1

The New American Outcasts



PEOPLE WHO PUT FAITH AND FAMILY FIRST

IT ALL STARTED OVER a simple chicken sandwich.

On a Saturday in July 2012, Truett Cathy, the ninety-one-year-old founder of the family-owned Chick-fil-A restaurant chain, was a guest on my Fox News Channel television show to talk about his book, Wealth: Is It Worth It? I had been trying to schedule him for months, ever since appearing with him on the speaking roster for a couple of events and finding his personal background to be one of the great American success stories. I'd read his book and found quite compelling its admonition to use wealth as a means to be generous and not just as an end in itself. Finally, the July date worked out for him to be in New York on a Saturday afternoon when we were taping my show.

But between our booking of Mr. Cathy and his appearance on the show, his son Dan Cathy, chief operating officer of the company at that time and now the CEO, gave an interview to the Ken Coleman radio show on June 16, 2012, and another on July 2 to the Biblical Recorder newspaper, which is published weekly for and about Baptists in North Carolina. Dan's comments in support of traditional Christian teachings that marriage is between one man and one woman were blunt, but not unusual or outrageous. He said, "We are very much supportive of the family-the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.... We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that." Cathy continued: "We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Wow! That was really outrageous of him! The very idea that someone would publicly spout the view that a family has value to our society! Dan even had the audacity to talk of a family that included a father, mother, and children all living in the same household and husbands and wives who married and stayed that way. Scandalous!

And that's when the chicken hit the fan! By the time Truett was in New York for my show, the controversy over Dan's remarks had fired up the same-sex marriage advocates-even big-city mayors like Rahm Emanuel of Chicago and Thomas Menino of Boston, who publicly vowed to run the Chick-fil-A businesses out of "their" towns because they disagreed with personal comments made by an executive of the company! [The Ken Coleman Showon WDUN, June 16, 2012] There would have been less controversy had Dan Cathy slaughtered live chickens on the steps of Chicago City Hall at lunch hour. But what we witnessed instead was the slaughter of the basic American principles of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free enterprise. I was shocked that elected officials in America actually believed they could goose-step on top of the Constitution and use the power of government to squelch a viewpoint that they personally didn't like (but one that, incidentally, was consistent with the will of the electorate in thirty-four states that had voted on the issue of same-sex marriage). It was especially hypocritical in Emanuel's case, in that same-sex marriage was illegal at the time in his own state. But facts and the First Amendment didn't seem to get in the way of the bigotry and intolerance directed toward Dan Cathy.

In fact, the viewpoint expressed by Dan Cathy was the very position held by none other than candidate Barack Obama in 2008. At California's Saddleback Forum in August 2008, when Pastor Rick Warren asked Obama's position on same-sex marriage, the then-candidate expressly said he was opposed to it because, as a Christian, he found it not in keeping with his biblical view of marriage. After he was elected President, Barack Obama not only changed his view but went on to become the cheerleader-in-chief for all things gay. (One might even say his opinion was "fundamentally transformed." Who knew that the "change" in "hope and change" would actually come to describe Obama's own views?) It's a reflection of how sloppy and biased "journalism" has become that I cannot find evidence of any reporter asking the simple question, "Mr. President, if your reason for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008 was because of your Christian belief that the biblical definition of marriage meant one man and one woman, has there been an update or revision to the Bible since then, or did you base your decision to change your position on political expediency? If so, were you being dishonest in 2008 ... or now?" Still waiting on that one!

Truett had been scheduled to speak about his book, not the controversy over his son's remarks, and I wanted to be faithful to that purpose. Besides, it really wasn't his controversy, and it was obvious that the book's publicist, who was with him that day, was nervous that the interview would ignore the book and focus on same-sex marriage. But it has never been my practice to ambush guests on my show. I was raised in the old-fashioned traditions of the South-a guest is to be treated with gracious hospitality. The role of a host is to meet the needs of the guest, not to use that guest to serve one's own interests. The host offers food, beverage, and the most comfortable chair in the house. When I was growing up, even poor people in the South would dig up something for their guest in the way of refreshments, but criticism and confrontation were never on the menu. If a host had unkind words to say, they would be held until after the guest had gone. Then the first thing said would be, "Bless his heart..."

