San Antonio politicians decided to ban Chick-fil-A from opening in the airport over perceptions of the chain’s politics disagreement with the chicken restaurant’s donations to certain charities. Buffalo pressured concessionaire Delaware North to withdraw Chick-fil-A from its plans and will (disingenuously) paint the move as voluntary.
I’m strongly in favor of marriage equality and hosted key figures in the debate on this issue at events long before it was popular to do so. I also have great concerns about government deciding which businesses can succeed on their basis of the views they express.
Most Chick-fil-A opponents wouldn’t want President Trump making loyalty to his administration, for instance, a precondition for receiving government preferences, business, or tax breaks.
The San Jose airport is taking a different approach. They approved a Chick-fil-A last year, but will hang a rainbow flag near the Chick-fil-A. In other words, they’re going to use government-sponsored speech to combat the ideas the city council believes are embedded in the chicken chain.
The San Jose City Council voted 11-0 on Tuesday to hang rainbow flags in support of LGBTQ people and pink, blue and white flags for transgender rights at or near a Chick-fil-A due to open in May at San Jose International Airport.
…San Jose Vice Mayor Charles Jones said the plan is to have a flag or flags near the restaurant and outside of the airport.
The San Jose flag project goal is explicitly to be “a counter-signal to the discrimination supported by Chick-fil-A” and to flip the supposed embedded meaning of Chik-fil-A by making it the “gayest Chick-fil-A in the country.”
It’s fairly clear that what San Antonio is doing is not permissible under current law. The government may not discriminate based on a business’s speech or expressive associations (e.g. Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996)).
I’d love to hear from experts on first amendment law with respect to what San Jose is doing. I’d imagien that placing flags embodying specific beliefs inside the airport is permissible however doing so to combat or retaliate against a business’s expression is problematic.
Eventually the Chick-fil-A may be kicked out of the San Jose airport. I’ve written for years that it would seem more defensible to argue that airport restaurants must open seven days, utilizing airport space as effectively as possible to offer food to passengers at all times. Chick-fil-A does not open Sundays. Under new rules the airport will not offer a two year contract extension in 2026 to businesses which aren’t open every day of the week. That, too, of course could be subject to litigation since the underlying motivation for the rule appears to be invidious in this case.
At the very least, San Jose is opening themselves up to a viewpoint neutrality claim for a flag or other symbol that…might not be what they way. It’s exactly the same situation as Satanist statues being put up due to Ten Commandments plaques.
“what they want”
Also, even banning the restaurant due to Sunday hours is not a slam dunk–if it was proven (and I think this would be pretty easy) that the decision was made due to religious animus.
I agree with you. But you should know that airports are not free speech or free commerce zones. Have you ever tried to have a protest inside an airport – even trying to get a permit to do so? I have. You can’t. The courts have ruled that an airport is not a First Amendment zone (and this was before 9-11). I’ve even tried to get a free publication into an airport and failed. Free newspapers are the epitome of free speech and First Amendment. The historical bottom line is, airports can do whatever the hell they want.
What a nothing burger story…. We’re really stretching the pettiness and reach of the forum, but if San Jose wants to take unconstitutional actions to feel they are making a statement so be it. I can assure you that no one enjoying their delicious chicken sandwich will care one bit about flags hanging.
You are the one being disingenuous when you mention that opponents would not like trump to make loyalty to his administration a requirement for benefits – since this is what he does and has always done during his life as a failed business man and a cheater.
@Don the issue is viewpoint neutrality. The government cannot favor speech on one side of an issue. So it is perfectly legal to block all speech, or all speech on a certain topic (e.g., ban all free newspapers). What can’t occur is to ban your specific newspaper due to its content.
@Blue, it was a respected LGBT newspaper. At the time the Atlanta Airport allowed other free publications.
It’s unfortunate that you (I assume) didn’t have the resources to challenge it then because that’s a winning case.
Do we need any more coverage of Chick fil A at airports? Business owners have a right to their beliefs even if I abhor them. Obsessing over that does no one any good. You look into the private beliefs and donations of the other food outlets (not to mention airlines!) and you’ll find a lot of the same thing.
I find some irony in acting in an intolerant fashion toward the intolerant like Chick-fil-a. I can’t stand intolerant people.
It is not s “perception” that Chick-Fii-A is anti Gay. They give millions of dollars to organizations who main goal is to invalidate same sex marriages and to make it illegal for us to have children. I find u saying you support same sex marriage patronizing as though it’s an heroic act. Would u say that u supported the rights of Black people to sit at a lunch counter next to White people before others did? Question is, would you support the opening of a business that contributed to the KKK? If it were your children they wanted removed from your home because of who u love would this even be a question?
