Let's say you were invited to a dinner party. And let's say this dinner party was part of a monthly Supper Club. Let's pretend that there are seven couples who are "official" members of that Supper Club, but that over the lifetime of the Supper Club (two rounds of dinner parties now), some of the couples have opted to invite non-Club members to their dinner parties on occasion. And maybe you're one of the couples who hasn't invited non-Club members to your dinner parties. Are you with me so far?
Now let's say that the couple who is hosting the dinner party this month decides to invite a few extra people to their party, all of whom are mutual friends of you and the other members of the group. Let's even go so far as to say that you have invited these same people to non-Supper Club parties that you have hosted over the last couple of years. Still with me? Good.
Now let's pretend that you, as the guest, "reply all" (minus the non-Club invited guests because that would be unkind) to your e-mail invitation and question the host and hostess of the dinner party about their choice to invite non-Club members to their Supper Club dinner party. Here is the question: Would Emily Post tell you to go f*ck yourself?
I'm no Emily Post, but here's what I think: I think it is offensively presumptuous and incredibly rude to question the host and hostess of a party about their guest list. I think that Emily Post would say that it is up to the host and hostess who are inviting people into their home--paying for and preparing the meal at no cost or inconvenience to you--to decide who should and shouldn't be included in the guest list and that you, as a guest, should not offer your opinion on that guest list. I also think that Emily Post would probably turn a blind eye if the hostess "accidentally" sneezed on your plate as she was serving it.
Not that I would do that if I were this hypothetical hostess.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
I'm Boycotting Boycotts That Accomplish Nothing
So...who's still eating at Chik-Fil-A these days? I'm not going to lie to you. I am and not because Mike Huckaby told me to.
Everyone seems to be up in arms these days about Chik-Fil-A's supposed "anti-gay" philosophy. Is it hate speech? Is it free speech? Really, if reasonable minds would stop and consider the situation, Chik-Fil-A doesn't have an "anti-gay philosophy"...or any other philosophy for that matter. It's a business entity. It doesn't have a brain. It doesn't think. It's just a franchise of stores where good, hardworking, and excruciatingly polite people gather everyday to prepare chicken and serve people.
Alright, alright. I'm splitting hairs. But while people say they're boycotting Chik-Fil-A, what they're really boycotting is Chik-Fil-A President Dan Cathy's philosophy, which is that, according to his Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is meant only to be a union between a man and a woman. Is he an intolerant hate monger? Is he just practicing his right to say whatever he believes? I think it's more the latter than the former. Look, I don't happen to agree with the man's beliefs, but I also believe that what he has done is no different than what the people boycotting his company are doing--he's defending his values. And that's why this whole thing is farcical to me.
Do I believe that homosexual couples should be able to marry? Yes. In fact, I believe that any person should be able to marry any other person of their choosing regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or religion. Love is love. But it just doesn't offend me to the point of boycotting his restaurants that Mr. Cathy does not believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. Just as I believe that I am entitled to my beliefs, Mr. Cathy is entitled to his. And at no point has Mr. Cathy said that he would not employ or serve homosexuals. He simply stated that his Christian faith teaches him that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples. (For the record, I'm a Christian as well, but I eat shrimp like there's no tomorrow, so I'm already damned according to Leviticus. So I might as well believe that homosexuality is not an "abomination," right?)
So what's really at issue here? Is it Mr. Cathy's faith? No. Is it chicken sandwiches? No. The real issue here is whether homosexual men and women should be able to marry the same sex partners that they love, and that issue cannot be resolved by boycotting Chik-Fil-A, folks. As I said earlier this week in a Facebook debate on this issue, Dan Cathy makes chicken sandwiches; he doesn't make law. Let's get real here: Whether you ever eat another Chik-Fil-A sandwich has absolutely no bearing on whether same sex couples will be able to marry! You could stop eating altogether, and same sex couples still wouldn't be allowed to marry. If you think that's unjust, then do something about it. No, I mean really do something about it. Get out there and vote. Then lobby the hell out of your legislators and Congressmen and women. Or better yet, run for office yourself. But carrying around a sign in front of your local Chik-Fil-A store? What a ridiculous waste of time.
Listen, if you don't want to give this man your money, then don't. That's perfectly respectable and understandable. But to parade around on Facebook and Twitter and pretend like you're actually doing something to assure all Americans equal rights...you're not doing that. You're just not eating Chik-Fil-A sandwiches. That's all. Again, at the end of the day, whether you eat Chik-Fil-A or Chipotle, our gay friends cannot celebrate their love the way that you and I can.
This is what annoys me about boycotts and protests. What do they really accomplish? 90% of the time, they accomplish very little. You want cleaner air? Then get your lazy ass out from in front of your laptop where you spend 12 hours a day blogging about the evils of America's energy practices, stop wasting time chaining yourself to fences, and get into an engineering program to actually learn how to produce clean energy. You want to chase corruption out of Wall Street? Then take down your tent, take a shower, enroll in an MBA program, and become the non-corrupt business leader that you claim to want to see. Everybody seems to want a better America, but nobody seems to want to actually do anything to make it happen. Instead, they'd rather spends hours on end making clever signs or gathering in coffee houses for weekly bitch sessions about how we're all victims or laying down in the middle of fast food drive-thrus. And to what end? What makes a bigger impact on the environment--trespassing on a coal mine and chaining yourself to an earth mover or developing the technology to burn coal more cleanly? Is the best way to get thieves off of Wall Street to camp out for 3 months in front of your local branch of Chase Bank, or is it to become the CEO of Chase Bank? Will not eating a Chik-Fil-A sandwich get your gay neighbors a marriage license, or would it be more effective to make yours the deciding vote on the floor of your state legislature?
