Thursday, August 2, 2012

They're Here, They're Queer, Get Used to It

O, Ye Shall pointedly buy chicken sandwiches.


I'm all wigged out today by this article in the L.A. Times, "Chick-fil-A fans and critics take to the streets." It's about how yesterday, a bunch of asshats human beings that I need to love went specifically to Chick-fil-A to buy a sandwich to show that they were against gay people.

Now, although I find the concept of purchasing a chicken sandwich to show your contempt of "the gays" a bit comical ("And a large fries, because I hate cock-sucking a lot, too"), I am a bit horrified by the number of people who thought it was a-ok to make a public appearance as a hater. I mean, even if you were way, way against gayness wouldn't you just cower at home hating gay people privately? Making sure of course, to watch plenty of gay porn to keep tabs on their nefarious ways.

As you may recall, this all happened because the president of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, said some crazy-ass crap in an interview about our nation inviting God's judgement by having "such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about." One might note that the words "arrogant" and "audacity" might also be applied to one is so fucking certain that he knows God's wishes. Or that a man having the last name of Cathy is actually a teensy bit gay. And I am most certainly inviting God's judgement by wondering why a god would create a bunch of gay people if they are indeed so wrong and hateful. I mean, that seems kinda jerkish.*

But whatever, Cathy said what he said. I don't agree with it. But he's a whack old dude, he can say whatever crazy ass crap he likes. I don't think cities should ban his stores or anything because it's a free county. (Well, freeish.)

One of the protestors, Roy Simmons, 60, who was dutifully expressing his disapproval of gay marriage through the purchase of chicken sandwiches said, "With the left, if you don't toe their line and say what they want you to say, they shut you down as a hater, a bigot or a homophobe."

It would probably also be hideously leftist of me to provide Simmons, who is most certainly NOT GAY, with the definition of the word homophobe, which I happen to have right here:
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred. Usage: "I stood in line at Chick-fil-A to buy a chicken sandwich Wednesday to express such negative attitudes because I am a bigoted, hater, homophobe who is so not gay."**
It might also be a bit crass to direct SO NOT GAY Simmons and the other protestors--some of whom wore Superman costumes to the protest (also completely not gay)-- to this Scientific American article "Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals."

xoxoxo
jill

* If there is indeed a hell, I suspect I'll spend quite a lot of time there re-reading this particular sentence.
**I may or may not have added that last sentence in the definition.

24 comments:

bettyfokker said...

"Don't call me a bigot just because I am one!" -- Every Douchenozzle, ever

Anonymous said...

Proud: 1) to call you a relative.

2) to hail from Boston after the Mayor's letter suggesting that the city of the Freedom trail does not invite an establishment with these views to its city.

Suzanne said...

Well put...great post!

Anonymous said...

So I can't be pro-traditional marriage without being anti-gay?

I'd fight and die for your right to fuck whoever you want, why don't you stand up for this crazy old dickhead's right to express whatever he wants.

Or is that a right only Bloggers get?

This old bastard said exactly the same shit as President Obama (before he changed his mind), what did you blog about that?

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage".
-Barack Obama Nov 2, 2008

Gia said...

I don't eat at chick fil a because i'm a vegetarian. But if I did, I'd buy some chicken from them and have gay sex with it. Preferably IN the chick fil a. Because that's how I roll.

Red Shoes said...

I think you missed the point... I thought the 'ass hats,' hopefully, went to support free speech.

I"m ambivalent about gay marriage... I have gay friends...

To the best of my knowledge, this wasn't coordinated by Chic-fil-a...

As the previous poster pointed out, President Obama's previous position had been identical.

~shoes~

Angella said...

I hope you quickly learn the lesson not to mix politics with your blog. I tune in for reasons other than to be annoyed by political drivel. Sorry you felt the need to weigh in, but as a result, you've lost this reader. Delete!

JackJuste said...

I'm glad you weighed in. I am proud of Boston and other cities declining to site that establishment—for many of us it's akin to declining to site a business owned by white supremacists, anti-semites, etc. I'm happy to continue reading despite our difference on that detail.