Of course, that signaled that someone was about to get filleted like a cheap fish. But while the guest was present, you treated him or her with great kindness and deference. I always assume that's the way it should be on TV, just as it is in my home. I believe this is why I've been able to get some guests on my show who most certainly didn't share my political views. They were comfortable on my show because if they were there to talk about their movie or book or television special, I didn't try to force them into an unwanted debate on some hot political topic. Yes, surprising a guest with confrontational questions for which the guest is not prepared might make for "great TV," but my dear late mother would find a way to come out of her grave and yank me by the ears if she ever thought I was acting like the south end of a northbound mule.

Truett Cathy passed away in September 2014 at the age of ninety-three. He was a delightful guest and spoke of his humble beginnings, his commitment to treating every customer with respect and kindness, and his resolve to stay true to his convictions, such as keeping his stores closed on Sunday so his employees could go to church if they wanted to. In his nineties, Truett was sharper and quicker than most men half his age. As the interview came to a close, I simply mentioned I was appalled that Dan's comments were being portrayed as hate speech, and expressed my dismay that a person speaking for himself and not for the company was coming under attack and being threatened with economic retribution and censorship by government officials like Emanuel and Menino. These two mayors somehow thought that they had been elected to be dictators who could use the power of their offices to punish businesses whose executives expressed a personal opinion that didn't reflect theirs. As I closed the interview, I suggested that people around the country who thought that free speech ought to be protected-not threatened-by the government should join me on Wednesday, August 1, for what I spontaneously labeled "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day."

Importantly, this was intended not as a protest against same-sex marriage but as an affirmation for a chicken sandwich company's executives to enjoy the same rights of free speech as have been afforded to Tim Cook, CEO of Apple; Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks; Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon; and others who've been as outspokenfor same-sex marriage as Dan Cathy has been against it. To emphasize the double standard even more, it might be noted that Apple, Starbucks, and Amazon are all publicly held companies, while Chick-fil-A is a private company.

With the date of August 1 just a couple of weeks away, I shared the plan with several other key political and faith leaders, requesting that they ask their constituents to simply show up at a nearby Chick-fil-A on August 1 and buy a sandwich in appreciation for their food and service and to quietly take a stand for their executives to have the same right of free speech as Cook, Schultz, Bezos, and others. We urged "don't carry signs, don't scream or argue. Just enjoy a sandwich and say thanks."

What happened on August 1 was nothing short of historic. We knew something was surely brewing because my Facebook page "blowed up," as we say in the South. It must have spooked the Facebook censors, because they blocked my Facebook event page for over twenty-four hours, leaving people unable to "sign up" and indicate they were "going." Not one dime was spent promoting the day. No high-dollar New York PR firm guided the process or advised it. There was no budget, no staff, and no formal organization. The entire effort was completely organic and self-igniting. I talked about it on my daily radio show and mentioned it briefly the next two Saturdays on my Fox News Channel show. I shared it on social media like Facebook and Twitter and urged others to do the same, and they did. Not a bit of coordination or even communication of any kind occurred with the people at Chick-fil-A. There must have been people who assumed the executives at CFA had suggested it, helped promote it, or encouraged it. None of the above. I'm not even sure the corporate office approved it or wanted me to do it. I never asked them. (For the record, I didn't hear from them or have any contact with them before, during, or after the event. To those who might surmise that I got a "free Chick-fil-A for life" card, you would be quite wrong!)

At this point, for me, it was not about what Dan Cathy said. It was about whether America was now going to have two completely different sets of rules: one for those who would be free to speak with ridicule and contempt toward those with a Christian worldview, and then a very different standard for people of faith, who could be told, "Sit down, shut up, and go away-or else!" I felt that if such hatred for religious liberty and the people who believed in it and practiced it went unchallenged, then people of faith would have no one to blame but themselves for losing every last vestige of freedom. The left seems intent on shutting down any viewpoint that differs from theirs. Ironically, this is done in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" when the left has zero tolerance for a different point of view. With the left, "diversity" means "uniformity." (I'll cover this more fully in Chapter 3.)

