Who would think free sandwiches would be so controversial?

According to the New York Times, the chicken sandwiches Chick-fil-A donated to an event hosted by the anti-gay-marriage Pennsylvania Family Institute have caused quite a stir, and the firm is under fire for selling “Jesus Chicken,” among other things.

Others are calling on major universities to pull Chick-fil-A from their campuses — a call echoed by members of Pitt’s Rainbow Alliance earlier this month. Pitt has no plans to remove Chick-fil-A.

Now, I make no claims as to whether Chick-fil-A is correct to support groups opposing gay marriage. I make no claims about gay marriage itself. Yet I believe the University is correct to ignore the call to remove Chick-fil-A from campus eateries. The reason not removing the restaurant boils down to one word — choice.

The argument against Chick-fil-A takes the form of another word — discrimination. The argument goes that the firm discriminates against gays by making a donation to an anti-gay-marriage group, and that Pitt implicitly supports discrimination by allowing Chick-fil-A’s campus operations to continue. Let me ask an important question: How does donating food or money to a cause constitute discrimination? It is discrimination only in that sandwiches went to one group and not another.

How is this form of discrimination any different from the sort of discrimination we all engage in every day? We discriminate against Starbucks when we buy from Caribou, we discriminate against the March of Dimes when we contribute to the American Cancer Society, we discriminate against the Catholic Church if we attend a Protestant service. We have limited resources, and we can’t please everybody. Therefore we aim to assist those people who share our views and who give us satisfaction for our time and money. So we discriminate or — if you prefer a less ugly word — we choose. Corporations are likewise limited in their resources, and so they must choose which causes to back. Discrimination is only bad when it violates the rights of others. Chick-fil-A’s donation to a particular group violates nobody’s rights, unless you claim every person and every group has a right to free chicken sandwiches.

What about the argument that the group Chick-fil-A was supporting was odious because it was anti-rights? The best way to answer this is by analogy. Suppose I find out that a firm doing business on the Pitt campus, call it Cow-pat-E, donated to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a prominent gun-control advocacy group. I demand Cow-pat-E be expelled from campus because it donated to a group that wants to destroy my right to keep and bear arms, and in so doing, discriminated against law-abiding gun owners.

How much traction do you think my argument would get? How much traction do you think that argument deserves? And how different is my argument that Cow-pat-E must be removed from the argument that Chick-fil-A must be removed? A possible rejoinder is that guns are bad and there isn’t really a right to own them, whereas gay marriage is good and a right. But this very rejoinder is testimony to the fact that there is disagreement over what our rights are vis-à-vis gay marriage and gun ownership. Despite existing debate, it is dreadfully undemocratic to demand policies intended to punish the side with which we disagree.

This is not to say that what Chick-fil-A did was right, nor that the LGBTQA community isn’t justified in taking action. Rainbow Alliance is more than welcome to boycott the chain, urge people to join in that boycott and stand outside a Chick-fil-A waving signs calling it the most disgusting firm since I.G. Farben. But demanding that Pitt and other colleges remove the chain because of who they donated food to is not justifiable, because it limits choice.

Right now, someone who is offended by the actions of Chick-fil-A can choose to boycott. Someone who shares Chick-fil-A’s values, is indifferent toward them or likes the food so much that he doesn’t care is free to choose to eat there. If the chain were removed, nobody would have any choice. Furthermore, removal of the chain sends the message that expressing an opinion different from an official one about gay marriage will not be tolerated. The corporation’s choices would thus be limited.

Pitt is right to welcome those who are opposed to gay marriage and want to patronize a firm that feels the same way, as well as students who wish to engage in dissent by democratic means such as protesting and boycotting.

Write [email protected]. Or don’t. The choice is yours.