Rahm Emanuel’s bigoted favoritism

As most longtime readers know, I have an aversion to anti-gay bigotry, and I think its stubborn and lingering presence in the Republican Party poses a difficult problem. However, anti-gay bigotry is alive and well among liberals in the Democratic Party, despite their pretense of being against it.

A perfect example is illustrated by Chicago Obamacrat henchman Rahm Emanuel, who has sanctimoniously launched a jihad against a restaurant chain called Chick-fil-A because of the allegedly bigoted views of its owners.

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.

“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”

I don’t know whether or not the owners are in fact anti-gay bigots, or whether they are simply against same sex marriage. (The two are not synonymous.) But since when are a business owner’s political views a proper subject of government inquiry under our supposedly free enterprise system? If a merchant is a racist, an anti-gay bigot, or a crackpot who believes in conspiracy theories, that is of no concern to me unless he cannot keep his views to himself and he makes it unpleasant to shop at his store. If I don’t like the politics of an outfit, I can refrain from patronizing it, but this is for me to decide, not some self appointed scold using the power of government to engage in censorship.

This is not about the views of Chick-a-fil’s owner; it’s heavyhanded Big Brotherism.

It is also the rankest hypocrisy if we consider that while Rahm and his ilk would enforce zero tolerance for Christian disapproval of same sex marriage and call it “bigotry,” they have precisely the opposite attitude where it comes to Islam. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims do not simply oppose gay marriage. Their position — stated and repeated ad infinitum — is that homosexuals deserve the death penalty. (A view held only by a tiny minority of radical Christians, who are so far from even the fundamentalist mainstream as to be fairly regarded as kooks.) Moreover, in Muslim countries the death penalty is routinely applied to homosexuals. As I have pointed out repeatedly, where it comes to anti-gay sentiments there is simply no comparison between Christians and Muslims.

Liberals like Emanuel, of course, not only have zero problems with fundamentalist Islam, they roll out the red carpet for them. In Chicago halal markets and restaurants abound, and I have heard of no effort to ask them about their views on gays. (Nor would there be any such effort, for we know what the answer would be, don’t we?) Halal restaurants in Chicago are given glowing reviews at places like the liberal Huffington Post.

Just out of curiosity, I searched “Chick-a-fil” at HuffPo, and found an unending stream of condemnatory posts.

Then there’s the “Reverend” Louis Farrakhan. Emanuel (who is Jewish) is welcoming him and his army of bigoted crackpots to Chicago, despite his long record of anti-Semitism:

Ignoring Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic remarks, Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday welcomed the army of men dispatched to the streets by Farrakhan to stop the violence in Chicago neighborhoods.

Ald. Debra Silverstein (50th), an Orthodox Jew, has said it’s good that Farrakhan is “helping” in the fight against crime, “but it doesn’t eradicate the comments that he’s made about the Jewish community.”

Emanuel offered no such caveat. Although Farrakhan has a history of making anti-Semitic statements, Chicago’s first Jewish mayor has no interest in revisiting that controversy.

Not one word about Farrakhan’s (and the Nation of Islam’s) long record of rampant homophobia. And of course, no mention of his very recent condemnation of gay marriage in much stronger terms than those of the Chick-a-fill president:

“Our president just agreed to same-sex marriage,” Farrakhan said during a May 27 gathering at the California Convention Center in San Diego. He was referring to Obama’s May 9 endorsement of such unions during an interview with ABC News.

The Nation of Islam leader spoke while holding up a May 21 copy of Newsweek magazine with a cover image of President Obama, who is a Christian, with a rainbow halo and the caption “The First Gay President.”

“He’s the first president that sanctioned what the Scriptures forbid,” Farrakhan, 79, said in a grave tone to an audience of African-Americans.

“Now I want to ask a question,” he continued while holing up a Bible. “Why is that all you politicians take your oath of office on the Bible? If the book is no good, what the hell are you using it for to take an oath of office to uphold, not the Bible, but the Constitution? But the Constitution comes out of their recognition of the value of this book.”

I guess we can be thankful that Farrakhan hasn’t been hired to teach Constitutional Law.

But what is it that makes Farrakhan’s bigotry OK to the Democrats? I see no reason other than the fact that he is not a Christian.

Such hypocrisy is sickening.

And typical.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Correct me if I am wrong, but the liberal Democrat position seems to be along the following lines.

If Muslims believe gays should be killed, that’s OK, but if Christians believe marriage should be limited to the opposite sex, that’s bigotry.

That’s the logic of insanity. Why are they allowed to get away with it?

