Randomness: 25 Things People Are Saying (Part II)

Who knew a chicken sandwich could be come a political symbol for a very real and serious argument over civil rights for homosexuals? The world has become a very strange place, so it’s time to choke some chicken and get to the 25 things people are saying about the Chick-fil-A controversy.

Take a vacashun frum beef

Free Bigotree with UR Chikin

Whee Ar Gay

Love Thy Gaybors

One Man One Woman

Who Lined Up for the Homeless Shelter?

Not Man or Cowz

Eat More Cock

Chicks Are Gay

Dress Like Me. Git Free Chikin

Eat Mor Chickin

Cant Hide My Pride

Nuthin' to Say

Male & Female Created He Them

Chick-fil-A coupon

Chick-fil-A Song

Family Value

Chick Puppy

Chick-fil-A Twitter

God Hates Chick-fil-A

Ate Mor Gay

Chick Church Sign

What He Heck

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?

A high school friend used to say, “Life is a shit sandwich and I take a bigger bite every day.” There’s a lot of cynical wisdom in that quote. The Shit Sandwich du Jour is the Chick-fil-A Spicy Chicken Deluxe and it’s leaving a shitty taste in everyone’s mouth.

I think Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s gay marriage stance is wrong about the “biblical definition of the family unit” and quite frankly inconsequential and stupid. His position is a moral, corporate, and downright mean-spirited cock up if you’ll pardon the expression. The First Amendment allows me to say that just as it allows him to say what he wants, people to hold bigoted Appreciation Days, and respond with Gay Kiss-In Days. Freedom is messy and fractious.

Sure, his statements are about civil rights for gays, separation of church and state, and First Amendment guarantees, but some ancillary points are worth noting.

Cathy is a private person, but as King of Chickendom he is also the embodiment of the much-disputed corporate person. His cluck is the voice of Chick-fil-A. It is the voice of an employer forbidden to discriminate. The company is closely held so his voice and actions must also protect his investors’ valuable “fil-A’s”. When he speaks, his personal opinions become the opinions of the corporation. These things may not be direct constitutional issues in Chick-fil-A’s case, but they muddy the waters.

Like celebrities who slavishly court publicity, it is disingenuous to be surprised when the paparazzi and protesters show up. To his credit, Cathy is reaping what he sowed, but celebrities sometimes go all Justin Bieber on the paps’ asses and then whine about the intrusion they invited. Cathy could do the same if the fire and brimstone become too hot for him.

Cathy demonstrates the notion that private comments are well, private, but that celebrities, CEOs, and the powerful in the public eye give up reasonable expectations to exercise full First Amendment rights by default. Though changing, that is the foundation of American libel and defamation law. It may not be a fair legal position, but it is a practical one. Absent it, no one could question public figures because of the chilling effect of libel or defamation suits from every statement the public and powerful might dislike – truth be damned.

The protests will go on, like the core issue, until the public loses interest or gay marriage becomes law. However, Cathy should watch his gizzards and livers closely. With the increased scrutiny comes business-effecting public opinion duels, closer looks at the legality of corporate culture and behavior, and strict adherence to laws. As Mitt Romney and Barack Obama can tell you, in temperate personal opinions often come back to haunt you.

People should feel free to express their opinions but keep their protests in context. With all the hubbub on both sides we’re making chicken sandwiches and the religious zealot who sells them symbols for a serious and sober debate. The debate is becoming a series of chicken jokes. If you asked random protesters for gay marriage specifics most would parrot the stale lines they already spew plus add a mini-restaurant review of Chick-fil-A.

A little humor makes the bitter medecine go down, but it’s time to get back to civil rights for homosexuals.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Voting Out the Constitution

Do Unto Others

DO UNTO OTHERS - If the anti-gay zealots don't like the Constitution perhaps they should read the Bible.

