Chick-fil-A | Log Cabin Republicans | Mike Huckabee | News | Republican Party

Don't Turn a Chicken Sandwich into Public Gay Enemy Number One, Says Log Cabin Republican Executive Director

Queerhatin

Log Cabin Republican Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper weighs in on the Chick-fil-A controversy in a HuffPost piece:

Rclarke_cooperTurning a chicken sandwich into Public Gay Enemy Number One makes LGBT people look superficial, vindictive and juvenile -- everything that we as a community have worked hard to overcome. Remember, employers don't want drama queens on the payroll, military service is serious business, and marriage is not a right society grants to spoiled children. While in a perfect world our equality should not depend on our good behavior, in a world where our rights too often hinge on political reality, the way our movement conducts itself matters.

The "movable middle" moves both ways, and they don't like seeing people attacked relentlessly for their religion. Whatever the nuances, these voters see a man standing up for his beliefs against a politically powerful mob dead-set on driving him out of business. It's un-American, and when fellow conservatives are finally standing up and speaking out for marriage equality as consistent with the sober values of responsibility and commitment, splashing a popular American company with metaphorical chicken blood in protest is nothing less than friendly fire.

Even if marriage equality activists "won" and Chick-fil-A went out of business tomorrow, what would be gained? True, some businesses may hesitate to donate to antigay causes in the future, but LGBT people would have handed antigay organizations a weapon better than money can buy -- confirmation that gay people really are the thought police, willing and able to use the power of the state to impose our will on oppressed social conservatives.

Reminder: Tomorrow is Mike Huckabee's 'Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day'.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Littlekiwi,

    I'm hardly a troll. I've been reading and commenting here for years.

    As I said before by playing the same hypocritical game that the far right plays, you damage the movement's reputation. You can call the far right extremists names and belittle their beliefs, but that sort of thing only strengthens their resolve. The real outreach must be down to those in the middle. They don't have the strong feelings of either side and tend to dislike the negativity.

    Of course, the negativity is coming from both sides but a failure to capture the middle means a failure to change the status quo. Recognition of LGBT equality would be a change in the status quo so we have to overcome even more.

    To make matters worse, Brian, who I was originally responding to originally leveled his criticism at Christians generally rather than at the anti-gay extremists who are the ones to blame. It's unfair to generalize about an entire religion based on the beliefs of a few. There are several pro-LGBT denominations and many have been very vocal about their support of the LGBT movement. To paint this as a gay vs Christian issue would be an oversimplification that lacks the nuance to be useful in discussing ways to move forward. Again, we aren't going to change the minds of the extremists but we can win support from those in the middle who really have no vested interest in the subject. But when Christianity as a whole becomes the enemy, those in the middle who are not LGBT but are Christian see it as an attack on them because you've (incorrectly) framed it that way. That does harm because it turns potential allies into enemies.

    Of course the harm isn't tangible like money, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    I said you don't have I agree with the beliefs, but it's common decency to treat others with respect. Just because someone has done something mean to you doesn't make it right to do it back to them. I think most of us were taught that as children.

    Posted by: John | Jul 31, 2012 2:27:47 PM


  2. I don't really understand what it is that the LCR does stand for. If they don't support gay marriage, and they don't support NOT saying incendiary anti-gay comments, what DO they stand for? What's the point?

    Posted by: Nick | Jul 31, 2012 2:35:03 PM


  3. I won't ask if this guy is stupid. I'll just ask "How stupid is he?

    Posted by: Chandler | Jul 31, 2012 2:36:06 PM


  4. Gay + Republican = Braindead.

    Shun this bozo.

    Posted by: gus gordon | Jul 31, 2012 2:54:32 PM


  5. Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't even heard a call for a boycott of Chik-fil-A. The things in the news have been city officials putting up the "not welcome" sign, some of them back-peddling on that, and others coming out against such a thing. Henson company pulls out of toy contract, Chik-fil-A retaliates with "safety" allegations. Other PR tactics alleged to include fake facebook accounts, but PR efforts by Chik-fil-A only backfire and fail. Within a week, its PR head dies of a heart attack.

    For about a week, the dispute over Mr. Cathy's remarks rages in the press and, frankly, brings up some interesting points on both sides. But in all that, I've never heard a call for a formal boycott. Is there one? Did I miss that?

    Gays have, for the most part, been personally boycotting Chik-fil-A forever. Who issued a call for a larger boycott and where can I find that - if it exists? (As in, cough-cough, I don't think it does.)

    Posted by: Zlick | Jul 31, 2012 4:01:10 PM


  6. Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't even heard a call for a boycott of Chik-fil-A. The things in the news have been city officials putting up the "not welcome" sign, some of them back-peddling on that, and others coming out against such a thing. Henson company pulls out of toy contract, Chik-fil-A retaliates with "safety" allegations. Other PR tactics alleged to include fake facebook accounts, but PR efforts by Chik-fil-A only backfire and fail. Within a week, its PR head dies of a heart attack.

    For about a week, the dispute over Mr. Cathy's remarks rages in the press and, frankly, brings up some interesting points on both sides. But in all that, I've never heard a call for a formal boycott. Is there one? Did I miss that?

    Gays have, for the most part, been personally boycotting Chik-fil-A forever. Who issued a call for a larger boycott and where can I find that - if it exists? (As in, cough-cough, I don't think it does.)