MORE: M. Simon pointed out that the same thing is happening in Boston:

…which part of the First Amendment does [Mayor] Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.

Chick-fil-A must follow all state and city laws. If the restaurant chain denied service to gay patrons or refused to hire gay employees, Menino’s outrage would be fitting. And the company should be held to its statement that it strives to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.” But beyond the fact that Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays, the religious beliefs of the company’s top executive don’t appear to control its operations.

The situation was different when Northeastern University blocked a proposed Chick-fil-A amid student protests. In that case, a private institution made its own decision not to bring the company in as a vendor. But using the power of government to freeze the company out of a city sends a disturbing message to all businesses. If the mayor of a conservative town tried to keep out gay-friendly Starbucks or Apple, it would be an outrage.

Yes, that would be an outrage, but the vast majority of conservatives have more respect for the Constitution and the free market system than to try anything that slimy.

Basing the grant of any license on the political views of the applicant is so Orwellian as to be beyond the pale.

There should be far more outrage than there is — and I say this as someone who disagrees with the Chick-fil-A president. What is happening to freedom of thought in this country? Are we no longer allowed to disagree with each other?

MORE: Michael Graham reports that while Boston Mayor wants to stop Chick-fil-A, he has no problem in welcoming and giving away land to a group that believes in executing homosexuals:

Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Actually, he has done that??.?.?.?and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.

It’s the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque, and when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, one of its early supporters makes Chick-fil-A look like the Provincetown Men’s Chorus.

Graham is not kidding there.

Menino heard the president of the company call same-sex marriage a “sin,” and he announced it would not be allowed to do business in Boston.

OK, Mr. Mayor. But when you gave all that land to the ISB at a song, here’s what imam al-Qaradawi was teaching:

“[A homosexual should be given] the same punishment as any sexual pervert??.?.?. Some say we should throw them from a high place, like God did with the people of Sodom. Some say we should burn them.”

According to the Anti-Defamation League, “In 2003 Qaradawi stated on IslamOnline that the punishment of homosexuality is the death penalty.”

In the end, says the anti-Islamist organization MEMRI, al-Qaradawi came down on the side of stoning.

Hey — say what you want about Chick-fil-A, but they aren’t trying to kill anyone. Other than, perhaps, via hardening of the arteries.

I know I’m repeating myself, but just what is with these people?

The double standard could not be more flagrant or shocking.

UPDATE: I think Glenn Reynolds put it best:

HOMOPHOBIA IS OKAY, AS LONG AS IT’S DIVERSE HOMOPHOBIA: “In Mayor Menino’s Boston, if you take the same view of marriage as President Obama did from 2009 to 2012, he’ll run your homophobic ass out of town. But, if you want to toss those godless sodomites off the John Hancock Tower, he’ll officiate at your ribbon-cutting ceremony.”

There are similar double standards for racism and sexism.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

11 responses to “Rahm Emanuel’s bigoted favoritism”

  1. John S. Avatar
    John S.

    Is this a rhetorical question? Of course we’re not–civil disagreement is a thing of the past.

    I was reading Ace of Spades HQ this morning, a conservative/libertarian blog I often find to be crass and vulgar, and with which I often disagree, but I always find entertaining. The commenters there (as opposed those on blogs like Hot Air, for example) seem to find a good balance of conservative worldview and libertarian “live-and-let-live” attitude. They are usually not at all fixated on gay people or the gay marriage issue.

    However, when one of the co-bloggers (Gabriel Malor) posted a piece this morning condemning Boston and Chicago for their blatant flouting of the 1st Amendment, yet also noting that he personally did not patronize Chick-fil-A because of the owner’s views, the commenters almost universally excoriated him, calling him everything from a “libtard” to a “Kos Kid” to a “knob-gobbler” and worse. All because he didn’t hew to the conservative line on one single issue.

    I used to think that conservatives were more tolerant then liberals regarding such differences of opinion. But after reading the hateful invective that was spewed at Mr. Malor, I realized that the seething, irrational hatred is still there, bubbling below the surface.

    It made me realize that there is no party where I truly fit in, no group whose politics match my own. Both sides are bastards, plain and simple.

    To quote Professor Farnsworth of Futurama, “I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.”

  2. Randy Avatar
    Randy

    But what is it that makes Farrakhan’s bigotry OK to the Democrats? I see no reason other than the fact that he is not a Christian.

    Skin color may have something to do with Demo’s tolerance of Calypso Louis.

