- Posted August 2, 2012 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
It's not about religion...
My decision to boycott Chick-Fil-A has nothing to do with religion, and, when it comes down to it, nothing really to do with marriage equality, either. Dan Cathy can believe whatever he wants to believe. That's his right. Chick-Fil-A can have an openly anti-gay stance. That's the company's right. They can also donate to any cause they choose. Even if that cause preaches “conversion therapy,” a practice that has led to numerous documented cases of depression and even suicide. I'm not saying that's where all of Chick-Fil-A's donations go; they do support several genuinely humanitarian organizations. But, while giving money to these very worthy causes, they also happen to support groups that preach what can only be termed intolerance at best, hate at the worst.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to give money to these people. The First Amendment to our Constitution gives them that right. Why money equals speech, well, that's a topic for another story. A story involving our deeply flawed system of politics that rewards both the lobbyist and the legislator for working together against someone's best interest. But, like I said, they have the right to do whatever they want with their corporate profits.
I'm just saying that my money will not be part of those profits. That's my right. Mostly because of the preaching hate thing, but also because fast food isn't very good for you. Now, I'm under no delusion that boycotting Chick-Fil-A will drive them out of business, or even get them to change their behavior. That's not the point of this boycott.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do these things; I'm saying that my money won't help them do it.
As to the people saying they support the First Amendment, and so support Chick-Fil-A: where were they when One Million Moms was boycotting JCPenney over Ellen?