Chick-fil-A and Amazon

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy was preaching to the choir.

On July 16 he gave an interview to K. Allan Blume, the “Biblical Recorder” who writes for the Baptist Press:News with a Christian Perspective wherein he covered a wide range of topics about his company which is managed, he says, on “biblical principles.”

This was my favorite line from the BPN article:

Based on Matthew 5:41, Cathy is on a mission to provide customers with “second-mile” service — exceeding even the highest expectations of a typical fast-food restaurant.

I liked that line because it rang true based upon my one experience at a Chick-fil-A restaurant.   I was so impressed with the Cherry Hill area Chick-fil-A that when arrived home the evening after I had lunch there a couple of months ago that I told my wife about it as one of the highlights of my day.  I never tell my wife about the fast food joint I eat at when I’m on the road.

I’d never heard of Chick-fil-A.  I keep calling it Chickafil. My friend and I just happened upon the place during the lunch break of a meeting.  “What is it, a Philadelphia area Boston Market?” I asked my friend who seemed familiar with the brand.

I was impressed with the place before my friend and I got in the door.  There was a woman sweeping the parking lot that gave us a warm and friendly greeting while we were walking in.   That struck me as an odd use of human resources during the lunch rush.  And how does management get their employees to be so happy when they’re sweeping the parking lot?  I had a vision of an employee of mine rolling her eyes when I asked her to do something she considered beneath her.  This place must be up to something good I thought to myself.  My only other memory of fast food employees outside of a restaurant was of those taking a smoking break.

Everybody in the place seemed happy.  There were cartoons of cows celebrating decorating the place.  No pictures of Jesus or the stations of the cross. The black woman who took our order (the woman cleaning the parking lot was white) was friendly and patient as we perused the menu for the type of chicken we were going to have for lunch.  She didn’t look at me funny when I insisted on paying for my male friend’s lunch.  She said thank you, not God bless you, when I paid and she apologised for the brief wait when delivering our sandwiches which she had offered to deliver to our table.

Half way through lunch, the parking lot lady showed up at our table offering free refills of our drinks.  She would refill them for us.

I felt really welcomed and appreciated at that Chick-fil-A. Serving me and my friend seemed to be more important to the employees than completing the tasks of service.  And it didn’t feel like a technique. It felt genuine.  No one said, “Have a nice day.”

Based on Matthew 5:41, Cathy is on a mission to provide customers with “second-mile” service — exceeding even the highest expectations of a typical fast-food restaurant.

It worked for me that day in Cherry Hill.

But that is not why Chick-fil-A was in the news this week.  Towards the end of his preaching to the choir interview with BPN Cathy said,

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.

“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Cathy had no idea of the shit storm that was about to hit him and his company.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Why do you need a license to get married?

During the ongoing debate about same sex marriage, in New Jersey and throughout the country, there have been those who have called for government to get out of the marriage business all together.

In New Jersey it is a crime to solemnize a marriage without a license.  Anyone who presides over a marriage ceremony for a couple who does not have a license is subject to a $500 fine and up to six months in jail.

Government did not always control marriage, according to Stephanie Coontz, an author who teaches history and and family studies and Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA.

In a November, 2007 OpEd piece published in the New York Times, Taking Marriage Private, Coontz said that for most of Western history, the government was not involved in marriage.  Rather than an ‘institution,” marriage was a private contract between families.  If parents approved on a marriage, it was valid.  Church or State had nothing to do with it.

For 16 centuries the Catholic Church deemed a couple to be married if they said they were.  Not until 1215 did the Church deem that a marriage ceremony had to take place in a church in order for a union to be “licit.”  Yet couples married illicitly had the same rights and obligations as those who went to the chapel.

Government didn’t get involved until the 16th century in Europe.  Coontz says the European laws were, in part, to protect parental control of marriages.

The American colonies required that marriages be registered, but in the mid-19th century state supreme courts ruled that public cohabitation was evidence of a valid marriage.  (Who knew that people cohabited publicly back then?)

In the late 19th century the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and control who could be married.

Marriage, and the laws governing it continued to evolve during the 20th century.  Interracial marriages were prohibited for whites, then they were allowed again.

