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.