    Posted by: Zlick | Jul 31, 2012 4:01:10 PM


  7. Once again, Log Cabin Republicans bend over, grab their ankles and say, "Please sir, can we have some more?"

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Jul 31, 2012 4:13:48 PM


  8. The chickens over at Log Cabin sound scared. All that pathetic clucking! What if it turns out that all the right wing boycotts failed and without even calling for a boycott Chick Fillet's business was impacted? It would show who has the power.

    I decided to spell fillet correctly instead of phonetically just to confuse the bigots.

    That fried chicken on white bread with mayo and a slice of cheese looks very easy to resist to me. Maybe that exec that had a heart attack had it because he ate there.

    Posted by: our customers won't know how to pronounce fillet | Jul 31, 2012 4:52:30 PM


  9. I have never understood the oxymoron of being gay and being a Republican. This article confirms what I have always said, being gay and Republican is moronic, err I mean rather oxymoron. It sounds like the Log Cabin has swallowed the Republican kool aid and its own internalized homophobia.

    Posted by: Bernie | Jul 31, 2012 5:59:32 PM


  10. I have never understood the oxymoron of being gay and being a Republican. This article confirms what I have always said, being gay and Republican is moronic, err I mean rather oxymoron. It sounds like the Log Cabin has swallowed the Republican kool aid and its own internalized homophobia.

    Posted by: Bernie | Jul 31, 2012 5:59:34 PM


  11. I wonder if that bald idiot prays to Jesus while he bites the pillow.

    Posted by: LAXJFK | Jul 31, 2012 6:06:59 PM


  12. And why shouldn't we make Chik-Fil-A a magnificent example of how gay folks and their allies WILL speak with their dollars and will not accept businesses acting in a bigoted manner. From now on, it's not acceptable.

    Posted by: Tarc | Jul 31, 2012 9:10:38 PM


  13. Eat all the chicken you want, just don't buy it at Chick-Fil-A.

    Posted by: andrew | Jul 31, 2012 10:58:28 PM


  14. If you haven't heard about a boycott of Chick-Fil-A, you must have been living under a rock for the last what, 25 + years.

    Back in the late 80's we were boycotting Chick-Fil-A and Cracker Barrel.

    I'm disappointed in gay people who give their money to our enemies. The most fundamental right is our right to vote with our $'s.

    USE IT.

    Posted by: NVTodd | Aug 1, 2012 12:25:45 AM


  15. @AG - Nonsense. And hey, even if you actually understood what fascist means, it'd still be nonsense. Boycotting a restaurant because it violates personal, national, and moral values is a duty. It's extra strange because you obviously don't understand what liberalism is, nor fascism (which is the reverse of liberalism). And as a moderate independent, you can't even take a go at me for for being biased. Read something for goodness sake.

    Posted by: Tarc | Aug 1, 2012 12:55:09 AM


  16. I'm confused by Democrats who are confused by gay Republicans. Being a member of a political party does not mean that you agree with everything in the national party platform. Gay Democrats should know this since it wasn't until THIS WEEK that the Democrats voted to include marriage equality in its platform (well, technically it's not official yet, but whatever).

    While the Democrats certainly are far friendlier to gays than Republicans, they historically (and, in the case of many individual Democratic politicians, currently) have not been completely pro-LGBT. There are political parties who are 100% pro-LGBT and aren't afraid to include that in their platform, like the Green Party and the Socialist Party.

    If, as Tarc suggests, it's a duty to be against those that violate personal, national, and moral duties, then why are so many gays voting for Democrats instead of truly pro-LGBT parties?

    You can rationalize all you want, but when you do, to my far left ears, you sound just like the Log Cabin Republicans trying to rationalize their support of the Republican Party.

    Posted by: Matt | Aug 1, 2012 1:25:19 AM


  17. If anyone knows shallow, it's a member of the Log Cabin Rethuglicans.

    Posted by: darkmoonman | Aug 1, 2012 2:51:47 AM


  18. Zlick,

    Here's but one article from last week that called for a Chick-Fil-A boycott: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/shut-down-chickfila-prope_b_1703781.html. There have been many articles that call for the same.

    There's a Boycott Chick-Fil-A website and numerous boycott groups on Facebook.

    Posted by: John | Aug 1, 2012 3:02:49 AM


  19. IF Log Cabin Republican's Executive Director (R. Clarke Cooper) HAD ANY SENSE, HE WOULD HAVE KEPT HIS MOUTH CLOSED AND ALLOWED DEMOCRATIC HOMOSEXUALS TO PLAY THE ROLE OF, "EXTREMISTS." REPUBLICANS HAVE ALREADY LABELLED Chick-fil-A's OPPOSITION AS "LIBERAL NUTCASES." LCR COULD HAVE REAPED SOME BENEFIT BY STAYING SILENT.

    Mr. Cooper PROVES HE IS ONE OF THE "LIBERAL NUTCASES." Governor Mitt Romney SHOULD IGNORE THESE ASSES!

    CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    Posted by: CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON | Aug 1, 2012 6:23:50 AM


  20. What an "Uncle Tom"!!! Cares more about a fast food chain than his own community. Embarrassed by people standing up to repression in the name of religion! Freedom of religion is limited to how one worships and believes. Not using politics to prevent people you disagree with from having equal rights.

    Posted by: Tom in long beach | Aug 1, 2012 2:24:36 PM


  21. « 1 2 3

Post a comment







Trending


« «Trevor Thomas, in Home Stretch of Congressional Primary, Releases First Ad: VIDEO« «