Friday, August 3, 2012

As God Is My Witness, I Will Never Eat a Chick-fil-A Sandwich Again!

That's one promise I intend to keep -- not that it's going to be very hard. It's been ages since I've stepped foot in a mall where there was a Chick-fil-A store to avoid (another benefit of living abroad!), and at least 25 years since I've bitten into one of their sandwiches, which I admit, I used to love when I was a kid.

But it will be blustery, blizzardy day in Kissimmee, Florida, before I ever go there again. And I'm thinking of taking a similar hardline stance against Melissa Reeves, the actress who plays Jennifer Rose Horton Devereaux on Days of Our Lives. Yesterday while perusing Daytime Confidential, I was shocked and disappointed when I came across one of her recent tweets, which was reprinted in an article that rightfully scolded her for it. What exactly did she have to say? Read on....


If I wasn't already seeing all shades of red over Chick-fil-A's support of questionable anti-GLBT causes, I was certainly seeing every color in that spectrum of the rainbow flag now. Americans have a terrible enough reputation abroad as it is, and it's stupidity like this that makes me look bad when I rush to the defense of what so many foreigners (particularly Aussies!) see as the land of the free and home of the idiotic.

Note the passive-aggressive way Reeves used exclamation points and a smiley face to trivialize one of the most divisive issues of the day. Also note that she appears on a show that won raves and Daytime Emmys for its recent coming-out storyline. The DC message board was on fire, and surprisingly, not all of the posters on a website dedicated to what must be the gayest TV art form ever were rallying to douse Reeves and Chick-fil-A with buckets of water.

Here is one particularly unbelievable post from someone who goes by the screen name "thebookerman":


1) Marriage is not a "right" for anyone.

2) Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against gay people. Gay people are allowed to eat and work for the company, and express them freely.

3) Marriage is a term defined as a man and woman sharing their life together. States have every right to decide whether or not that can be CHANGED to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

4) No one is stopping gay people from living together, having a family and being happy. Because of that EVERYONE HAS EQUAL RIGHTS IN AMERICA.

5) Some states just feel that the term marriage does not apply to gay people. I would have liked to be the valedictorian in school, but my grades didn't qualify me. I was born that way though, so shouldn't I be able to be valedictorian too? Shouldn't I be able to be a starting quarterback in the NFL too?

I love how gay people claim others are close-minded, but then refuse to accept any position different than theirs. Anytime anyone disagrees it is followed by death threats, boycotts and more utter nonsense.


I've already dedicated quite a bit of blog space to this issue, and at the moment, I have nothing new to add to my existing argument, but I couldn't just ignore such ignorance. Instead of listing 100 reasons why gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, why Jennifer should be written off Days, and why Chick-fil-A does not deserve your patronage, I will simply repost my response to "thebookerman" here.


thebookerman, Your arguments are weak, and your analogies are sorely lacking. First of all, becoming a valedictorian is not anyone's birthright. You are not born into it. You work toward it. You weren't born with grades that didn't qualify you to be valedictorian. You earned them. But it's open to everyone. Anyone who is enrolled in high school and graduates is eligible to be valedictorian. You do not automatically become ineligible to be valedictorian because of your sexual preference. That makes it infinitely different from marriage.

So what exactly is your point then?

As for the definition of marriage, I don't understand how that is even relevant. The institution of marriage was created in an entirely different time in a society different from the one we live in today. If you're so stuck on tradition and the spirit in which marriage was created, should we go back to wives basically having no rights, being obligated to love, honor and OBEY their husbands? That's pretty much how it was back then. In that sense, marriage has evolved over time, and it can evolve further. Just because it was created as an institution between men and women does not mean that it can't evolve and be adapted to suit a changing society. Personally, I have no interest in marriage, but as Eminem said (and I paraphrase), gay people should have the same privilege as straight people to be miserable. 

As for whether it should be up to the states to decide, I'm all for states rights, but with so much mobility between states, it makes more sense to have a nationwide edict regarding gay marriage. It was done in Argentina while I was living there, and as far as I know, your precious institution of marriage remains perfectly in tact in Argentina and in all the other countries where it is now legal.

"Living together, having a family and being happy" is a nice way to put what gay people in the U.S. are allowed to do, but that does not grant gay couples the same benefits as legal marriage, and I'm tired of people pretending to be fine with gay people while denying their relationships the same legal protection as those of straight people.

As for those who hide behind the "free speech" argument, it's time to give that one a rest, too. It's so obvious, so trite, that it's actually saying absolutely nothing. Yes, a racist who runs around declaring black people inferior and hurling the N-word is entitled to his or her opinion, but you express them at your own risk. I'm not defending the death threats, but if you have an inalienable right to express your distaste for gay marriage (and anyone who thinks Melissa Reeves was speaking in generalities probably buys Billie as Kate's daughter on Days), I have an inalienable right to criticize you for it. And a boycott seems like a perfectly reasonable decision. 

I've always been a fan of Melissa Reeves, but after reading her smug tweet, I would be perfectly fine seeing her off the show permanently. It's not like that's not where things are heading, considering her recently dwindling screen time.

I could have gone on and on. I could go on and on. But let me stop by asking this: Why do people invest so much time and energy opposing a cause unless they have major issues with the very people that cause intends to protect? I'm generally not an activist or boycott kind of guy, but if you say no to Chick-fil-A, both your conscious and your arteries will thank you.
Post a Comment