By: Amy Lutz
I ate a Chick-Fil-A last night. Now, before you ask, yes I did survive the massive, oppressing atmosphere of homophobia in the restaurant and I’m here to tell my story. Considering the hyperbolic vitriol that leftists have been spewing recently about the chicken restaurant, I feared for my sanity as I opened the double doors to Chick-Fil-A. What would I find inside? I wanted to hug my friend whom I met for dinner, but what if the cashiers got the wrong idea? I didn’t want to be subject to the homophobia that apparently runs rampant Chick-Fil-A’s all around the country. Or so Roseanne Barr tells me.
Because I let myself get sucked in by the fear-tactics of Chick-Fil-A-hating liberals, I had a few, perhaps extreme, expectations when I walked in the restaurant. First, how could anyone want to eat at a restaurant so hateful that the owner has the audacity to claim he supports traditional marriage? I expected Chick-Fil-A to be a ghost town. Rather, the opposite was true. The restaurant was quite crowded even though the dinner rush had not yet started. I even had to wait in line! Oh the humanity. I couldn’t believe that so many people had yet to notice the homophobia that ran rampant throughout the room. I became even more fearful as I got closer and closer to the cashier. Considering that Chick-fil-A is apparently a restaurant run by bible-beating, intolerant extremists, I assumed that I might not fit in that well. What if my dress was too short? Or worse, would they make the wrong assumption about my sexual orientation because I was wearing rainbow nail polish? I quaked with fear as a prepared to put in my order.
Rather, I was pleasantly surprised with the cashiers at Chick-Fil-A. They were pleasant and my food came out in approximately 37 seconds. I took a second to breathe a sigh of relief before spiraling into my liberal rumor-induced panic once again. As I walked to my table, I tried to divert my eyes from the posters on the wall. I feared that the restaurant might be adorned with various protest signs from the Westboro Baptist Church and I didn’t want to risk having the intolerance rub off on me. As I looked up, I once again realized that I was wrong. In fact, there was a poster on the wall titled “Great Opportunities Served Here” which detailed the amount of money Chick-Fil-A has donated for scholarships. I shrugged my shoulders and prepared to dig into my chicken salad, but I paused. What if there was a secret ingredient in my chicken that would cause an epidemic of homophobia?? Perhaps I should have called the hospital beforehand and scheduled a round of chemotherapy, because as Roseanne Barr suggested
, I’ll probably get cancer from dining at Chick-Fil-A. I soon realized that perhaps I had listened too much to the liberal media and I dove into my healthy meal (which was delicious by the way).
Alright, hold the phone.
Now, obviously that’s an exaggeration and not an accurate depiction of my thought process. However, I think it’s necessary to match the left’s hyperbolic vitriol for Chick-Fil-A with a few humorous exaggerations of my own. Seriously, with all the hatred the left has developed for the chicken restaurant in the last week, you’d think the Westboro Baptist Church had founded and operated Chick-Fil-A. It’s absurd. Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick-Fil-A, merely supports traditional marriage and the left acts like it’s the end of the world. You didn’t see conservatives getting is such a tizzy over Oreo’s
rainbow-colored cookie campaign. Sure, a few people lashed out on Facebook, but that’s nothing compared to the hatred Chick-Fil-A is facing. Not only did Roseanne Barr say that I and others deserve to be stricken with a deadly disease for daring to eat chicken, but city-wide boycotts have popped up as well. The mayor of Boston
has vowed that he will not allow the company for opening another franchise in his city and Chicago
has taken similar steps. Thank goodness I live in St. Louis.