Facebook apparently was inundated with screams from the left when the event page went viral. Their initial explanation for blocking the page was that someone had complained about the content. When we pointed out that the content related only to people eating chicken sandwiches, they must have realized they could hardly classify that as "offensive" (except to chickens), so then they claimed there had been some mistake and it would be back up soon. This apparent attempt to quash the momentum probably stirred it up even more, fueling the outrage from people in "flyover land" who were up to their necks in disgust and were ready to do something.

I had already decided to take an early-morning drive on Wednesday, August 1, to the Chick-fil-A restaurant closest to my house, about twenty miles away. I got there at 7 a.m. and people were already getting in line. Cars had started coming and never let up. Even though the stores had reportedly stocked more food than normal and expected an uptick in business, no one could have predicted the groundswell nationwide as millions of Americans waited patiently in line, in their cars, and on foot, simply to buy a sandwich to show support for a fellow American who had dared to voice his own opinion. Every national news network was forced to cover the event, as it blocked traffic around the stores in most cities. Most fascinating was that the response in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago and other major urban areas was equal to that of the communities in the Bible Belt. Skeptics had predicted a barely appreciable increase in the consumption of chicken sandwiches that day-an embarrassment not just for the Chick-fil-A stores but especially for the people like me who had urged our fellow citizens to take a stand.

The results were quite different. Many of the local restaurants completely ran out of food by mid-to-late afternoon, but people continued to arrive, some purchasing whatever the store had left or even buying gift certificates to come back on another day. There were hundreds of heartwarming stories flowing to my Web site and Facebook page of customers showing their kindness and courtesy despite long lines. In Des Moines, Iowa, a police officer on his lunch break was passed through the line to the front so he would be able to get his food within his limited lunch break time. Others sang hymns, visited with those around them, and made new friends. Some, as an act of "paying it forward," purchased the food for the customer behind them. There was no violence, no screaming or profanity, and no reports of "sandwich rage" from people having to wait up to three hours in line to get a piece of chicken on a bun. Some churches (including my own) bought a large number of sandwiches and took them to a local homeless shelter.

There were almost 19 million visits to my Facebook page during the process, and over 600,000 signed up to "attend" just on my event page alone-not to mention the hundreds if not thousands of other similar pages created by churches, organizations, and individuals. For just that one day, sales at many Chick-fil-A locations increased by 200 percent or more beyond their best-ever performance, and the 2012 sales increased by over 12 percent for the year, with most analysts attributing the dramatic sales jump to the August 1 "Appreciation Day." When I visited their communities in the months following the event, many local franchisees told me that not only did they have record sales that day beyond anything they'd ever had, but that overall sales had gone up and stayed up from that day forward.

I would be asked numerous times in the following weeks why there was such a strong outpouring of response. My answer would always be the same: Frustration for many people in the heartland of America had reached a tipping point. Those who lived their lives quietly and without a lot of confrontation had been pushed to the limit by those who angrily shouted them down as "haters" simply because they held to biblical standards on issues like marriage and the sanctity of life. Their values were mocked, sneered at, and distorted by the entertainment elites from Hollywood and New York and from the political ruling class in Washington.

These are not the kind of people who burn tires in the street, paint graffiti on bridges or buildings, camp out to protest in front of businesses, throw paint on people, walk naked down Main Street (Thank God!), or chain themselves to furniture in government office buildings. They're people who get up early most days and make a lunch for their kids before they catch the bus for school; they come home tired at the end of the day from a hard day's work; they mow their own lawns, watch their kids perform in music recitals and church pageants, and attend their children's baseball and soccer games. They pay their taxes on time and typically give generously to their church and to charities. They are believers-in God, or at the very least the sacred concept of religious freedom. They really don't want much from the government other than to be left alone. When they do want something from the government, it's simple stuff: getting the trash picked up on time, having a policeman show up promptly if their house is being broken into, seeing the potholes fixed, and little things like keeping terrorists from walking right over the borders and into the country. And for that, they're treated as if they're uninformed and unscientific backwater buffoons, lacking in the "hipness" factor and living in a world that ended with the last episode of Leave It to Beaver. (Why, I'll bet some of them even wash their hands before dinner and think Russia is still a threat! What rubes.)

