Drag queens protest opening of Chick-fil-A in Toronto (CTV screenshot)

An Evangelical reader in Texas (well, he used to be an Evangelical; now all I know for sure is that he’s a theologically conservative Protestant) writes:

Everything you said about Chick Fil A is exactly correct. The example of a powerful allegedly Christian business with tremendous revenue bending the knee and taking orders from LGBT activists . . . it’s just a devastating message to everyone else out there. It emboldens the persecutors of Christianity and weakens the resolve of ordinary people. As silly as it may sound, I feel like I have been stabbed in the back. I had friends texting me yesterday over this and everyone felt betrayed and a little sick. It is not because we thought Chick Fil A was holy or anything.

They were just a company minding their own business, doing the corporate Christian thing by making good food, expecting a lot of their employees, and giving money to good Christian organizations. We shouldn’t expect much from business corporations claiming some sort of connection to Christianity, but Chick Fil A did all you could really expect. And then they started getting bullied. And despite the fact that it was just words from people who weren’t their customers, despite the fact that their “activist” critics made themselves look deranged with their absurd theatrics, and despite the fact that CFA had a loyal customer base (does any company have the sort of fanatical brand loyalty that Chick Fil A had?) who stood by them, and despite the fact that they were in no financial danger at all, they rolled over.

Given that at bottom this is about what sort of marriage Christians recognize as legitimate, I cannot help but to compare Chick Fil A to Thomas More–and the comparison isn’t very favorable. Both quietly supported efforts to keep a marriage (or type of marriage) from being recognized that they thought was invalid. Both saw their cause lose. Both quietly accepted defeat and went about their business and did not try and stir up trouble. Yet neither was left alone, but compelled to publicly affirm the marriage. More was locked up. There are some great portrayals of Thomas More (A Man For All Seasons) and even Jeremy Northam’s performance in The Tudors. Northam’s version of More’s response to the Henry’s demand that he sign it is excellent. He protests that by remaining silent, he is in effect consenting to the public. “I do no harm, I say no harm, I think no harm and if that not be enough to keep a man alive, I long not to live.” Of course Henry was not satisfied with silent consent, he insisted upon on public and explicit affirmation.

There are differences of course. Chick Fil A is an organization, not a man. (In fact they are a multibillion dollar empire.) But More was locked up in prison and he refused to give an inch even in the face of death. A bunch of underemployed losers with nothing better to do than nurse imaginary grievances wrote nasty things on social media and Chick Fil A folded like a cheap suit.

Note two things: they have not yet publicly affirmed gay marriage, yet they have surrendered their conscience already by trying to appease the bullies. What this means is that there is blood in the water and the LGBT activists are not going to quit until Chick Fil A explicitly affirms the LGBT stance. CFA should have rather responded in More’s words: We do no harm, we say no harm, we think no harm and if that not be enough to keep a company in business, we long not to be.

The reader followed with this related e-mail:(Rod Dreher)

Posted by The non-Conformist