Chick-fil-a and Labels

It’s becoming impossible in today’s society to not be labeled. Even when it comes to where you eat lunch. A year ago, if someone would have told me that by sipping my Dr. Pepper from a Chick-fil-a cup while eating nuggets meant I was anti-gay, I would laugh. If five years ago, I was told by putting a Romney/Ryan yard sign up in my yard meant I was racist, I would have called you crazy. What if instead of being anti-gay and racist, it just meant I was hungry and worried for our nation’s economy? How crazy is that? One man’s freedom of speech has turned into a war on anyone who wants some waffle fries. Whether or not you agree with Chick-fil-a CEO Dan Cathy’s stance on biblical marriage, it’s important to remove the media hype and know what he really said.

His initial comment came in an interview about WinShape Foundation Marriage program, not once did the interview talk about gay rights or gay marriage.

"The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove. That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries," Cathy added. Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position. "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized. "We intend to stay the course," he said. "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."

I don’t even know what happened to make the above statement turn into such a controversial subject. I’m not talking about people lashing back with their freedom of speech, because that is the beauty of the first amendment. If the backlash ended there, I would be fine. I’m talking about a war against anyone who wants to eat some chicken minis, or small business owners who open a Chick-fil-a. Boston and Chicago Mayors threatened to ban Chick-fil-a from their cities because of Cathy’s comment. I just read that a college in North Carolina is trying to ban Chick-fil-a from their campus.

I don’t want government leaders to decide what businesses can go up in my neighborhood. It may be a business I don’t like or support, but let the people decide. If Americans don’t want to support the business, then it will fail. Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the ACLU of Illinois, tells Fox News that the ACLU opposes the idea of denying permits to Chick-fil-a because if the government in a liberal community can block businesses that oppose gay marriage, then it sets a precedent that governments in conservative communities could block businesses that support gay marriage, he explained: I am okay with people (not gov’t) deciding not to support Chick-fil-a because of their “biblical marriage” beliefs. I have loved ones who are gay and will never eat there again- good for them, it is their right, just like it was Dan Cathy’s right to support “biblical marriage”, and your right to agree or not, and my right to have a lunch where ever I please without being labeled.

I just wish that eating a Chick-fil-a sandwich would be just lunch.

Jill

Come November 6

On November 6, 2012, the mainstream media is going to be shocked. They are going to be shocked because they are underestimating the American voters. There are millions of people like us, that are frustrated and angry with the last four years, but are also determined to make sure that positive change occurs in 2012.

When the mainstream media is shocked by Mitt Romney’s convincing victory on November 6, it will not be the first time the main stream media has been shocked.  

In 1980, Pres Carter was swept out of office, and Ronald Reagan was swept into office by voters that wanted a return to conservative principles. Like this year, in 1980, the mainstream media told Americans that the race between President Carter and Governor Reagan was going to be close. In the weeks leading up to the election, the New York Times and the Washington Post released polls that showed Carter leading in several key states and leading in the national polls.

On election night, when the election was not even close, the mainstream media was befuddled and confused by Ronald Reagan’s electoral landslide. During CBS’s election night coverage, Walter Kronkite turned to his team of experts for an explanation of what had just happened. Leslie Stahl and Bob Schieffer tried to explain the results by saying that Reagan won because of the Iran hostage situation or because undecided shifted at the last moment to Reagan. On that night, only Dan Rather provided correct analysis. He said Reagan won because (1) Carter had no base or political message to offer the voters, (2) Carter consistently ran ahead of his job rating in the polls, (3) high unemployment was a big issue, especially in the midwest, and (4) a rejection of liberal orthodoxy, people simply wanted change.

This year, it appears that history is repeating itself. Only this time, we will not be surprised when Mitt Romney wins on November 6.  The mainstream media may be surprised, but we will not be. Now, unlike in 1980, we have conservative alternatives to the mainstream press. The NY Times, the Washington Post and other media outlets appear to be doing the same thing they did in 1980. They are publishing polls that show Obama winning the election or showing the race as too close to call.  

This time, because of alternative sources of media, we understand that pollsters are assuming that President Obama is going to get a Democratic turnout equal to or greater than the historical turnout in 2008. Curiously, the main stream media is presenting polls that show that Romney has secured the Republican vote and is comfortably winning independents, but is losing the election. This time, we are too smart and too informed to believe this.

While some in the media may really believe that Pres Obama is going to get a turnout on election day better than or equal to his 2008 turnout, we are here to say that the mainstream media is, like they were in 1980, going to be shocked by the wave of voters that vote for Mitt Romney because they are angry at President Obama and what he has done to this country; and because they believe in the conservative principles Mitt Romney wants to bring back to the White House.  Just like it was in 1980, this year, President Obama has no base and no message to offer the voters. All he can do is beg for another four years and attack his opponent. Just like in 1980, the incumbent president is consistently running ahead of his job approval in the polls. Just like in 1980, unemployment will be a key issue, especially in the Midwest, and just like in 1980, the voters are going to reject the liberal orthodoxy that Pres Obama has forced upon the United States.  

On November 6, 2012, there will be a wave of conservatism that will sweep Mitt Romney into the oval office. We are part of that wave, and there are millions just like us that are ready for change. We will not be fooled by the mainstream media publishing polls that do not reflect the true nature of the electorate. The mainstream media may try to fool us, but we know better, and quite frankly, they are underestimating us.

Brock