Johns Hopkins Students: Chick-fil-A Is a Micro-Aggression

Because the CEO supports real marriage, the Johns Hopkins Student Government doesn’t want Chick-fil-A on campus.

Samantha Audia writes for the College Fix,

At Johns Hopkins University this week, capitalism was trumped by political correctness.

The Student Government Association there approved a resolution that called on administrators to put to a halt any discussions or plans to bring a Chick-fil-A to campus, citing the company’s support of traditional marriage and saying the restaurant, if allowed at Johns Hopkins, would be a campus “microaggression.”

The vote was spurred by the recent start of construction on a large, mixed-use development at Johns Hopkins, where a majority of student government members do not want Chick-fil-A brought in as a tenant despite many requests from students.

“The SGA does not support the proposal of a Chick-fil-A, in a current or future sense, particularly on any location that is central to student life,” states the resolution passed by the student government, which noted “visiting prospective and current students, staff, faculty, and other visitors who are members of the LGBTQ+ community or are allies would be subjected to the microaggression of supporting current or future Chick-fil-A development plans.”

Although student government leaders have disputed that their decision amounts to a “ban” on the business coming to campus, one Johns Hopkins student who has followed this situation closely toldThe College Fix their decision is the “nail in the coffin.”

That student, junior Andrew Guernsey, president of Johns Hopkins University Voice for Life, wrote about the recent decision on National Review, stating: “The JHU student government’s vote this week to ban any hypothetical future Chick-fil-A outlet from campus because of the company owner’s support for traditional marriage … sends a clear message that students who disagree with liberal orthodoxy are not welcome on the Hopkins campus.”

So, once again, anyone disagreeing with a Liberal is guilty of “aggression.”

By that definition, the SGA committed a micro-aggression against anyone who believes 1) that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, or 2) that chicken sandwiches taste good and the politics of the CEO are not important enough to make one abstain from them. I guess marriage traditionalists who like the sandwiches suffer from double micro-aggressions.

But wasn’t the uproar over Indiana all about how it was wrong to refuse service to anyone? So how is it OK for Johns Hopkins to refuse to trade with Chick-fil-A?