Freedom ain't free... there are consequences for being a hater. Funny how haters always whine about that.

Dicky Carter said...

I don't think it's particularly a bad thing to protest against gay marriage if that's what you believe in, but let's be honest: if your prepared to spend a few hours outside buying chicken sandwichs (I don't understand why chicken sandwich? Why not a banana split) and publicly demonstrating, spending your spare time doing so - then you are proberbly not that gay tolerant and thus homophobic? You can proberbly split the issue in 3 camps (not a pun) 1) Gay. 2) Don't care, there's other more important stuff in the world to worry about (that's my thought). 3) Gay hating, Jew bashing, gun fans who spend spare time dressing as Superman (slightly gay - surly?).

valleyroadrambler said...

Go ahead, speak your mind. After all, it's your blog. Don't let the critics and the haters get you down. For the record, I'm all for marriage equality.

Barfly said...

I think the point of this show of support was more for standing up to the right to free speech, not harassment of gays. People, it's ILLEGAL to not issue a permit (like Chicago) based on religious beliefs, race,creed, or sexual preferences.

Every time Jesse Jackson opens his mouth, he offends somebody.

It's the United States of the Offended double standard again.

And BTW, the little kissy kissy the gays are talking about is gross and over the line, just as it would be if it were men and women kissing

Tara Barnhart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tara Barnhart said...

Would all these folks line up to support "free speech" if Chick-fil-A was donating to the KKK? I doubt it. And "can you be pro-traditional marriage without being anti-gay," I don't think so. You either believe people can have all the rights and privileges afforded everyone else in this country (including convicted felons) or you don't. If you didn't have a problem with gays, then why restrict their right to enter in a government contract with each other? This is a civil contract we are talking about with financial and legal consequences. I think you called it like you saw it, Jill.

Anonymous said...

Would all these folks line up to support "free speech" if Chick-fil-A was donating to the KKK? I doubt it. And "can you be pro-traditional marriage without being anti-gay," I don't think so. You either believe people can have all the rights and privileges afforded everyone else in this country (including convicted felons) or you don't. If you didn't have a problem with gays, then why restrict their right to enter in a government contract with each other? This is a civil contract we are talking about with financial and legal consequences. I think you called it like you saw it, Jill.

in bed with married women said...

Jeez,

Well, let's see.

--"Why don't you stand up for this crazy old dickhead's right to express whatever he wants?"
um, that's what I meant in the sentence I already wrote. To wit: "I don't agree with it. But he's a whack old dude, he can say whatever crazy ass crap he likes."

--"So I can't be pro-traditional marriage without being anti-gay?" Okay, go back and re-read your sentence. Of course you can't. You can't be pro-Only Black People
Get to Eat without being anti-white.

--"I think you missed the point" Well, some of the STATED point was about free speech. That is called blurring the message and moves the argument toward a more beneficial position. i.e. much easier to argue that free speech is good than to explain why you think that some people shouldn't get the same rights as you.

"Sorry you felt the need to weigh in, but as a result, you've lost this reader. Delete!" Let's see, there is pretty much no point to a blog other than to "weigh in" so I kind of don't get that point. However, I've never heard from you before, so I suspect someone sent you my way. Anyway, bye. Hope a bunch of people never decide to demonstrate against well...you and everything you are and love. Because that would kind of suck.

Anonymous said...

You rock! 'Nuff said!

Tina PJ said...

If a person supports the right to free speech, they should support the right to SAY what Chic-a-Fila (or however it is spelt, they aren't over in the UK at all) did. By spending their money in the fast-food outlet, they are supporting what was said, not the right to say it. They are supporting bigotry and hatred. They are saying there is only one form of marriage as defined by an arbitrary religious belief system which has myriad formats and definitions in and of itself. They are supporting the specific prejudice of a very small minority. They are saying marriage has to be religious and heterosexual - this is not a logical, coherent, reasonable or democratic statement. It is bigotry, pure and simple. These people who support Chic-a-Fila are bigots, pure and simple.