As the entitlement culture emerged, marriage licenses became a determining factor in the distribution of benefits, inheritance, and health care.   Coontz said this made sense in the 1950’s because almost all adults were married.

But that is no longer the case.  When Coontz wrote her OpEd piece in 2007, she said that half of all adults ages 25-29 were unmarried and 40% of American children were born to unmarried parents.  Last week, The New York Times reported that as of 2009, 53% of births to American women under 30 were out of wedlock.

As out of wedlock births have become more common the stigma of “illegitimacy” has faded.  That’s one reason sited as a cause of the surge in births outside of marriage.  Another major reason sited by the mothers The Times interviewed is the government “safety net.”

The Times reporters Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise spoke to dozens of people in Lorain, Ohio, a blue-collar town west of Cleveland where the decline of the married two-parent family has been especially steep, with 63 percent of births to women under 30 occurring outside of marriage. The young parents of Lorain saidtheir reliance on the government safety net encouraged them to stay single and that they didn’t trust their youthful peers to be reliable partners. Many said they would like to be married — just not right now, and not to each other.

It seems pretty clear that government regulating marriage hasn’t worked.  It also seems pretty clear that government entitlement programs have taken a massive toll on both the institution of marriage and the institution of family.

• Tweet

Political Conservatism and Religious Conservatism

By Art Gallagher

A couple of weeks back, in between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, presidential contender Rick Santorum was subject to claims that he wanted to outlaw birth control.

During an interview with FoxNews’s Brett Baier, Santorum explained that as a Catholic he believed that birth control is wrong, but that he would not support his religious belief regarding birth control becoming law.  With regard to birth control, Santorum is able to be both a political conservative and a religious conservative.  The position is politically conservative, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, religious freedom and personal liberty.  His choice to strictly follow the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding sex and procreation is religiously conservative.

Political conservatism and religious conservatism are not the same thing. 

Actually, neither of them are “things.”  They are abstractions.  Philosophical constructs. Values.  They are not things.

Political conservatism and religious conservatism are not the same distinction.  Santorum demonstrated in his interview with Baier that, in the matter of birth control, he is both politically conservative and religiously conservative.

In a follow up Baier asked about marriage.  Regarding marriage, Santorum’s religious conservatism trumps his political conservatism, it seems to me.  The former Pennsylvania senator is able to think, to distinguish, between his political conservatism and religious conservatism, with regard to birth control, but homosexuality is too much of a sin for Santorum to distinguish between his religious convictions and the law of the land.

Why that is doesn’t really make sense to me. 

The Catholic Church teaches that practicing birth control is a mortal sin.  If a faithful heterosexual married couple bumps uglies with a barrier, physical or surgical, or with the use of a chemical, that prevents conception, they are going to hell if they die before they get to confession.  If they bump the uglies in the wrong holes, like homosexuals do, and die before confessing, off to Lucifer they go for eternity.   That’s OK with the politically conservative Santorum and many, many others.

If a faithful same sex couple bumps uglies in the wrong holes and die before going to confession, they are also going to hell, according to Catholic teaching.  But while their queer souls are here on earth, in the United States of America, Santorum and many other religious conservatives want them to have different political rights and responsibilities than the heterosexual couple.

I don’t get how that is politically conservative.   Why is same sex marriage different than birth control in the minds of Santorum and so many “conservatives?”

Can someone explain that to me?

• Tweet

Jennifer Beck and same sex marriage

By Dan Jacobson, originally published in the June 30th edition of the triCityNews

Time for Jennifer Beck to face the music on same sex marriage. And the recently-engaged Republican Senator will soon have a lot of explaining to do.

With New York voting for marriage equality, the focus will shift to New Jersey where our state Senate voted down same sex marriage two years ago.

Beck, to her shame, voted against it. And all 16 Republican Senators in office today oppose marriage equality.

Of course, it’s politics. Republicans must appease their right wing on social issues – just as Democrats must do with their left wing on economic issues. That’s what pisses everyone off. The total bullshit of it all. You can’t tell me 100 percent of those Senate Republicans in Trenton personally oppose marriage equality.

And no way does Beck, despite her vote.