Two more thoughts on this whole Chik-Fil-A ridiculousness: In another 2 weeks, no one will be talking about Chik-Fil-A anymore. (Occupy what?) And homosexual couples will still have to settle for commitment ceremonies conducted by their friends in their backyards. And my final thought: All the boycotters have done is galvanize the anti-gay marriage people in this country. Guess who likes southern fried chicken sandwiches? Southern fried Red State voters. And they all went to their nearest Chik-Fil-A for breakfast, lunch, and dinner today. So bully for you. You just riled up your louder, more-likely-to-actually-vote opposition. That should help the cause.
I'm not trying to stifle anyone's freedom of speech. I'm just saying that sometimes the time and energy is better put to use in other ways. It's one of the oldest and most truthful cliches in the book: Actions speak louder than words. Get out there and effect real change!
Everyone seems to be up in arms these days about Chik-Fil-A's supposed "anti-gay" philosophy. Is it hate speech? Is it free speech? Really, if reasonable minds would stop and consider the situation, Chik-Fil-A doesn't have an "anti-gay philosophy"...or any other philosophy for that matter. It's a business entity. It doesn't have a brain. It doesn't think. It's just a franchise of stores where good, hardworking, and excruciatingly polite people gather everyday to prepare chicken and serve people.
Alright, alright. I'm splitting hairs. But while people say they're boycotting Chik-Fil-A, what they're really boycotting is Chik-Fil-A President Dan Cathy's philosophy, which is that, according to his Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is meant only to be a union between a man and a woman. Is he an intolerant hate monger? Is he just practicing his right to say whatever he believes? I think it's more the latter than the former. Look, I don't happen to agree with the man's beliefs, but I also believe that what he has done is no different than what the people boycotting his company are doing--he's defending his values. And that's why this whole thing is farcical to me.
Do I believe that homosexual couples should be able to marry? Yes. In fact, I believe that any person should be able to marry any other person of their choosing regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or religion. Love is love. But it just doesn't offend me to the point of boycotting his restaurants that Mr. Cathy does not believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. Just as I believe that I am entitled to my beliefs, Mr. Cathy is entitled to his. And at no point has Mr. Cathy said that he would not employ or serve homosexuals. He simply stated that his Christian faith teaches him that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples. (For the record, I'm a Christian as well, but I eat shrimp like there's no tomorrow, so I'm already damned according to Leviticus. So I might as well believe that homosexuality is not an "abomination," right?)
So what's really at issue here? Is it Mr. Cathy's faith? No. Is it chicken sandwiches? No. The real issue here is whether homosexual men and women should be able to marry the same sex partners that they love, and that issue cannot be resolved by boycotting Chik-Fil-A, folks. As I said earlier this week in a Facebook debate on this issue, Dan Cathy makes chicken sandwiches; he doesn't make law. Let's get real here: Whether you ever eat another Chik-Fil-A sandwich has absolutely no bearing on whether same sex couples will be able to marry! You could stop eating altogether, and same sex couples still wouldn't be allowed to marry. If you think that's unjust, then do something about it. No, I mean really do something about it. Get out there and vote. Then lobby the hell out of your legislators and Congressmen and women. Or better yet, run for office yourself. But carrying around a sign in front of your local Chik-Fil-A store? What a ridiculous waste of time.
Listen, if you don't want to give this man your money, then don't. That's perfectly respectable and understandable. But to parade around on Facebook and Twitter and pretend like you're actually doing something to assure all Americans equal rights...you're not doing that. You're just not eating Chik-Fil-A sandwiches. That's all. Again, at the end of the day, whether you eat Chik-Fil-A or Chipotle, our gay friends cannot celebrate their love the way that you and I can.
This is what annoys me about boycotts and protests. What do they really accomplish? 90% of the time, they accomplish very little. You want cleaner air? Then get your lazy ass out from in front of your laptop where you spend 12 hours a day blogging about the evils of America's energy practices, stop wasting time chaining yourself to fences, and get into an engineering program to actually learn how to produce clean energy. You want to chase corruption out of Wall Street? Then take down your tent, take a shower, enroll in an MBA program, and become the non-corrupt business leader that you claim to want to see. Everybody seems to want a better America, but nobody seems to want to actually do anything to make it happen. Instead, they'd rather spends hours on end making clever signs or gathering in coffee houses for weekly bitch sessions about how we're all victims or laying down in the middle of fast food drive-thrus. And to what end? What makes a bigger impact on the environment--trespassing on a coal mine and chaining yourself to an earth mover or developing the technology to burn coal more cleanly? Is the best way to get thieves off of Wall Street to camp out for 3 months in front of your local branch of Chase Bank, or is it to become the CEO of Chase Bank? Will not eating a Chik-Fil-A sandwich get your gay neighbors a marriage license, or would it be more effective to make yours the deciding vote on the floor of your state legislature?
Two more thoughts on this whole Chik-Fil-A ridiculousness: In another 2 weeks, no one will be talking about Chik-Fil-A anymore. (Occupy what?) And homosexual couples will still have to settle for commitment ceremonies conducted by their friends in their backyards. And my final thought: All the boycotters have done is galvanize the anti-gay marriage people in this country. Guess who likes southern fried chicken sandwiches? Southern fried Red State voters. And they all went to their nearest Chik-Fil-A for breakfast, lunch, and dinner today. So bully for you. You just riled up your louder, more-likely-to-actually-vote opposition. That should help the cause.
I'm not trying to stifle anyone's freedom of speech. I'm just saying that sometimes the time and energy is better put to use in other ways. It's one of the oldest and most truthful cliches in the book: Actions speak louder than words. Get out there and effect real change!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
