The Assumption of Corruption

I went to a Chik-Fil-A restaurant today in Southern California, but was unable to eat there. The lines to get inside, and into the drive-through, were tremendous. These were later reported as “two-hour waits” and that matches what I saw even in mid-afternoon. I had planned to support them by buying lunch there; we eat there from time to time, and their food is good. That’s what they are being paid for. The political stance of one or more of the principals of the company is not the issue, in my opinion.

On the one hand, I have a number of homosexual and bisexual friends, and I am not fiercely opposed to the so called “gay marriage” issue per se. I do have a number of reservations about it:

  • The desire of a homosexual couple to get married seems not unreasonable to me — but the actions of the “gay community” in support of this often strike me as disgusting; I am no fan of “gay pride” parades and some homosexuals I know share this antipathy. A similar heterosexual parade would fare no better in my view.
  • There has been an attack on traditional marriage for decades now, and this attack has done great harm to the US. I can sympathize with those who see this as a continuation of that process and therefore resist it.
  • Equality of marriage (something of a misnomer) seems to be conjoined with various pushes to show homosexual lifestyle (often pretty explicitly) as a wonderful thing to children, and any sexually themed propaganda aimed at children is problematic in my mind.
  • And, having some experience in the world of law, I’m aware that the legal changes will create massive uproar in this arena, in a “be careful what you wish for” sense.

But the issue going on today is a larger one, I think: A business that employs many thousands of people, and that does good charity work for thousands more, is threatened because one of the owners of the company expressed an opinion that the current “ruling party” does not like.  It’s not the protests; people are free to do so, and in fact I saw large crowds today surrounding the restaurant, protesting in favor of it (judging by the signs and American flags in evidence). Someone wishing to protest against them has the legal right to do so.

What bothers me here is an effect by Democrat leaders which I am calling “the assumption of corruption.”  Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff for President Obama and now mayor of Chicago, is a prime example of this. I am in the odd position of agreeing with a statement by Mayor Bloomberg of New York City as quoted in the New York Times:

“It’s inappropriate for a city government, or a state government, or the federal government to look at somebody’s political views and decide whether or not they can live in the city, or operate a business in the city, or work for somebody in the city,” the mayor said on his Friday morning radio show.

But the Democrat mayors of New York, Boston, and a few other places threatened Chick-fil-A — “don’t even try to get a permit here” one said.  Tucked into all of these threats is the acceptance, even pride in the fact that political corruption — the interference with laws for the sake of pleasing some boss — is a normal part of their thinking. “Mayor Thomas M. Menino has sworn that the franchise will have to fight city hall to bring its fast-food empire to Boston,” according to Time.

It no longer matters if your application is legally acceptable. Your principal officers/owners/management must have the “correct”political position, one that agrees with the particular higher ups in power at the moment, or the rule of law will be ignored for political purposes.

It is also amusing that all of this fierce anger from the Left is directed against the political position of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party … up until a few months ago. Now that Obama has changed his mind (after testing the polls, of course), the soi-disant party of tolerance will do everything they can to destroy people who disagree with them.  (As long as it’s politically expedient, of course — the same Rahm Emanuel publicly embraced homosexual-hating Nation of Islam minister Farakhan.) But if they can harm someone to make a point, they will go for it.

The contrast is interesting. There is no group of Republicans that I am aware of that sets out to destroy the careers and livelihood of gay people. But the Democrats have such a group: They will attack, “out”, and mount campaigns to fire gays who are conservative and/or Republican. That independence of thought is intolerable, and this follows a pattern on the left of explicitly attacking tolerance, as I wrote about here.

But I have been pleased to see that this is not universal. Many gays and other leftists have written or spoken to support Chick-fil-A CEO Cathy’s right to his opinion, and I’ve seen a cross-dressing (and rather elaborate) video in favor of the place. Whoopi Goldberg was even on board. Good for them — for I would defend them were the tables turned, and cities vowed to act illegally to exclude a business because of a leftist political opinion held by its principals.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle