Anti-Gay Controversy Article Rebuttal Paper:
James Lee
University of Phoenix BCOM/275

Anti-Gay Controversy Article Rebuttal It is hard to argue that issues regarding gay rights have been under a great deal of scrutiny in recent years. Though much news has been geared towards same-sex marriage in relation to the recent presidential elections, gay rights have also been sparking upheaval in relation to the workplace. Specifically, in a Huffington Post article “Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay Controversy: Gay Employees Speak Out,” Lila Shapiro writes on the effects of Dan Cathy’s, founder and owner of Chic-Fil-A, coming out against gay marriage. Though clear, fair, and evidence based arguments can be given for both opponents and proponents on gay marriage, Shapiro only whimsically urges readers to wake up to Cathy’s mistakes with an argument from pity while also begging the question; claiming that his choices were a biased hatred towards the gay community. The article fails to show both sides of the argument and only makes an attempt to pull sympathy from readers by one sided views of those opposing Cathy’s business and religious choices to accept the writer’s views. For example, from one of the many stories she lists to support her claims, she writes: One gay employee who works at Chick-fil-A headquarters in Atlanta, Ga., and asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing his job, says he is getting it from both sides. On the one hand, there is the customer who came in and said he supported Dan Cathy and then "continues to say something truly homophobic, e.g. 'I'm so glad you don't support the queers, I can eat in peace,'" the employee, who is 23 and has worked for Chick-fil-A since he was 16, wrote in an email. On the other hand, he continued, "I was yelled at for being a god-loving, conservative, homophobic Christian while walking some food out to a guest in a mall dining room."
These stories are filled with ideas that show her article to be misguided as it rests on an appeal for pity rather than reason and logic. An argument for pity is a fallacy where a person replaces a claim made to create pity for proof in an argument. Just because a writer can rile up a handful of people with negative experiences with Cathy’s choices does not mean that they were choices without morality. It was made clear in other articles and reports that Cathy’s intentions to create an “Appreciation Day” were to practically apply his religious values. Labeling his religious choices, as Shapiro directly and indirectly implied in her article, as hatred is misleading. Furthermore, Shapiro makes the fallacy of begging the question throughout her article. Begging the question occurs when the audience is asked to accept ideas that are as controversial as the conclusion being argued for and are on the same grounds controversial. Shapiro’s implications clearly are without solid evidence which claim Dan Cathy did in fact come out with his beliefs on gay marriage without good cause. With indirect means, Shapiro attempts to create her controversial assumptions into facts that are questionable as well. While it is perfectly acceptable to stake a clear opinion on a given topic, I feel it necessary that an attempt is made to present all sides of the arguments. This is even more essential when asking readers to also accept your views whether through direct or indirect means. Furthermore, it is difficult to argue against one sided stories that put the opponents views in a negative light. However, if an article is to allow for clear evidence while also shedding light on all sides of the argument, readers can have a fair chance at making their own choice as to whom they feel is more reasonable. Lila Shapiro, although well meaning, failed to provide such support and, therefore, caused her claims to lack substantiation. Dan Cathy’s choices may have been driven by a biased hatred for the gay community, but her article failed to prove such claims with a solid argument.

References
Brooke Noel Moore , Richard Parker, Nina Rosenstand , Anita Silvers (copyright © 2009). Critical Thinking, Ninth Edition. copyright © 2009 McGraw-Hill, a business unit of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Shapiro, L. (2012). Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay Controversy: Gay Employees Speak Out. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-controversy-employees-speak-out_n_1729968.html