And on August 1, 2012, they decided to show up and eat a chicken sandwich.

One missed opportunity on that day was the public position of Mitt Romney, who by then was the Republican nominee for President. He apparently took the advice of his Boston-based campaign brain trust and declined to weigh in on the issue at all. When asked about the huge turnout around the nation, he simply said, "Those are not things [...] that's not part of my campaign" [Washington Examiner, Romney: "Chick-fil-A Controversy Not Part of My Campaign," August 3, 2012]. And I believe that across America, many who would have been enthusiastic Romney voters were saying, "Then his campaign is not my campaign." I continued to support Mitt and vigorously campaign for him right up until Election Day, because I think he would have been a great President who'd have made major corrections to the direction we'd been going for four years. Though we were opponents in 2008, I believe him to be a good man with impeccable integrity in his personal and business life. There is no finer model of kindness and commitment than Mitt and his family. But I heard repeatedly from voters that it would have been nice for someone in the Romney campaign to simply say, "It's always good to see Americans stand for free speech." For many voters looking for someone to take a stand for them and speak a word of affirmation, it was curtains down and lights out.

That many would-be supporters cooled off at that point was unfair, as I give credit to Mitt for being a tireless campaigner and running a very disciplined and focused campaign. I feel that voters should rarely give up on a candidate over one comment or action. I will always believe that Mitt, a man of strong faith himself, was probably blindsided by the question and not aware of what a landmark event that day was for many values voters. Still, little crumbs from the table sometimes satisfy the hungry birds, and for this "take a stand moment," the birds got nary a crumb.

Speaking of birds, thanks should be given to the vast numbers of yardbirds (i.e., chickens, but it also means city folks who've never seen a chicken in their yards) who'd sacrificed their lives like turkeys on Thanksgiving to handle those hungry crowds-crowds that quickly dispelled the notion that only those in favor of redefining marriage were willing to take a stand. The idea that a person expressing views that are quite ordinary and common among evangelical Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and, for that matter, Muslims, would be excoriated by the press and, more significantly, by government was a bridge too far. Most people of faith are nice people. They don't typically want to scream, carry signs, march in a protest, or shake their fists in public.

(There are exceptions, to be sure-some of the meanest people I've ever known were "church people." And, truth be told, a lot of Christians like to do their fussing and cussing as "prayer requests," as in, "We need to pray for Robert; he is drinking again and Martha is going to divorce him if he doesn't get out of rehab all dried out." But I digress.)

But believers do have a sense of justice and understand the difference between right and wrong. And watching a fellow believer being threatened, abused, and trampled by a loud, intolerant minority of same-sex marriage advocates was not something they could sit on the sidelines for. We simply asked them to stand up for the right of free speech and the opportunity to express a viewpoint without threats of retaliation from those who had a different opinion. For most Americans, "free speech" means we'd welcome more voices into the mix, not try to silence the ones that didn't scream the loudest. Surely it would shock the Founders to think that the First Amendment-a legacy they risked their lives for-would one day be subverted in order to close the marketplace of ideas to those unsanctioned by the elite ruling class.

It was a seminal moment for many faith-friendly people across America. All those people in line for a chicken sandwich looked around and, for the first time in a long time, didn't feel alone. The power of that was palpable. A feeling of courage welled up within us. The faith community, like the conservative political movement, is often divided, but the act of sharing a Chick-fil-A sandwich with millions of others was comforting and reassuring to us that we could stand as one.

On the other hand, many who stood in line for hours that day would later be disappointed to learn that their overwhelming outpouring of support for Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A was seemingly spurned. Eighteen months later, in a March 2014 interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper, Cathy said he regretted his 2012 comments about same-sex marriage but claimed to still hold his beliefs personally. In a subsequent article inNational Journal, the headline screamed, "Conservatives' Favorite Chicken Wants Out of the Culture Wars." The tone of the article implied that Cathy had raised the white flag of surrender. "Consumers want to do business with brands that they can interface with, that they can relate with," he was quoted as saying. "And it's probably very wise from our standpoint to make sure that we present our brand in a compelling way that the consumer can relate to."

