Somebody needs a lesson in what “freedom of speech” really means.
Social media has been exploding today over news that Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson has been fired from that show by A&E over comments that he made in GQ Magazine. I couldn’t really care less about the show, as I’ve never watched a single episode of it. Frankly, anything that delivers a blow to reality television is a step in the right direction in my book. The problem that I have with this issue is the hypocrisy by many of those who are crying out in support of Phil. Just a year ago, the same people were quick to come to the defense of Chick-Fil-A, on the grounds that a company has the right to take a values-based stance, and act according to those values. This was apparently OK, so long as that stance was anti-gay. Now when A&E makes a stand based on its values, it’s suddenly persecution and an attack on free speech.
Let’s examine the two situations.
Situation 1:
In the summer of 2012, a highly visible employee (Dan T. Cathey, COO) of a publicly incorporated business entity (Chick-Fil-A) made several comments in the public media (The Ken Coleman Show, and others) regarding his personal opinions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Corporate action and public response:
Chick-Fil-A chose not to take employment action against Mr. Cathey, because his statements were consistent with that corporation’s values. A public backlash against the company followed, which included organized boycots.
My observations on Situation 1:
I heard a LOT of people publicy decrying these boycots. The prevailing sentimet was, “This company has a right to its values, and shouldn’t be publicly humiliated for taking a values-based stand.”
————-
Situation 2:
In December of 2013, a highly visible employee (Phil Robertson, reality TV star) of a publicly incorporated business entity (A&E Network) made comments in the public media (GQ magazine) regarding his personal opinions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Now go back and read “Situation 1” above. The only difference is the names.
Corporate action and public response:
A&E Network chose to place Mr. Robertson on hiatus, stating that the comments that he made were not consistent with their corporation’s values. The public backlast has been swift and strong, condemning A&E for taking action against Mr. Robertson, and accusing them of violating his right to free speech (a patently ridiculous claim, but the subject of a wholely different rant).
My observations on Situation 1:
So far, it has been my observation that the exact same people who supported Chick-Fil-A, on the grounds that the company was entitled to take a values-based stance have been the ones who have condemned A&E for doing the exact same thing.
————-
So a factual analysis shows that the situations were virtually identical. The main difference is in what action the employing corporation took. Both took action consistent with their corporate values, which were at variance with each other. The only substantive difference is this: Chick-Fil-A’s values were “anti-gay,” while A&E’s values are supportive of homosexuals.
Personally, I don’t care if someone is pro-gay, anti-gay, or doesn’t really give a damn either way. I’m just completely fed up with the hypocrisy of using an argument when it justifies one’s own cause, then taking the opposite argument when it is in conflict with that cause. While I will concede that everyone is entitled to their own conflicting justifications – I am also entitled to call them on their bullshit when they do so…and I’ll gladly accept the consequences of that opinion.