People usually remember the 1960s as a time of great strife over civil rights. If you were alive back in the day, the images of police dogs ripping into lines of civil rights marchers or white-sheeted thugs dancing around a burning cross is still a chilling thing and proof that America was indeed going through wrenching social change.

Many would also like to believe that the country has made great strides in the interim, and we have. But, there’s more to accomplish and the nation now finds itself spending much of its energy on fighting to simply hold onto the advances already made. Civil rights advancement is now threatened by organizations and morally dishonest politicians bent on carrying us back to 1864.

Yesterday’s decision to strike down California’s Prop 8 anti-gay marriage law was sound. The judge did an impressive job of listing all the factual and legal reasons – 80 in all – showing that the law is unconstitutional. An improvement to celebrate, but also an event that highlights anti-civil rights crudaders’ thinking.

Tim Wildmon of the sarcastically named American Family Association reacted with shocking vitriol, calling the court’s decision, “a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance.”

Wildmon Is Has a Queer Notion
Wildmon believes one of the principles at stake is ignoring the California voters, which he sees as unconstitutional. In doing so, Wildmon – who uses the 10th Amendment as a fig leaf himself – introduces the queer notion that the Constitution is up for a vote whenever you don’t like what it says.

Liza

LIZA WITH A 'Z' - What more need be said?

Similar to the rabble rousing for amending the 14th Amendment in the immigration battle, what Wildmon is proposing is that the Constitution – designed to be difficult to amend – should change to bend to the will of the latest ideological blowhard to come on the scene.

Mr. Wildmon, I ask you…if Californians voted to outlaw heterosexual marriage would you express the same fondness to the validity of their vote?

Wildmon also believes the “tyrannical and abusive”, Bush-the-Elder-appointed, judge should have recused himself from the case.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself, ” Wildmon said. “He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity.”

What I find “problematic” about Wildmon’s charge is that he is exhibiting his  own “proclivity” to act as a heterosexual, homophobic, quasi-religious leader. In other words – or more correctly Wildmon’s – “[Wildmon] should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual [and religious] proclivity.”

I suspect the only judge Wildmon would find acceptable is an ordained Christian minister with a demonstrated track record of ignoring the Constitution in favor of a Christian Sharia-like theocracy – or a teabagger – whichever pinhead stepped forward first.

Americans are becoming increasingly unfamiliar with the basic tennents of the Constitution.They apparently believe that any hot head’s cause can simply be enacted by a simple vote. The Constitution is not the “McConstitution”. You can’t vote cheeseburgers off the menu because you don’t like them.

They believe that if there is a “war” on, the President, under no one’s authority other than his own, is permitted to suspend the Constitution’s guarantees against warrantless search or to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge.

Many Americans believe that the Constitution guarantees them freedom of religion, but also support depriving anyone other than Christians (they’re aren’t too hot on the Catholics either) of their similar freedom. Don’t like mosques too close to your shrine? Protest and file suit as Pat Robertson’s minions have done, but don’t be honest enough to mention that if it had been a Christian church you would’ve been praising the idea like it came from, well, God.

From Constitutional Ignorance, Instability Flows
From Constitutional ignorance, great instability flows. Unfortunately, those with such beliefs fail to see the unintended blow back from their muddled position.

Teabaggers and their similar-thinking ilk, like to wear tri-cornered hats and screech about keeping Big Gummint off their backs. If allowing someone to marry the person of their choosing is too much government involvement, then why isn’t government being on a gay person’s back equally bad?

Bush the Lesser did much to chip away at many civil rights during his reign and in areas like the conduct of our misbegotten wars and gay rights,  The Messiah™ continues walking the same swampy path.

One day, the blow back from their actions will come to haunt them and the people who cheered them. One day an administration will take office that isn’t so tolerant of their cavalier positions and decides to warrantlessly tap their phones, close their churches, or collect deep background on twerps like Wildmon.

And when they do, they’ll claim the same Constitutional protections because they changed the Constitution to allow it.

Enhanced by Zemanta