From the Front Lines of the Culture Wars

In the August 3rd Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Jay Richards and James Robison joined the latest skirmish in the culture wars. They argued that the reaction against Chick-fil-A constitutes an “ominous attack on religious freedom,” worse even than the threat posed by Obamacare (no details here, presumably they refer to the mandate for health insurers to provide free contraceptives). 

Richards and Robison are co-authors of “Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It’s Too Late.” The title subtly hints, I think, at the authors’ position on the cultural issues of the day.

The back story is important here. If you’re familiar with it, skip the next few paragraphs.

Chick-fil-A is by all accounts a highly successful fast food restaurant chain. As you probably already know, its specialty is chicken. There’s a Walmartian feel to the restaurants. The last time I dined at one, grandmotherly women were busing the tables (which, I gotta say, was a little weird).



Dan Cathy, President and COO
of Chick-fil-A

 Chick-fil-A is owned by the Cathy family, which espouses a fundamentalist Southern Baptist Christianity. The family’s religious beliefs underpin its decision to close their restaurants on Sundays. I think it’s fair to say the family intentionally wraps its religion around the Chick-fil-A brand name. Through its nonprofit, the Winshape Foundation, the family has contributed to Exodus International and Focus on the Family, both of which see homosexuality as sinful and attempt to re-orient gay persons away from a gay lifestyle (I won’t attempt to discuss their methods). Most gay people see these groups as inherently anti-gay.

The chain of events that made Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A’s president, a lightning rod for the same-sex marriage debate is a bit mysterious, suggesting perhaps a slow week for news. On July 16^th the Baptist Press re-posted a story about Dan Cathy that was originally published in the Biblical Recorder newspaper. Somehow it was picked up by the national media, including CNN, and then spread quickly through social media. Here are the lines from the Biblical Recorder story that caused the disturbance in the Force:

"Well, guilty as charged" said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

 

Granted there are a few code words here, for instance, “biblical definition of the family unit,” but generally this is pretty tame stuff.

Then someone uncovered a June 16^th phone interview with Dan Cathy on The Ken Coleman Show, a syndicated radio show. On this date the show’s theme was Father’s Day. Dan Cathy started with some standard stuff on fatherhood, offered up a few nuggets of homespun wisdom, such as, single-parent families are “emotionally handicapped,” then culminated with this warning:

“…we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.”

OK, that’s more like it. Any time you bring in the wrath of God, you’re likely to ruffle a few feathers. Again, no explicit mention of same-sex marriage, but everyone understands what he was talking about.

The next thing you know several northern mayors and the odd alderman are making bombastic threats to impede Chick-fil-A’s expansion into their cities, former Governor Huckabee organizes a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” and various gay-lesbian groups attempt a national boycott of Chick-fil-A.  And, oh, a lot of same-sex couples post photos of public displays of affection with Chick-fil-A signs in the background.

Back to Richards and Robison’s WSJ editorial…their beef in this latest skirmish of the culture wars is that supporters of same-sex marriage have conspired to intimidate Dan Cathy, and by doing so infringe his freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Richards and Robison specifically call it an attack on religious speech, implying religious speech is a special and protected class of speech.  

For the record Dan Cathy is very clear that while Chick-fil-A is operated according to “biblical principles,” it is a private business, not a religious organization; so the operation of the business cannot be construed as a religious activity.

There’s not much question that the threat of the big-city mayors to deny future licenses or permits to Chick-fil-A would, if acted upon, pose a true free speech issue. As a practical matter few people seemed to take the mayors’ threats very seriously. To be generous I assume they were pandering to their political base.

Religious speech is speech, pure and simple. The Constitution does not distinguish religious speech from political speech. The 1^st Amendment specifically prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech.” What the 1^st Amendment does not do is protect an individual from the commercial or social repercussions of freely speaking; thus Dan Cathy’s public statements that God may punish the nation if it legalizes same-sex marriage and that proponents of same-sex marriage are prideful and arrogant is bound to lose Chick-fil-A customers. These same customers are under no obligation to differentiate Dan Cathy's personal opinions from Chick-fil-A’s corporate culture.

The exercise of free speech is not always free. Those of us who work directly with the public understand this. We generally temper what we say to avoid alienating the people whose goodwill our livelihood depends on. I’m a real estate agent. I cannot recall the last time I saw a fellow agent with a political bumper sticker on his car. We understand that no matter whose sticker we display, we’re likely to alienate half the people we meet. That’s not a good business plan.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, famous for its pink ribbon logo, learned much the same lesson earlier this year. It is (or was, I'm not sure) the largest charity dedicated to fighting women's breast cancer. In January it announced that it would no longer use Planned Parenthood clinics to provide breast cancer screening for poor and uninsured women (granted, Komen's actions were more than speech, but you get my point). Many Komen contibutors felt that defunding Planned Parenthood compromised Komen's mission in order to support the pro-life movement, which has made eradication of Planned Parenthood its priority.  Four days after it defunded Planned Parenthood, it reversed its decision. But the damage was done: Komen was no longer an unsullied champion of women's health, it was just another belligerent in the culture wars. Komen is still trying to repair the damage to both its reputation and pocket book.

Internally Chick-fil-A may have come to the conclusion that it should remain neutral in the gay marriage debate. I note that it issued the following press release on July 19^th, just as things were heating up in the media: "going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."