Gary I have been following you for years and think you have perhaps the best points and miles/travel site out there; you try to give all of the facts. Therefore in return I try to use your links whenever I can for new cards but why waste time getting into the weeds with these negative articles on Chick-fil-a? The free market system ultimately will determine who is successful…who really cares about these petty squabbles? Especially when dealing with political agenda type airport operators in out of control California.
@Christian: Exactly. Funny (not funny) how the self-proclaimed champions of “tolerance” and “inclusion” are some of the most intolerant dregs in our society.
True tolerance means not turning into a fascist over a Chik-fil-A restaurant. It would mean truly respecting that people have different views outside of your own echo chamber.
I’ve said it before, Chik-fil-A espouses conservative views, while Starbucks prefers progressive policies. I like them both. I’ll shop at a great business owned by a conservative Christian just as much as I will at a store owned by a gay person. Makes no difference to me – business has no place in politics and vice versa.
@Gary, Matt at Liveandletsfly posted an article about the supposed illegality of the San Antonio – Chick-fil-a debacle.
Retail rent is typically based upon a % of revenue or profit, as a result a business only being open part time will result in lower rent. However, rather than ban such operations, the easier (and probably more legal) option is to say that rent is based on 7 day a week operations; and therefore, anyone who doesn’t operate on that schedule will have their rent increased on a pro-rata basis so that the airport isn’t shorted rent by the tenant’s decision to close for a day.
Geezzz, people. Get over yourselves. It’s a restaurant that serves fast food in an airport. Don’t make it political, religious or anything other than a food outlet! Every time somebody protests against Chick-Fil-A, or President Trump, or anything conservative or a less-than-liberal organization, it just becomes MORE popular! Do you NOT see the multiple drive-in lanes at Chick-Fil-A stores around the country filled at all hours of the day and night?
Are we also protesting those owners of restaurants that give money to politicians that you don’t approve of today? What about those who support Satanic organizations? What about those that support or don’t support abortion?? Who really cares?? The store exists to make and serve food. That is what they do, and they obviously do it well. Quit making every thing religious or political!
It’s a restaurant that does it’s job by serving FOOD to people that are hungry and want a good meal. I guess you can continue to go through life angry all the time, but seems like a poor way to live your life in today’s messed up PC world. Just my opinion, so ignore if you want.
” I’ve written for years that it would seem more defensible to argue that airport restaurants must open seven days, utilizing airport space as effectively as possible to offer food to passengers at all times.”
First, check the lines at the Chick-Fil-A at Dallas Love Field. It is the most popular restaurant by far and patrons would likely prefer it, albeit only 6 days a week, to something else open 7 days a week.
What the nazis in San Antonio have done is taken away the public’s (customers) choice to decide where they eat. Not surprisingly from a nazi, but not legal or wanted here.
@Too Much Flying – I’m amazed whenever I observe the same thing. I regularly come across organizations that claim to be “inclusive” yet clearly exclude people they deem unsupportive of their definition of inclusive. Count Buffalo Airport as one of these.
@Allen I think it’s tough to argue that either the Salvation Army or the Fellowship of Christian Athletes are somehow outside the bounds of acceptability.
Does that mean that they will post MAGA posters outside of the Starbucks that are there. I’m sure they support issues that the Chick Fil A people don’t agree with. It always amazes me how “tolerant” the left is towards people that don’t agree with them. I wonder what would happen if the restaurant in question required the wearing of burkas? I was under the mistaken assumption that government was not supposed to support or condemn any specific religion. Silly me….
Chick-Fil-A is not discriminating by standing up against homosexuality. Homosexuality is WRONG!
And the San Jose city counsel looks like they have the mentality of a a five year old. “We don’t like you, but we’ll take your tax dollars.”
What happened to the, “We don’t approve of your position, but since we believe in the first amendment, we’ll let you say what you want.”
@ Gary — I’m gay, and I buy Chick-fil-A. Whatever. If my $5 goes to idiot candidates, it won’t be the first or last time. At least they are making their money selling something that is good, unlike Donald Trump who sells nothing but lies.
@DNN – Read some science. It’ll explain the whole gay is not a choice thing. If you want to judge people, do so for things they choose to do. Otherwise, while you’re at it you may as well blame someone for their gender.
Sorry Gary, being pro same-sex marriage before the entire country moved in the same fair and logical conclusion does not insulate you from criticism when you continue to troll this issue. You’re not LGBTQ and as far as I know, you have no direct exposure to what it feels like to be part of a segment of society that has faced open hostility, discrimination and bias. Chick-Fil-A openly and happily FUNDED that behavior for years and is a symbol of hostility for many of us. However you want to justify their supposed right to sell chicken six days a week in airports frequented by the public and governed by elected officials who represent us, your continued advocacy of this company and willingness to devote columns to their defense is really disappointing.
