The San Antonio airport won’t be getting a Chick-fil-A. The city council awarded a new food service contract — and a condition of doing so was that the company awarded the deal had to drop its plan to open a Chick-fil-A because of Chick-fil-A’s political beliefs, that they’ve been ‘associated with anti-LGBTQ’ groups and causes.
Though the restaurant chain no longer donates to many of the causes that it had supported a decade ago, like the Family Research Council, they’ve continued giving to charities such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
Ironically the deal for the restaurant wasn’t even with Chick-fil-A and Chick-fil-A wouldn’t have operated it. The plan to open and run a Chick-fil-A was part of an overall bid by concessionaire Paradies Lagardère, which beat out HMSHost for the space. Airport restaurants are generally run by concessions companies like Delaware North and OTG and not the companies associated with the brands you know.
Alaska Airlines started flying to San Antonio in 2012 only months after the airline stopped handing out prayer cards to passengers. I guess it’s a good thing Alaska stopped if they want to fly to San Antonio!
There are perfectly valid reasons not to have Chick-fil-A in an airport. Indeed, valid reasons for many airports to refuse to lease to Chick-fil-A — not because of their stance on political issues but because of their refusal to open on Sundays.
- There’s limited retail space on airport concourses. They need to use that space to provide the most effective service possible to passengers, seven days a week. Indeed, Sunday is a heavy travel day. Choosing a restaurant chain that will provide food on Sundays makes sense.
- Airports regularly require restaurants to be open for breakfast, even if they normally only serve lunch and dinner foods. It’s why you may find an airport Japanese restaurant serving eggs, even egg burritos. Because airports don’t want to take up space that’s underutilized for serving passengers.
- Chick-fil-A may find they do enough business without opening on Sundays, perhaps people will go to Chick-fil-A a certain number of times during a week or month and will simply shift their patronage to the days that the restaurant is open. But people patronize airport food establishments on whatever day they’re passing through the airport.
Saying that all restaurant concessions must open 7 days a week would be a viewpoint neutral and perfectly valid reason, in my view, for choosing to lease to restaurants other than Chick-fil-A.
Readers may know that I’m in favor of marriage equality. And I think it’s perfectly fine if you don’t want to eat their food because of charitable gifts that they make, or statements offered by their executives. However government refusing to lease space because of the political views of the business owners strikes me as troubling.
Meanwhile it’s unfortunate that passengers won’t have the opportunity to stink up the cabin of their outbound flight with that sweet sweet chicken goodness.
What’s worse is that this is done because of religious views that offend some people politically. Seems like a slippery slope.
This is completely unacceptable. They should be investigated for discrimination.
Let’s be real here. Chic fil A is being blocked because of the company’s private beliefs. If serving food 7 days a week were so important, ATL and other major airports wouldn’t be wasting space.
Texas, where did you go?
Let’s hope Chick-fil-A sues San Antonio for blatantly violating it’s constitutional rights.
San Antonio’s decision was largely based on the release of these tax filings for Chick-fil-A showing continued donations to gay-hate groups. https://thinkprogress.org/chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-donations-tax-filings-62ca15281f17/
Nothing new. Liberals are the true fascists. Believe what we believe or else we will destroy your livelihood!
Love Chick-Fil-A. This makes me want to go eat there today.
And if their religious beliefs included the view that inter-racial marriage was immoral or that a particular race was subhuman? The government has discretion in choosing how to spend its monies in its proprietary capacity. Choosing not to do business with discriminators works for me.
or refused to pay kick backs to the decision makers at the airport
I hope San Antonio goes bankrupt as a result of this.
Bigots, all of them. Pure bigots.
What a stupid and outrageous show of cowardice.
If SAT bans anti-gay travelers from arriving or departing then the airport has taken a true stance. As for now, it’s a self serving PR stunt which I find disgusting
Great job! Get rid of the bigots like chickfilA and their fake religion that hates humans.
Looks like San Antonio airport is now off the menu? #Religiousfreedomtopspoliticalagendas? What next City of San Antonio Councilfolk – you gonna get the airport renamed? San Antonio Airport implies support of Catholicism which offends all god-fearing athiests. You need to revert to calling the airport by your old, religion neutral city name – Bexar.
