crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
I hadn't written about the Chick-Fil-A controversy nor had I made any actions regarding it, other than refusing to eat at Chick-Fil-A.
But since a certain rabid columnnist – Michele Malkin – is trying to distort the situation, I figure why not jump in.
Here is the tale:
It's been discovered that Chick-Fil-A has ties to anti-gay advocates, including the National Organization for Marriage. According to the New York Times:
. . .the company’s operators, its WinShape Foundation and the Cathy family have given millions of dollars to a variety of causes and programs, including scholarships that require a pledge to follow Christian values, a string of Christian-based foster homes and groups working to defeat same-sex marriage initiatives.
It also owns a retreat center.
According to Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou.org:
. . . this is the same retreat center that hosts an annual Marriage Comission seminar, featuring invited guests like Maggie Gallagher, Jennifer Roback Morse, Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, and many more who fight in the public square against equality for gay people. A seminar where Chick-Fil-A higher ups both speak and receive personal shout outs (see videos of that here). At a retreat that was born out of Chick-Fil-A profits: Profits you contribute to anytime you eat at one of the chain's many locations.
This retreat center explicitly bans lgbts.
So is this fair? Of course it is. Chick-Fil-A is a private company and has the right to do what it wants.
But – and herein lies the rub – lgbts also have a right to decide where NOT to spend our money. Furthermore we and our allies have a right to make a stink in regards to a company who wants us to buy its product, but not afford us respect.
However, in a recently syndicated column, conservative Michelle Malkin makes us sound like jackbooted thugs. Of course she should know the true definition of the term based some of her blog fans.
In this case, she is way off the mark – which is saying a lot for her. She whines that lgbts are undertaking mob type practices and actually accuses The New York Times of running a hit piece on Chick-Fil-A.
This is because The New York Times had the “audacity” to look at the issue in an objective manner, garnering opinions from both sides.
No doubt this confuses Malkin, seeing that her definition of good news coverage is probably Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Laura Ingraham huffing and puffing on Fox News and interrupting those who lodge a different viewpoint from conservative talking points. After all, Malkin is a “contributor” there too.
The irony of Malkin's silly piece is that it ran on the phony news site One News Now, which is owned by the American Family Association. The American Family Association has made a name for itself by boycotting businesses, including Pepsi, Home Depot, and McDonald's.
In other words, Malkin wouldn't even have some of the audience she does now if it weren't for boycotts.
I doubt, however that she will appreciate the irony of the situation.
I think irony is a word lost on Malkin (much like other words such as integrity, truth, accuracy, etc. etc.)