10 Commandments and 11 Herbs and Spices

I feel a little guilty about it. 


Not about liking the product--I mean, they didn't get to be a nationwide phenomenon by making a product nobody wanted. So it's no surprise that it tastes really good, and that the service is world class, and that I keep wanting to buy it. But, honestly, they wear their politics on their sleeve a bit. Specifically, it's their opinion on gay marriage. 


I'm talking about Starbucks of course. Great coffee. But they've been very vocal in their support of gay marriage legislation. As I've mentioned elsewhere in my blog, I have no interest in preventing gay marriage whatsoever, or for that matter, in encouraging it. But the same is true of straight marriage. I couldn't care less whether people are married or not, at least as a matter of public policy. I believe, quite strongly, that marriage is among the many things about which there should be no laws whatsoever. Everyone who insists on recognition for gay marriage is in fact arguing for a more intrusive state. I'd like to move us the other way, where consenting adults construct their own arrangements and give them the weight of a contract, managed by civil courts where necessary. Private citizens will always be superior managers of their interactions than any federal government. 


Starbucks isn't alone though. Chick-fil-a has been pretty vocal about their support for organizations that oppose gay marriage and some that even run camps or programs aimed at "curing" homosexuals. That strikes me as pretty out there. But man, is there chicken good! I go once a week or so. And I have no plans to stop--but that could change. 


For instance, I didn't go yesterday. Why? Because there were huge lines of people frothing at the mouth, not simply for the chicken, but for the chance to show their support for Chick-fil-a's politics. I just wanted a sandwich. Tomorrow, a similarly foam-lipped crowd plans a public display of affection outside their doors(or inside them, I guess, because I've seen no evidence that Chick-fil-a has ever turned anyone away on that basis). I won't want to go then either, because I have no interest in aligning myself with a political opinion. I just wanted a really good chicken sandwich. 


So, yes, I think Chick-fil-a has made a mistake. Actually, that's overstating it, because it's not clear their political stance has or will hurt them at all. In fact, let's be honest; all I'm really saying is that Chick-fil-a has engaged in behavior that annoys me. Not by funding a homosexual cure--it's misguided, but pepole do lots of very similar, very misguided things--but by taking a stance as a corporation and politicizing something as delightful as a chicken sandwich. 


It's one of the most exhausting things about life in 21st century America--the degree to which every decision, no matter how small, can be politicized in some way. It is both true to and completely contradictory to the American ideal, and very little can be done about it. 


Let's be clear; everyone is entirely within their rights. Chick-fil-a is welcome to use faith as an element of their successful formula. As recent events have shown, it's a draw for many, and arguably a reasonable marketing strategy. The left, on the other hand, is certainly within their rights to oppose a company that has made itself political. 


But people--these are really terrible ways to exercise your rights! 


We were founded as a Christian nation, sure, but the people who say that most often now are forgetting that it was a very different kind of Christianity, a brand that wasn't particularly consistent. Boring Congrgational churches one minute, punctuated ocassionally by "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." What's indisputable though, is that we were founded as a capitalist nation. And to me that is sacred and profound in a way that I'm not sure either side of this debate recognizes. 


Capitalism is about, first and foremost, setting aside our differences. Why? Because it elevates the work product above our associations, histories, ethnicities, and philosophies. And because the decision on which producers rise and fall is based solely on the product. Whether the product is sandwiches or coffee or clothing or coolness--capitalism insures that a product succeeds because people want it. 


To that end, I support removing barriers that prevent people from competing fairly. I don't think gays should be discriminated against. But I also don't think government should be encouraged to compound problems it created by meddling in the first place. Competing fairly means removing governmental barriers to entry in the marketplace. Many more people who happen to be gay are harmed by excessive federal regulation than will be impacted by the foolish political goals espoused by the controlling interests at Chick-fil-a. 


Of course, both Starbucks and Chick-fil-a have seen real benefit in espousing a general political outlook and taking some very specific stands; I don't blame them. If they did not give to programs or support legislation of ANY kind, you can bet they would hear about their failure to support communities or some such. Again, I firmly believe those are actions individuals should take, not companies. But, that's not how the game is played these days. I could protest of course, by not buying products from any company that makes politics a part of its promotion strategy. But then I would be hungry. And thirsty. And naked. And the tv would be really lousy.