Good for Antonio. Now just wait for all the homophobes to pile on I trust these same people would also approve of blatantly racist companies getting franchises. Love Antonio for standing up for civil rights and saying no to a Hate company oh it’s wonderful that u, Gary, approve of my right to marry. Now I could sleep nights. Pile on Homophobes
I don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A, period. They are anti-everyone but their pure white evangelical founders. AND, evangelicals are the new definition of white nationalist supremacists!!!
Good: ban them and their wretched burgers. These people are contemptible: posing as Christians but all the while seeking to impose their nutty views on others. Good riddance.
In DFW last night there was a long line at ChicfilA. Guess the public don’t mind their affiliations!
I don’t eat at Chik-Fil-A. Nor do I shop at Hobby Lobby or Walmart for that matter. (Any retailer who has employees who qualify for food stamps won’t get my dime). Good for San Antonio. For the haters out there?–you know who you are–take a chill pill.
At least the Council was honest about the reasons for blocking Chick-fil-A. Too often decisions are made for discriminatory or other bad reasons and the decision maker will look you in the face and say the discriminatory or other bad reason had absolutely nothing to do with it. It is usually easy to create a non-discriminatory pretext.
A company’s political, social or whatever you want to call it beliefs can be relevant to a busines decision. (The airport surely has non-discrimination clauses in its leases and contracts.) If a restaurant was banned because of a company’s well-known support of Sharia law, for example, there would be little pushback.
I’m not sure I’m buying this as a political beliefs issue. Anti-LGBTQ is not a political belief in my view. It’s my understanding that it moreso comes from a particular religious view. Phrasing it as a political beliefs issue makes better clickbait though.
I can understand why a city institution would not want to be associated with an anti-LGBTQ corporation—especially one that is so associated with this belief.
Purely from a business point a view, I can understand why the city might not want a business that a significant percentage of folks won’t eat at.
I feel like those who are bashing Chick-fil-a probably haven’t ever stepped foot in a Chick-fil-a. Literally everyone there is incredibly nice to everyone.
Seems to me like it’s being told that they can’t operate for their religious beliefs instead of their political ones. They welcome all people to their restaurants; if it was political, they would only let certain people in. I’m not sure why welcoming people while thinking a behavior is immoral is bigotry. The owners likely think that sex before marriage is immoral, but that doesn’t mean they’re bigoted. It just means they think that some behavior is immoral. This is especially true given that they don’t treat anyone poorly.
I’m sure this idea will make someone mad, but, oh well (I do support marriage equality politically). If you choose not to eat at Chick-fil-a, that’s your prerogative.
I don’t care if you support or anti LGBT, that’s your opinion and arguably nothing is absolutely right or wrong.
But I care you forbidding people having the chance to eat at Chick-a-fil. If any passenger care about it, they would simply choose not to eat at the Chick-a-fil at the airport, and you shouldn’t make the decision for every passenger.
Can’t we just get along and not make everything political? If Chik-Fila has people that want to buy their product, great. (And a lot do!) If people don’t like their tasty chicken sandwiches and waffle fries – don’t buy it!! Quit making everything a “if I don’t like you your out” event. I want to buy the best product, not become a social activist when I eat a sandwich. Grow up San Antonio, and remember the Alamo, freedom! !
Chic fil A has the HIGHEST revenue per store of any fast food franchise and they aren’t open 24hrs or on Sundays. That should tell you something. Even if their locations aren’t open on Sundays, people still want Chic fil A more than any other crappy fast food restaurant.
Don’t airports receive a cut of sales from all shops/restaurants? Seems like a poor business decision because 6 days of Chic fil A sales is still greater than 7 days of Burger King, Sbarro, and the day-old sandwich stands.
Shame on San Anthonio!
I need food when I travel. Not being open on Sunday’s is fine if you are in a mall. In an airport it doesn’t work. Rent it to someone who operates seven days a week.
@DaninMCI +1
@Emily – Like Sbarro? Burger King? Subway? Come on, that’s all crap and everyone knows it. Despite limited hours, Americans still want Chic fil A over the other crap out there. #Fact
Airports are public property, thus must respect the equal protection clause. I understand that lots of people like Chick-fill-A but given their long history of supporting causes that discriminate against LGBT communities (even if they may not engage in such policies themselves) is a sufficient enough reason for them to be banned from serving at spaces such as airports that are public.
Restaurants do not have any inherent legal right to be allowed to serve at a given venue.
Having said that, I do acknowledge the ‘slippery slope’ argument raised above, so see how this can be problematisch.
Texas is generally a conservative state, but liberals control the city government in all four of the major municipalities (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin). It is disappointing that politics have entered so many facets of society where it is not appropriate. Everyone should be able to choose for themselves if they wish to patronize Chick-Fil-A as opposed to having others make that decision for them.
If it would be run by a concessionaire (and not Chick-fil-a), couldn’t it be open on Sunday?
Thank you San Antonio! Sure those chicken people can do whatever they want with their money but there are consequences to every decision. Some cities don’t want to host companies that promote bigotry. Some cities have rules that they won’t contract with companies that promote bigotry. I like those cities.
Do liberals go into every establishment and ask if the person owning the business has the same beliefs as them? I think they’d be very surprised if they did. There are some people who wake up angry at something every day, even if they get what they want, they find something else to complain about. Unfortunately those people end up getting everything they want. You don’t have to agree with anyone and you don’t have to be bullied by others to believe what they do. It’s great that people who tell others to be open minded and accepting are so not accepting if someone disagrees with them. Anyway it’s a chicken sandwich and a good one. Next time you go to your local convenience store ask the owners how they feel about gay marriage. Or just buy your stuff and leave. No one cares.
What the hell is wrong with the US? I love Chik-Fil-A because they make great chicken sandwiches. I love Starbucks because they brew great coffee.
One company supports right-wing views, the other left-wing views. Who cares???
Only a fascist would ban a food company over something like this. A sad state of affairs in a “free” country.
M. Jackson is now banned, even though he was born that way,
Apple Stores are next.,
When will this end,,
I supported gay marriage before Bill, Hillary, or Obama did. And I know where I’m going for dinner tonight.
So typical
We support you in every way you have a right to your personal beliefs
( as long as they don’t offend me )
What ever happened to freedom of choice in other words if you don’t like a business establishment then don’t go there
Just a thought
For many years, YourBlackMuslimBakery, operated an outlet post-security at OAK (Oakland, CA). This radical group of Black Muslims, was a criminal group engaged in: prostitution; drug dealing; welfare fraud; polygamy; murder. As a race-baiting, poverty-pimp focused group, the Port of Oakalnd, and Oakland City Council gave them their complete blessings for this venture. DIEversity!
Keep it up lefties. “That Day” is coming, and your side doesn’t believe in owning guns.
It was a great decision, any bigoted company like this should not be getting any public contracts anywhere in the country.
Too Much Flying: I could not agree with you more!
The leftists in this country can not wait to find something to be outraged about, and Gary, just for your information, this is not a political issue, it is a religious issue and protected by the Constitution.
@Tired +1
@Too Much Flying +1
This isn’t a “political” issue but one of human rights and equality. To frame it as “political” is ignoring, indeed denying, our fundamental belief in equality and and condoning discrimination.
@Gary: Good catch on this story. However, the offensiveness of the City of San Antonio’s measure can be put more starkly:
Every individual can decide for themself whether to boycott or patronise any vendor based on their religious views. What the City of San Antonio has done is banned consumers from taking that decision in favor of a cabal of City councillors. They are pre-empting the consumer’s right to choose.
The variance of their views with those of the public can be gauged by the lines at the Chick-fil-A at Dallas, Love Field where it is one of the most popular restaurants.
Just as with Uber and Lyft, where the council initially bent over for Big Taxi (until San Antonio was the only city left in Texas without these services), the fathead councilors who supported this measure show that they are far more closed-minded than those they condemn. Chick-fil-A stated ” everyone is and should feel welcome at Chick-fil-A,” the rep said. “We have a fundamental code of conduct at Chick-fil-A: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.””
My experience with Chick-fil-A in ATL was on par with a midnight run to a 24 hour Carl’s Jr. Maybe get a company competent to run one and it might be worth having.
