Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy made a statement to Baptist Press in mid-July, and it’s created a firestorm ever since. When asked about the company’s position on family, Cathy responded, “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.”
Shortly thereafter, The Jim Henson Company pulled their Creature Shop Muppet toys from Chick-fil-A’s children’s meals. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Alderman Joe Moreno vowed to block Chick-fil-A’s permit for a new store in Chicago. Next, Boston’s Mayor Thomas Menino sent a letter to Cathy, vowing to block the chain from opening in that city. After that, mayors and council members from San Francisco, New York City, and Washington, DC chimed in. Mike Huckabee called for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) countered with a National Same-Sex Kiss Day.
And stuck in the middle, are the gay employees. They have been thrust into the middle of the conversation, whether they like it or not. People make assumptions that because they work there, they have the same beliefs as Cathy. Some get called “haters” by customers and then turn around and get thanked by others for hating gays. Some are searching for new jobs.
At issue: Did Cathy say anything wrong? He stated his own opinion – he was for, what he called, “the biblical definition of the family unit.” He didn’t that say he was against gays. He didn’t say that he wouldn’t hire gays. In fact, many LGBT employees have come out in support of the company, saying they have been treated well and have never felt discriminated against.
Maybe he could have kept his opinions to himself , but he does have the right to free speech, just like everyone else in this country. He is a life-long Baptist, and he was being interviewed by Baptist Press. I believe it is wrong to make him a villain because of his beliefs. A year ago, even President Obama was not for gay marriage.
Sometimes we can take the banner of inclusion too far, which shuts down communication. People on both sides of this argument seem to be at the point that they are demanding the other side must agree with them – that there is only one “right” way to see family, and any way else is “wrong.” In terms of cultural competence, though, acceptance does not mean agreement. If we are truly culturally competent, we can see things from other perspectives without judging those perspectives. We can say, “Yes, we both value family, but our definition of family is different. I understand how you came to your conclusions of what ‘family’ means to you. I have a different definition of ‘family’ that works better for me.”
When we can balance our commonalities and our differences, when we can come to agreement that “family” looks different to each of us because we are all different, when we can accept and live with those differences without judgment, then we have reached cultural competence.
I am 100% percent in support of your views regarding this Chick-fil-a debacle. Dan Cathy, did nothing wrong, his stance and the beliefs of his family are long-standing. Those political representatives revealed just how un-inclusive and biased they are by insinuating that they would use the power of their office to block the opening of a Chick-fil-a store in their cities. It is the reason why the work of D & I is still so relevant and important, people do not even see their own biases and how their beliefs can clearly be offensive and counter-productive to the work that they say they are about.
I agree with you and your commenter with regard to Dan Cathy’s right to free speech. Dan Cathy, and every other citizen in the country, has the right to say whatever they want, and so long as the government is not silencing them, their rights are not being infringed upon. But, when a business owner makes a controversial remark to the press, only to discover that a wide swath of consumers don’t like those views, speak out against them, boycott their business, and encourage others to do the same, this is not a violation of free speech; this is simply the free market at work.
Furthermore, there’s a lot of anger being directed at Chick-Fil-A, but despite what you might have heard, it’s not because their owners hold anti-gay views. It has much more to do with how Chick-Fil-A spends its money – profits accrued directly from their consumers. Chick-Fil-A donates millions each year to the WinShape Foundation, which – among other things – promotes organizations that continue to conflate homosexuality with mental illness and pedophilia. Money from WinShape has also been used to foster legislation in foreign countries that criminalizes homosexuality – including the ‘Kill the Gays’ bill in Uganda. It’s one thing to have an opinion about someone, but I think we can all agree that it’s quite another to want them dead, and to pay money to that end.
Again, does Chick-Fil-A have a right to do whatever it wants with its money? Of course it does. But likewise, I have every right to speak out against them, shine a light on what I consider evil, and do the small part that I can in encouraging fair-minded consumers to simply choose another chicken sandwich – one that doesn’t come with such a high price tag.
Eric,
I am so glad that you shared the additional information about what Chick-Fil-A does with its money. I agree that supporting anti-gay groups takes it to a whole other level than just expressing one’s opinion. I often use a pendulum analogy to help others think about inclusion. I ask how wide does your pendulum swing? If it is stuck at either extreme, that is not inclusion. It should be fluid and flexible, moving back and forth accepting and adapting to difference. Wanting to do harm to another human being (physically, mentally or otherwise) is an example of an extreme, that we all should be fighting against. Thanks for joining the dialogue.
Thanks, Mary-Frances. For the record – even given what I know about Chick-Fil-A’s spending habits, I too am a little dismayed at the thought of mayors banning businesses from city limits. There are a whole lot of organizations very supportive of the causes I hold dear, and I’d hate to see them banned from more conservative cities and towns because they choose to involve themselves in the outside world.
Hi Mary-Francis!
Thanks so much for writing about this. Your thoughts are always worthwhile.
I want to support Eric’s point of view on this. First of all, I agree with you in that I do not agree with political entities, mayors, etc. trying to use the power of law to stop stores from opening. That kind of action feels to me like the inappropriate use of government to suppress free speech unless the company is violating some law or safety standard of the community. It is also a dangerous precedent, which can easily be used in all directions to suppress public discourse. I prefer the power of the marketplace to provide feedback to organizations that are promoting views that are abhorrent to the community.
