Staff Reports
In a world where personal responsibility and traditional values seem to be under attack, a recent incident at a coffee shop in North Portland has drawn attention to a critical issue: the right to neutrality. Cathedral Coffee’s owner, Austen Tanner, made the bold decision to remove pride flags that employees had put up. He emphasized that he believes in maintaining a neutral environment, explaining that displaying any flag—be it a pride flag or a flag representing another cause—could compromise that neutrality.
This decision, though, has sparked outrage among some members of the community. A former employee expressed that Cathedral Coffee has lost her business for life because of this stance. One has to wonder why a simple desire to remain neutral is perceived as oppressive. In a country that prides itself on freedom, shouldn’t everyone have the right to choose what symbols they want to display—or not display—in their businesses?
Tanner’s refusal to endorse any flags can be viewed as a testament to individual liberty and the free market. In a healthy society, business owners should be able to operate according to their principles, without being socially blackmailed into conforming to specific agendas. Progressive agendas often seek to coerce businesses into displaying certain beliefs, claiming that a refusal to do so amounts to discrimination. This approach is not only misguided, but it also threatens the free expression that the Constitution guarantees.
People must understand that being neutral does not mean being unkind or unwelcoming. It means respecting every customer’s right to hold their beliefs without forcing those beliefs onto others. Instead of accepting this neutrality, many individuals prefer to cast the owner as an oppressor simply because he isn’t participating in their social movements. This begs the question: Why should a business have to endorse specific ideological flags to be deemed inclusive?
The reaction to Tanner’s decision encapsulates a broader issue at play. The progressive movement wants businesses to abandon neutrality and embrace their agendas, even at the expense of other viewpoints. If a café can only survive by adopting a progressive stance, it starts to look more like an ideological battleground than a place for people to enjoy a cup of coffee.
The narrative surrounding Cathedral Coffee serves as a reminder of the importance of standing firm in one’s beliefs, even when faced with backlash. Businesses like Tanner’s should be allowed to operate without outside pressure to conform to societal trends or political correctness. As citizens of a free society, it is crucial to protect this kind of neutrality and individual choice against the tide of forced conformism that seeks to dominate the conversation. In America, diversity of thought should be celebrated, not suppressed.
