Playing Chicken with the First Amendment

A few days back Chick-Fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, had this to say in an interview with Baptist Press,

"We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families – some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that ... We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Lots of people went crazy about it, calling for boycotts of the business and calling Cathy a bigot and all kinds of other lovely names.  I was totally fine with the developing discourse - that is the beauty of this great country! We can believe what we want and speak out about what we want as individuals, just as Cathy was doing. We can even speak out against those who don't have the same beliefs we have, too!

These are freedoms which exist simply because of our humanity; they aren't given to us by anyone, any government, or any institution. They are simply because we are. The Constitution of the United States secures these unalienable rights for us. In short, the Constitution puts the government on notice: These are our rights and you SHALL NOT infringe upon them.

This includes people we don't agree with, which means sometimes we don't "win." This is certainly the case with the West.boro Baptist Church (of Craziness). What they say and do is absolutely vile. It's wrong. It's hateful. I wish they would crawl back under whatever rock it is they came out from under. However, it is a Constitutionally protected right for them to say those things and act in that manner, a right which was just upheld during the last SCOTUS session.  Once again, the Constitution didn't give them those rights, they exist because they are humans. Same with the Code Pink Crowd. Or the OWS groups.

So as the discourse about Cathy's comments unfolded, I watched with a bit of delight as this issue played out in the marketplace of ideas. There is nothing that warms this little-L-libertarian's heart more than healthy, vigorous, and sometimes heated debate, even about an issue that is particularly close and sensitive in my family.

However, the delight ended when Rahm Emmanuel and other public officials started their comments about boycotting Chick-Fil-A, not as private citizens, but as representatives of their local governments. They promised to stop further expansion of Chick-Fil-A in their cities based solely on Cathy's remarks. And this is where this little-L-libertarian cried "foul!" (no pun intended) as this is a clear-cut case of a potential violation of something we Americans like to call The First Amendment.

I am not the only one who thinks so, either. Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the ACLU of Illinois thinks so, too.

“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words...When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”

and 

“But we also support the First Amendment. We don’t think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”

Now before any of my readers start calling me a bigot or telling me I hate the gay and lesbian community because I support Dan Cathy's constitutionally protected rights, may I share something personal with you? This whole equality issue hits very close to home. How close you might ask? Very close. 

Let me introduce you to my sister, Angelyn. (That's her, the brunette on the left).

Angelyn is among the most lovely, gracious, loving, generous, and amazing people you will ever have the chance to meet. She is an incredible mother. She is a devoted sister and friend. She is a hard worker (to a fault). She's a successful small business owner. She is naturally gifted at making others feel at ease while at the same time challenging them to expand and grow as a person. To know her is to love her. Plus look at her and those beautiful blue eyes! She's gorgeous!!!

She also happens to be a lesbian.

Gasp! A "good" Mormon girl like me has a sister who is a lesbian? 

Yes, yes I do and I am proud of her.  This doesn't mean we always agree on everything, but what it does mean is that above all else I want her to be happy and to fulfill the measure of her creation. If this means she is a lesbian, then I have to trust her and God's plan for her life, with no qualifications on my love for her. Obviously, I have a pretty vested interest in making sure my sister's rights and freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness are protected, just as much as mine are protected.

So what is my stance on the gay marriage issue vs the biblical stance on marriage?

I know not a lot of people aren't going to like my response, on either side of the argument, but I believe government should get out of the marriage business entirely.  For me, marriage is a covenant between me, my partner, and God.  Not the state. I don't want government regulating the marital bed any more than I want it in the boardroom of Chick-Fil-A.  If this means giving up tax breaks or whatever other perks the government has granted married folk, then so be it. Just stay out of my relationship with my partner and God, please. (There's that little-L-libertarian in me again. But hey, I come by it naturally. I have yet to find a direct-line ancestor on my maternal grandmother's side whose family had not originated on or immigrated to this continent after the 1760's. From the 1760's on, every single ancestor on Grandma Mollie's side of the family was born here. This includes my 2nd great-grandfather, a Cherokee Indian who loved the Constitution and The United States enough to stay in North Carolina rather than join his siblings on the Trail of Tears.  This liberty stuff - it runs deep in my blood, but I digress).

Is it really feasible for the government to get out of the marriage business? No. Do I know how this gay marriage question is going to play out in this country? Not at all.

What I do know is this: Dan Cathy has the right to speak his mind about his Biblical-based beliefs. However, he does not have the right to discriminate against members of the gay community by firing them or refusing to serve them in the restaurants (which he doesn't, BTW). Emmanuel has the right to disagree with Dan Cathy. However, he doesn't have the right to initiate laws barring Chick-Fil-A from doing business in the Chicago area because of the Cathy's religious beliefs.

This brings me back to the point of this entire blog post. The Constitution of the United States does not ride on the back of a donkey or an elephant.  As the supreme law of the land, it should be the bedrock of all our discourse. 

I like chicken.

But even more than chicken, I love liberty. And I love my sister.