The American Spectator

A few responses to my recent column on the Chick-fil-A business are worth sharing with the rest of the class.

If the owner of Denny’s said he believed African Americans were cursed as the son of Ham I would expect my mayor to say something similar. The fact that the same is not expected just shows that the gay activists are right about acceptance in our society.

The president of Chick-fil-A didn’t say anything other than that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. This happens to be a view codified in federal law as well as the law in over 40 states. Only a minority of states that take a contrary view have done so democratically, none have yet done so by popular vote. This view of marriage is also held by anywhere from 40 percent to a majority of the American people, and by both major party presidential candidates in 2008 (and by the sitting president of the United States as recently as the beginning of May).

You may believe these laws and views to be antiquated or wrongheaded. I personally believe the legal killing of unborn children is unjust and wrongheaded, and could make abortion analogies as heated as “cursed as the son of Ham” to practices and beliefs that would be almost uniformly condemned. But I recognize that I live in a country where large numbers of people of sound mind and good will disagree. It might be nice to imagine legislating such beliefs out of existence, but persuasion might be a better tool. Chick-fil-A banners ought to keep it mind.

Gay marriage isn’t about tolerance. It’s about equal rights and equal protection under the law. 

Two points here: First, not all relationships can be classified as relationships. Is defining the term or setting any conditions for marriage therefore a denial of equal rights or equal protection under the law?

Second, tolerance is a huge part of why gay marriage has advanced politically. Even the arguments about equal rights ultimately have persuaded people out of a sense of fairness and tolerance.

Neither mayor ultimately did anything. Isn’t that just free speech?

It’s true that it was just grandstanding by politicians. And yes, they both have the right to express their disagreement with Chick-fil-A’s president. But they both threatened to use government power to block the restaurant before realizing they had no such authority. Rahm Emanuel was voicing support for a Chicago alderman who was going beyond voicing disagreement. The speaker of the New York City Council isn’t just expressing disagreement.