A Word on Chick-Fil-A...

I would like to take a moment to explain something about business, politics, and beliefs.  I recently had a harsh reaction to the CEO of Chick-Fil-A voicing his opinion on marriage in an interview with the Baptist Press:

"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 operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "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."


In any other situation, I would agree with the majority of his comments, and I have been taken to task a bit for holding the company's beliefs against them - that they should be free to think and believe whatever they want, as long as, in the operation of their business, they treat their customers fairly and with respect - and admittedly, the company has a reputation for stellar customer service, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, disability, and yes, sexual orientation.  I have also read columns denouncing boycotts of the company because Cathy never specifically says that he and/or the company are against gays, an argument I flatly disagree with.

A company CEO is not unlike the President of the United States - they are the face of the organization and tend to be experienced public speakers, keenly aware of the effect of publicity, both positive and negative.  They know how to say something without actually saying it.  When that person uses the phrase "the biblical definition of the family unit," as part of his beliefs, he is very specifically referring to gays in the negative, without voicing it specifically.  They can try to wave the "plausible deniability" flag, but there's simply no other implication that can be drawn from that.

And the thing is, I don't care that he's against gays.  He's one of millions.  He's free to think whatever he wants.  And if he kept it in his own house, I wouldn't have a problem with continuing to buy his food.  Here's where he lost me, and please make note of this, as it's the one context so often overlooked:

Chick-fil-A's WinShape Foundation gave $2 million to anti-gay organizations in 2010 (the most current year I've seen numbers for), most notably the Marriage & Family Foundation, Exodus International  and the Family Research Council, in a report issued by Equality Matters.  And David Badash of the New Civil Rights Movement reported that Chick-fil-A has donated an estimated $5 million to anti-gay organizations and hate groups between 2003 and 2010.

So what is really being said, without being "said," is that, while they are against gays and gay marriage, they are in full support of receiving gays' business.  And by releasing their charitable contributions, which detail the groups above, they are making it very clear that YOU and I are contributing to those organizations, through the purchase of their product - essentially saying that we fully support their efforts to ban gay marriage.  We didn't used to know this, but now that we do, I've made the conscious decision to no longer pad the coffers that they tap into to provide financial support to anti-gay organizations.  I've made this decision for me - everyone else is free to make their own decisions, and I don't hold them against anyone.  But having a lot of gay friends I care very much for, I simply can't give my money to them anymore.

So a business' beliefs and politics don't always overlap, and if they don't, no harm, no foul.  But when it's found to be funding politics and beliefs, you have to decide for yourselves if you want to be a part of their endeavors.  Jim Henson's company famously ended their business relationship with Chick-Fil-A, no longer providing the toys for the restaurant's kids' meals.  In response to that decision, someone visiting a Chick-Fil-A store recently posted this photo on a Wipe Out Homophobia page on Facebook:

Makes you wonder just how proud they are of those beliefs, or only insofar as it negatively impacts their business - then they simply trash another company with lies.  Interesting logic:  they want US to allow them their beliefs, but Henson's company gets trashed for doing the same.  Nice to see their business ethics on display.  Wonder what part of the Bible THAT came from...

What's That Smell?

So the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as ObamaCare, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts the deciding vote.  Obviously, the Democrats are largely cheering, the Republicans are largely booing, and the independents are deciding if they are going to vote for Obama in November (remember, this bill has had upwards of 70% of the country against it, and the independents are crucial for Obama’s re-election – so Obama may have just screwed himself with this victory he’s basking in right now). 

*Full Disclosure:  I have a financial consultant father, whose business was partly built on group health insurance.  So from a personal standpoint, my parents’ financial future going into their retirement years – which is negatively affected with every step closer we get to universal health care - is important to me.*

While this family concern matters, it doesn’t really play that big of a part in why I don’t like the bill.  I was wary of the bill right from the beginning, largely because it was thrown together very quickly, no one in Congress even read the bill (at 2700 pages, who could have?), and the administration itself didn’t know what was in it.  Many will remember that this is when Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We need to pass the bill, so that we can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy,” securing her position as one of the more prolific blowhards in American politics.  Apparently, it wasn’t important to make the American public knowledgeable about the bill – you know – to minimize that controversy, maybe?  Just pass the thing – we’ll tell you all about the ramifications later.  The level of arrogance was astounding, even by politicians’ standards.  The smell of BS just saturates…

