Jump to content
Daisy.Chain

Chick-Fil-A Airport Opening Blocked

97 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Chick Fil A has been "disinvited" from opening a location because of their charitable donations to organizations that are "anti-lgbtq..."

 

Chick-Fil-A's response?

 

"We wish we had the opportunity to clarify misperceptions about our company prior to the vote. We agree with the councilmember that everyone should feel welcome at Chick-fil-A," ... "In fact, we have welcomed everyone in San Antonio into our 32 local stores for more than 40 years."

 

Imagine if the situations were reversed. Can anyone picture a restaurant being banned because of giving charitable donations to pro-gay restaurants?

 

I think it's time for some spicy chicken sandwiches. Chick-Fil-A, here we come!

 

Link to article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they would have been better off if they had just said they wanted the franchise to stay open on Sundays.

i dont care either way, because i dont eat out much, and had not heard of this sort of thing before, but i voted for this mayor and will do so again.... Brockhouse is a lunatic


got-1-380x214.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

   I used to live in a town where the town council voted not to allow Mcdonald's or Walmart to build locally. Local people didn't want them there and neither did local businesses. So really the town council was doing what they were elected to do. I can't judg the SA without knowing that. I'm curious how residents of San Antonio feel about this decision. Maybe the people don't want Chick-Fil-A's.

 

  We have a Chick-Fil-A's nearby and I always like when they have people lined up around the block to show support. Nothing against their business but in theory the more people lined up to eat their "food", the more space should be available at a place where I would actually want to eat. I'd feel the same if the line up was at Taco Bell or one of the grease burger places.

Edited by Steeleballz

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fast food is one of the major food groups, si man.


06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of so-called progressives telling people how they should think and how they should act.  Politicians are the worst.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Prizm123 said:

they would have been better off if they had just said they wanted the franchise to stay open on Sundays.

i dont care either way, because i dont eat out much, and had not heard of this sort of thing before, but i voted for this mayor and will do so again.... Brockhouse is a lunatic

 

  If they're not open Sunday's that's a good enough reason not to be at an airport. The council should have left it at that.


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  If they're not open Sunday's that's a good enough reason not to be at an airport. The council should have left it at that.

That is a reason?  I have been to airports at 3am and almost everything is closed, should that be a reason to reject them?  Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight, We have very very few of these restaurants in Michigan, but interestingly enough, one of the few locations is at the Detroit Metro Airport, Sunday or no Sunday.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is a reason?  I have been to airports at 3am and almost everything is closed, should that be a reason to reject them?  Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight, We have very very few of these restaurants in Michigan, but interestingly enough, one of the few locations is at the Detroit Metro Airport, Sunday or no Sunday.

 

  It's a public facility. They can use what ever criteria they want as long as it is legal. If they want to use hours of operation as a reason they can. If they want to use a companies negative reputation they can do that as well. They can not discriminate based on a protected category though, which will be the crux of any legal findings in this instance. 


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  It's a public facility. They can use what ever criteria they want as long as it is legal. If they want to use hours of operation as a reason they can. If they want to use a companies negative reputation they can do that as well. They can not discriminate based on a protected category though, which will be the crux of any legal findings in this instance. 

Sure, but this is the criteria they used.  I guess the good people of San Antonio all have the same core values, whatever those are, and they should be happy this guy and his colleagues are on the job telling them how to think and how to act.  Wonder if these council members are Democrats.

 

"Councilman Roberto Treviño moved to approve the agreement with Paradies on the express condition that Chick-fil-A be excluded from the contract," the Plano, Texas-based legal firm wrote in the letter.

The letter also called into question Treviño's public statement calling Chick-fil-A's history riddled with "anti-LGBTQ behavior" and his suggestion that the city vet all future "economic deals to ensure they align with our core values."

Edited by Bill & Katya

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Sure, but this is the criteria they used.  I guess the good people of San Antonio all have the same core values, whatever those are, and they should be happy this guy and his colleagues are on the job telling them how to think and how to act.  Wonder if these council members are Democrats.

 

"Councilman Roberto Treviño moved to approve the agreement with Paradies on the express condition that Chick-fil-A be excluded from the contract," the Plano, Texas-based legal firm wrote in the letter.

