(no subject)
I'm going to be applauded for what I'm about to say. I'm going to offend some people for the same words. I'm actually ok with both.
I'm boycotting CFA. Proudly. I'm not boycotting CFA bc Dan Cathy doesn't have the right to think what he thinks. That would be hypocritical on my part. Dan Cathy has every right to believe whatever he believes. He can even say it. That's called 'freedom of speech'. And I believe everyone has that privilege, no matter how much I disagree with with his opinion. I'm boycotting CFA bc, as the COO of a massive corporation, he's effectively said 'there is a population of my employees and my customers and my potential customers and possible future employees who I believe are less entitled to every freedom I'm blessed with than I am'.
Yes, he can have his PERSONAL opinion. But personal opinions should never be corporate opinions. There's a reason why all editorials possess the caveat "the opinions of this writer do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this organization". If you're going to take a stand and say 'this is what our company believes', it's no longer one man's opinion - it's an entire corporation's opinion. I can't imagine how painful it must be to be a LGBT employee/manager/office worker/executive for that company, knowing the company's 'official' stance. ‘We don’t claim to be a Christian business,’ Mr Cathy said. ‘Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are. But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles.’ Those were HIS words. It's a slap in the face to every single person who is on his payroll, and who eats in his restaurants, who doesn't follow the exact same 'biblical principles' he and his organization endorse.
Now, for the flip side - for anyone who may go, 'but a company that publically says they're pro-gay rights is speaking for an entire company', my argument still holds true. No population is being denigrated or having their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness diminished. If you're anti-gay rights, you're probably heterosexual, and you've been allowed the legal right to marriage for a varied number of years now (sadly, I can't even say since the late 1700s, thanks to the atrocities known as slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc). Cathy's words denigrated a population of our society. The Jim Henson Company, who responded to Cathy's words by severing relations with CFA, said, "The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years...". Anyone employed by the JHC who perhaps is conservative and believes in the same principles as Cathy isn't being maligned by Lisa Henson's words. Sadly, anyone who IS LGBT in the CFA company was.
It's no longer HIS personal opinion. Once he used the plural 'we', he spoke for an entire company. THAT is my problem. I sadly have to respect the fact that he has a Constitutional right to be a bigot who supports supressing human rights and dignities to a subset of the human race, otherwise I'm a hypocrite. But as the face of a company, his words were irresponsible, hurtful, and only served to again point out how badly the LGBT community is still treated in this 'land of the free'.
(And just in case it hasn't been made clear where I stand, let me say it right here. I don't believe in 'gay' marriage. I believe in marriage, pure and simple. Whether or not the two being married are gay or straight or what-have-you doesn't enter my equation. To paraphrase a quote used on the internet, "I don't gay park my car, and I don't have gay lunch. If that changes your opinion of me, I'd like to be able to say I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I am.)
I'm boycotting CFA. Proudly. I'm not boycotting CFA bc Dan Cathy doesn't have the right to think what he thinks. That would be hypocritical on my part. Dan Cathy has every right to believe whatever he believes. He can even say it. That's called 'freedom of speech'. And I believe everyone has that privilege, no matter how much I disagree with with his opinion. I'm boycotting CFA bc, as the COO of a massive corporation, he's effectively said 'there is a population of my employees and my customers and my potential customers and possible future employees who I believe are less entitled to every freedom I'm blessed with than I am'.
Yes, he can have his PERSONAL opinion. But personal opinions should never be corporate opinions. There's a reason why all editorials possess the caveat "the opinions of this writer do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this organization". If you're going to take a stand and say 'this is what our company believes', it's no longer one man's opinion - it's an entire corporation's opinion. I can't imagine how painful it must be to be a LGBT employee/manager/office worker/executive for that company, knowing the company's 'official' stance. ‘We don’t claim to be a Christian business,’ Mr Cathy said. ‘Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are. But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles.’ Those were HIS words. It's a slap in the face to every single person who is on his payroll, and who eats in his restaurants, who doesn't follow the exact same 'biblical principles' he and his organization endorse.
Now, for the flip side - for anyone who may go, 'but a company that publically says they're pro-gay rights is speaking for an entire company', my argument still holds true. No population is being denigrated or having their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness diminished. If you're anti-gay rights, you're probably heterosexual, and you've been allowed the legal right to marriage for a varied number of years now (sadly, I can't even say since the late 1700s, thanks to the atrocities known as slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc). Cathy's words denigrated a population of our society. The Jim Henson Company, who responded to Cathy's words by severing relations with CFA, said, "The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years...". Anyone employed by the JHC who perhaps is conservative and believes in the same principles as Cathy isn't being maligned by Lisa Henson's words. Sadly, anyone who IS LGBT in the CFA company was.
It's no longer HIS personal opinion. Once he used the plural 'we', he spoke for an entire company. THAT is my problem. I sadly have to respect the fact that he has a Constitutional right to be a bigot who supports supressing human rights and dignities to a subset of the human race, otherwise I'm a hypocrite. But as the face of a company, his words were irresponsible, hurtful, and only served to again point out how badly the LGBT community is still treated in this 'land of the free'.
(And just in case it hasn't been made clear where I stand, let me say it right here. I don't believe in 'gay' marriage. I believe in marriage, pure and simple. Whether or not the two being married are gay or straight or what-have-you doesn't enter my equation. To paraphrase a quote used on the internet, "I don't gay park my car, and I don't have gay lunch. If that changes your opinion of me, I'd like to be able to say I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I am.)