A site of satirical musings, commentary and/or rhetorical criticism of the world at large.

My Photo
Location: Southeastern, Pennsylvania, United States

Saturday, August 04, 2012

Sarah Explains It All (Again), or Chick-Fil-A-Tio

Chick-Fil-A-Hole CEO Dan Cathy’s reiteration of his personal stance on gay marriage has touched off a debate about his rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Pundits and commentators on both sides have weighed in on his statement, part of a backlash that resulted in simultaneous calls to boycott and rallies of support for the fried food eatery. Even the All-Wise Oracle of Wasilla, Sarah Palin, has chimed in on the debate.

On a Fox News (where else) interview, Palin denounced the boycott as an assault on the First Amendment. She even went as far as to say that Cathy was being crucified for his statements. Crucified? Really? As in, nailing him to a cross crucified? My question now is: why wasn’t I invited?

So let me get this straight, Sarah. When a Christian evangelical voices his opinion about same sex marriage, he is using his First Amendment rights? No problem; actually, everyone on both sides agrees he had the right to do that. Oh, but if people who disagree with his viewpoint raise their voices in objection that it’s really a civil rights issue, then it’s an assault on the First Amendment? Gee, thank you very much, Ms. Half-Governor Palin! I guess I was confused before, but you’ve really cleared it up for me now!


First of all, we should acknowledge that the application of the First Amendment has been broadened in recent decades. It has progressed far beyond the quaint Norman Rockwell painting (Freedom of Speech) depicting a man standing up in the middle of a meeting and speaking to (presumably) authority figures who are outside the frame of the painting. It has grown beyond citizens writing letters to the editor of the local newspaper without fear of government retribution (i.e., firing squad or deportation to a concentration camp). It is now expressed in people sending money to causes they believe to be right. It is, and always has been, for that matter, shown in public meetings where citizens can demonstrate their views with marches, placards with sound-bite size slogans, and rallies.

So, yes, Dan Cathy as a private citizen was within his rights to express his views; it is guaranteed by the First Amendment. And yes, those who disagree with him are also using their First Amendment rights when they (I should say we) pledged never to set foot inside Cathy’s restaurant ever again. The mayors of Chicago and Boston pledged that Chick-Fil-A would never set foot inside their city limits; as private citizens, they used their First Amendment rights when they made their statements.  However, as Jon Stewart observed, the mayors’ views play right into the hands of right wingers who argue that the government is overreaching their authority. Still, it was a stretch for the Divine Sarah to say that Cathy’s First Amendment rights were being assaulted.

Funny, I don’t remember hearing any reports that any homosexuals snuck up behind Cathy and tried to muzzle him as he made these statements. Where is the assault, Sarah? Actually, if you paid attention to Cathy’s opponents, you would hear that they don’t object to his expression of his views, but rather how he backs up his opposition to same sex marriage by sending Chick-Fil-A profits to anti-gay groups.

This is what the Chick-Fil-A-Tio opponents are raising hell about. These supposedly evangelical Christian organizations that are benefiting from Cathy’s contributions for being anti-gay marriage are perceived as fostering a hostile culture toward the gay community. How hostile? Mike Huckabee’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day resulted in one account of how a Chick-Fil-A customer complimented one of the chain’s employees by saying, “I’m glad you don’t support the queers, I can eat in peace.” Ironically, the employee is gay. 
Oh right, that Christian has the First Amendment right to use the word “queer” as a derogatory slur, even though his use of the word should not be considered — in my humble estimation — as being very Christian-like. The hostility has also progressed to acts of violence. How violent? How about a Nebraska woman being attacked in her home by three masked men who proceeded to carve homophobic slurs on her body? Yes, carve, as one would do to slice open a piece of meat such as, oh, a piece of fried chicken. It’s incidents like this that have raised red flags in the gay community, and should by all rights raise red flags everywhere.  

So while Huckabee and Palin decry how the poor Christian evangelicals are being picked on, maybe they should reexamine how some members of the Christian evangelical community act in a very un-Christian manner towards homosexuals. Seriously, would it kill Pat Robertson or some other evangelical leader to come forward — in the spirit of true Christianity — and denounce the violence against the gay community? It’s this kind of behavior that has turned me off the idea of organized religion!

So, in the interest of First Amendment rights, I will suggest to the world at large that if you agree with Cathy, then by all means gorge yourselves on his fried chicken until your cholesterol choked arteries literally make your bodies explode. If you disagree with Cathy, then boycott if you must, kiss your partner at his restaurant if you will, or do something more constructive: make a donation in Dan Cathy’s name to the pro-gay-marriage or pro-gay-anything organization of your choice. Your money will be spent on a cause you believe in and there’s not a damn thing Dan Cathy can do about it. (Anne Marie has already made a donation to the Fan Free Clinic.)  Remember, this is YOUR First Amendment rights that all those right wing chicken eaters plunked down their hard money and sacrificed their overall digestive health for.

As for our other players in this drama, I should point out that, although the mayors of Chicago and Boston had the best of intentions, their anti-Cathy statements may be seen as just a ploy to gain political points with the gay community. Also, there’s no guarantee that succeeding administrations in their respective cities won’t reverse their policy and embrace the “eat mor chikin” cows with open arms. As for the divine Ms. Sarah, we on the liberal side of life will ultimately forgive her latest transgression.

As Russell Brand pointed out so non-eloquently a few weeks ago, we tend to overlook Sarah Palin’s statements because so many of us are, oh how can I put this delicately, so entranced with her charms. In fact, we are so entranced (according to Brand) that many us want to have — and again, I’m going for delicate speak here — carnal knowledge of her. In that spirit, and in keeping with our chicken meat theme, I will exercise my First Amendment rights to compliment Sarah on one of her “charms”.  I must say, Sarah Palin, that you have a fine set of drumsticks!

(Thank you for reading!  Remember assaulting/affronting/taking full advantage of the First Amendment since 2006! WOO HOO!)


Anonymous Janey said...

Don't forget my invitation to the crucifixtion of the Oracle of Wasilla! :-)

Chic-Fil-A-Tio -- LOVE IT!

Your ongoing sexual attraction to Sarah is understandable, but even more misguided than several of my sexual attractions (and while I too enjoy Second Amendment rights, I won't mention names...)

August 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home