However, the right of people to protest against Cathy and Chik-fil-A, because he does state his positions as corporate policy not just a personal position, is also sacrosanct. Personally, I don’t think that Cathy is necessarily an evil man. He may very well be a lovely man who is a good father, husband, grandfather and a pillar in his community. He may be a fine neighbor. A nice boss. He may believe that he is being pro-bible and pro-family. He may be genuinely a good man. His position is undoubtedly the result of deeply imbedded patterns of unconscious bias that he, like most Americans, have been programmed to believe about LGBT people since we were infants.
However, he IS anti marriage equality and would undoubtedly say that, and he does support, as Eric said, agendas that are frighteningly anti-gay. Would we accept that white supremacy is not “anti-black” but simply pro-white? Really? Even if he is a good man, his position is biased. He is following a religious point of view, which I respect, but he is using a religious point of view to attempt to create civil law, which is obviously problematic in our societal structure. And, of course the South African bible justified apartheid, the Southern Baptist bible justified slavery, the Mormon bible justified racism, etc. The fact that something is “religious” does not eliminate the possibility that it is biased, or even bigoted.
I wonder if Dr. King would have said, “Don’t refuse to ride the buses because that’s punitive. See if you can create dialogue.” Or if Gandhi would have said, “Don’t refuse to buy the salt, that’s punitive…see if you can create dialogue.” Or is Cesar Chavez would have said, “Don’t refuse to buy grapes, that’s punitive…see if you can create dialogue.” Or, for that matter, if the Minute Men would have said, “Don’t refuse to pay the tea tax because that’s punitive…see if you can create dialogue”? History says otherwise.
As we know, Dr. Kings belief was that the souls of the oppressor are damned by the oppression as much as the souls of the oppressed. It is true that employees who don’t agree with Cathy are “stuck in the middle,” but Cathy was not acting only as a citizen, he is also acting as a communicator of corporate policy, promoting a political agenda whose sole purpose is to suppress LGBT Americans (and even those in other countries as Eric pointed out)and stop marriage equality. The fact that he treats his gay employees well could also have been said about hundreds of racist, segregationist employers who were “nice” to their Black employees until they did something “uppity.” When you see somebody as fundamentally less than equal, perhaps even less than human, those people and others of good faith who are and should be their allies, have a right to hold you accountable, albeit without demonizing you as evil.
By purchasing food at Chik-fil-A, customers are paying for that political movement. By representing that company, employees are “stuck in the middle” of that position, not by the choosing of the protestors, but because of the corporation’s choice, just like the servers at Woolworths in Greensboro, or the bus drivers in Montgomery were. The company put them in that position, not the protestors. The fundamental lesson of the civil rights movement, and the Indian liberation movement that Gandhi led was that society has to be confronted by the oppression it is creating. That is what Satyagraha (truth force) is all about…refusing to participate in a system that is oppressive.
And again, was the issue any less complex when it was African Americans who were denied their basic human rights? Why is the “complexity” so much greater now? Or should the civil rights movement not have happened because it didn’t “create constructive dialogue?” I think the fact that people see it that way is because at some level homophobia and heterosexism may be as deeply imbedded or even more deeply imbedded into our psyche than racism is…more “weird, sick, perverse…” or whatever, in the minds of many people.
And so I believe Chik-fil-A should be able to open their stores anywhere they want to and can afford to, and that people who really believe in diversity, inclusion and justice, should make their voices heard. If you are going to use your corporate resources, and your corporate profile, and your corporate profits to promote a political agenda that denies human rights to my fellow citizens, I will do everything legally and morally in my power to stop you from having the resources to use for that purpose.
I won’t ride that bus.
Thanks so much for being who you are Mary-Francis…and continuing stand for inclusion for all people!!
Howard,
Thank you for being who you are…passionate…wise…fair and one of the greatest thought leaders of our time on these issues. Thank you for taking the time to write such a compelling response. This is what I mean when I advocate dialogue. We are engaging in it now. We need more informed discourse about LGBT rights. I believe there are so many of us who do not fully understand the issues and the far reaching implications of our words and actions. I think the active demonstrations such as the “Kiss-in” raise visibility reminiscent of the Civil Rights Movement sit-ins. However, I think we need more than protests and punishment. We need education which in part comes from the exchange started here. Often our views are based on deep seated biases and teachings about “right” and “wrong”. Attitudes do change, albeit slowly, as we have seen with other diversity issues such as race, gender, disabilities, etc. The more we keep the issues in the forefront with accurate information and forums that challenge our thinking, the sooner we will begin to see change that leads to inclusion or all people.
Mary-Frances, thank you so much for beginning the dialogue on this topic. First of all when Dan made that comment, he and anyone else who is in a high level position must understand that because of their position, people will react to what they say more so because of his position and power, which complicates the right for him as an individual to speak his mind.
For many Christians on the right, they will not be able to hear us as long as we talk about this issue as a “diversity and inclusion conversation. They hold this conversation as a moral one. if we want to help people’s understanding shift or grow we must first enter the domain or at least be aware of the domain they are coming from. I have a slight disagreement with Howard in that not all would be as prejudice or homophobic though it is true some are very prejudiced and close minded. For those who are not homophobic, it’s a matter of how they see truth. naturally all of us have biases, but we need to be careful not to place all Christians in the same box, no different then all black males are thugs. Then we enter very dangerous territory by slotting everyone of a particular identity group into one category.
What you have begun is a fruitful dialogue and I hope it continues.
I am in support of all people having the right to speak, inclusion doesn’t mean agreement.
I would love to see a forum in which levelheaded gays, lesbians, Christians, Muslims, Jews atheists could gather in a room and construct some rules of engagement for dialogue.
Again thanks for this piece.
Steve