Jennifer kept her mouth shut during the floor debate on the issue. And her letter to constituents explaining her vote never stated she personally opposed marriage equality – only that she voted according to the sentiment of her legislative district.  

Well, the Senator now has a new district with new constituents. She’s in the newly gerrymandered 11^thDistrict, which for the first time includes Red Bank, Long Branch and Asbury Park. I call it the triCity district. (I’m running in the same district as an Independent for state Assembly.) The 11th District also includes Ocean Township, Neptune and Ocean Grove, among other places.

Suddenly, Senator Beck has a sizeable gay and lesbian population among her constituents. Probably the largest in any legislative district in the state. So this ought to be interesting. After all, in Jennifer’s world the moral issue of same sex marriage is decided by what’s best to do politically. Or in the language of politicians: “Representing the will of my constituents.” So what will she do now?

As Beck spends more time in Asbury Park and Ocean Grove, and other places in her new district with a gay population, she’ll feel like a total fool. There is no way this otherwise progressive Republican woman – she’s also pro-choice – is personally opposed to marriage equality. No way. And everyone knows it.

So consider this. If a politician doesn’t have the guts to vote what they believe on a moral issue – remember we’re talking about issues of morality here – how can we ever expect them to do the right thing on anything else?

Obviously, marriage equality isn’t the most important issue facing the state government – it’s all economic issues right now – but I’ve always considered it a big deal. It’s outrageous that there still exists such bigotry against my friends and neighbors here in Asbury Park, and that politicians are afraid to stand up to it. And it says so much about those we elect.

Lots of readers know that Beck and I are long-time close friends. And the triCityNews has backed her since she was unknown and unelected and taking on the Democratic machine up in Red Bank. That’s where she made her name. So when I win my Assembly race in November, the two of us will be spending lots of time together. Driving to Trenton, going to local events, meeting on issues of concern to the 11^th District.

And I will hound her every second until she changes her position on the marriage equality issue. Because it’s a complete joke – really a disgrace – to watch her stand there and say she will vote against it again. I’m not buying it for one second. And friends don’t let friends make asses of themselves.

So Beck might as well get it over with and change her stance now. She’s not going to lose this election in November, and the next one is four years away. Her only vulnerability would be in a GOP primary against a right-wing social conservative. And even that she’d win in this moderate district.

Then again, if Beck lost a Republican primary because of supporting marriage equality, so what? It’s the right thing to do. You don’t play games on moral issues. Or else you’ll end up looking like those southern bigots of the 1960s who opposed interracial marriage.

That will be Beck’s legacy if she sticks with this position. Bet most of those clowns opposing interracial marriage didn’t care either way – hey, it was just politics. Like Beck is doing today. If she doesn’t switch her position soon in her new district, this issue will haunt her down the road. As it should. Better to do it sooner than later, when it would look like she was just trying to avoid the issue until it comes up again for a vote.

A special mention is due here to Republican Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini, who is Beck’s running mate and the only Republican in Trenton I know who supports marriage equality. I’ve long saluted Mary Pat in these pages for taking that stand. What a great reflection of great character on her part.

Interestingly, in the contest for the two Assembly seats in the 11^thDistrict, four of the five candidates – Mary Pat, myself and Democrats Marilyn Schlossbach and Vin Gopal – all support same sex marriage. So does Beck’s Democratic opponent Raymond Santiago.

Jennifer’s conduct on this issue has been disgusting long enough. It’s time to end it. She’d be the first Republican in the current state Senate to change her stand, and do what’s right. Jennifer would join Mary Pat Angelini as a leader in the Republican Party on this issue.

Of course, we’d be happy to make these pages available for Beck’s announcement supporting marriage equality. There’s no better venue for Jennifer to set everything right.  

After all, we’re the triCityNews. We’re here to help.

(The new 11^thDistrict – where everyone mentioned in this article is running – includes Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)

Editors note:  As Dan Jacobson appears to be submitting his triCityNews publisher’s column to MMM on a weekly basis, this is a good time to remind readers and writers that all are welcome to submit material to MMM.  It has always been that way but is worth repeating.  Send your stuff to artvg @ aol .com

• Tweet