A song to go with your chickenJust in case you're in a really long line at Chick-Fil-A today, here's a little something to help pass the time till that delicious chicken is in your mouth.
This particular song in the musical "South Pacific" garnered a lot of controversy at the time of the shows creation, 1949. Rodgers and Hammerstein received a lot of pressure to remove it from the musical entirely, but they would not budge, even at the risk of the shows collapse. People were very uncomfortable with the idea of inter-racial relations in those days. In reaction to the song, lawmakers in Georgia went so far as to try and pass a bill that would outlaw any entertainment that was thought to be inspired by communist philosophy. One of these legislators said that "a song justifying interracial marriage was implicitly a threat to the American way of life."
Sounds a little familiar, don't you think? I mean, I could easily imagine Dan Cathy saying, "gay marriage is a threat to the American way of life." I can imagine it because I hear people like him make such statements all the time.
Rodgers and Hammerstein knew back in 1949 why the Dan Cathy's of the world say such things. They are carefully taught. By their church, by their family, by the culture of their times.
And I know that people will say, "I don't hate gay people. I disagree with their lifestyle/sin/agenda." Whatever. Your attitude fosters hate, and is condescending.
Pictures of long lines at Chick-Fil-A on Facebook today are not a heart warming sight. I just think it's sad. Not because I think their demonstration will ultimately make a difference. No, what's sad is that so many people would make the effort to publicly support prejudice. I hope you invited your gay friends, family, and acquaintances along when you went to grab your waffle fries. Oh, you didn't? Huh, weird.
Enjoy your chicken on the wrong side of history. Sip that delicious lemonade; maybe the sugar will dull you to the "scary" realization that times are changing. The carb overload will help numb you to the pain of the young kid struggling with their identity who sees those long lines.
Eat wherever the flip you want, but I think the demonstration is mean.
Last modified: 2019-02-18 12:28:51
Name: Mitchell Hunt (341 weeks, 5 days ago)
My favorite line: "I don't hate gay people. I disagree with their lifestyle/sin/agenda."
I would propose you could also say there are those who think, "I don't hate religious people. I disagree with their lifestyle/stupidity/agenda."
I read this quote recently:
"It's always so refreshing when people leave religion behind and replace one form of judgment and narrow mindedness with another."
That judging/narrow mindedness can be found on both sides of this fence. Jump on over to Google+ and explore the "What's Hot" section and take a gander at the comments posted to any of the many atheist posts there for a glimpse.
Name: Heather (341 weeks, 5 days ago)
Aww, yes. To Mike above...But while atheists agree that religious people are making bad choices about being religious, they are not fighting to stop religious people from getting married. You have every right to believe what you believe but you do not have a write to impose those beliefs on those on others. That's the difference. I disagree with your opinions but I'm never going to try to pass legislation for you not to say what you want to say nor will I try to pass a law that says you can't get married because I don't agree with it.
Hillary, another fabulous post on getting people to think and to raise their consciousnesses.
Name: Jefferson (341 weeks, 5 days ago)
Name: Kris (341 weeks, 5 days ago)
Hillary, your attitude is quite condescending too. I have to agree with Mitchell's comment.
I have a feeling more people were there to support this man's right to say what he feels, his freedom of speech, rather than his particular view. That would be my reason anyway, if I cared to go. Even a commenter on CNN's article about this protest wrote: "Come on, people. I'm gay but I don't believe protests are in order just because this company's president espouses his religious beliefs. That's what makes America great, the right of each person to have their own beliefs. I voice my opinion by not patronizing the company. Simple as that."
And Heather, you might not pass a law against marriage, but perhaps you would condone the various city officials who have vowed not to let Chick-fil-A build in their cities, in effect passing their own "law" against somebody because they don't agree with him. Should actions be taken to keep a business from doing business in my area because the executives of that business donate their money to Planned Parenthood and I oppose abortion? You support a "right" to marriage, what about the right to work and conduct business regardless of one's beliefs. Hillary wrote regarding the "South Pacific" song: "People were very uncomfortable with the idea of inter-racial relations in those days. In reaction to the song, lawmakers in Georgia went so far as to try and pass a bill that would outlaw any entertainment that was thought to be inspired by communist philosophy. One of these legislators said that 'a song justifying interracial marriage was implicitly a threat to the American way of life.'" She seems to be denouncing this behavior by the politicians in the past, yet I read nothing denouncing this very same action recently against Chick-fil-A.
Mitchell was right. Judging and narrow/mindedness can be found on both sides of the fence.