My inbox was quickly stuffed with emails from disappointed and dispirited people who felt that Chick-fil-A had caved-that they'd gone the way of most major American companies and acquiesced to the public pressure to either be supportive of same-sex marriage or at least remain silent about it. Ironically, the throngs of people who had filled Chick-fil-A's stores and cash registers had done so to encourage people of faith to resist that very pressure, and to defend them from it. The "I wouldn't do that again" comment from Dan Cathy was a gut punch to many of those hardworking and God-fearing Americans who had hoped to see someone in the corporate world refuse to sit down and shut up when it came to their most heartfelt beliefs. For many who had stood for free speech in showing appreciation for Chick-fil-A, it seemed that the company was choosing to abandon them and opt for "no speech." For them, silence wasn't golden.

It was a completely different story for the Green family of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who own the family-held company Hobby Lobby. When Obamacare was passed, a provision would have forced companies to provide twenty different methods of birth control, four of which were abortifacient, meaning that the effect of them pharmaceutically was to end the life of a post-fertilized egg in the womb. The Green family is a devout and very committed Christian family, who, like Chick-Fil-A, close their stores on Sunday and are known for their philanthropic endeavors for many Christian causes. They already provided a very generous health insurance plan for their 13,000-plus employees, and were willing to fund sixteen of the twenty drugs mandated by Obamacare. They were not willing to provide those that constituted a medicinal abortion and asked for a waiver from the Obama administration. It seemed like an easy ask, since over forty exemptions had been meted out to unions and other big businesses that were pals of the President when they had asked for them. But in the Hobby Lobby case, the government said no. The decision was effectively to tell the Green family that it was fine for them to believe, but their religious convictions were limited to the government's tolerance. The ruling was a shock to people of faith across America. Hobby Lobby sued, and the case wound through the lower courts, making its way eventually to the Supreme Court. In June 2014, the Supremes ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Had the Green family lost, they would have been subject to fines of up to a $1.5 million a day. It would have put them out of business. The government expected that the threat of bankruptcy would cause them to fold. They greatly underestimated the authenticity of the Green family and the fact that their convictions were not for sale, rent, or surrender. It was indeed a "teachable moment," in a profile of courage. Christians across America cheered for a corporation which put Christ above cash.

Another very public dust-up in the culture clash involved the runaway hit reality show Duck Dynasty, which (for the uninitiated) followed an eccentric Louisiana family as they shared their lives hunting, fishing, making game calls, and just living day-to-day in a small northern Louisiana town where going to church is not considered radical. A firestorm erupted in December 2013 when Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson was quoted defending traditional marriage, albeit in graphic terms. Duck Dynasty-a certified money machine for A&E-was promptly and publicly dumped by the network after complaints from gay rights organizations. The network officially said it was "suspending" Phil from the show, but the family quickly made it clear that "If Papa is out, we're all out." It was apparent that A&E wasn't used to dealing with people for whom family was more valuable than money.

This conflict isn't just a matter of faith-it's a matter of class. During the 2008 election cycle, the serial adulterer, notorious liar, and all-round con man John Edwards spoke convincingly of "Two Americas," in which one America was blessed with prosperity, opportunity, and plenty while the other America was a land of poverty, need, and hopelessness. Edwards and I would certainly disagree as to the remedies for this problem, but he did describe it well, despite the scorn he got from some of the finer tables at Republican gatherings, where they couldn't imagine anyone actually living in poverty in the United States. They certainly didn't know anyone like that, not personally. Their seeming indifference to the struggling class had far more to do with why Republicans lost elections than did awkward, inopportune, or even indefensible comments from candidates.

