VIGILANTE ECONOMICS

Today is national Chik-fil-A day.  I drove by my local store today, and there were several hundred people waiting to get in, counting a line of cars two blocks long and people standing in line half-way around the building.  I didn’t go today, but I’ve been twice the last week.  Now if we could get a turnout like this on election day!

This business worries me, though.  It started because the liberal media lied about an interview in a Christian magazine, in which a Christian businessman said he believed in upholding Christian principles as God had given him to understand them.  Wow.  Who saw that coming.  That interview did not have a syllable about same sex marriage.  This whole stinkin’ mess is a fabrication of the liberal media.  Talk about a variation on the tail wagging the dog!

We have one large and vocal faction that is fighting for their rights, again as God has given them to see them.  Some of the more militant members of this faction threatened to boycott a business, and elected officials threatened to invoke vigilante action against that business.  Oh, you don’t like the V word?  Well, what do you think it is when people act, totally outside the letter or spirit and without the sanction of the law?  The mayors of Chicago and Boston, both of openly questionable moral character, threatened the use of force to keep a legal business out of their cities.

Jeeze.  Do we have to go over this again?  Okay.  One more time.  When a government official says, “You can’t come in here,”  it’s just words.  When you try to go in there anyway, what does he do?  He either calls up his police, or, in the case of Emmanuel, especially, calls up a mob. The final recourse of all law is deadly force.  Resist it long enough, and sooner or later, someone will point a loaded gun at you.  This is not an aberration; it is a necessity, for without that final argument, the law would be a laughable waste of time.  That is, however, why we must be so terribly cautious with the law – what we forbid, what we require, and what we restrict.

Back to Chick-fil-A.  One group has threatened to destroy a business because of the religious convictions of its chairman.  Another group has shown support for that business by patronizing it in the tens of thousands, maybe millions, if considered nationwide.  Sooner or later, someone will realize that if THEY can destroy a business by boycotting, so can WE.  Oops.  I just let the cat out of the bag.  America is then faced with the specter of businesses prospering or failing based on the religion of their owners, rather than on the quality of their products.  It is perhaps the ultimate expression of multiculturalism, at least in economics.

If it comes down to that, based on demographics, alone, I don’t believe gay businesses would stand much of a chance, but that’s not the point.  Dammit, that’s not the point!  Every time a business fails, a dream fails.  People suffer, are put of work, have to move to find work, have to cut back on discretionary spending, lose health care options...  It’s a very long a depressing list.  I’m not saying it’s bad for businesses to fail; a free market guarantees that some will fail and others will take their place.  What I’m saying is that it is wrongheaded, and probably immoral, to cause that kind of suffering just of the heck of it.  If we were to wipe out all businesses that are owned by people who believe in what Dan Cathy called, “The Biblical definition of marriage,” what would happen to our country?  We’d be wrecked.  It would be the same if we were to eliminate all businesses that are owned by people who support same sex marriage.

And, what the heck, if we can get rid of all “those” businesses - whichever side of the deal you’re on - what’s next?  Let’s get rid of all the businesses owned by pro- or anti-gunners.  How about those owned by carnivores or vegans?  Human society becomes an endless war of attrition until there is only me and you left, and frankly, I’m thinking you’d look good on a grill with taters and onions.

 Once the principle is accepted of denying anyone the right to express an opinion, no matter what it is, or whether we agree or not, then everything we call civilization is out the window.  Don’t think you can have it all your way forever, either.  You may trust or even revere those in power now, and be willing to give them power over you because you don’t believe they’ll use it.  But what about ten years from now?  These people won’t be in power forever, and when the people you hate, loathe, and distrust come back to power, they will have the same authority as their predecessors.  Consider this stunner:  governments go on for long periods of time; they aren’t just for today.  You don’t put a hammer in Obama’s hand and then take it away when Romney is elected. Romney gets the same hammer you gave Obama.  Think I’m exaggerating?  Ask any conservative who thought the Patriot Act was a good idea when Bush was in office.

I’m very, very glad that so many people have shown support for an honorable business, and so visibly repudiated the hate and fascistic rage that has been directed at that business.  However, I urge all my countrymen to not put our names place of theirs on all that hate and fascistic rage.  Let’s pull this debate down out of the hormoneosphere and bring it into the house of reason.