Is Free Speech Really Free? | Eastern North Carolina Now

   In a word, no. And while free speech, the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, is essential to forge a nation that ever strives to protect the liberty and justice that was so hard won, free speech, for the individual, does not come without the tethered responsibility of good citizenship. And in this ultra diverse America, being a good citizen is a heavy responsibility.

   To that end, a remarkable controversy has erupted over the Atlanta, Georgia based Chick-fil-A's Chief Operating Officer Dan Cathy's comments that his company believed in the defense of traditional marriage. In an interview with the The Baptist Press, Mr. Cathy claimed that he intends to operate his "fast food" restaurant business, founded by his father, S. Truett Cathy, "on biblical principles." Later in that same interview, Chick-fil-A C.O.O. Operating Officer Dan Cathy was asked: Did he believe that marriage was between "one man and one woman?"

   To which he responded, "guilty as charged."

   Mr. Cathy, who is also the C.O.O. of the only national "fast food" restaurant that fully observes the Christian Sabbath, also stated to The Baptist Press, "We are very much supportive of the family - the biblical definition of the family unit, We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

   While these faith inspired words may seem hateful to some, C.O.O. Cathy's comments are a rather refreshing form of discourse to others, who remain grateful that there are Americans who will stand by their values and stand up for the traditional family. In today's fractured society, there are also many well meaning people, who do not share Dan Cathy's traditional values.

   MR. Cathy's Comment, "guilty as charged," referring to the special dictates of his faith, brought howls of angered contempt from associations, such as GLADD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), and politicians such as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who stated, "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values," which, like COO Cathy's comment, is a fine exhibit of free speech.

   Likewise, as an example of free speech, is GLAAD's call, to all like-minded advocates, to boycott Chick-fil-A's products. Similarly, just as fine an example of free and purposeful advocacy, was former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's call for Wednesday, August 1, 2012, to be Chick-fil-A “appreciation day” as his call to support the chicken sandwich bistro's opposition to same-sex marriage, and it was a huge success - a record setting day of sales. Governor Huckabee's call of support for Chick-fil-A was just as an appropriate form of advocacy as was GLADD's call to boycott. Such is free speech.

    What is not proper is Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno's position that he would block Chick-fil-A's expansion in Chicago by using his regulatory authority to deny permits integral in their expansion. This outburst by the Alderman, to obviously bolster his position with like-minded voters, is discriminatory, unconstitutional and a flagrant abuse of power. In a few short days after his totally irresponsible claim of power and unconstitutional privilege, Alderman Moreno "walked back" his outrageous claim to use his government position to leverage the unconstitutional whim of one group at the expense of another.

   The Alderman's claim to abusive power, not-with-standing, the furor erupting from Chick-fil-A's Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy's, comments will not soon abate. Accordingly, just as the issue of radical societal change is harming America is an issue with Conservatives, who are still capable of the "naive" temerity of a "Pollyanna," whom yet embrace the traditional values that gave purpose to the fabric of American families for centuries, there are others who claim that society is not accepting enough of their diversity in the manner that they engage in sexual activities, and their subsequent unique family structure. While there may evolve a more libertarian expression of "live and let live" between both diverse factions, there will never be an assimilation of complete understanding. It is a cultural impossibility, just as oil and water can never truly blend.

    At this juncture, there are no clear answers to assuage societal chasm, only the intolerance of the differences of others. Just as Chick-fil-A's Mr. Cathy considers the best way he can defend those traditional values is by honoring the precepts, and teachings of his Judeo-Christian faith, there are organized groups who deplore his value system, and would rather that he not witness his principles, to such a great group of impressionable Americans, through his business ethics and practices.

   And while Mr. Cathy's detractors vehemently consider his traditional ethics archaic and silly, there are still many, more quiet, and very well reasoned individuals, who take all this quite seriously, and consider Mr. Cathy's time honored Judeo-Christian values worth defending in the best manner they can muster. In this regard, both sides are essentially at an irreconcilable impasse.

   Accordingly, Chick-fil-A will be boycotted, and that will last for a good bit - of that I am sure. They will lose customers, many of whom will never come back. That is their price in their C.O.O. expressing his personal truth; whether it is to defend traditional marriage, or, in the case of homosexual advocacy opponents, tear it asunder.

   Consequently, homosexual advocacy groups will seize on this building furor to promote opinion in their favor, which will only anger Americans, who are quietly committed to the traditional concept of procreation and family, and thus will now be urged into the debate by these aforementioned groups' intolerance of Dan Cathy's comments of how he, and his company, values their place in this world, and the consistent advocacy of that place.

   And in all of this, as one side struggles to better express their position, to make the better argument, there will be a price to pay as we have already witnessed. In that proposition of this piece of the liberty tree, free speech is never truly free. When one makes a point of expressing themselves, their well intended point always carries a price. This will always be the cost for standing for something, and it is well advised that you know what you are championing, and, moreover, why it is that you do so.