By John Hrabe

Whenever you’ve got trouble, and I mean trouble with a capital T, authoritarians’ first impulse is to ban it. And it doesn’t matter if that trouble is rap music, violent video games, or a pool hall in River City.

The Chick-fil-A protests and counter-protests are nothing new, just the latest chapter in America’s ongoing culture wars. Don’t like gay couples: ban gay marriage. Hate Chick-fil-A for opposing gay marriage: ban Chick-fil-A.  Cultural warriors of all political stripes love to use the machinery of government to suppress their critics and push their agenda.

That’s what happened at first in the current chicken fight. The conservative authoritarians at Chick-fil-A gave money to organizations that support defense of marriage laws. Big government trying to ban two individuals from entering into a private contract. The liberal authoritarians responded with talk of blocking Chick-fil-A from opening new franchises in their communities. Big government trying to infringe on public commerce and free speech.

Ironically, both sides share the same philosophical foundation: “I don’t like you so I want government to shut you down.”

Public Shot Down Big City Mayors

Then, something different happened. After Boston’s Mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel and San Francisco’s Mayor Edwin Lee made their unconstitutional threats, the mayors’ comments were immediately shot down by constitutional scholars and endorsed by the public. The debate shifted from government actions to private boycotts.

“Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996),” wrote the country’s preeminent First Amendment scholar, UCLA law school professor Eugene Volokh. “It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, or the group conservatives love-to-hate, echoed Volokh’s position.

“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said ACLU attorney Adam Schwartz. “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.”

Private Boycotts: Non-Government Solutions

The debate continued, but in a positive way, which was substantially different from past cultural battles. All of the public’s fury was channeled into private, non-government solutions. That’s something to celebrate. There wasn’t any more talk of banning Chick-fil-As. No lawmaker suggested a mandatory warning label for all Chick-fil-A products, or banning minors from your neighborhood Chick-fil-A restaurant.

The Traditional Values Coalition urged their members to support “citizen leaders willing to stand tall and support Christian values in the public square.” Gay rights groups, such as the NoH8 campaign, encouraged the public to boycott the chain. There was “National Same-Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A” Day versus “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” Both sides got to express their views and take action with their wallets.

Can liberals now understand why money equals a form of political speech?

American Tradition: Voting with Your Wallet

Boycotts date back to America’s founding.  “If you choose where to eat based on a company’s political views, as well as how good the food is or how much it costs, that’s your call,” the Sacramento Bee editorialized. “Voting with your feet, or with your wallet, is an American tradition.” Remember, the Boston Tea Party, it had a corresponding boycott of British tea.

When individuals have the freedom to choose, or when government stays out of it, the debate gets better. You don’t get two polarized sides, but a wide-array of views.  People who are gay but still eat at Chick-fil-A. Conservatives who support traditional marriage but patronize liberal-minded businesses.

“I am gay and I support Chick-fil-A,” Matt Perez, a 19-year-old from Redding self-reported on CNN’s i-Report. “Personally they have never treated me any different as a gay man and I will continue to do business with them so long as that holds true.”

On the other side, most conservatives aren’t likely to stop using their iPhone or Windows-based computer. “Microsoft and Apple, to name a couple, donate to pro-gay-marriage groups,” reminded best-selling author and radio talk-show host Larry Elder. “Should opponents of gay marriage find the companies’ stance on marriage so offensive that they, too, launch consumer boycotts?” 

Private boycotts are harder to pull off. It’s much easier to have the government do it for you.

“While I understand the goal of voting with one’s pocketbook, I’ve personally found boycotts to be impossible to pull off with any consistency,” wrote conservative columnist and radio host Inga Barks at the Bakersfield Californian. “If I like a product, I buy it.”

Who will eventually win the Battle of Chick-fil-A? Believers in limited government already have.

Katy Grimes: Only hours after the Democratic National Committee announced that the 2012 platform would endorse same-sex marriage, a group of black pastors came out swinging, and saying that they feel betrayed by President Barack Obama.

“We voted for Obama. We campaigned for Obama. But he has left our founding purposes,” Rev. William Owens Sr., the founder of the coalition of African American Pastors, told World Net Daily. “With all of the problems in America within the black community – education, jobs, business, the economy – with all of our problems, he chooses to get in front of same-sex marriage,” he continued. “That flies in the face of the African-American community.

