If you support traditional marriage, how often have you heard, “how will allowing same-sex marriage affect you?” And if you support same-sex marriage, how often have you said this? The thing is that the act of men marrying men or women marrying women doesn’t have much of an effect. It’s the social consequences of making traditional and same-sex marriage equal that poses the potential problem.
(ChicagoPhoenix.com) — The Civil Rights Agenda, a local LGBT rights advocacy group, filed multiple complaints with the Illinois Department of Human Rights Thursday, alleging that the Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A restaurant chain’s “intolerant corporate culture” violates Illinois law and a provision in the state’s Human Rights Act.
“In our current high speed media and social media environment, Chick-fil-A has announced and caused to be published, to hundreds of millions of people, that LGBT people are unacceptable and objectionable,” said Jacob Meister, Governing Board President of TCRA and the attorney who filed the complaint. “They have made it clear the lives of LGBT individuals are unacceptable to them and that same-gender families are unwelcome at Chick-fil-A.”
His comments make LGBT people, a protected minority class, feel “unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable” at Chick-fil-A restaurants, or “public accommodations” under Section 5-102(B) of the Illinois Human Rights Act, Martinez said.
“The complainants are a same-gender family with a daughter,” said Martinez. “Chick-fil-A used to be one of their favorite places to eat until Mr. Cathy’s latest statements were reported so widely. Now, they feel completely unwelcome in the establishment.”
The complaint lists several claims of public accommodation discrimination.
“As a result of the foregoing published statements regarding Chick-fil-A’s corporate philosophy, culture and policies, as an unmarried homosexual in a “non-traditional” family unit, I know that my family and I are looked down upon, loathed, unwelcome, objectionable and unacceptable to Chick-fil-A,” stated the complainant in the filing.
Here we have an LGBT activist group filing complaints with the government because Dan Cathy holds a belief that the Christian view of marriage is correct. They argue that it makes homosexuals uncomfortable just knowing Cathy’s view, and those views are legally sanctionable. Nevermind that Cathy’s voiced opinion was about marriage and not homosexuals as people. But because LGBT activists place “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman” on the same level as “homosexuals are unacceptable and objectionable as human beings”, they fail to make the distinction between who you are and what you do, thus conflating views on social policy into views on people. This is clearly evidenced by the false claim that, “Chick-fil-A has announced and caused to be published, to hundreds of millions of people, that LGBT people are unacceptable and objectionable”, and, “They have made it clear the lives of LGBT individuals are unacceptable to them and that same-gender families are unwelcome at Chick-fil-A.”. CFA has done no such thing.
The Civil Rights Agenda, the group filing the complaints, essentially argues that by making public your Christian views, you are breaking the law. Unless there are specific discriminatory incidents or policies which have been substantiated, I don’t see another way to interpret TCRA’s accusations. What am I missing, how else should I be interpreting TCRA’s suit and the language it uses to charge CFA as anything other than an attempt to criminalize Christian beliefs on moral and social issues?