Well, 999, it's important to keep stories straight, and then to determine how to respond. It was a hamburger place that prints scripture citations (not the text, just stuff like "Jn 3:16" in inconspicuous places). The only fact stated about Chick-fil-a is that the CEO said in an interview that he does not support gay marriage. So far, that's all we have on the guy, that he made a simple statement in an interview - we don't know what other employees and company owners from Chick-fil-a think. Richard Chang's article in today's Sacramento Bee terms Cathy's statement as an "attack on gay marriage." Chang says "the deeply religious Cathy" as saying this in a radio interview: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'" Note that this was a radio interview, so apparently the guy was answering a question and stating his opinion - not really making an unprovoked attack or waging a campaign. He was just saying what he thinks.

And yes, I suppose we certainly have the "right" not to patronize people who don't think the way we do. We can surround ourselves with people who think just like we do, and view all others as "the enemy" and demonize them cultivate an adversarial relationship with them. After all, that sort of polarization is The Way of the World nowadays. It's what has brought the United States Government to a virtual standstill - because people insist that it's their God-given/god-given right to have their own way and not give in to the evil of tolerance and compromise.

So, there's been a nationwide boycott of Chick-fil-A, accompanied by the usual shrill rhetoric. And, of course, there's been the usual counter-boycott to promote "family values." Has all this won any support for gay marriage? Nope, not a bit. In fact, gay marriage may have lost a bit of support because of reaction by fair-minded people to the shrill overkill of the Chick-fil-A boycott.

A boycott can be a very effective tool, if used judiciously. It's most effective when it's used in response to a gross injustice, not just the expression of a distasteful opinion. Martin Luther King used boycotts brilliantly. Cesar Chavez overused boycotts and failed to keep his message clear. Many of his boycotts failed because people didn't know if they were supposed to boycott celery or lettuce or raisins this week, since the campaign kept constantly changing.

We need to have a two-pronged approach to win acceptance for gay marriage:

1. A legislative and judicial approach, winning approval of gay marriage in state legislatures and convincing the courts to outlaw restrictive legislation.
2. A persuasive campaign, working to convince people that tolerating gay marriage is the right and just thing to do, even if people don't personally like the idea.

We don't need to have people like gay marriage - we just need them not to be afraid of it. But if we use coercive tactics, we shoot ourselves in the foot, because we polarize people and make them afraid. If we're going to win this, we need to use gentle, persuasive tactics. We can't "play hardball" and win friends.
-Joe-