of
the largest and most successful employee-owned grocery chains in the US, has
the same policy. Men are forbidden from
wearing earrings at work. They also have
restrictions on hair and tattoos. They
haven't made a similar statement as Chick-fil A but is it not the same basic thing? Or is it just assumed that Chick-fil A thinks
any man who wears an earring is gay and therefore not employee material? I don't feel that way but I'm sure some do.
Now comes the real problem in all of this - at
least as I see it. The lesbian/gay community
demands and expects people to understand and accept their lifestyle. Those
who support the gay and lesbian community demand and expect people to
understand and accept it as well. They
(collectively) want full access to free speech to promote their cause and their
beliefs without interference. Yet those
people who demand such understanding and freedom of speech and expression want
to stifle those same rights of the people who disagree with them. Why is it that disagreeing (not condemning) with
a lifestyle on personal and/or religious grounds is seen as hate speech and
bigotry? (Certainly there are those who are
the exception to the rule. The Westboro
Baptist Church, a truly vile group of people, is a good example.)
I have known gays and lesbians both who have
stated matter-of-factly that they think heterosexual relationships are
disgusting and that they just don't understand how people can be with the
opposite sex. Is that hate speech and
bigotry? Or is that OK because, after
all, they've been discriminated against for years?
Christians, as a whole, and others believe the
two sexes were created by God for a specific purpose - to live together and
procreate the species. Biologically,
sex is the means by which humans procreate that just happens to feel good. And while there are many variations of what
people do for sexual pleasure, without the joining of the male and female in
some way, be it physically or in a Petri dish, humans would have expired from
the Earth centuries ago. Why then, is it
so wrong for many people to believe that homosexuality isn't "normal"
by the laws of nature? Is that bigotry
or simple science? And no - I'm not
interested in debating whether or not some people were born that way because I
do believe that's true in some cases.
Before anyone gets angry at me understand that
I am not here to judge anyone. That is
not my role in life. There are several gays, lesbians and even transgenders who are important in my life. I am simply tired
of the hate speech that has been leveled
at Chick-fil A in the last week simply because Mr. Cathy had the courage to
speak his mind. If we disallow freedom
of speech for someone simply because someone else doesn't like it, where does
that stop? Do we next only allow free
speech for those who are "politically correct" but disallow it for
those who aren't? I'm thinking we have
some politicians who would answer that question affirmatively.
My other beef with all of this (no pun intended) is against the
mayors who want to stop allowing Chick-fil A to open restaurants in their towns
because Mr. Cathy had the audacity to express an opinion. Mr. Cathy did not condemn anyone. He did not say "No gays or lesbians will
be allowed to eat our food." Nor
did he say he would not hire anyone who is gay or lesbian.
He said he believes in traditional marriage. Rahm Emmanel, Mayor of Chicago, said
"Mr. Cathy's beliefs are not the beliefs of Chicago." Mr. Mayor - with all due respect, have you
asked the people of Chicago? You might
be surprised at what you learn. And what
other businesses operate in Chicago that don't agree with your personal
views. Will you close them down and run
them out of the city next?
The rhetoric in this country is only getting worse as the years
pass. Hatred of those who don't share
your opinion is getting more common all the time. I, for one, would like to see it stop. Can't people disagree without hating the
other person for it? Think about it - can
someone disagree with your opinion
without being labeled a bigot or a hater?
If not - where does the problem lie...?
No comments:
Post a Comment