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

By David McElroy · August 5, 2012

Note: None of the links in this article are active anymore. The dead links remain only as pointers to where the sources originally were back in 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

We are ruled by the dumbest and most incompetent people among us — and we have a system which allows stupid and irresponsible people to force the costs of their idiocy onto smarter and wiser people. Can we get away with that? Yes, for quite some time. But we eventually reach a point at which the dumbest of the dumb — who are habitual liars and mentally ill fools — lead us to the disasters and destruction that some of us have seen coming for years. We are approaching that point. And yet most of the idiots around us still wave their rhetorical banners of support for the evil people who are leading us to ruin — and all of them point their fingers at someone else, never noticing that their own enthusiastic support of evil is to blame. When things finally fall apart, blame yourself for your blindness to the evil, not whoever happens to be in power when it happens.

I’ve been making some changes to the site lately and there are more changes coming in the days ahead, so don’t be surprised if you some small differences. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather the addition of some features. Since they’re smarter than I am, I’ve put Oliver and Alex in charge of the technical work, which you can see in this action photo from the control room of our media complex. I recently added a series of landing pages for readers who randomly discover the site from an Internet search. I’ve also changed the YouTube link at the top of the page to go to the new YouTube channel for video essays that reflect things I’ve already published here. (Here’s a little bit about both of the YouTube channels I’m working on.) In addition, I’m trying to move away from using Instagram, so I’m experimenting with photo plug-ins that will eventually allow me to host the pictures — cats, dogs, sunsets, whatever — that I often take. So don’t be surprised to see more changes. Thanks for your patience. Let’s hope Alex and Oliver know what they’re doing.

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

Related Posts