It seems that the hot subject in the news has been about the Gay and Lesbian community. An article in the LA Times talks about my favorite fast-food restaurant, Chick-Fil-A. Those who know about this wonderful restaurant can tell you about either about their stance or about that special sauce. YUM! CEO Dan Cathy, who inherited the business from his dad, who received it from his dad, keeps the tradition alive that it is a business who “operates on biblical principles.” The Times report that this business was asked the question in order to clear up the rumors if they were “Anti-Homosexual and against Gay Marriage”. Cathy’s response? “Well, guilty as charged.’.” He goes on to say, “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives” referring to the biblical view of marriage as being one woman to one man. So the question is, what is the big deal on CFA’s policy on gay and lesbians? Although they take a moral stand against it they do not turn away nor discriminate their customers. It is not a civil issue but rather a moral one. Who can be against someone or a business with moral standards and not afraid to stand for them unwavering in the midst of opposition?
According to Foxnews.com (July 17, 2012) another organization willing to take a moral stand is known as the Boy Scouts of America. Recently they upheld their decision to exclude gays in leadership. The LGBT quickly answered back with disdain claiming unfairness and “a missed opportunity of colossal proportions”. The BSA have always stood for moral character and building up boys self esteem. This is nothing new for the BSA. They faced a similar situation when it went before the Supreme Court. The ruling in 2000 was that the BSA may in fact exclude gays and lesbians. So when the question of asking another organization to change or even compromise what they stand for, it isn’t for a good cause. It is asking the organization to go against good morals and it is a unethical business practice.
What Christians are asked to do more and more is to compromise their belief system. When a Christian businessman opens a business that services the public, he has taken in consideration that he will not be able to service everyone. He would like to but reality is that not everyone will chose his business.
For example, if you were to go to a Middle Eastern Restaurant. The waiter has just finished his afternoon prayer and he is putting away his Koran and prayer mat. He come over to take your order. You don’t see it on the menu but you really want a juicy Bar B Que pulled Pork sandwich. So you try and order one. After you wake the waiter up from fainting on the floor. He tells you that his restaurant does not serve pork products because they believe it is an unclean animal and therefore can not touch it. Let alone serve it to someone else. Wouldn’t it seem silly and disrespectful to demand that the establishment change it’s menu to feature something that it is obviously against? Is it being intolerant? Do I have the right to be served pork in this restaurant? Do I have to call the National Pork Producers Council to lobby and picket to get them to change their menu? No, I simply go to another restaurant that serves that which I desire. You cant get a pork sandwich in a middle eastern restaurant!
Some would scream that it is inequality. They claim that businesses should offer all services to all peoples. It sounds great and noble. Besides everyone should have the same opportunities as everyone else. If you don’t then you are being intolerant or biased. How dare you only have items targeted toward certain customers. Or worse yet, HOW DARE YOU CLOSE YOU DOORS ON SUNDAY!!! THE BIGGEST SHOPPING DAY OF THE WEEK AT THE MALL!!! Thanks Cathy! Sounds ridiculous right? I do not think that the question in these situations is a matter of equality but of liberty.
Isn’t it the store owners right to make it’s own policies? Isn’t it the same for real businesses and organizations to be based on morals and principles and then hold to them?
American businesses seem to be choosing sides and usually the side with the popularity vote to get business. Case in point, Oreos have sparked controversy on its Facebook fan page by paying homage to the LBGT organization by having rainbow colored stuffed cookies. They claim it to be a good business strategy.
What does this all mean? As for CFA, they will still make money selling those wonderful Chicken sandwiches even if the LBGT boycotts it. At least they can boycott them on Sunday too. And BSA? What better example of manhood than from one who is one.
So the real issue is not whether a group of people with certain lifestyle choices are being discriminated against but the REAL issue is the freedoms of businesses and organizations. They should not be asked to change their policies to cater to a group. If it is in the business model to exclude or be exclusive then they should be allowed to stand by their choice. Yes it may mean that some may fail at business but it is better to fail at a business with your standards and morals intact than to compromise them.