To the Editor,

There are many fundamental problems with Mark Kozlowski’s “Chick-fil-A… To the Editor,

There are many fundamental problems with Mark Kozlowski’s “Chick-fil-A should stay” column. First and most importantly, the author does not understand the concept of “discrimination.”

Discrimination is the wrongful taking of the rights of a person or group of people based on prejudice. A person cannot discriminate against an abstract concept like a corporation, as the author claims. The author implies that a corporation is a thinking, feeling person that has rights to the customer’s patronage. Can someone hate Starbucks enough to take away its right to marry? Could Starbucks lose its job if it were gay?

On the other hand, Chick-fil-A is supporting organizations that are actively taking the rights of a minority with bigotry. These actions act against thinking, feeling and loving human beings. How does the “discrimination” against coffee shops mentioned in the column even compare to this?

The right to choose is then discussed. In reality, a student with a mandatory meal plan has no choice in what companies receive their money within the University dining system. The University is contractually bound to these companies. They will receive funds out of meal plans regardless of quality or boycotts. This is a crucial fact in the Chick-fil-A discussion that has been overlooked so far. Because the University dining system is not a free market, every student, gay or straight, is unintentionally aiding anti-gay marriage groups. How would you feel if you were supporting discrimination against yourself?

Nicholas R. Stewart

School of Arts & Sciences

To the Editor,

Mark Kozlowski’s Feb. 15 article, “Chick-fil-A should stay,” only pays lip service to fair-mindedness.

While giving away free sandwiches does not constitute wrongful discrimination, the point is Chick-fil-A’s support of and belief in anti-gay marriage legislation is unconscionable. Anti-gay marriage laws are wrong. They are immoral. They are dehumanizing. The University should not want to affiliate with a company that openly espouses immoral and dehumanizing beliefs.

Kozlowski’s analogy of gun rights was a joke. He compared supporting stricter gun laws to supporting anti-gay marriage legislation. The way that analogy would work is if a company supported a law that didn’t allow gays to bear arms. The difference is that the Pennsylvania Family Institute and Chick-fil-A aren’t trying to stop everyone from getting married — just certain people they don’t like.

Let’s consider a new analogy. Take a group that has been treated as less than citizens and make it so they cannot legally be a family. Say that Kozlowski’s fake company “Cow-pat-E” is donating to groups that vigorously promote enacting laws that do not allow African-Americans to get married. The University would not allow this on campus out of respect for African-American students.

Why do we treat LGBTQ people differently?

Kozlowski is right when he says that removing them would limit choice, but the Cathedral is not a food court in a mall. I expect more from my University. I hope that they would want to affiliate with companies that respect and encourage the rights of the students who are paying tuition.

Catherine Laskovics

School of Arts & Sciences

Secular Student Alliance