“We feel betrayed.”

Could same-sex marriage issue fil-A the Dems?

Simultaneously, the Chick-fil-A controversy exploded, but in a good way.

Gay rights activists and other partisan liberals plan a national “Kiss In” at Chick-fil-A restaurants today to protest the restaurant owners’ position on traditional marriage. In a stunt worthy of junior high school antics, organizers are asking all gay activists to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss one other publicly.

The beef is over Chic-fil-A owner Dan Cathy’s recent interview with the Baptist Press.  “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” Cathy explained. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

After Cathy’s comments were brought to the attention of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Menino “urged Chick-fil-A to ‘back out’ of its ‘plans to locate in Boston,’” Time magazine reported.

And then Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s last Chief of Staff, stepped in it and said that Chick-fil-A has no place in the city of Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno stepped in it arm-in-arm with Emanuel, and said he planned to block a permit for Chick-fil-A in a Chicago neighborhood. “Same-sex marriage, same-sex couples — that’s the civil rights fight of our time. To have those discriminatory policies from the top down is just not something that we’re open to,” Moreno said.

It appears that Emanuel shares the God-complex of his former boss.

A sexual proclivity became a political movement

Despite the protests, this has quickly become a free-speech issue.

Gay rights activists and some members of the national media delivered scathing attacks on Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, calling for homosexual activists to “infiltrate” and bully the family-owned company until they renounce their support of traditional marriage.

But as Time reported, “No evidence has been presented to suggest that Chick-fil-A discriminates against gay or lesbian customers or employees. There is nothing to suggest that the company has broken the law in any way.

In his comments to the Baptist Press, Cathy never even mentioned same-sex marriage. He simply said that he and his company supported traditional marriage. “The only issues at play are the personal view of the owner of the restaurant chain and the philanthropic efforts of the private company,” Time reported.

So where does all of this hype and vitriol against supporters of traditional marriage come from? Most supporters of traditional marriage say they don’t care how someone else lives, but they don’t want the gay movement forced on them or their kids, and don’t feel that the government should have any role in the movement.

Many say that it’s not a same-sex marriage or religious issue at stake, but rather they are fed up with the government hassling a business owner for his religious beliefs. It’s none of the government’s business.

Chicago Alderman Moreno announced that while he may have been wrong about trying to stop Chic-fil-A from opening a new location, but now wants Chick fil A to put into writing that it “won’t support any groups with a political agenda, including those with an anti-gay marriage stance” before he’ll consider allowing zoning rights to a Chick fil A restaurant in his ward.

Moreno just doesn’t get it.

“If they’re serious about that, and they’re willing to put that in writing and they’re willing to adopt that. I think those are the grounds where we can move forward,” Moreno said.

“Chick-fil-A may have a pretty good case under the First Amendment if the city uses their religious or political beliefs as a basis for denying a business license or ability to do business in the city.  That is the kind of thing that happens in fascist states,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow and former Justice Department attorney to the assistant attorney general for civil rights.

This issue is not about homosexuality, despite how loud the shrill activists are.  This is only about the First Amendment, and the right to speak openly on a controversial subject, and continue to run your business. Cathy’s comments were deliberately blown out of proportion, despite the very respectful way he expressed what was important to him.

And maybe even worse than the Mayors sticking their noses into Chick-fil-A’s business, is the media’s political spin.

While the left has bee trying to push this as a civil rights issue, and create the image that Chick-Fil-A is oppressing an entire minority group, this controversy is being used to silence the voices of those who don’t agree with the left.

It’s an election year, extremists are running the Democratic Party, with the main stream media in lockstep. However, despite pulling out all of the stops, the average man and woman are showing their support to Chick-fil-A.

And black pastors are spitting mad… things are looking up. And it’s beginning to appear that extremist Democratic Party operatives are the ones who don’t fit in. Chicago values and Democratic values are not the values of most.

By John Seiler

San Francisco has a reputation as a “tolerant” city, the capital of the 1967 Summer of Love, Haight-Ashbury and all that. Whatever it was in psychedelic Sixties, today it’s one of the most intolerant cities around. For example, on June 6, San Fran voted a whopping 74 percent for Proposition 29, the buck-a-pack cigarette tax. The rest of the state opposed it, 50.3 percent to 49.7 percent.

