Intolerance and Outrage: Don’t Miss the Point

Note about the Gryphem blog: 
Gryphem still is working on a new vision… But sometimes it is just too hard to keep silent in the presence of duplicity and manipulative intimidation.  

Note about the events inspiring this post: 
In case you haven't been paying attention, the president of a national fast-food chain stated to the media that he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman.  For that he has been vilified to a shocking degree.  Some have even called for the banishment of the restaurant from entire cities... all because he spoke his religiously-based political opinion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The outrage over comments about gay marriage by Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy is revealing some staggering hypocrisy and outright un-American discrimination.  Watching this unfold is painful for an American who believes in honesty, freedom, and respectful public dialogue. 

The shreiks of condemnation from self-appointed defenders of "approved rights" reveal that these Harpies have no real understanding of either freedom of religion or freedom of speech.  Or perhaps they understand but do not support these constituional rights.  Despite sanctimonious proclamations of patriotism, that is possible.

The self-righteous voices of damnation are not coming from the ones who are usually accused of being intolerant.  No, these voices of condemnation are coming from the ones who claim to be open-minded, who claim to be defending rights, who wrap themselves in the American flag while telling their countrymen what they must not believe, while exhorting the masses to sanction the non-compliant.

Let’s speak plainly.  All Dan Cathy did was to speak his mind about gay marriage, which he thinks is wrong.  His opinion derives from his religious beliefs, based on his interpretation of scripture.  For this he has been demonized.   He did not say he would not serve homosexuals.  He did not advocate hatred or violence.  Yet he has been called vicious, and a hatemonger.  Mr. Cathy did not violate anyone’s constitutional rights.  He has been more than willing to do business with groups that support gay rights.  He has not demanded that others conform to his point of view as a precondition to working together (in stark contrast to those who now condemn him!).  What he did was exercise his right to speak publicly in contradiction of one of the tenets of the secular dogma of political correctness. 

Gay Americans and those who support them may not like what Mr. Cathy had to say, and that is understandable and perfectly appropriate.  It is quite another matter to impugn his integrity, to malign his motives, to attempt to force an apology or at least silence him, to try to force his business out of town.  When did it become a prerequisite for doing business to have just the right political beliefs?  When did we start requiring ideological conformity as a prerequisite to participation in the American economy? 

This whole series of  events is disturbingly reminiscent of the way religious police respond to violations of their religious codes in a certain nation in Southwest Asia.  Their harsh retribution is legendary, as is their unwillingness to listen.  In this analogy, the enforcer of orthodoxy is NOT the opponent of gay marriage.

Despite what those screaming in outrage would have you believe, Mr. Cathy’s motive was not hatred, nor a desire to hurt anyone.  He was not even being mean-spirited.  He was simply stating his honestly-held belief.  For the most part, it has not been people of faith who want someone to suffer, but the politically correct crowd.  The keepers of political correctness want someone to pay for transgressing against their secular orthodoxy.  Mayors and city council members have been calling for the expulsion of Chick-Fil-A restaurants from their cities.  Left-wing politicos are trying to enforce correct thought and speech.  Civic action groups and media commenters are calling names and condemning.  It is the opponents of Mr. Cathy who are trying to do him emotional and economic harm.

Mr. Cathy, although he certainly knew his comments would not be popular, had no intention to offend.  He simply stated his views.  The gay community, on the other hand, with its plan for a “kiss-in,” will respond with an event specifically designed and intended to offend.  This is the playbook reaction of a community lacking in self-assurance, needing to provoke attention to validate its existence, a community that once again is about to do itself more harm than good.

Now that you know what I think about all the players in this little drama, let me tell you something that might surprise you.  I support gay rights.  In fact, I belong to a Christian denomination which officially affirms gay rights.  (Not all Christians fit the stereotype of intolerance so popular in the public dialogue!)  I have no wish to oppress.  Because I believe words carry impact beyond what you’ll find in the dictionary, and because marriage has meant a certain thing from time immemorial, I wish my gay friends (and I do have some) would call it something other than “marriage,”  But I am happy for same-sex couples to have all the rights of domestic partnership that my wife and I enjoy.

This isn’t about gay rights.

I don’t care if you are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or none-of-the-above.  I don’t care what you think about the role of public opinion or government in business.  I don’t care if you believe homosexuality is a sin, a choice, or a trait.  I don’t care if you are Christian, Moslem, Shinto, or atheist.  None of that is the real issue here. 

What matters is whether we still believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech.  Does Mr. Cathy have the right to speak publicly his firmly-held religious beliefs, or doesn’t he?  If he DOES, as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states, then all the demands for his head are out of line.

There is a great danger that we will miss the point of all this entirely, if we are distracted by the screamers.  I pray that most of us, including Americans who support gay rights and still are loyal Americans, are intelligent enough to recognize hypocrisy and manipulation when we see them, and committed enough to our heritage of freedom as expressed in the Bill of Rights to do something about it. 

Do Americans have the freedom to believe and practice their religion, or don’t they?

Do Americans have the right to speak truth as they see it, or don’t they?

Those are the real questions.

- Gryphem 

Final Note:  I will return to my contemplation of a brighter future for a little while yet.  I continue to work on a new vision.