So here we are on Friday, August 3, 2012, and the week draws to a close. I’ve been aware of the news, the controversy, the support, the protests and the whole shooting match over bigotry, tolerance vs. intolerance, religious freedom and human rights. Apparently the Chief Financial Officer for Vante now joins the 8.5+% of unemployed for his idiotic video that went viral on YouTube. So what changes?
One of the comments I saw this week referred to supporters of Chick-Fil-A as being on the wrong side of a moral issue, and that comment was supported by a reference to the 14th Amendment. I found that kind of interesting since the 14th deals with government and a citizen’s rights. It was enacted after the civil war to correct the compromises made by the original Constitutional Congress and to address the Dred Scott Decision, denying citizenship to African’s, and their descendants, brought to the United States as slaves, regardless of actual status. The 14th is considered one of the three “Reconstruction” Amendments enacted after the Civil War. The 14th has nothing to do with a private citizens right to express his opinion, or even a corporation’s right to hold certain core values.
So what is the issue here? Is it that all Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered persons need everyone to believe they are as good or better than everyone else, or is it that they deserve equal protection under the law? Didn’t this whole controversy start when the LGBT community got up in arms about the public comments of a private citizen? Granted a rich private citizen, but still a private citizen, based on his faith saying same-sex marriage was wrong? Should there be anyone who is surprised he would say this? Isn’t the company known for its strong fundamentalist religious foundation? Could no one in the LGBT crowd figure out its stores are closed on Sunday because of that foundational belief?
If Mr. Cathy’s comments hadn’t been brought up as a “cause celeb” they would have passed quietly into the oblivion they deserve. But no, this had to be made into a controversy to further the cause that LGBT behaviors have to be forced on the rest of the population until they are accepted as the way it should be.
Perhaps it would be a better solution to just outlaw public displays of affection all together. When I was in the military we were counseled on that. As officers we weren’t to hold hands with our wives in public, and heavens to Betsy we actually kissed them, unless it was after some long deployment, then a peck of the cheek was okay. Why don’t we just pass a national law, no kissing in public! That way the police can arrest indiscriminately and the municipalities will have a new source of income.
For those worried about Chick-Fil-A spending corporate dollars to buy the politician’s that will pass laws to outlaw LGBT rights, I bet there are equally large corporations that can buy politician’s that will protect LGBT rights so we in fact would have a Mexican standoff! Can I say that or have I crossed some sort of Mexican discrimination line?
The question for the LGBT crowd is simple. Has Chick-Fil-A, or any of its franchises, violated your rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution, the Federal laws, or State laws? Have they refused to serve you? Have they refused to accommodate your physical needs? Have they had you arrested while exercising your civil rights? If so, sue them. If not, get over it.
The bigger question for me is why does one side insist on making this a national issue. Marriage regulation is a states right! If we abolish a states right to regulate marriage, where does Federal power stop? Will they have the right to inspect my home and determine I need to mow my yard like they did when I lived on base (on Federal property)?