What have San Franciscans got against tobacco smokers, who tend to be poor people? No doubt it comes from city’s heritage of its major Anglo settlement by intolerant New England Puritans. They always want to tell everybody else what to do.

By contrast, Orange County was settled by more tolerant Okies and Mexicans. Not surprisingly, O.C. voted 59 percent to 41 percent against Prop. 29 — that is, in favor of tolerance toward smokers.

The latest display of San Francisco intolerance concerns Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy saying he wasn’t keen on same-sex “marriage.” He said it violates his religious beliefs.

It’s important to note that he didn’t say he was firing homosexuals from his company. And he didn’t come out in favor of bringing back anti-sodomy laws. He just expressed his religious opinion.

In response, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee attack-tweeted, “Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn’t share San Francisco’s values & strong commitment to equality for everyone.” A second tweet: “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

As Anthony Gregory noted at the Independent Institute site:

“For his stance on this issue, which is not all that different from Obama’s stance just a year ago, many in the gay rights movement decided to boycott his fast food chain. Whatever one thinks of this, it is well within the rights of people to vote with their dollars. The Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans argues that the boycott is poor strategy, however, because ‘turning a chicken sandwich into Public Gay Enemy Number One makes LGBT people look superficial, vindictive and juvenile—everything that we as a community have worked hard to overcome.’”

Private boycotts are one thing. But Anthony notes that it’s different when governments have gotten involved, because that involves the threat of coercion.

Banned in Boston

Other attacks on Cathy have come from Boston and Chicago. Both are understandable. Boston is even more intolerant than San Francisco, the very center of Puritan intolerance and haughtiness. Nowadays they’re not religious Puritans, but secular Puritans. Mayor Thomas Menino threatened, “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it”

Imagine that! No place for freedom on the Freedom Trail.

Boston’s famed intolerance, of course, originated the phrase “banned in Boston.” And it was just a few clicks north that their fellow Puritans burned  witches not so long ago. And check out that cover of a book on witches, image at the top. The book was printed in “Boston in N.E.” in 1702. It reads, “How Persons Guilty of that Crime may be Convicted.” Boston 1702 = Boston 2012 = Chicago 2012 = San Francisco 2012.

Chicago is notorious for having the most corrupt political machine in all America, which is saying a lot. In the Windy City, the dead not only walk, they vote. That’s also where we got the phrase, “Vote early and often.”

In Chicago, an alderman, Joe Moreno, banned Chick-fil-A from opening a store. Moreno was backed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the notoriously foul-mouthed former chief-of-staff of President Obama. Emanuel said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”

What a typical socialist. He thinks he knows how to run somebody else’s business, and how it will do. Meanwhile, while Emanuel and Moreno were wasting time on their own immense intolerance, Chicago’s murder rate has been soaring. For them, it’s tolerance for murderers, intolerance for someone just voicing his religious opinion.

It’s also worth pointing out that, not only is Cathy’s position the same as Obama’s last year, it’s the same as that of most Americans today, and of most American religious groups today.

Left-tyranny

Gregory again:

“While the most consistent left-liberal voices for civil liberties, among them the ACLU, have defended Chick-fil-A’s right to open a business regardless of the proprietor’s political views, there has been far too much silence or even enthusiasm toward these threats of political coercion, which carry potentially totalitarian implications. A government that can prohibit people from engaging in peaceful commerce based on traditional cultural and conservative political values is as big a threat to civil liberties as anything the left imagines a conservative Big Brother poses….

“Civil liberties are grounded in key principles of a free society, including an unflinching distrust in secular government and a respect for property rights. Without property rights, bodily integrity, freedom from censorship, and guarantees against lawless prosecution are impossible to maintain. Without distrusting government, society loses sight of the importance of civil liberties in the first place. The left has long attempted to marry a loyalty to civil liberties with a trust in government and an attitude toward property ranging from ambivalence to hostility. This contradictory approach to the principal issues of a just society fundamentally explains the unreliability and hypocrisy so often seen with many progressives when civil liberties are under attack.”

Right.

Lee, Menino, Moreno and Emanuel unfortunately are part of a rising trend in America of Left-intolerance, of using government coercion to suppress First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. This long has happened in Europe and Canada.

In America, this tyrannical trend needs to be stopped. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Eat dinner tonight at Chick-fil-A.