Late Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A

I wrote up most of my thoughts on the whole Chick-Fil-A debacle a while ago, but there is one thought that I didn’t get into that.

I believe one of the most important pieces of America’s legal tradition is the First Amendment. While most of the responses to Dan Cathy’s comments aren’t governed by the letter of the First Amendment (since they’re not actions by the government, but instead by individuals) they do fall afoul of the spirit of the First Amendment.

Pro-Gay Marriage advocates attempted to first shame then boycott Cathy into changing his position. Essentially they were engaged in was a form of economic McCarthism. I want Cathy to change his position, but I want it to come from a true place, not threat of his economic destruction.

One of the reasons for free speech protections is that no one who is honest with themselves can change their opinions on a dime. Try this thought experiment: If you’re a proponent of Gay Marriage change your opinion on Gay marriage to being against Gay Marriage. NOW. See that doesn’t work?

A few asides:

• I don’t agree with how Cathy has chosen to spend his money, but speech is somehow related to money. I don’t fully agree with the Citizens United decision, but the practicalities of fully extracting money from speech will be tricky in politics and impossible outside of politics.
• I came across a tweet:
  

  Tweet from Luke Adams(@luketadams)
  Watching the “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” in 2012 makes me wonder if there was a “Woolworth Lunch Counter Appreciation Day” in 1960.
  August 1, 2012 4:43:13 PM
  
  retweeted by @wilw

  I find this to be an invalid comparison. Chik-Fil-A has continued to respectfully serve their customers, and also decided to stay out of politics. (A bit late, but they learned their lesson.) Woolworth actively denied service to African Americans. There is vast difference between these and they aren’t comparable.