Political Happenings

So, I'm not sure if anyone has been following this ridiculous chain of events that has been flooding the news lately, but if you haven't, don't worry, I don't think you are missing much. Apparently it started with the CEO of the restaurant chain Chick-Fil-A being quoted as against gay marriage. There has been a flurry of support and a move to boycot since. The latest round apparently involved their Facebook page being shut down for twelve hours and a resurrection with a plea for support set for August 1. While I don't eat there, and won't be rushing to do so anytime soon, I'm finding it very hard to stay quiet on the issues, which is very out of character for me as I'm not usually for or against either politics or religion.

Let me try to break down the issues here. There are two main issues here, one political, one religious. Then there are the side issues, namely of free marketing and private industry terms of service. First, the political.

The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States grants the right of free speech. The CEO exercised that right by expressing his own opinion on a public matter. Somehow it got tied to the opinion of the company he runs, which is unfortunate, but ultimately happens when people in the public eye are linked to their affiliations. I'm not one to do this, but the CEO rolled with this one, so now it IS fact, where it probably wasn't initially. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the Constitution covers the company's rights in this regard as well, so any attempt at suppressing this right could lead to a challenge by the company in a court of law.

The second major issue is religious. Ok, so any formalized religion that names the specific verse in the Bible as the word of their deity and bans homosexual relationships would support the CEO. It follows that anyone against this position would be offended by his words. Both sides are exercising their first amendment rights here, and neither is more justified than the other in terms of a court case since no foul has been committed according to the law. There is separation of church and state here in the US, so the two sides can argue for as long as they have breath to do so, and neither should be disparaged in their right to do so, nor suppressed, forced to be silenced, or in any other way repressed. My view here on the specific issue is irrelevant as I stand on the right of free speech as well as the freedom of religion, thus so far, nothing has been said or done that violates these rights, I have remained silent.

Here's where it gets a bit tricky. The sub-issues have muddied the waters, and I do have an opinion here. Let's start with the free marketing. While I see that the CEO has the right to promote and support the planned show set for this Wednesday, I believe he is using it unduly to line his pockets. I don't even really blame him, I blame the people that are supposedly supporting him. Sure, they have the right to do so, but I just don't see how making this show of support means more than just giving him money, which would happen in the normal course anyway. To me, this has zero moral value, and no significant influence on the topic at all.

As for the fourth issue, Facebook, in it's terms of service, retains the right to perform any action it deems necessary including denial of service to any entity it sees as in violation to the terms it sets forth. While I don't know the specifics of why the page was shut down, nor the reasoning behind its resurrection, I can not find any fault with the action. Facebook, after all, is another private company, any their users are bound to its terms of service. Whether the action violated the first amendment or not is irrelevant because the terms of service prevail here, not the Constitution. Facebook is not a Government run institution, nor public forum, as such, the Constitution has no power to enforce the right of free speech to the users of this private service. Those that don't understand this need to go back to school and start reading all agreements that they sign.

So, bottom line here is that no law has been broken, and the debate has not been settled religiously, privately, or otherwise. Business as usual, and in my opinion, not worthy of so much media attention as has been given.