@AT
“Airports are public property, thus must respect the equal protection clause. I understand that lots of people like Chick-fill-A but given their long history of supporting causes that discriminate against LGBT communities (even if they may not engage in such policies themselves) is a sufficient enough reason for them to be banned from serving at spaces such as airports that are public.”
Even Notorious RBG would laugh you out of the room.
The equal protection question is not what causes CFA supports with its profits, but whether they serve all comers. I have never heard of them turning anyone away on account of being a member of any protected class.
San Antonio chose to politicize fast food, and that seldom ends well.
@VaCavalier
“”This isn’t a “political” issue but one of human rights and equality. To frame it as “political” is ignoring, indeed denying, our fundamental belief in equality and and condoning discrimination.”
That is idiotic and makes me think you are actually a hokie masquerading as a cavalier. SAT folks were unvarnished – they barred CFA from participating in public contracting on account of its creed. Sorry, but you cannot bar someone from participating in public contracting simply because you do not agree with them.
@jfhscott Props to San Antonio for standing up for human rights and against those who use their wealth and power to deny it. If the owners of Chick-fil-A have beliefs which undermine our core values and ethics concerning human dignity, they are free under our Constitution to express them, just as San Antonio’s airport is free to deny them the opportunity to use their property to accrue the additional resources to support efforts to deny equal rights to others.
@d
“It was a great decision, any bigoted company like this should not be getting any public contracts anywhere in the country.”
Surely you jest.
Do you want a public contracting system that permits purity tests for eligibility to participate? What next, some city saying democrats are too odious to be permitted to build roads, some county saying gays are so antithetical to community values that they should not be permitted to bid on school construction contracts, or some state declaring that muslims are too untrustworthy to be permitted to bid on contracts catering services at state universities?
If you want government entities to be permitted to apply purity tests in public contracting, thereby advancing the orthodoxy du jour, that is fine . . . . but don’t come to me with some story of victimization when it impacts you.
Wow, a Stalinist Airport in Texas. Shame on them ! I don’t eat fast food but now would consider them. Time to get our country back.
@VaCavalier
Don’t come crying to me when you are barred from public contracting because someone thinks your beliefs are odious.
Sorry to see some of the comments on this subject, but it is exactly this attitude by the Left that got Donald Trump elected………….
@jfhscott @Gary “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.” “Let no man pull you so low as to hate him.” “There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right.” “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” “Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.” – Rev. Martin Luther King
@jfhscott: Exactly. Today this misuse of political bullying favors the Stonewall LGBTQ pressure group. But exactly the same government power will be used against them in the future. The most important thing is to limit government power so that it cannot be used in either direction.
A modest proposal: Require every corporation to adopt a red or blue logo according to which side of the culture wars it wishes to take. No purple option. Red or blue.
Next persuade customers to buy red or buy blue exclusively. This will change every monopoly into a duopoly. Red Amazon and Blue Amazon. Red Google and Blue Google. Double the jobs, right?
Making everything political is the only way to make America great again.
Chicken Sandwiches are only one menu item. Their Chicken Biscuits are very good. So is their Tea, their nuggets, and their salads.
I am sure the ACLU is preparing FOIA requests and looking at litigating the SAT Council and Airport Authority for signs of discriminatory behavior, even if ChickFilA doesn’t want their help.
As for being closed on Sundays… I have been to enough airports after hours that I don’t expect them to by open 24/7. The ones that are open will profit enormously on Sundays if demand warrants. The point is ironic: The customers that boycott the restaurant won’t shop there anyway, and the customers that don’t boycott, respect their right to be closed on Sundays.
As for their donations, (which I didn’t realize ChickFilA was known for) do other restaurants donate a similar portion of their profits, or do they keep it for themselves? I guess San Antonio doesn’t like that either.
@jfhscott
These are not “values” criteria, these are “anti-discrimination and anti-bigotry” criteria, similar to what exists for federal funding and higher education. If an organization choses to make their values those of hate, bigotry, and discrimination against certain groups, yes, they should be barred from public contracts.
James says:
March 23, 2019 at 10:25 am
“San Antonio’s decision was largely based on the release of these tax filings for Chick-fil-A showing continued donations to gay-hate groups.”
… like the Salvation Army for example. No joke that’s one of the three groups called out for opprobrium in the article linked in your comment.
