Chick-fil-A banned from opening at San Antonio airport, council members cite LGBTQ issues

[Auburn85 432]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/03/22/chick-fil-ban-texas-council-bars-chain-airport-lgbtq-past/3247437002/

 

"Chick-fil-A has been banned from opening up a new location at the San Antonio International Airport.

On Thursday, the San Antonio City Council approved a seven-year concessions agreement for new restaurants and businesses in Terminal A of the Texas airport with Paradies Lagardère, a travel retailer and restaurateur that works with more than 100 airports.

Chick-fil-A was initially in the plans, but council members amended the plans to exclude the chicken restaurant, with some citing concerns with its record on LGBTQ issues. The amendment was approved by a 6-4 vote.

Councilman Roberto Treviño said in a statement after the vote that, with the decision, the council "reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion." 

"San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior," Treviño said in the statement. “Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport.” 

Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A said in a statement to USA TODAY that "the press release issued by the councilmember was the first we heard of his motion and its approval by the San Antonio City Council." 

"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," the company said in the statement. "In fact, we have welcomed everyone in San Antonio into our 32 local stores for more than 40 years."

In its statement, Chick-fil-A said it "would welcome the opportunity to have a thoughtful dialogue with the city council and we invite all of them into our local stores to interact with the more than 2,000 team members who are serving the people of San Antonio."

The council's decision came a day after ThinkProgress reported that the Chick-fil-A Foundation donated $1.8 million to groups that discriminate against the LGBTQ community in 2017, including the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. "

 

The thing is, this is nothing new.

 

Here's a thread from 2017:

A thread from 2012:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grumps 3,693]

Complete garbage! Chik-Fil-A treats LGBTQ people better than any other chain does, just like they treat all others better than anyone else does. The hate from the left is amazing! San Antonio doesn't deserve a Chik-Fil-A!

[AUDub 11,131]

They have a great 1A case here. 

[Grumps 3,693]

8 minutes ago, AUDub said:

They have a great 1A case here. 

????

[tdburger 37]

 “Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport.” 

and that includes Chick-fil-a.

[AUDub 11,131]

50 minutes ago, Grumps said:

????

CFA could easily Sue and win on 1st Amendment grounds. 

[Grumps 3,693]

46 minutes ago, AUDub said:

CFA could easily Sue and win on 1st Amendment grounds. 

Thanks for clarifying. That was on me, I am concentrating too hard on the Bball game!

[AUDub 11,131]

2 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Thanks for clarifying. That was on me, I am concentrating too hard on the Bball game!

[TitanTiger 20,469]

 

[PUB78 1,354]

Denver threatened Chic-fil-a too, but they are in the Denver airport. I hope they sue these bigots and win big.

[KolchakAU85 430]

Chick-fil-a is the best fast food lunch out there.  If I ate fast food, I'd eat there every day.

Their political donations are their own business.

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

On 3/23/2019 at 8:45 PM, Grumps said:

Complete garbage! Chik-Fil-A treats LGBTQ people better than any other chain does

I understand that the WCFAOS group raised all the hell

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

On 3/23/2019 at 9:53 PM, AUDub said:

CFA could easily Sue and win on 1st Amendment grounds. 

I wonder if they could though since it's technically a concessions agreement with another company and not Chick-Fil-A itself.  Calling @NolaAuTiger!

[bigbird 60,368]

10 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I wonder if they could though since it's technically a concessions agreement with another company and not Chick-Fil-A itself.  Calling @NolaAuTiger!

It they said something ambiguous like "we decided to go in a different direction", then probably not. However, I would think being turned away for the stated reason would open them up. Discrimination isn't a one-way street...or shouldn't be.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

57 minutes ago, bigbird said:

It they said something ambiguous like "we decided to go in a different direction", then probably not. However, I would think being turned away for the stated reason would open them up. Discrimination isn't a one-way street...or shouldn't be.

Oh totally agree with you here.  I'm looking at it more from a legal standpoint.  Just curious if the fact that it isn't Chick-fil-A directly being dealt with makes a difference legally in a 1A case.

Also not sure if you heard, but the city changed it's tune now to "We declined because they aren't open on Sunday and that's the busiest day at our airport."

[bigbird 60,368]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Oh totally agree with you here.  I'm looking at it more from a legal standpoint.  Just curious if the fact that it isn't Chick-fil-A directly being dealt with makes a difference legally in a 1A case.

Also not sure if you heard, but the city changed it's tune now to "We declined because they aren't open on Sunday and that's the busiest day at our airport."

Them backtracking makes it look even worse. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 3/23/2019 at 8:54 PM, AUDub said:

They have a great 1A case here. 

 

16 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I wonder if they could though since it's technically a concessions agreement with another company and not Chick-Fil-A itself.  Calling @NolaAuTiger!

In this case, what state (municipal) action triggers First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law...". When the state passes a law, the "state action" is easily identifiable. Not so when the action is indirect. 

I would proceed under Fourteenth Amendment, both Due Process Clause (articulate liberty interest per jurisprudence on economic and business regulation) and Equal Protection... 

Could still argue First Amendment secondarily. Both could be applicable, just at a quick glance feel better about 14th. 

[AU64 10,122]

7 hours ago, bigbird said:

Them backtracking makes it look even worse. 

Apparently everyone but the clueless city council knows that Chic is not open on Sunday.....yet had them in the original plan. Digging themselves deeper into the hole IMO.  

Chic has generally pressed legal action against idiots like them. ….probably realizing that these kind of intolerant bigots would be on their back about every possible ticky tack violation if they open the store.     Meanwhile, the council members made their point, won some votes from fellow intolerants and now can just "do what is in the best interest of the air travelers" and let them build the store. 

[TexasTiger 12,801]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

In this case, what state (municipal) action triggers First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law...". When the state passes a law, the "state action" is easily identifiable. Not so when the action is indirect. 

I would proceed under Fourteenth Amendment, both Due Process Clause (articulate liberty interest per jurisprudence on economic and business regulation) and Equal Protection... 

Could still argue First Amendment secondarily. Both could be applicable, just at a quick glance feel better about 14th. 

What if a city says it doesn’t want any restaurant that closes on Sunday?

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

32 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

What if a city says it doesn’t want any restaurant that closes on Sunday?

Fire the clueless city counsel when you are talking CFA

40 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Apparently everyone but the clueless city council knows that Chic is not open on Sunday.....yet had them in the original plan.

 

[TexasTiger 12,801]

26 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Fire the clueless city counsel when you are talking CFA

 

Airports need open venues 7 days a week.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

What if a city says it doesn’t want any restaurant that closes on Sunday?

Kinda vague. 

Do you mean: What if a city prohibits issuing licenses to any restaurant that closes on Sunday?

Does the restaurant already own/lease the property?

What is the government’s purported interest?

[TexasTiger 12,801]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Kinda vague. 

Do you mean: What if a city prohibits issuing licenses to any restaurant that closes on Sunday?

Does the restaurant already own/lease the property?

What is the government’s purported interest?

City owned airport only wanting restaurants that will be open 7 days a week.

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

17 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

45 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

Airports need open venues 7 days a week.

So do college campuses moron. Suffer bad food/ service and go next door or choose not to fly on Sunday. 

[TexasTiger 12,801]

4 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

So do college campuses moron. Suffer bad food/ service and go next door or choose not to fly on Sunday. 

This is a discussion. If you don’t want to participate, move on to the next one or don’t post on the internet.