I, too, feel sad for the young boy or girl struggling with their identity who feels alone and unloved and would never condone harassment or mistreatment. I just think you may be jumping the gun by assuming that today's attendance was in support of prejudice. I really feel it was more out of support for freedom of speech and Chick-fil-A's right to conduct business. If you really want to stop them, then do as the commenter I quoted said and don't patronize them. That is your right to spend your money according to your beliefs. Let's allow Mr. Cathy the same.
Name: Tyler (341 weeks, 5 days ago)
Spot on again, Hillary. And to those critical: Cathy has a right to voice his personal opinion. Others have a right to criticize. Usually I'd agree that the company is not part of the conversation and must be free to operate without interference. But in the era of Citizens United, with heads of private companies free to spend corporate money to influence politics, actual citizens with a voice and a vote (but not millions to spend as Cathy has done) have to draw lines in the sand when civil rights are infringed. This isn't about a publicly held company divested from its president's personal views. This is Cathy, and it's fine to make it clear that we won't hand him money for him to donate to causes on the wrong side of history.
Name: Tyler (341 weeks, 5 days ago)
And by the way: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism or consequence. If you offend, you lost face and alienate people. If you happen to want to sell those people chicken, well... should have thought of that and kept your personal views separated from your business brand.
Name: Hillary (341 weeks, 4 days ago)
Admittedly, I indulged in some divisive snark on this post, and I am sorry for that. I realize angry arguments aren't usually effective because people will dismiss what you have to say out of hand. But I stand by my opinion that the demonstration was mean and divisive in spirit. I'm not standing behind the boycott or any blustering mayors that have threatened to ban the restaurant. (Which they can't even do.) I don't buy it for a second that this was merely done in support of free speech. Puhleeze. Besides, nobody is taking away anyone's free speech in this situation. Cathy is merely seeing consequences to his words and actions and there are those, who because they agree with him, want to circle the wagons around him. I won't tolerate intolerant ideals that hurt people. You can call me narrow-minded, but I'm open to your arguments if you've got any that aren't based on religion or what "feels right" to you. And for the record, I love a chick-fil-a sandwich with tabasco sauce, and innocent employees should not be punished for a stupid CEO. And I sincerely never want to talk about flipping Chick-Fil-A again. I'm tired. xoxo
Name: Mitchell Hunt (341 weeks, 3 days ago)
"You can call me narrow-minded, but I'm open to your arguments if you've got any that aren't based on religion or what 'feels right' to you."
This is an example, I believe, that illustrates part of the problem. There are those on both sides of this issue who choose to dismiss the arguments of those on the other. They refuse to hear them. They refuse to listen. For example, the religious extremist doesn't want to hear that a gay person might have been "born that way." The extremist on the other side doesn't want to hear anything about a person's sincere religious convictions.
Maybe that's why we refer to them as arguments? Too many people want to argue, and prove that those who don't share their beliefs are wrong. You're wrong, and I'm right. If you don't accept my position then I'll shun you away and belittle you and those who share your beliefs. We have internet keyboard superheros on both sides who want nothing more than to argue... To try and beat down anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.
There is a lack of compassion, love, and understanding to go all around and as a result the hate being fostered widens the gap.
There are those on both sides struggling to find their place... Struggling to find their identity. Those people, on both sides, are being lost amongst the avalanche of hate and condescension that is being spewed forth by both sides.
Name: Trevor Hunt (341 weeks, 3 days ago)
Sexuality, as proven by countless studies and failed reparative therapies, is an inherent characteristic which cannot be chosen or erased. A religious belief, no matter how deep the indoctrination and cultural pressure, is ultimately the choice of the adherent to either believe and practice or not to. Intolerance towards a person's sexuality is not equal to intolerance towards a discriminatory religious belief. To equate the two demonstrates a profound lack perspective.
When Hillary said "You can call me narrow-minded, but I'm open to your arguments if you've got any that aren't based on religion or what 'feels right' to you." She was not shutting down the opinions of others, rather she was asking for reasoned debate. If someone can only justify their belief/support of a discriminatory practice based on the argument that "God tells me so" and cannot in any rational way articulate their position beyond that... well... that's hard to reason with. And it's certainly hard to RESPECT if that person thereby justifies discrimination on such flimsy reasoning.
So that's the challenge, Mitchell. Can you address what Hillary has stated with reason without relying on "God tells me so"? If so, please do contribute. In the meantime, your repetitive sniping at the supposed hateful tone and vitriolic comments is just a thinly veiled attempt to tell everyone to shutup while completely ignoring the topic. So what if Hillary comes off too aggressive? Everyone has their different styles. By your standards it seems like no one can talk about anything controversial without you putting on your Ghandi persona.
And please, stop with the vulgar email addresses on your sister's wall.