You are here

Harper’s Fairy


Still too busy to blog. But I wanted to get on the record for a thought about Chick-Fil-A day (or Chickenstock, as described by one participant).

The upcoming period of violent upheaval could take the proportions of a civil war. If so, it will be fought between liberty-minded individualists and post-modern theophobes. In a sense, gay is the new black.

If so, Chickenstock may have been the Harper’s Ferry of our next civil war.


I found the whole thing partly amusing, partly sad.

What did people expect?  The owner is a Baptist, made his comments on Baptist radio, and didn't say anything about persecuting gays, only that he had a particular point of view.  That's his right.

The homosexual community may have every right to call him out, but their manner of doing so was over the top - as is almost everything they do.

I'm all for gay "rights" (whatever they are), insofar as they are the same rights I have.

Since I don't believe the government has the right to tell me I'm married, I don't believe it has the right to tell gay people they can't be married.  Since government's role in marriage was originally developed as a means to prevent miscegenations, is it any surprise it's currently geared toward preventing gay marriage?  This isn't the kind of thing the government can just change. 

I pointed out to my wife, who believes the government can just say "marriage is between two people, and only one marriage at a time is allowed" assuming this would solve everything, it's not so simple.

Sure, that's OK for you, me and a large number of people.  But when do the 'Sister Wives' show up complaining about their persecution by the government?  So then we have to change the laws again?

Keep government out of marriage, pure and simple.

And as far as chicken sandwiches go, I love Chick-fil-A and ate there the day after their Appreciation Day.  It was excellent.  I was heartened to see the "Gay Kiss-in" greeted with free water and sandwiches by store managers.  It goes to show you something simple - the CEO was not advocating policy.  He was stating a belief.

Last I checked, that's allowed by our Constitution.  Why should he be demonized for it, even if I disagree with his view?