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

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

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

 Sure would make people happy the other 6 days of the week. Dumb city management

[SaltyTiger 7,808]

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

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

I will move on sir. Sorry, I just like CFA. Feel like anyone in business should attend their customer service training program. You agree Tex? 

[TexasTiger 12,876]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I will move on sir. Sorry, I just like CFA. Feel like anyone in business should attend their customer service training program. You agree Tex? 

They have good customer service.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour 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? - answer here in this case is no

What is the government’s purported interest? - increased tax revenue at a city owned property.

Answered above

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

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

That seems fine.

But if the purpose for the decision in this case is precisely the one articulated by the member, that changes everything.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Answered above

Yep. I think that entails a different scenario because the purpose for the action in Tex's hypo isn't the same, at least if all we have to go off of wrt the OP is the council member's words. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

 

 

[PUB78 1,358]

12 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

 Sure would make people happy the other 6 days of the week. Dumb city management

Denver is run by Democrats and don't have a professional city manager. What  else can we expect?

[homersapien 11,373]

38 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Denver is run by Democrats and don't have a professional city manager. What  else can we expect?

Yeah, legal cannabis.  Wish South Carolina was run by Democrats.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Denver is run by Democrats and don't have a professional city manager. What  else can we expect?

Article about San Antonio's airport.  You bring Denver into this.

Makes sense.

[kd4au 1,145]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, legal cannabis.  Wish South Carolina was run by Democrats.

Now I know what's wrong with your thinking, to much pot smoking. And you could always move to Colorado.

[PUB78 1,358]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Article about San Antonio's airport.  You bring Denver into this.

Makes sense.

Denver backed down and so will San Antonio.

[AU64 10,122]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That seems fine.

But if the purpose for the decision in this case is precisely the one articulated by the member, that changes everything.

I guess it's possible but seems strange that a city council of a MAJOR city is micromanaging decisions about food service or retail stores in their airport.    If that's the case in San Antonio,  the only logical reason I could see is that such control provides wonderful opportunities for shakedown and bribery...pay to play.....

[homersapien 11,373]

22 hours ago, kd4au said:

Now I know what's wrong with your thinking, to much pot smoking. And you could always move to Colorado.

Smoking pot is illegal. I would never break the law.

(And it's "too" not "to")

[PUB78 1,358]

Texas AG is on this case now. Only a matter of time before this 6-4 decision is reversed.

[Auburn85 432]

https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/assemblyman-chick-fil-a-no-longer-coming-to-buffalo-airport/1886109707

 

Assemblyman: Chick-Fil-A no longer coming to Buffalo airport

 

CHEEKTOWAGA, N.Y. (WIVB) - A local lawmaker saysChick-Fil-A will not be coming to the Buffalo Niagara International Airport.

New York State Assemblyman Sean Ryan says those plans, which were publicly revealed this week, have been scraped by Delaware North, which operates the airport's restaurants.

"(Delaware North) was very quick to realize that this is a potential problem, having a company like this in a state-run facility,"

The airport is operated by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, which is a public authority. Friday afternoon, NFTA spokesperson Helen Tederous acknowledged that Chick-Fil-A will not be coming to the airport.

"We are working with Delaware North to move forward on identifying and offering best in class food selections for the thousands of customers who came in and out of our airport, which J.D. Power just ranked #1 in customer satisfaction," Tederous said.

Delaware North did not respond to requests for comment on Ryan's announcement. A spokesperson for Chick-Fil-Asaid company officials were looking into the matter.

Plans to open a Chick-Fil-A inside the airport became public Monday at a meeting of the NFTA's Board of Commissioners. Late Thursday night, Ryan, a Democrat, released a statement urging the authority to shut the proposal down, citing the restaurant's stance on LGBT issues.

"New York State, which runs the NFTA, has strict rules about not engaging in the practices of discrimination against the LGBT community," Ryan said in an interview Friday afternoon.

The assemblyman acknowledged he had communication with the NFTA, but was unsatisfied with its response.

"I'm a bit disappointed with the NFTA," he said. "They wanted to talk about how they could allow (Chick-Fil-A) to stay."

 

The situation mirrors one playing out in San Antonio. There, the city council blocked Chick-Fil-A from its airport last week. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is investigating the move, one he indicated could be unconstitutional.

Ryan said that shouldn't happen here.

"I don't expect that to happen," he said during a break from state budget negotiations. "Texas is a bit of a different state than ours. I assume it was politically-charged."

