Craig Andresen

The Great Chicken Sandwich Debate of 2012

By Craig Andresen on July 30, 2012 at 10:45 am

Last week, the Mayors of Boston and Chicago let it be known that, because the COO of Chick-Fil-A supports traditional marriage, his company isn’t welcome in their cities.

Boston’s Mayor, Thomas Menino, in a letter to Chick-Fil-A Coo Dan Cathy stated, “I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.”

Exactly why IS that Mayor?

Is it because Cathy gave an honest answer to a question in an interview?

Is it because Mr. Cathy has the right to speak his mind?

Could it be because Mr. Cathy as the owner of a private company did what he wanted to do with his money by donating some of it to organizations which believe as he does?

Perhaps it’s because he feels differently than do YOU Mr. Mayor.

Ahhh yes, that’s it isn’t it.

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel stated, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment since it would be empty.”

Rahm was, of course, backing up an Alderman who said of Chick-Fil-A, “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward”

So…Mayor Emanuel…Are YOU saying that any opinion other than yours or, the Alderman’s is discrimination?

Are you saying that if one supports traditional marriage they are, by default, discriminating against those who believe in another definition of marriage?

You do of course realize that in making such a pronouncement that YOU are, in essence, stating that people are not free to have their own opinions, not free to state them and not free to do what they want to do with their own money.

And really…Chicago values?

Are those the “values” of Chicago’s long history of political corruption?

The “values of Capone?

The “values of dead people voting?

Of people voting early and often?

Perhaps they are the “values” of Tony Rezco or Rod Blagojevich…Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers.

Maybe you speak of the “values” which have put Chicago near the top of the murder rates and gang violence statistics.

While there are a good number of people living in Chicago who do NOT ascribe to such “values” mentioned above when one brings up “Chicago values” those are the things most often coming to mind. In fact, earlier this year, Chicago was found to be the most corrupt city in America.

Both Mayors have, over the last few days, attempted to “walk back” their rhetoric but, the tooth paste is out of the tube.

Dan Cathy was also provided an opportunity to “walk back” HIS words and declined to do so.

Now, I ask you, in making a statement and trying to weasel out of it or in making a statement and standing by it…Who is being more honest?

Marriage, for thousands of years, has been defined as being between a man and a woman. That is why it is referred to as the “traditional definition” of marriage.

Surely there are citizens of Chicago who’s values are more in line with Dan Cathy’s than Rahm Emanuel’s but telling them that THEIR values aren’t worth a plug nickel certainly isn’t discriminatory. Right?

Clearly, the stand taken by these 2 Mayors doesn’t drive a wedge between those of competing “values” does it?

Consider this as a response to Chick-Fil-A rather than the response of these 2 Mayors.

“While we, in our city, work to promote diversity and a sense of understanding between different people of different beliefs, we will welcome Chick-Fil-A and we hope that, in time, the lines which divide us become more blurred than fixed.”

Turning a chicken sandwich franchise into a political firestorm is just the height of silliness.

It’s a chicken sandwich.

If you have an aversion to the stated beliefs of the chain’s owner…Don’t eat there.

Telling a company which creates jobs and boosts your local economy that they are not welcome because they support a certain “definition” of an institution is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And…It’s against the law.

NOW who’s discriminating?

Personally, I won’t eat at Wendy’s.

It’s been more than 35 years that I haven’t eaten there and my reasoning is clear. There is just something wrong with trying to put a rectangular burger in a round bun. The way I see it…if Wendy’s would make rectangular buns or round burgers, I would gladly eat there but, they are bent on the rectangle burger/round bun ideology.

I can fully understand why the LGBT community wants recognized marriages because, as it is, they are not afforded what I and many others consider basic rights. From filing taxes to hospital visitations, they don’t get the same rights afforded them as a husband and wife do.

That’s wrong.

But, rather than trying to redefine “marriage” to accommodate those missing rights, why not go after those individual institutions which DENY those rights directly?

Aren’t THOSE the instruments of discrimination?

