I'm not a constitutional scholar, so maybe I'm wrong, and if I am (you actual constitutional scholars) please tell me.
August 1st was a great day to be the owner of Chick-fil-A.
People lined up around the building.
Some folks just wanted to know that a little of their hard earned money, that they used to get delicious chicken sandwiches, went toward ensuring some folks don't get married/enjoy certain rights. (hospital visitations, health benefits, tax breaks, children, etc)
Others held up a much more noble cause: defending freedom!
One customer was so enthusiastic in her support of freedom/chicken that she brought along her two teenage daughters:
"It was good for them to see (that) this is what it means to be an American, and we have free speech, and when we want to make a statement, we can make it," she said. -1. CNN
The problem is this: freedom of speech is a right afforded by the government to its citizens. When LGBT folks/supporters get upset at a chicken chain that is funding campaigns against their ability to marry and they then make their frustrations known (whether it be via social media, boycott, or other), their actions/words against the chicken chain are not a violation of the restaurant's, nor the CEO's freedom of speech.
I have read some articles claiming that LGBT protesters are actually against the CEO's beliefs. Maybe they're right, but I'm pretty sure that that argument is at least an unintentionally misleading claim, if not an outright straw-man argument.
Now, if mayors like Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino actually moved their threats of "banning" Chick-fil-A from political posturing to reality, then we have a legitimate freedom of speech claim, because they are the government. When the government starts telling you what you can and cannot say, we all have a problem.
(This is why the Supreme court upheld the right for the Westboro folks to do their hate thing.)
However, there are legitimate pieces of legislation that have come out in the last 12 or so years that we should be getting our free-speech-breeches in a twist about.
But this?
Chicken?
And here's the thing; increasing a company's profits will not deter the government from violating free speech, because free speech is not a corporate/private issue, it is a government issue. If any violations ever did take place, the appropriate action would be political, not corporate.
Coming out to support the beliefs of the CEO and the way that Chick-fil-A donates their money to anti-LGBT organizations, that actually makes sense (if you're into that sort of thing).
If the shining example of "American freedom" is our willingness to support corporations monetarily because of the organizations they donate to, outside of the realm of their business, then I am afraid that I really do not know what is going on.
Maybe I don't.
After all, the surge of supporters/customers/"freedom fighters" present on the 1st was not the result of any direct corporate scheme.
Rather it was the idea of Christian pastor Mike Huckabee.
I didn't realize that was part of the gig. Now I'm wondering which corporations would like me as their sponsor...
1. CNN Wire Staff. “Chick-fil-A restaurants become rallying points for supporters.” CNN 1 Aug. 2012, 1 Aug. 2012 <http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/chick-fil-a-appreciation/index.html?iref=allsearch>
