Chick-Fil-A Airport Opening Blocked

[Daisy.Chain 317]

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

[Prizm123 1,084]

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

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   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 April 2, 2019 by Steeleballz

[TBoneTX 43,058]

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

[Dashinka 23,241]

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

[Steeleballz 7,550]

  Chick-Fil-A also not going to be at Buffalo airport. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

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.

[Dashinka 23,241]

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.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

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. 

[Dashinka 23,241]

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 April 2, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[Steeleballz 7,550]

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.

 

  

[Dashinka 23,241]

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.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

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.

[Dashinka 23,241]

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.

[Boiler 43,433]

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.