Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A's Baptist President and Chief Operating Officer, is not sheepish about expressing his support for traditional marriage. His father founded the successful fast-food chain and fostered a corporate culture based on Christian beliefs. The chain is closed on Sundays and, not surprisingly, the President and faithful Baptist supports traditional marriage and opposes same-sex marriage.
Demonstrating blatant disrespect for freedom of speech, the Mayors of Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C., and San Francisco have announced that Chick-Fil-A is not welcome in their cities. They claim that Chick-Fil-A values are not their cities' values and that they might well attempt to block Chick-Fil-A from opening up new locations in their cities.
The Mayors' threats are obviously a political ploy. No one could take an attempt to block a new Chick-Fil-A location too seriously. The ACLU says the Mayor's threats constitute a "constitutional problem with discriminating against someone based on the content of their speech.” It is unconstitutional to block strip clubs; obviously it is unconstitutional to block a restaurant chain. Although I don't imagine very many people consider the Mayors' threats seriously, the vignette of politics brings to light a serious problem with policy debate in America. The problem is that many secularists and same-sex marriage advocates push their agenda primarily with ad hominem and hostility rather than addressing the scientific, philosophical, ethical, political, psychological, and religious arguments of their opponents. These advocates are quick to cry "bigot" and "oppression" at anyone's suggestion that same-sex marriage may have negative policy effects or if anyone shows discomfort with the notion of same-sex marriage. These are the same advocates that use vague expressions of diversity and tolerance as their primary argument. Yet, too many attack their opponents rather than their opponents' arguments. Their strategy is no longer to convince the other side but to embarrass, shut out, and shut up their opponents through mudslinging and name-calling.
The Roman Catholic Church also opposes same-sex marriage. They also operate many of the largest and most efficient charities in the world. Are their values not Chicago's values? Will radical same-sex marriage advocates boycott the charities? Individuals are free to do so. But, for politicians to use their position to attack organizations and individuals because of their political beliefs (especially those shared by half the population) seems to go too far in itself. But, threatening to do clearly unconstitutional actions is, wow.
The public discourse is eroded when fallacies like ad hominem are employed in the place of arguments of real substance. Unfortunately, playing on peoples fears and needs of acceptance works. Many people are not trained to think critically about what they hear. However, to coerce by threats of hate and rejection rather than to try and honestly and intelligently convince the opposing side is immoral and hostile to the democratic process. Our discourse about policy should not be modeled after cable news political commentary, which is a parade of confirmation bias and vitriol. Yes, it sells. But, no it is not good for public discourse. Rather, we should try to model our debate and discourse after academic discourse which is more self-examined, honest, comprehensive, and helpful. Perhaps, our discourse should allow emotion and religion more of a place than it has in academic literature. But the mature respect for the opposing side where reasonable minds differ should be present in public discourse as it is in scholastic debate.
