I never heard of Chick-A-Fil before the recent “controversy” erupted over an executive’s expressed position against gay marriage. When this became known, left-wing activists organized a boycott as well as a harassment campaign against the company. In some cities demagogic politicians stated that they would (illegally) prevent the company from opening any stores in their city, along with a clear disregard for free speech. This backfired as people in turn sympathetic to the executive’s viewpoint flocked to the stores in record numbers.
Both sides responded to perceived moral imperatives, though the morality of one is incomprehensible to the other. One side believes in traditional values while the other believes they are upholding perceived principles of equality. I am not going to say anything about the substance of these positions, but that does not mean they are morally equivalent. For what we have here is a conflict of fundamental values that are irreconcilable, and therefore can only be resolved through the political process, if they are to resolved peacefully. However, it is troubling how wide the gulf between viewpoints has become.
This fizzling “boycott” is a regular tactic of the intolerant left, which ironically claims to be opposing “intolerance.” These are people who routinely discriminated against those they disagree with. They publish home addresses of people they don’t like, try to intimidate them with demonstrations, and threaten their families along with other despicable behavior. Due to the fact that they increasingly only interact with people who agree with them, they assume their view is widespread when it is not. In fact when it comes to these sorts of tactics the left should tread carefully, or they will soon come to realize just how outnumbered they are of the other side starts to respond in-kind. It must be noted that honest liberals who believe in free speech did not support this action, and indeed were critical of it. They should not be confused with the hateful, radical left, who continually seek to undermine this country and its institutions.
It is disturbing how far what passes for political action has degenerated. It is reflective of the overall coarsening of our society and the decline of civility. The necessary approbation for misbehavior is no longer there. But that pales besides the problem of maintaining a civil society when people no longer share the same beliefs as to what is moral. How this will be resolved in the long run is an open question.
Post a Comment