 

The Buffalo-area's first Chick-Fil-A opened on Walden Ave. in Cheektowaga in November. A second restaurant is planned for the intersection of Transit Rd. and Losson Rd.

"That location is still a go," Matthew Janiszewski, assistant to Cheektowaga Town Supervisor Diane Benczkowski, said. "Chick-Fil-A is in the final phases of pre-construction. They are currently working with the town’s building department on final approval."

[Grumps 3,704]

I challenge anyone to show an example of Chick-fil-A discriminating against the LGBT community or against anyone else. I can guarantee you that McDonalds and Burger King and Starbucks have all had more incidents of discriminating against customers than has Chick-fil-A. THIS is why people hate the media. They make stuff up and then stupid people believe it.

[homersapien 11,373]

11 hours ago, Grumps said:

I challenge anyone to show an example of Chick-fil-A discriminating against the LGBT community or against anyone else. I can guarantee you that McDonalds and Burger King and Starbucks have all had more incidents of discriminating against customers than has Chick-fil-A. THIS is why people hate the media. They make stuff up and then stupid people believe it.

Perhaps it's because they donate to organizations that oppose same sex marriage? 

[Grumps 3,704]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps it's because they donate to organizations that oppose same sex marriage? 

Do you think that supporting opposite sex marriage is the same thing as opposing same sex marriage?  I don't. Can you explain how giving money to an organization you support is discriminating against the LGBT community? Do you know of any instance where Chick-fil-A treated any person claiming to be LGBT different from how they treat non-LGBT people?

[homersapien 11,373]

13 hours ago, Grumps said:

Do you think that supporting opposite sex marriage is the same thing as opposing same sex marriage?  I don't. Can you explain how giving money to an organization you support is discriminating against the LGBT community? Do you know of any instance where Chick-fil-A treated any person claiming to be LGBT different from how they treat non-LGBT people?

Are you seriously suggesting that organizations with a mission of "supporting opposite sex marriage" aren't really opposing same sex marriage?

[Grumps 3,704]

23 hours ago, homersapien said:

Are you seriously suggesting that organizations with a mission of "supporting opposite sex marriage" aren't really opposing same sex marriage?

Do you think that organizations with a mission of "supporting same sex marriage" are really opposing opposite sex marriage?  Hmmmm?

[homersapien 11,373]

34 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Do you think that organizations with a mission of "supporting same sex marriage" are really opposing opposite sex marriage?  Hmmmm?

Absolutely not.  What a bizarre suggestion.

In fact, the people supporting same sex marriage are expressing their desire to enjoy the benefits of opposite sex marriage.  They want to join the party, not prevent others from participating.

On the other hand, an organization with a mission of supporting traditional, opposite sex marriage - as if it were in danger - perceives a threat from homosexuals having a right to marry.  That is what they feel they are "protecting" traditional marriage from.

This seems obvious.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Absolutely not.  What a bizarre suggestion.

In fact, the people supporting same sex marriage are expressing their desire to enjoy the benefits of opposite sex marriage.  They want to join the party, not prevent others from participating.

On the other hand, an organization with a mission of supporting traditional, opposite sex marriage - as if it were in danger - perceives a threat from homosexuals having a right to marry.  That is what they feel they are "protecting" traditional marriage from.

This seems obvious.

 

It's amazing how many people there are who can't grasp that concept.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

On the other hand, an organization with a mission of supporting traditional, opposite sex marriage - as if it were in danger - perceives a threat from homosexuals having a right to marry.  That is what they feel they are "protecting" traditional marriage from.

Or they perceive a threat from making marriage something other than what it is.  They see it as more than whatever we happen to feel like making it today, or what someone will feel like defining it as tomorrow.  They feel that if marriage is anything we want it to be, then it's really nothing special at all.  Marriage can't be everything.  So they perceive a threat in an ever-expanding definition of marriage that renders the term meaningless and same-sex marriage is only one of those things.

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Or they perceive a threat from making marriage something other than what it is.  They see it as more than whatever we happen to feel like making it today, or what someone will feel like defining it as tomorrow.  They feel that if marriage is anything we want it to be, then it's really nothing special at all.  Marriage can't be everything.  So they perceive a threat in an ever-expanding definition of marriage that renders the term meaningless and same-sex marriage is only one of those things.

Exactly.  They fear that if homosexuals are allowed to marriage, it degrades the meaning of marriage.  That's pretty much what I said.

(And the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.)