Chick Fil A: Divorce Scripture Analogy

Much less important than Russia's arrest of Pussy Riot is the USA's chicken sandwich controversy.

This article from a New Orleans paper makes the case that the southern support of Chick-Fil-A is as much about perceived northern condescension than it is about opposition to gays.  I can certainly sync.

What I feel about gay marriage is about as important as what I feel about divorce.   I remember, growing up in the south, that we were taught a hard line about divorce - as hard a line as about abortion or gay marriage today.  The red letter scripture (Jesus own words) said that he who divorceth his wife commits adultery.

A decade later, several aunts and uncle marriages ended in divorce.  I know that it was difficult for my born again grandfather.  They were forced to accept the divorce, because it was a done deal.   If divorce had "not been recognized" by the USA Christian Government, I think they understood that would not have helped things.

Today divorce is commonplace.  I'm very devoutly married, and consider myself happy and lucky. I hope my kids grow up and find happy, lifelong marriages. But other peoples divorces don't shake my faith, even if I can see sad consequences of society's growing acceptance of divorce (especially compared to what I was led to believe as a child, that almost no one ever got divorced, it was unnatural).  Divorce happened in places like New York City and Hollywood, far away from our families.  Now it's common everywhere.

Is divorce contagious?  Probably more so than homosexuality.


If government recognizes gay marriage, it will be similar, I believe, to government recognizing divorce.  Those of us untouched by it may disapprove.   But once a family member is divorced, there's really no going back.   And once a family member is gay, I don't see much evidence that they will go back either.  Some of us will believe the family members are going to hell, for their gayness or for their divorces, but we don't kick them out of our churches or make an issue of their failed marriage at the chicken restaurant.

If CEO Cathy is smart, he will follow Rupert Murdoch's example.  Just as Murdoch simultaneously ran Fox News for conservatives and produced Family Guy, Simpsons, and American Dad for liberals, Cathy should open a second gay-friendly chicken sandwich chain for Boston, Philadelphia and NYC.

Maybe he can start a third chain, and use the scripture to declare divorcees sinners.  I'm not sure what city he can market that restaurant to... the topic appears closed down south.

The best economics are to please everybody.  Sentencing young Russian girls to seven years imprisonment for making a hilarious video will please nobody.  I still think the Russian trial of Pussy Riot is far more important than used electronics recycling, marriage scripture, or the spelling of "filet".

Will my position on divorce or gay marriage affect my ability to sway people to allow used electronics exports?  The title of the blog still says "ethical".    I guess I decided that someone who claims to discuss ethics but stays away from other ethical controversy is suspect.  If the son of Truett Cathy is keeping a traditional family restaurant, and markets it that way, I kind of respect that, just as I respect his father's decision to close the restaurants on Sunday's or my great grandfather's refusal to allow advertising for alcohol in his newspaper (the Taney County Republican).   If he does it right, people will respect him.  If he donates to a cause banning divorces, I respect that.  But if he starts marketing to make a sharia-type of law for every piece of scripture in the Bible, sell the stock quickly.

I loved - adored - my grandfather, a subsistence farmer from the Ozarks.  He believed divorce was a sin, and was sorely disappointed by the 5 or 6 divorces his 4 children went through.   None of his kids was gay, and I could kind of understand that he may have had a Tevia (Fidder on the Roof) reaction:  "If I bend that far, I will break" if it had happened.   He thought he'd live to see Judgement Day.  He did not.  And that's ok.  In the same way I can love people in my own family who I disagree with on the ultimate decision, of heaven and hell and eternal salvation or damnation, I understand that some things are not our decision, and God forbid it would have been my grandfather in charge of everyone else's love life and marriages.  I can love people and still be angered by their views.

What's unacceptable is telling lies - that divorcees are rapists, for example - in order to support a law designed to do something different entirely.