If you think the Salvation Army is a hate group you have much bigger problems with the world than what fast food they’re serving at the airport.
Leftist donkeys, destroying Constitutional rights, one step at a time.
@Gary, I really dislike the way you framed this issue and I think you wrote about it for obvious reasons. Posts like these are siren calls for trolls on both sides and if having a non-sensical but voluminous debate (ie significant traffic and engagement) was your goal, looks like you succeeded. You threw out the red meat and the dogs are all here. I bet most don’t know an A380 from a CRJ.
Fine if you don’t agree with SAT, but you’re just giving space here for people you probably strongly disagree with to air their grievances under the guise of religious freedom and political corectness. If you’re really an LGBTQ ally, you wouldn’t fall into this silly, well-tread trap.
@d
“anti-discrimination and anti-bigotry” criteria are by their nature “values” criteria.
Apparently you find them to be worthy criteria. But seriously, what next – should CFA or another company with whose values you do not agree be denied business licenses altogether? I simplt cannot fathom the conceit you and other commenters have to demand that those who beliefs differ from yours be purged from participating from society on equal footing.
Maybe it will be you who is purged one day. I think it would help you understand.
I just find it ironic that the city council is banning chick-fil-a because of a perceived political position is just that, a political decision. But government officials are never self-aware. The city-council is just looking to score some cheap points with the blue check mark twitter warriors. Banning someone/something because you don’t agree with something they do/said/sponsor is so 3rd world. If you don’t like something, don’t spend your money there.
Besides it’s well documented that chick-fil-a does more business in six days than other places do in seven. So the whole “not open on Sundays” is a mute argument.
Will San Antonio Council ban Airport shops selling all those “Made in China” schlocky San Antonio souvenirs? Pull their leases?
Land of slave labor and labor camps. A leader in human rights abuse. Theft of IP. No religion except worship of The Party..
And China has 100% support for LGB rights… right to imprisonment.
@jfhscott
Yes, these are values, but there are good values and bad values. If someone’s values are “hate, discrimination, and bigotry towards certain other groups”, civilized and free societies have decided these are unacceptable values. I do see your argument that there may be a slippery slope and abuses somewhere, based on interpretation, but so there is if we don’t defend the good values as well…
@jfhscott
“I simplt cannot fathom the conceit you and other commenters have to demand that those who beliefs differ from yours be purged from participating from society on equal footing.”
This is a reasonable argument, but similar laws exist in education, and for good reason. Any discrimination = no access to federal funds, because you don’t provide equal opportunities. Same should be for public contracts. Taxpayer funds should not support hate, bigotry and discrimination.
Doesn’t matter who the concessionaire is it will still financially benefit, Chick-Fil-A, a company committed to hate. It’s not about their religious beliefs but rather a business open to the public needs to not support causes that bar a subset of the public. I’m happy to see this hateful company barred from doing business at San Antonio airport.
@Steven
“It’s not about their religious beliefs but rather a business open to the public needs to not support causes that bar a subset of the public.”
I’m sorry but when did Chic Fil A bar a subset of the public? Is that new?
No problem, when The Muslims take over and ISIS dictates the law, we all know who is going DOWN.,
Would we be having this discussion if Chic-fil-A donated to Muslim groups? Doubtful.
Headed out to get me some ChickFilA because I love their food and to show the intolerant food haters that, by God, I can. May even have three meals a day there next week.
Would we be having this discussion if Chic fil A was donating to some Mus.lim groups? Doubtful.
“However government refusing to lease space because of the political views of the business owners strikes me as troubling.” – pretty sure this is unconstitutional.
Who’s imposing their beliefs on whom here? I’ve never seen any hate at a Chick-fil-A or anyone turned away from their stores. They’ve got the kindest employees of any restaurant ever. Not sure how they do it. Can American’s have the right to choose where to eat? If those in support of banning the restaurant are worried that potential customers are just unaware of what Chick-fil-A does with their profits, maybe they can post warning signs at the doors so everyone can be an educated consumer…
@d
“This is a reasonable argument, but similar laws exist in education, and for good reason. Any discrimination = no access to federal funds, because you don’t provide equal opportunities. Same should be for public contracts.”
