Chicken Little Crosses the Road: Chick-Fil-A Culture War Continues
Why Did Chick-Fil-A Cross the Road? Gay and lesbian demonstrators at Chick-fil-A say they're there for a kiss and some Chicken Sandwiches with Pickles
CHICAGO, IL - It seems everyone these days has an opinion on the Chick-Fil-A culture wars that are brewing over the issue of - same sex marriage. You heard that right. It's not about the chicken, not about the pickles on the chicken sandwiches, and it's not about the cool waffle fries - it's all about same-sex marriage - or comments made about it.
On July 16, 2012, an online Southern Baptist publication quoted Dan Cathy, whose family owns the Chick-fil-A fast-food chain, saying he endorses “the biblical definition of the family unit.” And from there, a lot of people started running around like a chicken with its head cut off.
From liberal Mayors and politicians trying to ban Chick-Fil-A from their parts of the country to a super large Customer Appreciation Day put on by the fast food chain to the vandalism and "kiss-in" protest held by gay and lesbian activists, there has been quite a flurry of news about the situation.
The NY Times recently reported on the culture way erupting, writing:
On July 20, Jonathan Merritt, a son of the former Southern Baptist Convention president James Merritt, wrote “In Defense of Eating at Chick-fil-A,” an essay for The Atlantic’s Web site. “In a nation that’s as divided as ours is, do we really want our commercial lives and our political lives to be so wholly intermeshed?” Mr. Merritt asked.
Three days later, Mr. Southworth, a former host of a Christian television show and now a college student in Fort Wayne, Ind., wrote a blog post saying he had evidence that Mr. Merritt was gay. “It is my personal belief that one should only be allowed to lead by living a transparent, honest and authentic life,” Mr. Southworth wrote. “Exposing this truth of Jonathan’s sexual orientation is not an easy decision for me.”
What next? Who knows for sure. It has been interesting, however, to see how two sides of an issue have used the media to get their message out there.
Neail Steinberg over at the Chicago Sun Times opined:
You are allowed, obviously, to believe what you like and express that belief but — and this is the tough-to-grasp-part — other people are also allowed to reject those beliefs, and are free to pity you for being clueless and, in our constant-communication society, free to express their disapproval. (Though I, in my kindly fashion, have true sympathy for religious sorts, who are sincerely shocked when their well-worn in-church Sunday pieties receive blats of public derision on Monday).
What do you think of the controversy? Leave your comments below.