Sarah Palin, or as she’s not so affectionately called, Caribou Barbie, talked to Fox’s Greta Van Susteren yesterday about the Chick-Fil-A boycott. Sarah wanted to enlighten Americans about the First Amendment, or more specifically, how it should only apply to Conservatives. Here’s Palin yammering:
“Well, that calling for the boycott is a real — has a chilling effect on our 1st Amendment rights. And the owner of the Chick-fil-A business had merely voiced his personal opinion about supporting traditional definition of marriage, one boy, one girl, falling in love, getting married. And having voiced support for kind of that cornerstone of all civilization and all religions since the beginning of time, he then basically [is] getting crucified.”
What a drama queen. Here’s how it started; Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President and CEO, had this to say about marriage on Ken Coleman’s radio show:
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage…I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
This has caused those who support marriage equality to call for a boycott. An intelligent person would realize that these are both examples of free speech, but that’s too mind-boggling for Sarah Palin.
Of course she and Todd put on their best “we just dropped by for some chikin” clothes, made a bee-line for the closest Chick-Fil-A, and then
Todd had his picture taken with the bag sorry, Sarah and Todd had their picture taken holding their chicken bags in the latest photo-op on her Facebook page.
Then this week, Mr. Cathy reiterated his position in an interview with the Biblical Recorder:
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit… 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.”
While the Biblical Recorder claims, “As a company, Chick-fil-A takes no position on gay marriage…”, the Huffington Post reports:
“…a newly-released analysis of Chick-fil-A’s charitable work has found that the fast food chain donated nearly $2 million to anti-gay groups over the course of 2010…
[and] an estimated $5 million to anti-gay organizations and hate groups between 2003 and 2010.
Mr. Cathy has every right to voice his opinion on marriage, or anything else; and Americans have the right to boycott those companies, just like One Million Moms does every time they turn around. Some examples from the OMM website:
TV Land sitcom “The Soul Man” – “Tell them you are prepared to join thousands of other voices in urging advertisers to place it on their “do not advertise” list and consider pulling all ads from the TV Land network in protest of this Anti-Christian bigotry.”
JC Penney – One Million Moms (OMM) is disturbed that JC Penney (JCP) is continuing down the same path of promoting sin in their advertisements…OMM will continue to avoid shopping at JCP until they take a neutral stand.
Macy’s Department stores – [their wedding registry service ad featured a cake topper of two men instead of the traditional man and woman] “Some of our members have reported that they requested that their Macy’s store credit card account be closed…”
Kraft Foods – [about the gay colored Oreo] “One Million Moms will continue to support companies in the future with full understanding where they stand on principles and morality. We will choose to stay away from those who do not support moral decency.”
Currently OMM lists 15 companies on their “issues” page that they suggest should be phoned, emailed, or boycotted.
It should be said that cities like Chicago and Boston have no legal right to ban Chick-Fil-A, as they’re threatening to do, or any other business based on an owner’s personal beliefs, as long as the company doesn’t engage in discriminatory practices in employment or service. Let the public decide via their patronage whether Chick-Fil-A stays or not.
But back to that so-called biblical definition of the family unit; there are at least 8 different types of marriage in the Bible, a couple of them quite appalling; and as John Byron, Professor of New Testament at Ashland Theological Seminary points out:
“In the fight over marriage in the USA, most proponents of “biblical marriage” never bring up these other forms of marriage that are clearly supported by the Bible. Even in the New Testament era Levirate marriage is still being practiced… but I don’t see anyone suggesting that it be a legal requirement today. The idea that the Bible only supports the kind of marriage commonly recognized in the USA does not stand up to scrutiny.
It is the political season in the USA and Bible verses are going to be thrown around by all of the candidates to attract supporters. But few will actually think about (1) whether that is what the Bible says and (2) what would be the unintended consequences of enforcing these “biblical principles.” Not everything in the Bible should be adopted as a way of living life.”
Maybe Sarah Palin and her conservative pals should spend some time at home brushing up on both the Constitution the Bible; they seem to have a little egg on their faces.