I keep asking myself how this is even a controversy. Since when did an opinion from a private business (based on the BIBLE, mind you) spark such disagreement and controversy? Sure, leftists have every right to boycott any restaurant they want. They have the ability to utilize the free market to the fullest extent; another institution they often vilify. However, the hypocrisy they display is downright sickening. Liberals claim to be the ideology of “tolerance” and “open-mindedness,” but they are often incapable of practicing what they preach. Standing by biblical principles in NOT intolerant. However, vilifying a restaurant because its owner is socially conservative IS intolerant. Get it through your brains: tolerance is not selective. If you’re tolerance of liberalism, you have to be tolerance of conservatism as well. If Chick-Fil-A had refused to serve homosexuals, that would be a different story. My guess is that they would be just as accommodating with gay customers as they are with straight customers.
Don’t forget that Chick-Fil-A has donated
millions in scholarships. THAT is who is really losing if a massive boycott is successful (which it won’t be). All liberals seem to care about is the difference of opinion and their backbones apparently seem to be too weak to allow this difference to exist. Grow up. Unfortunately, no matter how much they preach it, “tolerance” is not something liberals understand. Liberals didn’t invent intolerance, they just perfected it.
By: Amy Lutz
I remember as a young child clinging to my father’s hand as we made our way through the packed Fourth of July parade in my hometown. I was enthralled by the brightly colored floats and noisy fireworks, but as I grew up, this celebration became something much more. I came to learn that the annual event was not just an excuse to grill and run from my brother as he chased me with roman candles; it was a celebration of our nation’s heritage and character. My heart swelled with pride in my nation as I learned about the brave sacrifices of my ancestors and the strides America has made in preserving freedom all over the world. In my young eyes, America was a land of hope, freedom, and endless possibilities.
Now that I am 21, my youthful idealism has faded. I’ve come to realize that while America is still the last sanctuary on earth for freedom and her people are still virtuous, I’m uneasy about the future I see before me. I see a nation where the job market is depressed for people my age and where liberty fades more every day. I’ve come to realize that is no longer my America. Our nation is slowly morphing, rather, into Obama’s America and I don’t see that as a hopeful trend.
Please read more at The Blaze
By: Amy Lutz
I think I just passed out from shock. The President of Chick-fil-A
actually came out in FAVOR of traditional marriage and AGAINST gay marriage. Time to break out the rainbow flags and claim that civil rights are being infringed upon somehow somewhere. Or something. But no, really, does this move actually surprise anyone? Chik-fil-A is closed on Sunday for crying out loud. In the past, President Dan Cathy has urged his staff to treat customers with honor and respect while applying Biblical principles. Chick-fil-A is about as Christian an organization as they come, and you know what? I think that's great. There's no problem with a private
business making the decision to proclaim their religious views openly.
Too bad Hollywood disagrees. Again. In response to Chick-fil-A's announcement, Actor Ed Helms (who I love, by the way) and gay rights organization NOH8 has suggested that a boycott
is in order for the "intolerance" of Dan Cathy and his restaurant. Give me a break. Sure, the Hollywood crazies have every right to boycott and protest so long as they don't descend into Occupy territory. However, I find myself asking, "What's the point?" I doubt that their efforts will produce any sort of financial strain on the restaurant. Hollywood-driven liberal boycotts are rarely successful. What's more, conservatives will probably flock (no pun intended) to gobble up chicken in "solidarity" with Cathy's freedom of religion. Dan Cathy's statements have brought his restaurant into the spotlight and in this case any publicity is good publicity.
Perhaps those behind this boycott believe that they are making some massively brave statement by selecting from one of the other 10 billion fast food restaurants in the US instead of Chick-fil-A, but I tend to believe otherwise. It's not brave to cling to an ideology (i.e. pro-gay marriage) supported by almost all of the media, academic elite and Hollywood. Rather, it's cowardly. Hey Ed Helms, don't be a chicken. What is really brave is making a statement you KNOW could possibly hurt your business. If you want a look at fearlessness, divert your eyes toward Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A. He had to know that his platform would illicit such a response. However, he stuck by his guns and proclaimed his Christian beliefs. For that, I commend him.