This chicken place uses its profits to fund groups that want to invalidate my marriage and break my family apart. WTF.
If a commercial establishment took your money and tried to break up your family and marriage, I’m guessing most of you would not go there no matter how good their sandwiches are? #KeepResisting Hate.
Most cities, counties and port authorities have contract language forbidding doing business with companies who discriminate. The Chicken people are straight up anti- gay. Why would anyone want their chicken served up with a big dollop of hate…knowing your money is going to anti-gay candidates and laws. I vote with my money and I won’t be buying from them EVER!
CFA has never been shown to discriminate in their business practices at all.
If the creepy chicken people want to set up in private rental space outside the airports, it’s their prerogative to do so; this is public space and they have no business there ,flogging their archaic messages of hate. While it’s unfortunate that these loonies are even recognised as Christian ( as they fail the test by most measures), evidently the term is very loosely defined, leading to some questionable right to express their hateful messages via constitutional protections ( in a similar way it works for the gun freaks).
I’m glad they’re getting closed down, with many more airports to follow. They spoke with their money and will now suffer the consequences.
I mean, you don’t see conservative cities banning Starbucks because they support liberal causes…because it’s a ridiculous proposition. Look, I’m a liberal individual, but this whole “ban chick-fil-a” thing is ridiculous. It’s petty to the nth degree.
Outrage politics lacks nuance. Hence, those outraged at Chick-fil-a DEMAND that it’s banned because they don’t like it.
CFR Needs to file a Hate Crime charge against THE LGBT, and get the Muslins involved, doing their thing,,
@Paolo you simply don’t understand what you are talking about, on many levels.
Everybody re-read @Paulo comment.
Notice how bigoted and intolerant it is. Imagine it was enshrined in policy (as it seems to be in San Antonio). Imagine people like @Paulo actually had some decision-making authority.
These are the new nazis.
“If the creepy chicken people…they have no business there ,flogging their archaic messages of hate. ”
“these loonies are even recognised as Christian…”
“questionable right to express their hateful messages…in a similar way it works for the gun freaks”.
“I’m glad they’re getting closed down, with many more airports to follow. They spoke with their money and will now suffer the consequences.”
@HT, this is not a liberal/conservative political issue. We’re not talking about whether CFA donated to politicians who happened to be anti-gay, they were donating to organizations whose SOLE purpose was to oppose the rights and dignity of LGBTQ people. So your comparison doesn’t make sense, unless you view human rights as a left/right issue.
If Starbucks was donating to liberal organizations/politicians AND publicly advocating that whatever class of people you belong to be denied human rights and subjected to dangerous “reparative” therapy, I would certainly advocate on your behalf that they don’t deserve the privilege of a contract in publicly managed spaces.
@Allen, if there were a movement to ban blacks from sitting at lunch counters and you hated the goal but supported free speech, then yes, it would be entirely appropriate to mention you support the right of blacks to sit at lunch counters while supporting free speech.
Alan Branson has a point. When I studied subliminal suggestions in school, you had to avoid the so called pink elephant syndrome. Say what? PINK ELEPHANTS do not exist, so do not think of them. Cute baby PINK ELEPHANTS with cute bow ties also do not exist so do not think of them. No matter what you do not think of PINK ELEPHANTS. PINK ELEPHANTS are impossible so stop it.
(LOL: However, purple elephants are perfectly reasonable). The point is, every time someone does a hate Chick-fil-A piece, and image of Chick-fil-A piece food pops into peoples head and like a Pavlovian dogs, their mouths water, they start getting hungry, and they drive to Chick-fil-A. I think this multi-year campaign is one of the reasons for the Chick-fil-A piece’s growth.
@Paolo – HEY AOC, we know its you. Go back to bartending and stop shoving your ideals on the rest of us. Thanks.
Meanwhile – do people not recognize ChickFila is probably #1, or maybe #2 in terms of revenue per store in the US? And they are CLOSED on Sundays.
In other words, stop using that ChickFila is closed on Sundays as an excuse to ban them. The airports are making more $$ from ChickFila even though the place is only open 6 days a week.
More importantly, you libs really need to stop forcing your intolerance on us. Disagreement on a stance doesn’t not equal hate, or whatever superlative you want to come up with.
@Chritian, I’ve been told you are not born male or female, that is something you choose, but then I’m told you were born gay? Please enlighten me how this is different.
Personally, I’m happy the intolerant looney leftist snowflakes like @paolo are putting rainbow flags by the CFA. It’ll make it easier for me to find it when I want to eat some CFA.
