ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Return of the Feckless Chick-Fil-A-Phobes

| Sunday, April 22, 2018, 9:00 p.m.

Move over, Trump Derangement Syndrome. Another unhinged liberal pathology is back:

Chick-fil-A-phobia.

Early-onset symptoms include fear of pressure-cooked poultry, allergic reaction to waffle potato fries and an irrational hatred of cow costumes. Anti-Christian prejudice and coastal elitism are often associated with this debilitating progressive condition.

The latest outbreak came at The New Yorker magazine. This week's issue online features the bigoted lament of writer Daniel Piepenbring, who decries the fast-food chain's “creepy infiltration” of the Big Apple and warns against the company's “pervasive Christian traditionalism.” Chick-fil-A opened its fourth location in the city last month. Along with the other NYC locations, they donate an estimated 17,000 pounds of food to a local pantry for the homeless and hungry. The company is reportedly on track to become the third-largest fast-food chain in the world.

What are the Chick-fil-A-phobes so afraid of?

A private business succeeding in the marketplace based on its merits, without coercion or cronyism. An enterprise that values hard work, honesty and integrity.

A family-owned American Dream come true that creates jobs, pays taxes, satisfies customers of all backgrounds and gives back to the community.

Horror of horrors, what menaces these sandwich-sellers of faith be!

Chick-fil-A's corporate mission to “glorify God” and “enrich the lives of everyone we touch” leaves The New Yorker scribe terminally heartsick about the “ulterior motive” of its restaurant execs. So do the founding family's commitments to faithful marriages, strong families, Sundays off and the highest standards of character for their employees. The frightened New Yorker critic is especially perturbed by the “Bible verses” enshrined at Chick-fil-A's Atlanta headquarters and by the restaurant's popular bovine mascots — which he dubs “morbid” and the “ultimate evangelists” — whose ubiquity on New York billboards and subway corridors is akin to “carpet bombing.”

Notice how these hysterical Chick-fil-A-phobes have no qualms about the success of Jewish-owned delis or the spread of Muslim halal food shop operators in New York City who openly pay tribute to their faiths. Imagine a reporter freaking out over Quran verses or Torah citations hung up on a business owner's wall.

Welcome to Social Justice 101, where discriminating against Christian-owned business in the name of opposing discrimination is the definition of tolerance.

We've been here before, of course.

It was a liberal activist reporter and gay marriage advocate at The New York Times, Kim Severson, who helped launch the first nationwide witch hunt against Chick-fil-A in 2011. The former vice president of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association used her straight-news platform to invoke fear of “evangelical Christianity's muscle flexing” and spread false and libelous attacks on Chick-fil-A founder Truett Cathy and his family as “anti-gay.”

Ultimately, those media-manufactured efforts to stifle Chick-fil-A's free enterprise and First Amendment rights failed. The company's products have proved irresistible to customers on all sides of the political spectrum. Gastronomical satisfaction trumps anti-Christian zealotry and zealous anti-Trumpism.

If leftists only want to eat and drink at a global fast-food company whose progressive CEO shares their Democrat-supporting, gun-grabbing, open-borders, gay marriage-boosting values, they should stick to Howard Schultz's Starbucks cafes.

Oh, wait ...

Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on CRTV.com. Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me