[Ciaran]

By a quick calculation, I've spent almost 2 years of my adult life in the United States and, until this controversy, I'd never heard of Chick-fil-a. Not sure why that is but a quick scan at their website indicates that their food is absolute rubbish. Therefore, I don't need to boycott Chick-fil-a as, whether homophobic or not, I wouldn't have been a patron. Similarly, I won't be kissing on Chick-fil-a premises as I'm not really one for public displays of affection, especially in cheap plastic booths (last time I did that, I was 15 or so).



However, just a few observations. The issue of religious views and the purposefulness of engaging with those who have dogmatic "old light" Christian faith. It's already been pointed out by some on this thread that there's little point in trying to use reason to convince someone who believes the bible's Old Testament (or, rather, selected extracts from it) in a literal sense.


That's undoubtedly the case but, furthermore, it's not the religious fanatics that need to be convinced as regards LGBT rights. Rather, it's the middle ground, some of whom hold less repressive religious views and some who are atheist. It's the battle to win the hearts and minds of the middle ground that's key - that's an evolutionary process that is happening through positive representation of LGBT peoples in mainstream society.


Secondly, as much as I admire the attachment that many Americans have to the US Constitution, don't forget that irrespective of whatever freedoms it offers and protection from Government interference, LGBT rights for US citizens are less than those in most other western countries.


Added to that, the US Constitution effectively provides considerable power to the judiciary and, as most of us know, the judiciary can be as personally and politically motivated as any legislature or, for that matter, any human body.


The US Constitution was framed at a time when protection from Government was important. Today, however, it is generally recognised (outside the US) that one of Government's roles is to protect its people (for example, from discriminatory labour practices) i.e. that the framework for a successful society is the Government to protect its people, not for people to need to be protected from Government.


This continued US rhetoric about personal freedoms, in my view, hinders the progression of a society that offers basic protective rights - I was amazed at the chart, assuming it is accurate, that was posted in this thread showing the US states in which it is legal to dismiss employees for being LGBT. Great that the US has a constitution but, me, I prefer substantive rights.