I’m headed to ChickFilA now. May go again on Monday. Never really thought about fast food places before. But being the free spirit I am and not taking kindly to being dictated to on matters of food, I’m all in for CFA now. Thanks LGQTBGTQBQ (of whatever you call it) for spurring me to Eat More Chicken”
Regardless, I feel we’re a little beyond this. We have a president who offers to pardon people if they get into trouble for doing stuff that is unconstitutional. As a gay man, I am offended by Chic Filet but, horrible people with hypocritical beliefs are everywhere. Should they be banned from the airport for that reason? Probably not. Am I going to cry over this decision while I watch 40% of the population cheer on the steamrolling of other people’s rights and celebrate violations of the constitution and pure hate fueled discrimination, the answer is no. Yeah if maybe I saw some consistency in views, equal protection under the law, encouraged and enforced by all sides, maybe then I would care about the plight of the oppressed, gay hating chicken shop, but I don’t, so oh well.
Why is this an article? There’s nothing illegal about a USA city council and it’s constitutional right to exercise its first amendment. If the city constituents don’t like it, they can vote them out.
The aim and conduct of the LGBTQ community in this case speaks for itself. They are not being reasonable, noble or well intentioned.
There no first amendment issue if a government wants to put up a rainbow flag on its property, just as in the south there is nothing unconstitutional about flying a confederate flag. Heck if the mayor of a town wanted to put up a Nazi flag in his office that would not be unconstitutional. The obvious non-lawyers including Gary are confusing this political statement with state sponsorship of religion. The government cannot endorse a religion. The rainbow flag is not a religious icon and a local government can post anything it wants including messages supporting all sorts of causes including the rainbow flag, posters about Special Olympics, college teams etc. If a local government makes a political statement on its property you do not like, you have one remedy – vote it out. But you cannot sue because it’s unconstitutional that the government “took a side”. Taking a political side on an issue is what governments are expected to do.
@ChrisT you are COMPLETELY wrong. Black letter law on this is that government speech must be “viewpoint neutral.”
Not everything in life should be a political battle. I’m sorry it has devolved to this in our society.
My family and I have eaten at Chick-fil-A restaurants a couple of times while on travel over the years. The chicken wasn’t particularly good and the price wasn’t a great value, so I am intrigued by the passionate loyalty, but certainly glad that those who prefer the offerings get their choice.
One of the unfortunate results of widespread social media usage was I soon learned the loyalties and foibles of many business people, colleagues, and community members that I formerly only communicated with in passing. A few years ago I began stepping back from that level of exposure and it has improved my outlook and mood.
If a corporation violates laws, it should receive just punishment. If instead the founders or majority stock owners of a company violate laws, the individuals should be punished. If the corporations or people are advocating for changes in the laws and contributing to organizations working for the changes – well, that’s governance and lawmaking at its heart. Not all changes represent progress to all people, but to attack the process of governance and the right to advocacy is short-sighted.
Why is everything so political??? But is is SAN JOSE CALIF… calif and all its parts being to the left of the liberal left and anything or anyone not on the left side needs to be stopped –Of course… It’s the left mentality..their way or no way@!!!!!
dee,
Let me be blunt: “why is everything so political???”
because YOU make it so, each day, in many ways.
Whether it is California or school shootings or the color pink, Kenyans running in Boston, Donald Trump, C/christians, Easter…on and on.
You — and others like you — stand and scream about the liberals — “their way or no way” with multiple screaming explanation points.
The chicken-christians do much the same: eradicate the queers. Not live and let live, but annihilate, destroy, eradicate, stop at nothing until they are gone.
Can I step away from all of you?
I’m trying, I’m trying. I cannot imagine putting one of the chickwhatevers in my mouth. Their “simple chicken sandwich” nauseates me on so many levels, I would vomit. I have not crossed the threshold of a Target since they gave $6 million of their corporate funds to oppose same-sex marriage in Minnesota. I used to like the place.
In my opinion those corporations have made political their conduct of business. THEY have chosen their conduct. I deplore their choices, so I do not choose to support the businesses in any way.
I could not knowingly support a store which sold the rifles used in Columbine or Parkland or any of the sad, sad slayings in between.
dee, “everything” is “so political” for many reasons, though two stand out: First, folks like you scream and rant and blame and throw around language and accusations, basically tossing gasoline on the bonfires of hysteria. Second, powerful entities try to use their power to make unelected choices for the populace, which then react with opposing power moves. (I’d be a lot less repulsed and disgusted if Betsy de Vos used her own money to make her choices instead of using her position to corrupt public policy and goals.)