There’s just one small problem with your argument. No one has accused Chick Fil A of discrimination. Not against customers and not against employees. Because they don’t.
Now would you like to try again?
@d
Your analogy would have more force if CFA engaged in denying service to members of protected classes as some educational institutions – ones not eligible for federal funds – do.
This reminds me of the difference between a primary and a secondary boycott. At a certain point, linkages are too attenuated. Are we to force every airport vendor to inform itself of and police the practices of each of its suppliers? Are we to tell every airport vendor that they musn’t employ neo-nazis whose wages might be used to buy spray paint to deface synagogues with swastikas? I could go on with more and more attenuated examples with weak connections between a vendor and societal ills, but that would not be helpful.
Giving government the power to limit public contracting to those whose views are consonant with the views of those who are in power terrifies me. Amongst other things, it provides those in power the discretion that can quickly devolve into Chicago style cronyism.
SAT has run afoul of the general rule that the beliefs of a vendor cannot be a source selection factor, to use some government contracts babble.
Darin says:
March 23, 2019 at 2:44 pm
@Gary, I really dislike the way you framed this issue and I think you wrote about it for obvious reasons. Posts like these are siren calls for trolls on both sides and if having a non-sensical but voluminous debate (ie significant traffic and engagement) was your goal, looks like you succeeded. You threw out the red meat and the dogs are all here. I bet most don’t know an A380 from a CRJ.
Darin, I come to this website because I like the way Gary frames issues in ways that are clear-thinking and often humorous. I thought he framed this one quite well. It would be reasonable to for a government entity to require airport businesses to be open 7 days, but they cannot constitutionally bar the owners of every restaurant in the airport from donating to charities (like The Salvation Army) whose viewpoints a majority of the members on the city council disagree with.
@SeanNY
sure…
https://www.facingsouth.org/2012/08/chick-fil-as-history-of-workplace-discrimination
d says:
March 23, 2019 at 2:17 pm
@jfhscott
These are not “values” criteria, these are “anti-discrimination and anti-bigotry” criteria, similar to what exists for federal funding and higher education.
d, yet again you are falsely alleging that Chick Fil A is guilty of discrimination. I recommend that you either provide some evidence of their discrimination against employees or customers or you desist from your false claims.
@SeanNY
https://www.facingsouth.org/2012/08/chick-fil-as-history-of-workplace-discrimination
@SeanNY
I am trying to post links but the site doesn’t let me…just google the company’s name + discrimination…
Read the Forbes article “The Cult of Chick-Fil-A”
One manager at the company had to go through 24 interviews over the span of 2 years, lasting as long 5 hours, to make sure he is a good Christian to get the job, lol…
@d
“One manager at the company had to go through 24 interviews over the span of 2 years, lasting as long 5 hours, to make sure he is a good Christian to get the job, lol…”
Indeed Forbes reported that in 2007 about what someone encountered in 1991:
“Many Chick-fil-A job candidates must endure a yearlong vetting process that includes dozens of interviews. Ty Yokum, the training manager for the chain, sat through 7 interviews and didn’t get the job. He reapplied in 1991 and was subjected to another 17 interviews–the final one lasted five hours–and was hired.”
It is not controlling, but rather Federal Rule of Evidence 609 provides that evidence of a conviction more than 10 years ago is inadmissible to attack a witnesses character.
We’re talking about events that were reported 12 years ago and which occurred 28 years ago . . . .
I don’t have time to fully research everything, but we have enough here to get a sense of how they operate…At least 12 discrimination lawsuits until 2007, and “The company might face more suits if it didn’t screen potential hires and operators so carefully.” (from the article)
Wow, 12 discrimination lawsuits?
There are companies the size of CFA that would be delighted with only 12 discrimination lawsuits over a long period. Were vendors with 12 discrimination lawsuits debarred from public contracting nothing would ever get done.
