Chick-Fil-A: Where Equal Protection Ends and Free Speech Begins

Since the conception of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950’s, the American political and legal landscape has been carefully balanced between the equal protection of all persons and the liberties of others to speak and associate freely. The Civil Rights movement created new vocabulary in the legal lexicon: “protected classes”, groups of people the courts will not allow to be discriminated against without good cause.

Over the decades, these “protected classes” have included race, religion, gender and now, in the 21^st century, sexual orientation. These groups are protected to ensure equal protection of the law, but these protections often restrict the liberties of others. The employer’s right to hire and fire, for example, is restricted by anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Likewise, a restaurant’s right to refuse service can come under political fire if used against one of these protected classes. The Chick-Fil-A (CFA) controversy explores the limits of these restrictions to liberty in the name of equality with the most essential liberty in the United States: the right of free speech.

The CFA controversy has taken off for a few weeks now, but for those unfamiliar with it, it began when CEO Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A, a popular fast food restaurant in the South and Southwestern United States, said in an interview that gay marriage was against God’s will. The mayors of Chicago and Boston, Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino, responded by banning CFA from doing business within their city limits. The mayors maintain that CFA does not reflect their cities values on equality. But more than Mr. Cathy’s statements, the CFA donates a portion of its profits to anti-gay organizations. Although there is no law prohibiting donations to such groups, these organizations are quite extreme in their rhetoric. The Family Research Institute, for instance, claimed that the homosexual marriage movement wants to eliminate the (sexual) age of consent and legalize pedophilia. Statements such as these from the owners of CFA and its associates promotes the violation of state and federal anti-discrimination laws.

Although Chick-Fil-A and its associates make offending remarks about homosexuals, they have every right to make such remarks. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions on the exercise of religion and free speech. Moreover, the Constitution is law on government; the mayors of major cities, as public officials, are expressly prohibited from making such laws. CFA, as a private enterprise though, suffers from no such restrictions and can make all the vulgar comments they want.

More importantly, the CFA hasn’t done anything expressly illegal. The company has not refused to hire homosexuals and it still serves gay and lesbians. In short, there is no illegal conduct from CFA. Dan Cathy’s statements about homosexuality are offensive to some, and indeed some critics might consider it hate speech. However, if there is a contest between a Constitutional Amendment and laws written by elected officials, the Constitutional Amendment must triumph.

The last issue to consider is the legal difference between cities banning Chick-Fil-A and Vante Inc. firing CFO Adam Smith. Adam Smith decided it would be a good idea to videotape himself verbally berating a Chick-Fil-A employee for her employer’s stance on gay marriage. Smith then put the video on YouTube, but was shortly fired from his job after the video created the wrong kind of controversy for him. Smith exercised his right to free speech as much as Dan Cathy used his. The answer is simple: Smith worked for a private company and was directing his hostile words to a person in a private conversation. Chick-Fil-A is being restricted by government officials for something their CEO said in an interview. Unlike sexual orientation, being a spiteful person isn’t protected by the law.