Is it enough to treat your neighbor as an assumed equal regardless of what you might assume or believe about who and what they are and what they believe?
Should we create a list of beliefs that should be affirmed, not merely tolerated, if you wish to remain in the open, allegedly public square?
Alleged “advocates” of LGBTQ rights are claiming that the position that marriage should only be recognied by the state as being between a man and a woman should be enough in and of itself to get you removed from the public square where value is exchanged between diverse groups of people with diverse sets of beliefs and values.
These groups are calling on Chic-Fil-A to once again be banned from entering a public market space because the family does not support the legalization of gay marriage.
The debate at the core of this issue has little to do with the debate about what the state should or should not do regarding defining and legislating the institute of marriage and more to do with what values should we expect to be universal in our public space for we who live in this land to expect to be able to exchange value in that shared space?
Where is the line between our acceptable diversity and unacceptable unorthodoxy? What are the standards that enable diverse peoples to exchange value with one another in shared public spaces?
Who are you to dictate to the rest us what these lines are, and what these unity standards might be?
To continue to attempt to use monpolistic market pressures to economically destroy your political, religious, moral, ethical opposition who are not in violation of any law that does itself not violate our Bill of Rights, is to invite the destruction of rule of law itself in our land, wherein lies our existing unity that makes our diversity possible.
At the heart of that unity is the lack of a demand by others that ANYONE accept you for who you are, what you believe, or anything else for that matter. But, in public spaces, we respect our unity, our Bill of Rights, and, regardless of whether we worship your God or not, we treat you fairly, transparently, as if your life mattered as much as our own.
The very principle that enables diverse peoples to coexist in public shared spaces, of respecting the rights of others to be wrong, but treating them as if they we your own nonetheless, is destroyed by this constant weaponization of mobs to affect economic assassination of whoever rejects the values you assume all humans should share if they’re humans at all.
A plan unveiled last week to include Chick-fil-A alongside a mix of local and national restaurants inside the new Kansas City International (KCI) airport terminal is causing concern among LGBTQ advocates, who say it betrays the terminal’s inclusive ideals.
On Thursday, Kansas City officials named Vantage Airport Group of Vancouver, Canada, as the recommended concessions operator for KCI’s $1.5 billion new terminal. Vantage’s preliminary plan made public at a City Council business session included Chick-fil-A.
Previously, the new terminal had been lauded by local advocates for its steps toward greater inclusivity, including gender-inclusive restrooms.
But now those advocates say those steps feel hollow. The LGBTQ Commission of Kansas City, Missouri, released a letter to the city Monday calling on elected officials to remove Chick-fil-A from consideration.