The letter also called into question Treviño's public statement calling Chick-fil-A's history riddled with "anti-LGBTQ behavior" and his suggestion that the city vet all future "economic deals to ensure they align with our core values."

 

   I know that. That's why I said it will hinge on if they find it was religious discrimination or not. Saying they don't want them because of their "anti-LGBTQ  behavior" does not indicate religious discrimination. Local councils have broad discretion in what business they allow or don't. They don't even have to give a reason, but in this case they did. Is it a discriminatory one? We will find out, I guess.

 

  Chick-Fil-A's can use anything said in that decision to bring about legal action. The legal recourse in these cases are not usually quick, but this is a high profile case. Ultimately there may be a whole new group of council members before a legal decision is reached.

 

  


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I know that. That's why I said it will hinge on if they find it was religious discrimination or not. Saying they don't want them because of their "anti-LGBTQ  behavior" does not indicate religious discrimination. Local councils have broad discretion in what business they allow or don't. They don't even have to give a reason, but in this case they did. Is it a discriminatory one? We will find out, I guess.

 

  Chick-Fil-A's can use anything said in that decision to bring about legal action. The legal recourse in these cases are not usually quick, but this is a high profile case. Ultimately there may be a whole new group of council members before a legal decision is reached.

 

  

Since we are playing what if here, what if it had been a business that serves everyone, but their owner is a devout Muslim that has donated to Muslim causes to promote the persecution of people in countries where permissible due to a persons sexual orientation?  The whole thing is just supposition except for the fact that the SA city council rejected CF based on some self-righteous sense that they need to be looking out for the "core values" that all the residents of SA should be adhering to.  The bigger question is will the city council now force CF to close all the restaurants within the city limits?  These Democrat politicians are no different than the evangelicals with the exception that these politicians are leading people, and evangelicals can be ignored.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Since we are playing what if here, what if it had been a business that serves everyone, but their owner is a devout Muslim that has donated to Muslim causes to promote the persecution of people in countries where permissible due to a persons sexual orientation?  The whole thing is just supposition except for the fact that the SA city council rejected CF based on some self-righteous sense that they need to be looking out for the "core values" that all the residents of SA should be adhering to.  The bigger question is will the city council now force CF to close all the restaurants within the city limits?  These Democrat politicians are no different than the evangelicals with the exception that these politicians are leading people, and evangelicals can be ignored.

 

   Whether I agree or not, that is currently how it works in general unless there are exceptions in state or local law. To that end, they should merely state that the business does not align with the values of their town and constituents. Part of the reason they are elected at the municipal level is to make decisions like this. If they are not doing what they were elected to do, they should get voted out.

 

  If they do give a reason, and that reason is found to violate a protected right, they have left themselves open to whatever legal repercussions may arise. The religion of a business owner makes no difference unless the religion itself is part of the reason for the business being banned.


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Whether I agree or not, that is currently how it works in general unless there are exceptions in state or local law. To that end, they should merely state that the business does not align with the values of their town and constituents. Part of the reason they are elected at the municipal level is to make decisions like this. If they are not doing what they were elected to do, they should get voted out.

 

  If they do give a reason, and that reason is found to violate a protected right, they have left themselves open to whatever legal repercussions may arise. The religion of a business owner makes no difference unless the religion itself is part of the reason for the business being banned.

Shouldn't those values be clearly defined and communicated.  If that is the case, then the city council has no other option but to kick them out of all of SA.  Again, my argument is that this is just an example of government overreach in making decision as to how people should think and act.  They need to visit every business within the city limits and do a background check on the owners to make sure they are living up to SA core values.  Overall, it is a joke, but what else do we expect from a leftist controlled city.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Since we are playing what if here, what if it had been a business that serves everyone, but their owner is a devout Muslim that has donated to Muslim causes to promote the persecution of people in countries where permissible due to a persons sexual orientation?  The whole thing is just supposition except for the fact that the SA city council rejected CF based on some self-righteous sense that they need to be looking out for the "core values" that all the residents of SA should be adhering to.  The bigger question is will the city council now force CF to close all the restaurants within the city limits?  These Democrat politicians are no different than the evangelicals with the exception that these politicians are leading people, and evangelicals can be ignored.

I believe that would Islamophobic.

 

I can actually cite a few examples, does seem off why some get a pass and others do not.


“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×