Cal Thomas
In an interview with the Baptist Press and later on a Christian radio program, Cathy, whose father, the philanthropist Truett Cathy, founded the company, defended marriage between a man and a woman and when asked about the company’s support of traditional marriage said, “Guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.” Cathy believes American society is rotting (and where is evidence to the contrary?) because the country has turned away from God.
That was it. Cathy did not say he would deny someone with a different view than his the right to eat in or work at any of his fast-food restaurants, which would violate the law. He did not say anything hateful about them. He simply expressed a deeply held conviction rooted in his Christian faith.
The reaction tells you everything you need to know about certain liberals who believe every sort of speech, activity and expression should be protected, except the speech, activity and expression of evangelical Christians.
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said he would try to deny Chick-fil-A’s application for permits to open restaurants in that city. Now that’s discrimination. Menino wants to ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, not for discriminating against customers or employees, but because of its owner’s beliefs, a threat he has since backed away from. Does Boston have “thought police” who might be ordered to investigate whether other business owners already operating in the city hold similar views? I’ll bet there’s someone at Durgin-Park who holds similar views. What about a player for the Boston Red Sox? Better follow them to see if any of them go to church.
Maybe Mayor Menino would like to force business owners in the city to testify before an official panel of grand inquisitors and then deny operating licenses to anyone who believes traditional marriage should be the norm?
In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has said, “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values.” Are Chicago values represented by the anti-Semitic firebrand Louis Farrakhan with whom Emanuel is going to partner in hopes of reducing the number of homicides in his city? Are Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic and anti-gay sentiments somehow more palatable, more of value, than Dan Cathy’s support of marriage and family?
The Weekly Standard found a video posted on the Nation of Islam’s website of a Farrakhan speech two months ago in which he blasted President Obama for endorsing same-sex marriage. Farrakhan said Obama is “the first president that sanctioned what the scriptures forbid.” He added, “...sin is sin according to the standard of God” and “the Bible forbids it.”
That goes a lot further than Dan Cathy.
The Jim Henson Company has decided to pull its Creature Shop toys from Chick-fil-A and donate profits already made to GLAAD, the media-monitoring group that promotes the image of LGBT people. I knew Jim Henson when we both worked at the NBC-TV station in Washington in the mid-1960s. While we never discussed politics, I don’t think at the time, at least, he would have wanted his characters, which appeal to everyone, involved in a cultural and political battle.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum, both also former presidential candidates, have called for a show of support for Cathy. They want people to eat at Chick-fil-A restaurants today.
This is more than an economic battle. It is a First Amendment issue. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. Dan Cathy has a right to his opinion, so does Farrakhan, so do we all.
The real “war” in this country is not only against the supposed civil right of nontraditional marriage. It is a war against conservative Christians and a denial of the same rights the LGBT community claims for itself. Free speech is an American value. We shouldn’t settle for anything less.
Cal Thomas is the nation’s most widely syndicated columnist.
Follow us on Twitter!
Re: Dixie Chicks and relevance...please remember that SCORES of country radio stations across the country....country radio stations that have leased their rights to broadcast on this radio spectrum from the American people via the FCC...deployed an well-publicized black-out on the Dixie Chick. So, irrelevant...I think not...certainly if the right to free speech applies anywhere, it would be on the publicly owned radio spectrum from which they were black-balled.
As to your questions/remarks for me: “Which 'right-wing extremist [sic]' have said that LGBTs do not have 'the right' to speak? Please specifically [?? - redundant, isn't it? O.O.] name specific cases. Which 'right wing' are 'in your face' (you can turn off the radio, you know). Seems to me that LGBTs are more often 'in your face'--outrageous parades and sit-in violations disrupting churches or mean-spirited outings. You would have more credibility if you gave some examples to back up your opinions." My aim was not to write a dissertation with footnotes, but was aimed at an audience that I assumed kept a pulse on what is really taking place. If you think most gays are the ones showing up at parades, sit-ins and mean-spirited outings, you are vastly mistaken about the gay population. I could not make you think I am credible if I cited hundreds of examples. But, they are there and easy to locate if you truly care to learn. Do your own homework. I’ll give you a hint: I do not listen to radios.
And 1/2 point off for my redundancy: "specifically" . . . "specific."
However, you avoid my challenge. Please cite some examples of "right-wingers" stating that LGBTs do not have the right to speak. I do my homework, perhaps more than you do, and I have not seen any legitimate commentator try to censor LGBTs or take away their first amendment rights.
There are two fairly recent cases in Mississipi that made national news about two years ago. One in which the judge ruled the girl's First Amendment rights were violated when the school did not allow her to bring her girlfriend to the prom or wear a tuxedo. The other case had to do with a senior girl's picture being omitted from the yearbook because she admitted to being a lesbian. That's just two that I remember because they were nationally publicized. But, again, the information is there if you really care to find it. It's as simple as doing a Google search. There is no need for me to locate and spoon feed you information. If you are an open-minded learner, the information is readily there.
...the conviction that gays are second class citizens who don't deserve the same rights as you and I. Nah, not hateful at all. I believe there's also a passage in the same Bible that he so vehemently lives his life by that says gays should be put to death, but now we're just splitting hairs.
You know the KKK has deeply rooted convictions too. Why not write an article applauding them just for "stickin' to their guns" and see what kind of response you get? Might be a fun little experiment. After all they're just 'expressing their deep rooted convictions' so why shouldn't we all just get on board and respect those good ol' Klan beliefs? I'm not saying they don't have a 'right' to express their feelings, which they absolutely do, just not something I want to get behind if you catch my drift. I certainly wouldn't go to the trouble of organizing a national cross-burning day just to support their right to free speech. Would you?
No one is arguing anybody's right to free speech here. The guy can say whatever he wants, we all get that. He's not getting thrown in jail for his comments nor should he be. It just doesn't mean we all have to get behind him for saying it, agree with it, or even accept it. People shouldn't have to live their life in shame, or feel guilty about the way they live their lives because the owner of some dumb chicken restaurant thinks they should, especially when it has absolutely no bearing on that other person. The fact that you don't understand this is mind-blowing.
Please write that article, I would love to hear your thoughts.
"uh" the Dixie Chicks example is irrelevant. As far as I know, no elected official try to ban them. At any rate, is a commentator obligated to speak on EVERY issue. Cal Thomas is the nation's most widely-distributed columnist: he is highly respected by both left and right--not a windbag.
"Onlooker"--which "right-wing extremist [sic]" have said that LGBTs do not have "the right" to speak? Please specifically name specific cases. Which "right wing" are "in your face" (you can turn off the radio, you know). Seems to me that LGBTs are more often "in your face"--outrageous parades and sit-in violations disrupting churches or mean-spirited outings. You would have more credibility if you gave some examples to back up your opinions.