But as much as there is a great divide in this country between the "haves" and the "have-nots," there is also a great chasm between the "believes" and the "believe-nots." And, increasingly, the "believes" in America have come to feel like cultural lepers-untouchables and undesirables-and an embarrassment to their fellow Americans who equate the holding of traditional views on marriage, religion, family, patriotism, and even the rule of law and the Constitution with ignorance and superstition. The snobbery and bold bigotry aimed at the "believes" goes unchecked and unchallenged by "believe-nots" who call themselves "mainstream." But such condescending attitudes toward people of faith are hardly mainstream in the geographical center of America.

The disconnect between the two can be jaw-dropping. When the Duck Dynasty controversy erupted over the impulsive decision at A&E to "suspend" Phil for his views on marriage, some genius PR hack working at the popular Cracker Barrel restaurant chain jumped forward to declare that their stores would yank those dastardlyDuck Dynasty products from the shelves. Yes, it's noteworthy when a New York-based company such as A&E reflexively shuts the lid on a "cash cow" like Duck Dynasty, but shockingly brain-dead for Cracker Barrel to dropDuck Dynasty products, given its Southern middle-class customer base. Accordingly, when that little announcement was made public, the reaction was nuclear. A torrent of raw outrage fell on Cracker Barrel, who appeared to have nothing but chicken on their menu. Their monumentally stupid decision was a kick in the groin to their core customers who eat meatloaf, corn bread, and black-eyed peas, and who may have considered what Duck Commander Phil Robertson said to be on the mild side.

Threats of boycotts lit up the Internet, and phone lines to individual stores were burning hotter than the pepper sauce they keep on the tables. It was only a matter of hours before someone decided to bring a brain to work at Cracker Barrel corporate headquarters and announce that the Duck Dynasty products would stay. Whoever in the Cracker Barrel organization made the original lamebrain decision is a mystery, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't born and raised in Montgomery, Alabama, or Jackson, Tennessee! It was yet another reminder of the growing gap between those in the catfish-and-corn bread crowd vs. those in the crepes-and-caviar set. The very fact that a large company made such a boneheaded decision so impulsively is indicative that losing the faith community is seen as less of a problem than ticking off the militant secularists. It defies logic and defies demographics.

While corporate America touts "tolerance" as the basis for its policies, there is very little tolerance for views that provide respect for the "believes." In April 2014, Mozilla, the online giant that runs the Internet browser Firefox, accepted the resignation of CEO Brendan Eich because he had donated all of $1,000 of his own money to the successful, voter-approved Proposition 8 campaign that affirmed natural marriage between a man and a woman in California. Gay rights activists demanded his firing after his six-year-old donation was made public. So much for tolerance! In fact, the chairwoman of Mozilla, Mitchell Baker, crowed, "We have employees with wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public" [The Mozilla Blog, April 3, 2014]. Amazingly, she said it with a straight face (no pun intended), and few in the mainstream press acknowledged the utter hypocrisy of Mozilla's position, which may be interpreted as this: "We are very tolerant as long as you hold the views of the loudest voice demanding conformity, which happens to agree with our own. We are utterly intolerant of people whose views on marriage reflect a major portion if not a majority of the American public. And we encourage people to share their beliefs and opinions as long as they aren't biblical and if they are, we demand they shut up or we'll fire their butts from our tolerant and diverse workforce." Equality has come to mean "sameness." Religious and personal freedom will not be tolerated!

Incidentally, Phil Robertson hasn't stopped talking about the dictates of his faith; he occasionally does so at his own church, before his own congregation. But a trip online will show comment after nasty comment that he and his "homophobic rant" should be silenced. (The "homophobic rant" in question was Phil's accurate quoting of Scripture during an Easter sermon.) In other words, he's not even allowed to express his personal religious viewsbehind the doors of his own church.

American Christians used to hear about the "underground church" in totalitarian countries like the old Soviet Union, Cuba, and Communist China. But the times they are a-changin'. As those countries become increasingly open to freedom of religion, America is becoming more and more openly hostile. At the rate we're going, churches will one day have to go underground here to protect themselves from a totalitarian government and a "tolerant" culture that shamelessly censors dissent and acts with open bigotry and hatred toward people of faith ... all in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance."



Copyright © 2014 by Mike Huckabee