    Has there been any criticism of these pols from the MSM or any other leftish media outfits and pundits? I’ve only seen libertarians and conservatives call these pols to task.

  3. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    John S.,

    It is the urge to treat everyone else like children. i.e. “I’m the only adult in the room”.

    In the political context it is often called statism.

    Or as I like to say America is a two party state. Democrats and Christian Democrats.

    The urge comes from not being at home in one’s skin. “If I don’t control everything something might go wrong.” But Power and Control is an illusion. A very unhealthy illusion.

    Would that the world had more yogis or for that matter Christians. Do what you can and leave the rest up to the Maker.

  4. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    I think you’re misunderstanding the situation. Not all Christians or Christian sects are Gay bigots. Hating gays and Gay marriage is as much a Christian Principle as burning women alive who were accused of dancing with the devil. In Salem that was once considered the christian thing to do, but today most Christians would disagree. Just like more and more Christians are disagreeing about Gay marriage. So Liberals are not persecuting restaurants for advocating Christian principles they’re boycotting them for expressing Bigoted views on Homosexuality.

    But then why is it only White Christians they’re doing this too instead of the dozens of Muslim owned restaurants scattered across Chicago? The reason is that Chick-Fil-A is a Giant Chain Restaurant and there are no Giant Chain Muslim restaurants or stores making bigoted statements about gays. Even though you’ve offered no proof of a Chicago Muslim business owner making a public statement against gays, you’re probably right that a lot of them do hate Gays. But there are also probably hundreds of White Christian owned businesses in Chicago that are run by anti-Semites and gay bigots which no one is attacking either. Simply put Chick-Fil-A makes for a bigger target and has actually released a public statement expressing these views.

    Finally Liberals believe that the gay bigotry found in large pockets of Muslim culture/society to be far worse than most the bigotry coming from the American Far Right. A lot of politicians and Liberals simply choose not to make a public outcry about it, instead they bitch about it behind closed doors. Because they’re afraid for one reason or another to do that. Don’t get me wrong there are plenty of Liberals who do attack Islam’s values publicly and loudly, Atheists and Atheists authors are much harder on Islam than Christianity.

  5. SDN Avatar
    SDN

    Brian, the reason they don’t go after Muslims is simple: Christians don’t cut people’s heads off as a response. And if there are “plenty of Liberals” then why is it we never see them?

    Simon, the problem isn’t “not being at home in one’s skin”; the problem is that plenty of liberals and so-called libertarians are perfectly happy using the government to remove the skin from people who don’t believe what they do.

  6. […] regular commenter said something yesterday that I can’t quite put out of my mind: …when one of the co-bloggers […]

  7. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    Another person’s words, but I agree with the thoughts: “The fact is that Chick-fil-a donates thousands and thousands of dollars to groups like Exodus, which claims to “cure” homosexuality with unproven, dangerous therapy and Focus on the Family, which regularly calls …LGBT people pedophiles and works to strip them of the most basic human and civil rights. When you donate money to organizations like this it’s hate by association. That’s the real issue – not Dan Cathy’s opinion on marriage equality. His assertion that Chick-fil-a does not discriminate against LGBT people is the height of hypocrisy, when he then turns around authorizes donations to hate groups.”

    To my knowledge, no city official in Boston, Chicago or any other jurisdiction has actually engaged in an executive or legislative action to inhibit Chick–fil-A from conducting business. The mayors and councilmembers have only spouted off, as we are accustomed to Alan Simpson, Rush Limbaugh, or Joe Biden doing; and they have the same First Amendment rights to make Dan Cathy’s life as miserable as possible, just as Dan “shaking the fist” Cathy wants the states and federal government of the United States to make life disadvantaged and difficult for LGBT citizens by through denying equal benefits, rights, privileges, and legal responsibilities.

  8. Eric Scheie Avatar

    I don’t like Dan Cathy’s ideas and donations either, but the point here is a blatant violation of the company’s First Amendment rights.

    This promise by a duly empowered government official to deny a permit constitutes a lot more than “spouting off”:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-25/news/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725_1_1st-ward-gay-marriage-ward-alderman

    ***QUOTE***
    Ald.Proco “Joe” Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A’s effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy’s remarks last week that he was “guilty as charged” for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

    “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday.

    Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy’s “bigoted, homophobic comments” in a proposed opinion page piece that an aide also sent to Tribune reporters. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.”

    The alderman has the ideological support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
    ***END QUOTE***

  9. […] because of the opposition of its president to gay marriage irritated me enough to write a post (actually, two) about it. In my view, any attack on the First Amendment (especially one as blatant […]