Wednesday, August 01, 2012


You know what I'm not seeing a lot of in the collections of photos from Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day? Non-white people. Now, I'm not saying they're absent, but I'm looking at photo pages and slideshows at Michelle Malkin's Twitchy and the NOM Blog and Fox News and Glenn Becvk's Blaze and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and, well, I see a hell of a lot of white people, and, in maybe a third of the crowd photos, a handful of people who aren't white.

This strikes me as odd because I remember hearing on several occasions over the years that blacks and Hispanics are a natural constituency of the Republican Party precisely because a large percentage of them are devout Christians and social conservatives. Blacks in particular are reputed to be very anti-gay, although recent polling on that has been decidedly mixed.

Now, I agree that there are a lot of devout black and Hispanic Christians in America, and that quite a few blacks and Hispanics aren't comfortable with gay marriage. So the fact that the crowds in the photos seem very, very white means that either (a) the organizers of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day didn't communicate their message very well across racial lines or (b) even gay-averse non-whites don't think that liberal opposition to Chick-fil-A means they're coming for all of us next!!1!1!!! If you're non-white in this country, you probably have a pretty good idea what real persecution is, and you probably don't believe that the anti-Chick-fil-A posturing of a few big-city pols mean that all the churches in America are going to be shut down soon and it's going to be illegal to believe in Jesus. That's the kind of belief that's largely confined to white people (which doesn't speak well for my race). And that's the kind of belief that drove the crowds out today.


Ten Bears said...

I see white dogs, everywhere.
Destroying the world my grand-children are to grow up in. Your Jew/"Christian"/Muslim/Mormon Cult of Male Domination.

Lit3Bolt said...

This anti-gay rallying point reminds me of 2004 and Kerry losing Ohio.

The conservative rallying cry will be that liberals and Obama are evil because they hate chicken sandwiches. The optics and message are utterly retarded to any thinking person, but that's all that the non-political consumer will see for the next 3 months.

Happy married gay couple = icky.

Chicken Sandwich = yummy.

People are stupid, so it will be a resounding success for Republicans.

Philo Vaihinger said...

I don't quite see your point.

I could have missed something, but as I understand it, this is a head-on attack by government officials on the "American Taliban" for the inherent homophobia of their message.

I don't know that saying so will do the Christian right much good among the voters but it will certainly motivate those on their side to fight harder.

That includes the same Catholic bishops who are already bitterly opposed to the requirement that employer group health plans provide contraceptive coverage for women that went into effect just yesterday.

I was pleased Obama did not completely cave in to them on that important employee rights issue.

But the attacks on Chick-fil-A seem to have nothing to do with employee rights and everything to do with a hatred of Christians so great as to be unwilling to tolerate their normal participation in the economic life of the country.

That is taking things too far and we should be no more willing to deny the owners of Chick-fil-A their right to normal economic action than to deny the right to Nazis to march in Skokie.

Perhaps rather less, for that matter.

Steve M. said...

If you see the Cathys' statements and donations as analogous to maintaining segregated lunch counters, then what's been proposed in Boston and Chicago makes sense. I agree, thou7gh, that if these folks aren't actively discriminating, then the two situations are substantially different. But the analogy makes sense to a lot of people.

Victor said...


"...have nothing to do with employee rights and everything to do with a hatred of Christians so great as to be unwilling to tolerate their normal participation in the economic life of the country."

Now, substitute "Christians" with "Gays," or "Liberals," or "Jews," or "Niggers," and the shoe's on the other foot, no?

Philo Vaihinger said...

Sorry, Victor, I don't understand what you are getting at.

Steve, making donations to organizations supporting discrimination against gays is analogous to some Nazi burger-stand owner donating to the support of some Aryan rag making racist, anti-Semitic, homophobe propaganda.

Is it the place of government officials to shut down the burger stand?

I don't think so.

The traditional teaching of Christianity - the teaching even today of all but liberal Christianity, itself a rejection of the core teachings of historic Christianity - concerning sex in general is a crime against humanity and has forever done nothing but harm to people passing through adolescence, to homosexuals, and to people stuck in horrific marriages.

And the traditional teaching regarding homosexuals has, like the traditional teaching regarding the Jews, been a teaching of hate and an incitement to violence and murder for about 2,000 years.

All the same, hitting back with any weapon that comes to hand is not acceptable and certainly not wise in a country that is still overwhelmingly Christian.

Victor said...

I'm doing a sanity check here - do YOU understand my point about substituting other words for "Christian?"

Or, am I starting to lose what little is left of my mind?

Also too - I don't think the Mayors of cities, or any government representatives, should really be involved in preventing, or advocating, for that matter, whether a company can open a store or facility in a location - UNLESS the company is clearly following exclusionary policies regarding employees or customers, based on race, sex, religion, or anything else.
In other words, breaking laws.

Now, if private citizens choose to boycott, or advocate, a business, for whatever reason, that is THEIR choice.

The 1st Amendment prevents GOVERNMENT from infringing on an individual or groups right to free speech.

That does no mean that fellow citizens can't object to someone like Mr. Cathy's use of free speech - they can!

And boycotting a product, is then, free speech in the form of action.

As is Huckabee's, Santorum's, and Palin's, openly advocating for that company.

Mr Cathy's use of free speech may be looked at either as something that may cost him and his company, or prove to be a good ROI - depending on what the outcome of these attempts at boycotting or advocacy, will eventually be.

It's the government, that should not get involved.

Vicki Hartley said...

Do you think maybe the lack of people of color is because Chick Fil A doesn't appeal to people of color in the first place? I eat at Chick Fil A often in communities where there are lots of people of color, but the customers at Chick Fil A tend to be white.

Philo Vaihinger said...

As to that, Victor, I switched from AT&T mobile to Credo over this sort of thing.

I haven't eaten at Chick-fil-A in a long time.

Now that I've learned about their political sponsorship of Christianity, warts and all, I know I won't eat there ever again.

But is that really the right target for the boycott?

Liberal Christianity is an exception invented by people who reject traditional - some would say "actual" - Christianity for much the same reasons as you or I.

Christianity has for some two thousand years taught contempt for reason, oppression of women, acceptance of slavery, rejection of human sexuality, and hatred of Jews.

Not to mention political absolutism and rejection of liberty.

Its standard homophobia is just one small part of that bigger, grimmer, more awful reality.

The enemy isn't that guy Cathy.

It's Christianity.

Who's ready for that boycott?

Steve M. said...

Vicki, you have a point, though if they were really motivated to fight this battle, you'd think they'd show up as well.

Philo Vaihinger said...

Steve and Vicki, white and black churches with equally magical and conservative theological and moral views have been separated and opposed on politics since before the Civil War.

The black churches stay with Obama despite his social liberalism and it is likely their members do the same.

And so they are not going to line up with the Chritian right or join them in so politically charged a protest, even though on this issue they might well agree with Gomer Pyle and not with the president.

Unknown said...

Your description of christianity sounds a lot like Islam. We can boycott that too

Unknown said...

And I wonder why the black church and it's members will stay with Obama...Hmmmm