A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon an online petition that declared, “If you're eating at Chick-fil-A, you're also eating at an establishment that partners with some of the most ferocious anti-gay groups around.”
As a big chicken fan, I’ll admit the shock factor got me. I signed the petition, reposted on Facebook and followed news on the issue. How could my favorite chicken establishment act so hatefully?
But wait. How did it act so hatefully?
According to the petition, Chick-fil-A co-sponsored an event going “straight for the jugular of anyone who supports marriage equality.”
The event, called The Art of Marriage, featured a movie series offering advice on healthy relationship maintenance.
The Pennsylvania Family Institute, which sponsored the showing, claims on its website that it “will help couples apply what the Bible teaches about marriage in a powerful way.”
The Pennsylvania Family Institute represents socially conservative, traditionalist values. But this event simply offers marriage advice. While it may propagate a hetero-normative agenda, it does this only among the straight, married, religious couples that elect to attend, and damage is minimal. Nowhere does the event’s website indicate any attack on homosexuals.
Oh, and Chick-fil-A “co-sponsored” the event by providing some sandwiches.
But activist groups like Good as You and Change.org had made an investment in this attack on Chick-fil-A. They dug deeper, and discovered that Chick-fil-A’s founders also founded Winshape, a charity working toward fundamentalist Christian goals.
Discussion board outrage ensued when Good as You revealed that Winshape does not accept homosexual couples at its pre-wedding retreat camps, or that Winshape partnered with another foundation opposed to gay rights.
At this point, the Chick-fil-A boycott sounds like a stretch. By association, or association once removed, Chick-fil-A supports organizations that don’t support gay rights.
As a company whose purpose statement is “that we might glorify God by being a faithful steward in all that is entrusted to our care,” its affiliations shouldn’t have surprised me.
They did, but only because I don’t often stop to consider my lunch’s political affiliation.
Does this make me irresponsible? Lazy? Bigoted? Reasonable?
Even if every gay person and gay ally stopped eating at Chick-fil-A, the sentiment behind these organizations would thrive.
If I encountered, say, a waiter who didn’t support gay rights, I would engage him in discussion. I might not have him waving rainbow flags at the next protest, but I can at least try to plant seeds of acceptance.
What these activist groups are doing would amount to me not saying a word about his lack of support, withholding my tip and then pretending I made a difference.
Rather than conducting far-fetched investigations and urging boycotts, gay rights groups should invest that time in attempts at eliminating the source of the problem: hurtful anti-gay sentiment.
Sending speakers to universities and launching media campaigns will spark constructive dialogue. The organizations attacked by gay rights groups spread their messages through programming and media, and gay rights activists need to counter these messages with a voice of their own.
Simply buying chicken from KFC won’t make the attitude behind hateful acts disappear.
Instead of boycotting Alex, talk to her at algrego1@asu.edu