So the critical issue for the Supremes to decide on was the Individual Mandate.  For anyone not up to speed, the Individual Mandate would require, as of 2014, anyone who does not have health insurance to buy some, through their employer (if available), or on their own through insurance exchanges (if established in time – unlikely, according to several states).  If you refuse to purchase insurance, you will be assessed a fine on your annual tax return, which can vary from $0 (under $9500 in income) to $4700 (over $200,000 in income) – PER PERSON (up to 3 people per household).

Now, here’s the legal rub that’s gotten everyone in a tizzy:  The Individual Mandate is not, and never was, a tax.  Obama and his administration swore up and down, over and over, that it was a penalty, not a tax.  And does anyone remember why they were so adamant that it wasn’t a tax?  Back when the bill was being debated in Congress, there were rumors going around that Obama wanted to include jail time as a possible penalty for non-compliance.  When asked, he said that it was mentioned as an idea, but never seriously discussed.  Then portions of the bill were being leaked, and one of the leaks involved the penalty being applied to our taxes, and that some 16,000 IRS agents would have to be hired to deal with compliance.  This had everyone in an uproar – that Obama really was going to put people in jail, but was going to do it through the back door, aka “tax evasion,” charged on anyone refusing to pay the penalty.  To quell the brewing firestorm, Obama mounted a campaign of denying that the penalty was a tax, and that tax evasion jail time was not going to be a punishing tactic.

But then the administration got it's rear handed to them by the Supremes on the Commerce Clause issue.  They only called it a tax because that's the only way it would be considered, rather than thrown out.  Once they start losing their shirts... then it's a tax.  Apparently, truth only really matters when the agenda isn't at risk, yes?

They got so wrapped up in winning the argument with the Supremes, they didn't bother to notice that, even if they did present the case as a tax, the tax would be illegal.  There are only three types of federal taxes:  Income, Excise, and Direct. 

Income is based on income, naturally (IM has nothing to do with income).
Excise is based on selected types of transactions (also sometimes referred to as an “event tax”), collected by the producer or retailer.  At the federal level, excise taxes are usually uniform – fuel, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are the exceptions that vary by state..  (IM is based on the LACK of a transaction, and the penalty varies based on regional location).
Direct is applied to persons and/or ownership of property, and is apportioned to each state based on population (IM involves no ownership of property, and is apportioned to the INDIVIDUAL, regardless of population).

Even John Roberts said in his opinion, ”A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.”  So this would lead to the obvious question:  What kind of tax is it, since you've deemed it constitutional?  But as I described above, there is no tax that this mandate would apply under.  So if it is a tax, it's an illegal one.  And by the by, according to the rules of taxation in Congress, taxes can only originate in the House of Representatives.  As they only called it a tax out of thin air recently to get it upheld by the Supremes, there's no way this tax would be constitutional.  Which leaves Roberts' opinion severely lacking, and it has engaged the Supreme Court in re-writing a statute's verbage in order to uphold it, which is outside their scope.  They are only to judge based on the argument presented as written.  Changed arguments usually are denounced by the court.

But that's just semantics.  The administration wasn't concerned about legal, or fact - just about winning.  And the Supreme Court has once again insulted our intelligence (Citizens United and Scalia's opinion on immigration are other recent slaps to the face), playing politics instead correctly interpreting and applying the law, further tarnishing the integrity of the court.  The big winner in this isn't Obama or health care - it's John Roberts, who, with very deft political maneuvering, has essentially seized control of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.  Siding with the opposition has rendered him "beyond reproach," claims of partiality and partisanship won't stick to him anymore - leaving him as the only member of the court with any perception of credibility.  The fact that he has positioned himself so advantageously while utilizing a complete lapse in logic to contradict his own argument, and then upholding the bill anyway, means he’s either a level of genius that we just can’t comprehend, or he really doesn’t hold our intelligence in much regard.  His little game will help the conservatives in the future, but right now, it just leaves a sour taste in the mouth...