Consider the overt bigotry of this headline statement: Chick-fil-A’s “emphasis on community…suggests an ulterior motive. The restaurant’s corporate purpose begins with the words ‘to glorify God,’ and that proselytism thrums below the surface of its new Fulton Street restaurant, which has the ersatz homespun ambiance of a megachurch.”
[clip]
Yet, Piepenbring is actually arguing that a chicken sandwich chain owned by Christians is somehow culturally dangerous enough to warrant exclusion and ostracizing from society. This is exactly the kind of viewpoint discrimination that rights of conscience bills are designed to protect against, so that someone like Piepenbring cannot stop a business from operating simply because he hates the business’ religious messages.
My bet is that this attack piece would never have been published if it were against any other religion or suspect class under law. Can you imagine a mainstream publication claiming kosher restaurants are “infiltrating” and aren’t part of the rightful community of New Yorkers because the writer is anti-Semitic and wants Jewish restaurants eradicated from his city?
Or what if a Midwestern opinion writer objected to a Muslim Halal butcher coming into their community and used the word “infiltration?” Too many Qu’ran references behind closed doors at corporate. Wouldn’t the guardians of religious freedom at The New Yorker object to that pejorative characterization? Why are only Christians the target of their ire?
Who's more bigoted and intolerant: Chick-fil-A or the New Yorker writer who attacked it?
[clip]
Yet, Piepenbring is actually arguing that a chicken sandwich chain owned by Christians is somehow culturally dangerous enough to warrant exclusion and ostracizing from society. This is exactly the kind of viewpoint discrimination that rights of conscience bills are designed to protect against, so that someone like Piepenbring cannot stop a business from operating simply because he hates the business’ religious messages.
My bet is that this attack piece would never have been published if it were against any other religion or suspect class under law. Can you imagine a mainstream publication claiming kosher restaurants are “infiltrating” and aren’t part of the rightful community of New Yorkers because the writer is anti-Semitic and wants Jewish restaurants eradicated from his city?
Or what if a Midwestern opinion writer objected to a Muslim Halal butcher coming into their community and used the word “infiltration?” Too many Qu’ran references behind closed doors at corporate. Wouldn’t the guardians of religious freedom at The New Yorker object to that pejorative characterization? Why are only Christians the target of their ire?
Who's more bigoted and intolerant: Chick-fil-A or the New Yorker writer who attacked it?