Chick-Fil-A vs the government

Chick-Fil-A, a fried chicken restaurant chain, is in the news because the boss supports traditional marriage (one man and one woman). Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy has been taking heat from the Left for some comments he made presumably about homosexual marriage. The odd part is, he didn't actually say anything about homosexual marriage. The comment in question came during a Father's Day interview wherein the emphasis was on fathers. Cathy only stated his beliefs about traditional family and marriage and the growing problem of fatherlessness in our society today -- a very real problem.

Leave it to the "news" media to try to make a story out of nothing.

Chick-fil-A is not being accused of discrimination, either in hiring or in service. The franchise is being targeted by the Left merely to punish the company's owner for his religious and social beliefs. It seems that, in the minds of Liberals (AKA Progressives), the ideal of "diversity and tollerance" means Liberals may believe and do anything they please and throw it in everyone's face while Conservatives are out of bounds if they have differing opinions.

However, the bigger part of this little brouhaha is liberal elected government officials (eg Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and others) deciding what personal opinions a business owner must have on controversial issues -- even when those opinions do not adversely affect his employees or customers! This a government attack on religious beliefs that are incompatible with the Leftist agenda!

Even the ACLU (defender of Liberal extremism) stepped up to tell Chicago to back off. Adam Schwartz, ACLU senior attorney, said, "The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words."

Now, if a consumer doesn't want to do business with Ben & Jerry's because of their pro-homosexual-marriage stand or with Chick-Fil-A because of their pro-traditional-family stand, that is the right of that consumer.

But, do we really want government to ban, censor, or otherwise regulate a legitimate business because the personal opinions of the owners and management have not been politically cleansed?

Government should never be in the business of defining or validating values and conscience. That is the role of family and religion.

This isn't about homosexual or traditional marriage. It's about government control. Just how much power do you want government to have over what you think and do?

But, it's more than that. It's a battle between good and evil. It is some of the nation's most morally bankrupt politicians and their childish followers (see images below) attacking one of my Christian brothers because of his religious beliefs. Why is it that those who clamor the loudest for diversity seem to believe that diversity does not include straight white Christians?

Once again, this case shows that Liberal politicians rely on constituencies that are generally illiterate when it comes to civics and real news. How else can these politicians get away with what they say and do? Only through misinformed and uninformed constituencies can Leftist politicians attain and retain public office. We need smarter voters.






I have written in the past that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Throughout almost all of human history, marriage was a family and/or religious event.

Relatively recently, government interjected itself -- initially to regulate interracial marriages. That government intrusion has only harmed marriage and family and fomented an ugly rift between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Government introduction of no-fault divorce has been disastrous for children.

As far as the government should be concerned, a marriage should be viewed as nothing more than a legally-binding private contract made between consenting adults -- not to regulate who people can marry or to give benefits to one marital status over another. The only role government should have is to provide a mechanism whereby the marriage contract can be enforced and to protect the rights of the persons involved (ie property rights and especially the rights of children).

As long as government interjects itself into defining marriage, I defend the right of individuals (ie restaurant owners, you, and me) and organizations such as churches (eg California's Prop 8) and civil rights groups to voice their opinions on that definition. Ultimately, politicians and judges need to learn to respect the voice of the voters and the rights of people.

Marriage has never been the rightful role of government. The same can be said of most of what we demand of government -- even when government officials want to censor a person's religious beliefs as is the case with Chick-Fil-A.

When we all start voting for a lot less government, we'll all be a lot happier.