Another controversy has erupted over a Sellwood-Moreland business, this one over the owner’s views on gays and same-sex marriage…. Facebook and other social media sites have exploded over a soon-to-open fresh meat and vegetable store called Moreland Farmers Pantry. Neighbors and nearby business owners, once excited by the prospect of the new shop, are now backing away…. “They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood,” said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. “I think their personal views are going to hurt.”
If I’ve written it once, I’ve written it a thousand times. In a democracy that guarantees freedom of speech, one must accept that free speech can be (and very often is) offensive and/or objectionable speech. I may abhor your views, but I’ll defend your right to them…and I’ll expect nothing less from you.
It’s the forcible implementation of those views where the rubber meets the road. This is the point in the story where I should introduce Chauncy Childs. Her claim to fame should be limited to opening a grocery store in Portland’s trendy Sellwood neighborhood. Because we live in the age of over-sharing (and over-reacting), Childs finds herself hip-deep in a controversy that may imperil the success of her business even before it opens.
Childs’ “crime” is opposing same-sex marriage and has saying as much in Facebook posts. Here in Portlandia, such views are considered heretical and offensive. The correctness (or lack thereof) of her opposition to same-sex marriage is something I’ll leave to others with intellects and debating skills more nimble than my own. My concern is with the fate that Childs may suffer because of her publicly-stated views.
Don’t get me wrong; I find Childs’ opposition to same-sex marriage to be as abhorrent as it is wrong. That said, she’s well within her right to hold (and voice) that opinion. She’s stated very clearly she neither plans nor intends to refuse to do business with members of Portland’s LGBT community. Childs has made it clear she’ll welcome all to her business. Yet there are those among Portland’s Liberal majority promising they’ll never set foot in any business run by a homophobe and bigot.
But is that really what Childs is? Or is this a case of political correctness being employed to destroy someone guilty only of holding an opinion contrary to the majority?
I’m concerned that here in the People’s Republic of Portlandia we’ve reached a point where we’ll boycott a business solely on the basis of the owner’s opinions. Certainly, there’s a point where an opinion may be so odious, so egregiously offensive, that a boycott is warranted. In Childs’ case, she’s expressed her personal opposition to same-sex marriage- her right in a society that guarantees free speech. Was it wise, given her plans to start a business that will need support from all segments of the community to survive? Of course not…but if poor judgment was a crime, I’d submit that we’d all be behind bars. If you haven’t done or said something stupid or ill-advised, you’re either a far better person than I am…or you’re living in a hermetically-sealed bubble.
Childs has made it clear that she won’t use her views on same-sex marriage to determine who she’ll do business with. She’s said repeatedly that has no plans to discriminate against gays, as recently happened with a bakery in Gresham. The owners of Sweet Cakes refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, claiming it would violate their religious beliefs. The State of Oregon determined that in so doing, the owners violated the gay couple’s civil rights. Sweet Cakes paid a steep price, including being pummeled on Yelp. In the end, the owners closed their doors to the public rather than being forced to bake cakes for weddings they objected to. Using religion to justify discrimination is hypocritical. It also carries a steep price. The owners of Sweet Cakes claimed their religious beliefs give them the right to refuse service to a couple on the basis of their sexuality. In Oregon, a business serving the general public can’t refuse service to a customer based on who or how that person loves. It could be argued that Sweet Cakes got what they had coming. Karma can be like that.
If Childs were to announce that she’d travel a similar path, she’d deserve to be pilloried and ostracized. Despite making it clear that she’ll do business with anyone, there’s a movement afoot to boycott her grocery store on the basis of her opposition to same-sex marriage. I’m concerned a boycott will send exactly the wrong message, ultimately saying more about those advocating for a boycott than Childs’ position on same-sex marriage.
Whole Foods Market is a major national corporation with a reputation for being about as natural and tree-hugging as a business could possibly be. What most customers don’t realize is that the company was started by John Mackey, a climate change denier, lover of sock puppetry, and self-proclaimed “ethical vegan. An outspoken opponent of the Affordable Care Act,” Mackey’s been quoted referring to Obamacare as “fascist”…not the sort of thing that pleases Liberals. Yet rarely is heard a discouraging word about Whole Foods. Nor have there been rumblings about a boycott to protest Mackey’s denial of global climate change and/or his opposition to Obamacare.
Selective outrage? Or is it just easier to boycott a target when you can easily obtain the services they offer elsewhere and nearby?
Merely holding disagreeable views is not a crime against humanity. Neither is it an indication that a person will treat others differently based on divisive criteria. In a free society, and certainly one that supports free speech, dissent is considered the highest form of patriotism. We’re not required to concur with views we disagree with or find abhorrent. When we advocate direct action against a person or business which holds opinions we consider objectionable, we risk becoming what we object to in that person or business. We may become as intolerant, unreasonable, and dogmatic as we feel them to be…albeit in a different way.
Of course, as free people, we’re able to spend our money where we choose. Some may disagree with me, believing Childs’ views on same-sex marriage to be so abhorrent a boycott is warranted. I would only offer the thought that it’s possible to oppose same-sex marriage while happily serving members of the LGBT community. Certainly, it could easily be argued that Child’s views are misguided and wrong, but I believe actions count for more than words or opinions. I’m willing to allow Childs the opportunity to prove that she’ll welcome ALL members of the community, regardless of sexual orientation or any other personal quality. I believe the decent thing to do would be to allow her the opportunity to prove her sincerity. If she doesn’t meet the standard she’s committed herself to, then by all means boycott her business from now until she boards it up and moves to Idaho.
If we’re to advocate for an inclusive world, where all people are treated equally regardless of gender, religious faith, color, sexuality, or anything else, it seems reasonable to argue we should model that same behavior. Let her know that, while we believe her opinion on same-sex marriage to be misguided, she’s free to that opinion…as long as she doesn’t use it as a reason to refuse to do business with members of the LGBT community.
If Childs doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage, there’s a very simple choice available to her: Don’t marry someone of the same gender. Live and let live. Opinions aren’t what does damage; actions are.
Chauncy Childs is certainly free to believe as she chooses. As long as she doesn’t attempt to enforce her beliefs on her customers- and there’s nothing indicating that she plans to do so- wouldn’t giving her the benefit of the doubt be the decent thing to do? Or are we to be OK with being every bit as intolerant and judgmental as we believe Childs to be?