Christians are not "intolerant" for hating the sin, but not the person. Just last week, my church pastor made the following statement: "You can be outside God's will but not outside God's grace" in regards to homosexuality. Liberals like to claim that hating gays and opposing gay marriage go hand in hand. Not so. We are all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Christians, like Dan Cathy or me, tend to believe that all people are covered by God's grace; even when their actions go against His will. Intolerant? I think not.
Just like I'm not surprised that the Sabbath-honoring owners of Chick-fil-A support the Biblical principle of traditional marriage, I'm not surprised that liberals went insane in response. It's just another case of intolerant "tolerance" from the left. They scream and cry that that social conservatives are "intolerant" for not backing their pet issue of gay marriage, but act differently when their backs are against the wall. You want to know what intolerance looks like? This is what intolerance looks like: boycotting a restaurant because the President dares admit that he is a Christian. Liberals preach tolerance but are often incapable of espousing it themselves. Opposing gay marriage does not make you intolerant. Now if Dan Cathy refused to serve homosexuals, that would be an entirely different story. However, that's not the case. Chick-fil-A is a private business based upon Biblical principles. Dan Cathy is not exactly the poster child for intolerance. However, panicking because someone disagrees with you and refusing to buy their products because of it is
intolerant. So, can we all just take a chill pill and disagree without being disagreeable? I'm all for talking about our political disagreements over a nice chicken sandwich and waffle fries.
By: Amy Lutz
In high school, I attended classes with teenagers from all over the world. As a student at an international boarding school, I rubbed shoulders with classmates from China, South Korea, Russia, Mexico, and several other nations. I tried different foods, learned words in Chinese and Korean, and made friends who grew up half way across the world. I loved it. I enjoyed seeing people from different nations taking advantage of the blessings of freedom. Whether they stayed after graduation or went back to their home nation, we welcomed them with open arms in the small town of Atchison, Kansas. I learned quickly that in the United States, we love taking in immigrants and visitors to our nation who aim to create a better life for themselves and for their families. It’s the American Dream after all. Today, I am personally offended when I hear liberals call conservatives anti-immigration or against people of different skin colors. I learned to embrace my classmates in high school and enjoy interacting with immigrants to this day. I discovered long ago that “anti-immigrant” labels are far from the truth when it comes to conservatives.
Liberals often labels conservatives “anti-immigrant,” or worse, “racist” because we take a hard-line stance on illegal immigration. However, the fallacy in this type of statement is that liberals rarely separate “legal” and “illegal” immigration. Most Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, are strongly in favor of the former. Opinions on the latter category, however, produce divisiveness. Conservatives often preach the dangers of poorly-guarded borders and the economic damage illegal immigration creates. Liberals weave stories of hard-luck illegal immigrants who “live in the shadows” and work low paying jobs at dangerous locales. My answer to this type of commentary: It’s time for a little personal responsibility. Who is really to blame for their predicament? If you don’t respect the rule of law and enter this country the right way, there are consequences. Unfortunately, those consequences extend far beyond individual illegal immigrants.
Please read more at The College Conservative
By: Amy Lutz
In 1964, Ronald Reagan gave his now-famous “A Time for Choosing
” speech, perfectly articulating conservatism. The platform he detailed is still powerful today. However, few are able to articulate it as well as The Great Communicator. Forty-eight years later, we are once again at “A Time for Choosing.” The economy was far from perfect in 1964, but it is in even worse shape today. We must recognize the dangers we face economically and politically and then make sure conservatism is still clear in the Gipper’s absence. President Obama as destroyed freedom right and left and our nation is more polarized than ever. It’s time for us to make a choice once again.
In May of 1964
, the unemployment rate was 5.1%. In May of 2012
, it stood at 8.2%. The national deficit
was a mere 311,712,899,257.30 in 1964. Now the deficit
is nearing 16 trillion. During his speech in 1964, Reagan mentioned that the US had not balanced 28 out of the last 34 years. Balancing a budget is now merely the pipe dream of every Constitutional Conservative. At least Congress had a budget in 1964.
Please Read More at The College Conservative