It possible to be supportive on one thing without actively working to suppress something else. For example, while the CEO of Chick-fil-A is on record of supporting marriage in the sense that it is understood by most religious people, there is no evidence that he or his company practice discrimination toward homosexuals. So without any facts to support their cause, pro “gay marriage” politicians have announced that Chick-fil-A and its “hate chicken” are unwelcome in their cities.
I’ve heard and read a great deal of commentary about this brouhaha, but a couple of blog posts stand out as particularly insightful.
The first is by Mark L. Movsesian at the Center for Law and Religion Forum. In Chick-fil-A and the Coming Clash he writes:
The controversy does reveal something ominous, though. As Robert George and others have written, the coming clash over religious freedom in America will likely involve sexuality: abortion, contraception, pornography, same-sex marriage, and so on. On sexuality, progressives seem increasingly unable even to understand the worldview of traditional religious communities like Muslims, Evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews, and the Catholic Church. The intuitions are totally different: what traditional religious communities can’t help but see as common sense, progressives can’t help but see as psychological repression and bigotry. Disagreement is profound. Clashes may be very ugly, indeed.
Just so. The world views of Progressives and Conservatives often leave us talking past each other, arguing about what are, in fact, minor details of a more profound disagreement about reality and how we should respond to it. This disconnect often leads to distrust.
Consider what the DaTechGuy has to say in his Guns and Chick-fil-A: A Matter of Trust post. After reviewing the history of “gay marriage” in Massachusetts, he writes:
We have reached the point from the legality of Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, to the Mayor of the largest city in the Commonwealth publicly declaring in effect: If your business dare oppose the liberal politically correct position , your enterprise doesn’t belong in our enlightened city.
This has happened in the space of a decade, after being assured that “Gay Marriage” would have no effect on anyone else.
So when you on the left tell us, assure us, and promise us that if we on the right agree to just a little bit of Gun Control, you have our word that we have no designs on your personal firearms or anything else, you’ll pardon us for declaring:
If we are stupid enough to believe you on gun control then we deserve to lose the rights we are fighting to defend.
His immediate point is that if Progressives can’t be trusted to support First Amendment rights, Conservatives shouldn’t trust what Progressives say about Second Amendment rights or any other rights as well. The deeper point is that our goals are so different because we are not really playing the same game.
There’s a big choice being presented to the American people, Nannystateism v. Freedom. Do we want to be cared for by our betters or do we want to take our own choices? Do we want the safety of being Julia or the possibilities of striving to be … I’ve sat here for a while trying to think of the best woman to contrast against Julia, and, alas, she’s not an American … Margaret Thatcher?
Is it November yet?