by: Lilly McAlister
Over the past few days, much of the internet has been
flooded with flame wars raging back and forth between those in support of, in
opposition to, and of course those simply tired of hearing about Chick-Fil-A.
While I have grown rather weary of the argument myself at this point, I have to
admit that one of the most interesting statements which I have seen posted over
and over are people questioning how anyone could ever be surprised by something
like this. How could people possibly be suddenly so angry over news like this
coming out of a company that has been openly Christian for years, which raises
an interesting question – is this something that should be inherently expected
out of a company which is owned by a Christian family?
Let me say this, I am neither
shocked nor even particularly disappointed that the owner said he and his
family support what they think of as the traditional family, he can say that
and he can feel that way, and it doesn’t honestly offend me all that much.
However, I reserve the right to potentially be surprised when I learn that a
business is funding aggressive social lobbying groups with millions every year,
even if they are a publicly "Christian" business. I reserve the right
to be disappointed by this, and to consider it a negative when a business actively
lobbies against any and all civil liberties causes for a group of people. I
reserve the right to not automatically assume that because you are Christian
and you personally consider homosexuality to be a sin that you also
automatically feel that legislation making it illegal to fire a person for
being gay or decriminalizing same-sex relationships should be overturned.
People have asked me that if this
sort of thing really bothers me how I could in turn support any restaurant with
Christian owners because the bible says that women who are not virgins on their
wedding nights must be put to death, not only assuming that this rule is
applicable to my situation but automatically assuming that the root issue lies
with the existence of their belief system. Yes, I wear pants, I attend school,
I argue with men in public, and I do not believe in God; there are many ways by
which I could fairly be called a sinner by the rules of that faith and
that is just fine. The difference is that no one is launching major national
campaigns attempting to put me in jail or put me to death for violating any of
those religious laws. I am not debating your right to personally disagree with
something, and I am not challenging your religion’s right to oppose it; I am
choosing to actively not support you in your efforts to legislate your personal
religious beliefs.
In short, I can consider this
behavior not to be an inherent consequence of being a business run by a member
of the Christian faith because I do not to consider the term
"Christian" to be synonymous with "bigot" and as such I
reserve the right to consider bigoted actions and statements out of Christian
people to be every bit as disappointing as bigoted actions and statements that
come out of anybody else. What’s more surprising to me is that the people
discouraging the separation of these terms seem to be doing so mostly in
defense of the company, stating that we should expect no less out of a company
whose owners are so openly active in their faith. They say this almost as
though we cannot expect people to both have strong personal faith and
peacefully coexist with persons whose beliefs do not match their own, and to
that end I must respectfully disagree with them for I have known far too many
good people, of many faiths, who have shown that statement to be false.
*The dictionary defines the word
“bigot” as: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief,
or opinion. I would argue that attempting to legally enforce your personal
creed, belief, or opinion and criminalizing the failure to do so demonstrates a
lack of tolerance for those differing beliefs and opinions, as such I feel that
the word is appropriate for the context in which I have placed it.
**Additional side note, choosing to
personally boycott a business is not the same as trying to legally prevent them
from doing business. You are choosing to not financially support them and are
encouraging others to make the same choice but you are not attempting to
actually prevent them from being able to legally operate. It's a personal
choice and an action that takes place in the private sector, which is not the
same as taking legal action against them. I am not saying they are committing a
crime, and I am not trying to criminalize what they're doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment