religion

Chicken and Free Speech

josh1 Comment

I am pissed off. At whom, you ask? Well I’m about to tell you. I’m pissed off at the mayors of Chicago, San Francisco and Boston. It’s not because they support equal rights for LGBT citizens; obviously, I do as well. It’s because they opened their mouths and finally gave those gay-fearing right winger so-called Christians a legitimate complaint! Saying that Chick-fil-A is unwelcome in their cities and/or should be banned sounds like a clear violation of free speech to me (and to Jon Stewart).

I’ve been telling people about Chick-fil-A’s issues with gays for a long time, well before Dan Cathy opened his mouth and confirmed his bigotry. I won’t patronize them. I never have and likely never will, unless something big changes. It’s not because of the opinion of the founders/owners, it’s because they put their money where their mouth (finally) is. According to Equality Matters, WinShape Foundation–a charity funded mostly by profits from Chick-fil-A–donated “$1.1M to anti-gay groups from 2003-2008, the last year for which public records are available”. There have also been allegations of employment discrimination against unmarried employees or those who engage in “sinful behavior”.

Needless to say, I don’t much like Chick-fil-A, or the Cathy family. However, for an elected official to say that Mr. Cathy’s statements are grounds for banning the restaurant is completely inappropriate. For once, the anti-equality crowd saying their free speech is being infringed upon have a leg to stand on. And I hate that.

Let’s take a moment to talk about what free speech, in the U.S., is and is not. Many people–on the left and the right–get this wrong. What the First Amendment tells us, in essence, is this: the government shall not prevent someone from expressing an opinion or punish someone for expressing an opinion. It does not say you can shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. It does not say you can knowingly make false negative statements about someone else (see “defamation“) or make false claims about a product or service, or lie under oath. It also does not guarantee freedom from repercussions or criticism based on your speech. It doesn’t apply to non-government entities. This is where most of the confusion seems to come in.

If Bob goes on TV and says “I think widgets are terrible and should not be used for anything!” and then widget lovers criticize Bob, the widget haters may decry that Bob’s free speech is somehow being threatened by the widget lovers. But it’s not. In fact, both sides are exercising free speech, and the system is working as intended. Suppose that Bob works for ACME Widgets, Inc., a company that manufactures widgets (duh) who finds out about Bob’s statement. Bob’s boss pulls him aside and says “Hey, Bob, we can’t have a representative of ACME saying things like that. If you do that again, we’re going to have to let you go.” Now are his free speech rights being violated? Nope. ACME is a company, not the government. Without taking possible employment laws into account (that’s another whole can of worms), ACME could let him go on the spot. From a First Amendment standpoint, they’d be free and clear. If Bob owned…oh, let’s say a restaurant (Bob’s Burgers), and widget lovers called for a boycott of Bob’s, they would also not be violating Bob’s First Amendment rights. I’ll say it again: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions. Such regulation would be ridiculous, not to mention impossible to enforce. What if the mayor of Bob’s town (or the governor of his state) was pro-widget and tried to get Bob’s Burgers shut down because of his statements? Now we have a First Amendment issue! Not until the government gets involved does it become a threat to free speech.

And that’s what happened, in a limited but real way, with Chick-fil-A. Those mayors would have been free to express their own opinions, that Cathy was wrong and marriage equality is important. But to try to impose legal restrictions against the chain is going too far. Note that the thousands of private citizens criticizing Mr. Cathy and Chick-fil-A are not in any way violating anyone’s free speech rights; they are in fact, merely exercising their own.

Now the people who “flocked” (in the words of the New York Post) on their so-called “Appreciation Day” are being called “free speech supporters” by the Post and the HBIC (Head Bigot In Charge) of the movement, Mike Huckabee. And I’d love to believe that’s what they are. I’d love to believe those people are just–like me–pissed at the Mayors Three who overstepped their bounds. But come on, I’m not an idiot. Even if we assume most of those people don’t really understand free speech (and I’m pretty sure Huckabee at least does, he’s actually a pretty smart guy) I just know that many of them went because they heard “Gays shouldn’t be getting married!” and thought “AMEN!” And that makes me sad. But as Jon Stewart said, we’re going to win in the end. It’s inevitable that we will eventually get gay marriage, and they will “get Type II diabetes”.

I have more to say on this topic, but I’ll save it for another post another day in the near future. In the meantime, happy Friday and enjoy your weekend.

Amendment One

josh3 Comments

An Open Letter to the People of North Carolina

Dear North Carolinians,

I realize there are hundreds of thousands of you that voted against Amendment 1 this week, and many who campaigned or donated it against it. I’ll start by addressing you, and saying thank you! You’re probably hearing a lot of negative stuff about your state, lumping everyone together. Please understand that most of us are pissed off and hurt and just letting off steam. Don’t take this stuff personally; we know there are some good people in your state. While you didn’t succeed, we appreciate your support. The deck was stacked against you anyway. Rest assured that you, not your opponents, will be on the right side of history on this.

And now on to those opponents. It’s time for me to address you (or should I say “y’all”?). Shame. On. You. What were you thinking?! Do you subscribe to the Pat Robertson philosophy that two dudes (or chicks, but let’s face it you’re more worried about dudes) getting it on pisses God off so much that he punishes everyone around for it? If that’s the case, I can kind of understand. I mean, I think you’re an idiot for buying into that claptrap, but at least there’s a dollop of good in your motives. But I hope you realize this isn’t going to stop gay people from having sex. Not a one (nor two, which would be the minimum required number). So what have you really accomplished here?

But the rest of you Yes voters, what’s your excuse? Don’t tell me, I’ve heard them all and they’re all nonsense. Complete garbage. How does it in any way hurt any hetero marriages if two guys or girls get married in the eyes of the law? We’re talking civil marriage here, folks. No one (except maybe a very small number on the fringe) is talking about forcing your precious Church, whatever it may be, to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. We don’t care about that. We want equal rights (and protection) under the law. And if marriage wasn’t bad enough, your nefarious amendment had to go and include civil unions and domestic partnerships, too.  Why? What possible interest does that serve? Nothing good, that’s for sure.  Let go of the hate and fear! I promise, you’ll feel better.

I am not religious but I hope there is a God. I almost wish I could be there to see the expressions on your  faces, you self-righteous so-called “Christians”, when you die and go to Hell. Meanwhile, those of us–gay or straight–who lived our lives according to the Golden Rule, helping our fellow man and generally minding our own business as long as no one was getting hurt, zip through the Pearly Gates into Heaven. I can’t believe hate and oppression will put anyone on the path to Paradise. No god worth worshiping would allow that to happen. You know, it’s not too late to change.

Finally, for those who didn’t vote at all. I’m glad you didn’t vote FOR it, but why sit on the sidelines? When there’s an injustice you can fight just by taking a trip to the voting booth, why not do it? Are you conflicted? I get it. I do. But remember we’re talking about some pretty basic rights here. You don’t have to to like (or even be comfortable with) gays to give us the rights we deserve.

In closing, North Carolina, thank you, fuck you, and come on!

Regards,

Josh

Naughty Nuns

joshLeave a comment

Check this out. Apparently America’s Catholic nuns aren’t hateful enough for the Vatican.

The Vatican has launched a crackdown on the umbrella group that represents most of America’s 55,000 Catholic nuns, saying that the group was not speaking out strongly enough against gay marriage, abortion and women’s ordination.

(From The Washington Post)

“I’m stunned,” said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby founded by sisters. Her group was also cited in the Vatican document, along with the Leadership Conference, for focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping “silent” on abortion and same-sex marriage.

(From The New York Times)

This to me exemplifies what is wrong with the Catholic Church. The leadership spends more time worrying about the hereafter than the here and now. It’s more important to stick to the Church’s antiquated doctrine–or those parts of it they still choose to consider relevant at any rate–than it is to try to make the world we live in right now a better place. Instead of concentrating on helping real, living people have better lives and in some cases just stay alive, the Church would have them focus their efforts more on protecting some bundles of cells, attacking the gays and keeping women in their place. How preposterous! It seems like these nuns are sticking much closer to the teachings of Christ than the bishops and the Pope.

It’s not like these sisters were marching in gay pride parades or counseling women to have an abortion. No, they’re getting in trouble for staying too silent in their opposition to the gays and abortion! They are not espousing the hate the Vatican wants them to, and must be punished!

This seems to also be about keeping the “women religious” (as nuns are officially known) in their place, as they were also chastised because a few dozen nuns signed a statement in support of President Obama’s healthcare reform despite the official opposition of American Bishops.

To the Pope and his cronies, doctrine and obedience are key. Hate trumps love. I’m willing to bet most of these nuns didn’t join up to be enforcers of Catholic religious dogma. They probably joined to share their love of Christ and help people in need, which is something on which the male clergy, particularly the bishops, might need a refresher.

And if the Vatican is really so concerned about marriage, maybe they should urge the nuns to speak out more against divorce. Even if gay marriage was legal everywhere there would still be more heterosexual divorces each year than same-sex weddings.