As wrong as it was to have separate facilities, separate entrances, separate seats on the bus for people of different skin color, it is just as wrong to have separate rules for people of differing sexual orientation.

If churches or municipalities choose to officially or, legally sanction unions between members of the same sex…Fine…But to redefine the definition of an institution thousands and thousands of years old to accommodate wrongfully denied rights is akin to redefining the color red to include the colors yellow, blue and chartreuse.

I would hazard to guess that is certain laws and/or rules leading to such discrimination were to be brought to the forefront and demands to change those laws and rules to accommodate those in nontraditional relationships, there would be very little opposition to such a move and, in fact, I believe there would be assistance in doing so from the very people now labeled as discriminators.

However, trying to change the definition of marriage, is divisive.

Dan Cathy is well within his rights to state his beliefs and to do as he pleases with his money.

Those who disagree with him are well within THEIR rights not to eat at his restaurants.

Those who would deny him the ability to locate within their city based on his beliefs are WAY out of bounds and acting in a discriminatory manner in doing so.

That the Great Chicken Sandwich Debate of 2012 should extend past the 1st 5 minutes is ridiculous.

Have we NOT bigger issues with which to deal…Like entities and organizations which engage in open discrimination such as hospitals, the IRS , the Congressional Black Caucus and, the issue of rectangular burgers in round buns???

Redefining the definition of the traditional marriage to include any 2 people regardless of gender is like redefining a cow as a horse. I suppose both will get you from one point to another but they are clearly different things.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “The Great Chicken Sandwich Debate of 2012”

  1. Ratchell Says:

    SAVE A COW….EAT AT CHICK-FIL-A!!!

  2. DilloTank Says:

    So, Rahm Immanuel, the mayor of Chicago, has decided that if you are Louis Farrakhan, an anti-white racist and an anti-semite, who believes America is evil and promises to bring revolution to America, the leader of The Nation of Islam, which opposes homosexuality and same-sex marriage, you can help the city of Chicago and work in the black community to provide moral leadership (whip up hate) in Chicago.

    However, if you are the owner of Chic-fil-A, a chain of restaurants that make chicken sandwiches, a Christian, and believe that children should, ideally, be raised by a male father and a female mother, and oppose same-sex marriage, you cannot open a restaurant in Chicago.

    And ‘Liberals’ think conservatives are racists and uneducated? You ‘Liberal’ people are no longer exercising a valid political point of view. You have left the realm of civilized discourse.

  3. DilloTank Says:

    I believe that for a government official or entity to discriminate against person or a business for exercise constitutionally protected free speech is a direct violation of their first amendment rights.

  4. Tim Stefanko Says:

    What has this world become?

  5. House of Kell Says:

    LOL…those square burgers ARE really kinda creepy, aren’t they?

    As for all this crap about Mr Cathy’s opinion, he doesn’t discriminate against queers, he doesn’t ban queers from eating in his resturants, he doesn’t do anything that might lead anyone with a brain cell to believe he will, so, basically, their attacking him simply for having voiced an opinion to a question asked, and for that, these idiots would purposely FORCE someone whose trying to help them, NOT to?

    IDIOTS!!!

    Mr Cathy wants to bring these ungrateful retards JOBS, in the worse economic period in ALL of American history, created primarily BY the progs, libs and dem-tards, collectively, and these idiots told him no?

    I hope Mr Cathy, despite his strongly held and respected Christian beliefs, which I happen to agree 100% with, changes his mind, then promotes a series of commercials and public service announcements explaining to the people of Chicago and Boston why he won’t be bringing decent paying jobs their way, why and exactly whose to blame!

    I, personally, boycott everything about Chicago and wouldn’t go there if it were all expence paid, maybe if others refused to deal with Chicago and Boston the way they’ve dealt with Mr Cathy, maybe…just maybe, the so called leadership of that craphole might some day learn to shut his ignorant mouth and not bite the hands that feed him!

    Maybe it would do some good for these so called mayors to have Atlas Shrugged read to them to find out exactly what happens when you destroy the creators and are left with parasites but no skills to replace what’s been destroyed!