Did you read the article? They are basically a cult, lol…And there are additional lawsuits since then…And let me re-iterate: “The company might face more suits if it didn’t screen potential hires and operators so carefully. Many Chick-fil-A job candidates must endure a yearlong vetting process that includes dozens of interviews.” “Family members of prospective operators–children, even–are frequently interviewed…” (from the Forbes article)
Very sad day when a local government literally chooses to discriminate against Christians and Christian owned businesses because of the LGBTQA cult that demands we bow down to them and worship them. Of course the local government will have no problem with a business openly hostile to Christians, whites and conservatives because bigotry is allowed and even encouraged if it is bigotry against Christians, white people and conservatives.
Chick-fil-A is in no way a hate group. That’s a ridiculous, ignorant accusation.
There is no bad advert. This “hate” towards Chick-fil-A will only help the company become more popular and successful. Whatever the liberals hate, the more it wil. Grow and flourish. This liberal “hate” will help enormously Trimp get re elected.
Disappointed with your handling of this topic @gary. One less subscriber.
@JFHSCOTT: “Sorry, but you cannot bar someone from participating in public contracting simply because you do not agree with them.”
But you can bar someone if they engage in discriminatory activity.
The real issue to me at least is that Chick-fill-A does not DIRECTLY discriminate against LGBT folk. Rather, they INDIRECTLY discriminate by giving money to causes that discriminate or intend to discriminate. So the question really is whether indirect discrimination is sufficient to meet standards for being excluded from participation the way direct discrimination would? How would we feel in other analogous situations? What if C-fill-A donated to political groups that spewed anti-black/Hispanic or anti-Christian/Jewish/Muslim sentiments?
I’m not a lawyer or philosopher so don’t have legal or moral answers so someone more erudite in these areas can chime in. But I do think that Chick-fill-A is one of those “on-the-fence” examples where it’s not really black or white.
You don’t know that Chick Fil A is open for breakfast? Huh?
If you really want to see the definition of hate and intolerance in action, go watch CNN or MSNBC when they talk about Trump and his supporters.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Meanwhile, you libs have been brainwashed to equate disagreement with hatred.. And that is why I’ll never vote socialist or democrat… and happily continue to eat at ChickFila. This is San Antonio’s airport’s loss, and not ChickFila’s.
Chic Fil A is, hands down my fav fast food restaurant. Great food, wonderful courteous service, attentive to customer needs. I don’t really care who they do or don’t contribute to, it’s the food and the service. If I cared about the political POV of a company, I’d be using an abacus instead of a Mac.
I am surprised that this is coming from SA. I’m amazed it’s not from AUS
Can’t we just leave politics out of our buying decisions?
I don’t eat a chick-fil-a not because of their beliefs or their contributions to certain groups. It’s because I don’t care for their food. That I believe is the way it should be . If you like the food there then I say enjoy. Because that is your choice. However I totally disagree with the reasoning of the city council
IANAL but I am quite sure this involves First Amendment violations.
Do I really need to see a company that HATES me while I am at the airport too. I am uncomfortable so many times as it is with hate groups bigots and Christian know it all’s that want to push religion in my face. Do I really need to be FORCED not to eat then go to a company that is KNOWN to give money to groups that hate me. Can any of you find another company that gives to hate groups.
As for the salvation army as long as you believe in God they will help you but GAYS are not welcomed PERIOD.
Wow, do you have a scarlet letter tattooed on your forehead? Are you really wandering the earth “just sure” that everyone know who you sleep with? Nobody cares if you date a tree ok? Maybe it’s time you realize some people are different than YOU, and tolerate them for a change. Oh and there are no whiners in business class BTW.
Now the airport in Buffalo has banned Chic fl A?
These people are sick!
@tomri:
what a snowflake. Wear a maga hat and see the hate you get. The covington boys know all about that.
@tomri – Sorry if you were refused a meal at a Salvation Army, that’s not how they work near me. The whole world is feeling unwelcome thanks to liberals’ push back – forcing everyone to accept every variety of sexuality everywhere they go….every movie, every tv show, every parade. Infringement on freedom of association, having highly sexualized education pushed on our children very early, having your livelihood threatened for wanting your work and values to be congruent. The whole concept of ”hate” as a crime…we now persecute and prosecute based on what people think that others are thinking? Insanity. As others have said…the power to hurt and silence people for their beliefs will swing according to who is in charge. You might just suck it up like everyone else and realize that there are many choices to vote with your dollar, please don’t rob others of their choice of fast food. Or cake decorator.