Who’s the hero of Chick-fil-A wars? Rachel set an example for all of us

By David McElroy · August 5, 2012

In the battle of the Chick-fil-A boycott, a lot of people came off looking pretty bad this past week — on both sides of the issue. The guy who probably came out worse than anyone is Adam Smith, the Tucson, Ariz., man who drove through a Chick-fil-A drive-through just to record video of an employee while he verbally attacked her.

If Smith is the one who looks the worst — a bully who was fired over his behavior — the one who looked the best for the entire week was Rachel, the young woman he verbally assaulted. Even though Smith was being rude and confrontational, this young woman was polite, firm and composed. After he told her, “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here,” she didn’t attack. She didn’t get angry.

Instead, Rachel said, “I hope you have a really nice day….”

I’m a lot older than Rachel, but I don’t know if I could have handled it as well as she did. When someone is attacking me — especially for something I have no control over — I sometimes get angry and I want to strike back. Rachel’s example is a better way. It’s not indicative of weakness. It’s indicative of strength to be able to have self-control and remain polite and loving. Many of the people who claimed to be Christians supporting Chick-fil-A this past week would have done well to remember that lesson, both in this case and in the rest of life.

Far too many of us have human reactions and strike back when we’re under attack. When confronted with the way we’re acting, we’re prone to say, “Well he started it. He deserved it.”

That might even be true. Maybe the person did deserve it. Maybe we’re as blameless as we want to believe we are. But maybe a smarter and more mature person is concerned with what he’s trying to achieve in the confrontation, not just in whether the other person deserves something or whether it feels good to lash out.

In the confrontation between Adam Smith and Rachel (whose last name we don’t know), the attacker had all the advantages. He knew he was about to attack. He was the one recording the video. He was smug and confident that he was in the right. Still, he comes across as an arrogant bully. The young woman who’s not prepared comes across looking like the winner. Which approach do you think is worth emulating?

Rachel’s fiancé has set up a blog in her name. He offers this transcript of the conversation between Smith and Rachel:

Smith: “You know why I’m getting my free water, right?”
Worker: “No.”
S: “Because Chick-Fil-A is a hateful corporation.”
W: “I disagree. We don’t treat any of our customers differently..”
S: “I know, but the corporation gives money to hate groups. Hate groups. Just because people want to kiss another guy.”
W: “I’m staying neutral on this subject… my personal beliefs don’t belong in the workplace.”
S: “Yeah I believe that too, I don’t believe corporations should be giving money to hateful groups.. I’ll take my water”
W: “I’m really uncomfortable that you’re videotaping this..”
W: “It’s my pleasure to serve you, always.”
S: “Oh of course, I’m glad that I can take a little bit of money from Chick-Fil-A, and maybe less money to hate groups.”
W: “Well we’re always happy to serve all our guests.”
S: “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here. I don’t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. You deserve better.”
W: “I hope you have a really nice day, and..”
S: “I will, I just did something really good, I feel purposeful, thank you so much.”
S: “Have a good day… I’m a nice guy by the way, and I’m totally heterosexual.. not a gay [unintelligible] in me, I just can’t stand the hate, you know? It’s gotta stop, guys. Stand up.”

After Smith was fired for this verbal assault and posting it on YouTube, he finally got around to halfway apologizing to Rachel. (You can see his “apology and clarifications” video below.) Even with what he characterized as an apology, he still had to spend nearly eight minutes in self-justification. If you really want to apologize to someone, you just apologize and save the “clarifications” for some other time, if at all.

Rachel has gotten lots of support, which you’ll see evidence of if you check out the blog her fiancé started. Someone even launched a fund to raise money for her, which had come up with $800 as of Saturday night.

Things haven’t gone so well for Smith. In addition to being fired from his job as chief financial officer for a medical products company, he says he’s being harassed and getting death threats.

And this brings us back to the point that people on both sides of this issue need to get some maturity and scale back the vitriol. For those of us who call ourselves Christians, the man needs to be forgiven and prayed for, not hated and threatened. It’s perfectly appropriate to defend someone who needs defending, but I’d say Rachel did a pretty good job of that all by herself.

It might not be convenient to remember this at times, but we need to love our enemies. Jesus had a few things to say about that, you know:

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.”

It might not be the easy way. It might not be the common human way. But even if you don’t care about obeying Jesus’ commands, you need to remember that loving your enemies is the more effective way. Your vitriol might make you feel good for a few minutes, but it’s not going to help you make any friends or make a positive impression on other people for what you believe in. Remember that Adam Smith’s anger actually made his side look worse.

Learn to emulate Rachel on this point. It’s difficult, but it’s worth it.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts