intolerant - unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights
This definition is verbatim from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It speaks volumes to the current state of political affairs in our country. Our "intolerance" conundrum is best summarized at present moment by the "ban" on Chick-Fil-A by the cities of Boston and Chicago.
Let me place an exerpt of the comments made by Boston mayor Thomas Menino:
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion...
"That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail...
"If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."
The forefront of inclusion? The freedom trail? All while telling a company they are not allowed to do business in the city? Where's the inclusion and freedom in that?
Now let's look at comments made by Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel:
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values...
“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay
marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”
So now you have to believe what Rahm Emanuel believes, since he is the designated spokesperson for the entirety of Chicago, or you can't do business there, either.
Finally, let's look at the second part of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "intolerant":
unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
Compare the two definitions and relate them to the Chick-Fil-A debacle. To the mayors of Boston and Chicago, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A has begun a campaign of intolerance by openly stating his pro-traditional marriage stance, citing the first definition of intolerance. However, the mayors themselves are battling this perceived intolerance by compromising the second definition of intolerance. Now, if you want to call the kettle black, I understand; we're all human, all hypocrites to some extent. But each of these mayors have basically said that they are too tolerant to tolerate anyone not as tolerant as they. You get all that? Me, either.
And this intolerant tolerance begs the even bigger question: Do our freedoms guarantee us the right to be intolerant? The short answer: yes, and no. We the people are guaranteed the right through freedoms of speech, press, and religion, to be as intolerant as we want to be so long as we do not illegally impose on the rights of others. Just as Dan Cathy has every right to say what he feels and use the profits of his business to further that agenda, every consumer has the right to deny Mr. Cathy those profits through boycotts and (legal) protests.
Governmental entities and establishments, and their respective representatives, however, do not have that right. Can a judge post an "I Hate Muslims" placard on the door to his chambers? Can a mailman refuse to deliver to African Americans? Can a firefighter decide to not rescue an illegal immigrant? So can a city council deny a business license to an entrepreneur who is anti-gay marriage? Our government is designed to be above pettiness, to treat all comers in a (tongue-in-cheek) fair and balanced manner. Yet those who so pride themselves on inclusion and tolerance are the first bullies to kick the different kid out of the sandbox.
You want to know how Chicago and Boston will receive a Chick-fil-A? Open the doors to the restaurant and watch Dan Cathy's bank account grow. I do not believe that Mr. Menino and Mr. Emanuel know their respective cities as well as they think they do, and they need to quit pretending that their self-indulgent moral high ground speaks for those of us who love some fried chicken.
This definition is verbatim from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It speaks volumes to the current state of political affairs in our country. Our "intolerance" conundrum is best summarized at present moment by the "ban" on Chick-Fil-A by the cities of Boston and Chicago.
Let me place an exerpt of the comments made by Boston mayor Thomas Menino:
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion...
"That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail...
"If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."
The forefront of inclusion? The freedom trail? All while telling a company they are not allowed to do business in the city? Where's the inclusion and freedom in that?
Now let's look at comments made by Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel:
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values...
“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay
marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”
So now you have to believe what Rahm Emanuel believes, since he is the designated spokesperson for the entirety of Chicago, or you can't do business there, either.
Finally, let's look at the second part of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "intolerant":
unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
Compare the two definitions and relate them to the Chick-Fil-A debacle. To the mayors of Boston and Chicago, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A has begun a campaign of intolerance by openly stating his pro-traditional marriage stance, citing the first definition of intolerance. However, the mayors themselves are battling this perceived intolerance by compromising the second definition of intolerance. Now, if you want to call the kettle black, I understand; we're all human, all hypocrites to some extent. But each of these mayors have basically said that they are too tolerant to tolerate anyone not as tolerant as they. You get all that? Me, either.
And this intolerant tolerance begs the even bigger question: Do our freedoms guarantee us the right to be intolerant? The short answer: yes, and no. We the people are guaranteed the right through freedoms of speech, press, and religion, to be as intolerant as we want to be so long as we do not illegally impose on the rights of others. Just as Dan Cathy has every right to say what he feels and use the profits of his business to further that agenda, every consumer has the right to deny Mr. Cathy those profits through boycotts and (legal) protests.
Governmental entities and establishments, and their respective representatives, however, do not have that right. Can a judge post an "I Hate Muslims" placard on the door to his chambers? Can a mailman refuse to deliver to African Americans? Can a firefighter decide to not rescue an illegal immigrant? So can a city council deny a business license to an entrepreneur who is anti-gay marriage? Our government is designed to be above pettiness, to treat all comers in a (tongue-in-cheek) fair and balanced manner. Yet those who so pride themselves on inclusion and tolerance are the first bullies to kick the different kid out of the sandbox.
You want to know how Chicago and Boston will receive a Chick-fil-A? Open the doors to the restaurant and watch Dan Cathy's bank account grow. I do not believe that Mr. Menino and Mr. Emanuel know their respective cities as well as they think they do, and they need to quit pretending that their self-indulgent moral high ground speaks for those of us who love some fried chicken.
RSS Feed