As both Jay Sanders and Erick Erickson covered yesterday, the co-founder of Twitter Jack Dorsey evidently had a good experience at a Chick-fil-A restaurant recently (and honestly, who wouldn’t?) that caused him to provide the country’s most sought-after fast-food joint a 10% boost on his social media platform. It wasn’t long until the purveyors of tolerance swooped in to condemn him. Mythically objective media analyst Soledad O’Brien lectured:
“This is an interesting company to boost during Pride month, @jack.”
The message was clear. Despite utterly contradictory evidence that undermines the absurd claim within the LGBT political movement that Chick-fil-A is hostile to those who identify as gay, the lie persists. Never mind what Jerry Dunleavy reminded both Dorsey and O’Brien about:
“Hey SoledadOBrien and Jack – since we’re talking about Chick-fil-A’s background, I’m reminded of their response following the Orlando Pulse Nightclub attack in June 2016, when they reversed company policy & opened on Sunday to cook food for blood donors.”
The company is still led by a Christian family, with a well-established Christian ethic that governs their business philosophy from top to bottom. So in the perverted worldview of the American left, one that dominates the media circles that O’Brien is desperate to run in, that means no matter how juvenile and stupid it is, Chick-fil-A is the enemy.
Pause and consider the hubris of minds like O’Brien’s. She completely believes that by participating in backhanded slurs against a Christian company she is somehow taking a stand for love and tolerance. It’s mind-boggling, yet this is what “Pride” has turned into: “antipathy and scorn for anyone who doesn’t think like us.” The ironic thing, of course, is that it betrays a burning insecurity, not self-confident “pride” in someone who is utterly unwilling to coexist with those with whom they disagree.
Not that O’Brien is alone. There were plenty of other LGBT “pride” voices that were bludgeoning Jack Dorsey for boosting a company that they don’t like (which Jack, obviously, caved to). And then there were those whose hate…er, pride…were aimed at a larger target.
Take Jay Michaelson’s bizarre and uncomfortable screed at the Daily Beast where he called for the inauguration of LGBT Rage Month since President Trump had not yet issued a proclamation honoring those with different sexual orientations. He convulsed with contempt:
For the second year running, our president and his staff have been unable to issue a meaningless proclamation that June is Pride Month. It’s not that they’re too busy… It’s that they’re too beholden to bigots who deny that LGBT people even exist.
I doubt Michaelson even saw the contradiction in condemning as hateful bigots those who deny the reality of something others truly believe in and embrace, just a couple paragraphs before mocking the “Imaginary Man in the Sky.” It’s probably asking too much of one whose entire piece is dedicated to rage to expect level-headedness.
But along those very lines, am I the only one that thinks it odd that Michaelson would author such an angry piece if indeed the proclamation of Pride Month by the president were truly “meaningless?” Why would he write a column at all if it were meaningless? No, Michaelson knows it is anything but meaningless – he knows that it is a sign of much-coveted affirmation by the LGBT political lobby. And it’s not just requested, it’s demanded, and expected. And when it doesn’t come, the response isn’t to be a humble acceptance that others may not possess the same values and beliefs as him; no, it is to call for a month of “rage.”
Rage against whom, you ask? It would seem that Michaelson would be raging against the bigots. At least he seems to be suggesting as much. But then he says this:
Really, I don’t even blame the White House for adopting these Christian Right lies… No, the ones I blame are those willfully ignorant folk who say that LGBTs are doing just fine under Trump/Pence.
So, it’s not the bigots who are to be the targets of the rage, it’s those who fail to rage against the bigots that deserve to also be raged against. Another way of saying that is, “If you don’t hate these Christians like I do, you are as bad as they are.”
Who could ever confuse such vitriol against others as anything remotely resembling love and tolerance? Worse, who would ever take pride in such naked hate?