The last word on Chick-fil-A

I have been an active participant in what has been the summer of Chick-fil-A anti-hate trolling and article posting in protest of homophobic chicken in response to Dan Cathy’s unsurprising reaffirmation that his corporation does not support same-sex marriage.

It really is silly, if you take a glance at our opposing teams — Pro-Chick vs. Anti-Chick (e.g. Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin vs. The Muppets and The Liberal Internet).

The last vestiges of our stance on the gay civil rights movement have been exhausted and boiled down to one COO and his chicken. With the 2012 election coming soon, it only makes sense that we’d unleash our mad, typing fingers upon the likes of corporations’ special interests.

Celebrities and activists alike have really tuned into this “non-serious, but seriously, this is serious” epidemic.

On July 25, I posted on my Facebook, “LET’S ALL GET INTO ARGUMENTS ABOUT CHICK-FIL-A / THIS IS WHERE THE REAL ISSUES LIE,” and about 30 people liked it or made their own commentary on my stance.

Our energies, as I’ve admitted, could go to a better place. In lieu of trolling, we could employ our actual bodies to activism, to writing letters, to boycotting, to the empowerment of pro-gay groups, rather than the bashing of a disempowered, anti-gay one.

And though I believe we should have higher standards for what we should and should not take seriously in the news these days, there are two main reasons why Cathy’s announcement was anything but trivial.

First, in light of the gay civil rights movement, not all people (gay or straight) assume their roles in activism as much as the movement needs.

The nature of activism thrives on the assignment of an enemy, and while Christian organizations, conservative media and right-wing politicians do a splendid job of fulfilling those enemy vacancies, Chick-fil-A is different.

In the sea of quotes and names we recognize on our Twitter feeds, the descent of Chick-fil-A into the ranks of conservative special-interest groups provided a tangible, accessible enemy.

People were reading their computer screens and thinking, “Hey, that’s a place that I eat. I don’t want to eat there anymore.” And in droves, the chicken chain lost much of its agency: customers.

In the victory of Citizens United in 2010, for the first time in American election history, the government decided to include corporations in the iconic U.S. mantra “We, the People.” Powerful interest groups can contribute insurmountable financial support to candidates and political campaigns.

As members of a democracy and a nation that believes in “freedom” in any sense of the word, Chick-fil-A, which has donated roughly $2 million to anti-gay groups, has shown us that we, the (real) people, actually have a say.

We can learn to put our efforts, our money and our tax dollars into something more substantial (and more nutritious, at that).

Second, on Aug. 3, I made out with a boy in front of a camera crew at Chicago’s only Chick-fil-A. The “Kiss-In,” as it was called, displayed peaceful protest — affection as activism.

A day later, I was walking and holding a boy’s hand when a black woman muttered to her friend, “Never thought I’d see the day where they could just walk the streets.” Only 50 years ago, people of color were sitting in restaurants for their own rights (a different movement altogether, but comparable).

The very fact that we need to kiss, hold hands or show affection in order to protest is a reminder that this right is the right of love and the freedom to make ourselves as public as we want without worry of bullying, exploitation or hate speech.

Anderson Cooper said “the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible,” and Chick-fil-A has provided an invaluable agency in the visibility of our dispute.

This is not the First Amendment. It is the fight for those who have yet to make themselves visible. This is the protection of those who are threatened and too afraid to show their colors because powerful corporate interests stand against them.

This is one or two sentences in a history book 50 years from now.

— ftirado@indiana.edu