Cagey-C said...

First, well done.

Second, the range of comments are exceedingly interesting. Notwithstanding those that accuse you of claiming things that you didn't claim (or of not claiming things which you did), I'm most fascinated by the idea that a blog which explores the variety of sexual experiences can be free from politics. There's a particular naivete there that stems from forms of privilege--i.e. one can think that sex is free of politics primarily because one's form(s) of sexual expression fall within the politically/socially accepted range. Because we have tied up people's access to social goods (like inheritance, health care, hospital visitation rights and decision making, etc.) with the specific forms of socially legitimated relationships in which sex is "okay," sex is inherently political.

That politics is also expressed in the Chik-Fil-A lines. I don't think it's possible to delineate between people who are buying chicken in order to support free speech and those who are buying chicken to support "traditional" family structures. Those motivations, I would guess, are thoroughly intertwined in the long lines. A frequent current that runs through evangelical Christianity is the sense of being somehow persecuted for affirming supposedly countercultural stances, so that the defense of free speech in this instance is also a defense of the particular speech which was been attacked. (I need to add that "evangelical" is a broader term than typically supposed, and it doesn't automatically equal homophobia; there are evangelicals who have assimilated acceptance of same-sex love into their religious thought, and there are those who find it wrong but nonetheless believe that the precept of religious freedom means they shouldn't be able to dictate who may or may not enter into civil contracts. These folks just don't get much media play.)

One final thing that I find intriguing here is the notion of some sort of purity of action. The idea that spending money at Chik-Fil-A equals consent to their ideology is not without a measure of truth. At the same time, modern commerce is so complex and convoluted that it would be difficult to find a company that does not actively support political and social actions and viewpoints with which one disagrees. That doesn't necessarily mean that boycotting a business that spouts rhetoric you find distasteful (or, Chik-Fil-A's real offense IMO, spends money to actively deny other people their civil rights) is a bad idea. But pretending there's nothing complicated there doesn't work. For instance, how are Chik-Fil-A's employees, who by and large haven't said anything publicly, being impacted? And I say this as someone who hasn't had fast food in years because I think fast food is terrible for health, for the environment, and for labor.

Lastly (yes, I know I called the prior paragraph my final point, but this is short), the person who objects to "the kissy kissy the gays are talking about" strikes me as remarkably squeamish for someone checking in on a sex blog.

Thanks for taking this on, Jill.

Can't Keep Anything to Myself said...

You go, Jill!
Yes, I agree with what you said, but even if I didn't it's your blog and you should be able to express whatever the hell you want to express. Who am I to tell you what you can and can't write about?
For you close-minded folk out there, go read another blog if you don't agree. It's as simple as that.
The rest of us will revel in our sin and wrongness by embracing a less hateful world.
Jill, I look forward to seeing you in hell. We'll have to get lunch or something.

Derek said...

The comments to your post are very interesting.

No one has questioned Tracy's right to free speech. No one has argued that he should not be permitted to say what he said. Rather they've said there should be consequences for his behavior and attitude towards homosexuals.

In response a number of people came out to support him by giving their money to his company. They are directly supporting chick-fil-a's donations to anti-gay marriage groups, gay reparative therapy groups etc.

The claim therefore that the people in line are there to support free speech is, at best, wishful thinking. This is not and has never been a free speech issue.

At issue is bigotry, homophobia and support for hate groups. So I am not at all surprised that you would post against such behavior, it is antithetical to the accepting, sex-positive attitude espoused by this blog.

Jburn said...

The personal IS political. The political IS personal. Especially true when your 'personal' is continuously attacked, politically as well as personally.

James said...

I direct people to the following link on this issue. It is too long to post here. I do really hope that people will read it. A far more eloquent expression of my feelings on this matter than I am capable of writing.

x James

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

Dani J said...

Jill, you are so right. I have to wonder how long the very-not-gay person with the superman costume had to wait for an opportunity to wear it in public in a super-not-gay way.

Bob said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...