Jesus Chicken unwelcome at San Antonio airport

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-investigating-san-antonio-airports-ban-1379426

San Antonio doesn't want Chick-fil-A to open a concession at San Antonio Airport. The Texas AG has gotten involved, and the feds have been notified.

Could be interesting.

[MikeB]

I don’t think they should be disallowed for political reasons. Which this obviously is. I have no problem with their corporate decision not to open Sundays. I do think that for locations like Airports or Stadiums an argument could be made that they should not be allowed if not open Sundays in those types locations. Taking up what is often limited space when you won’t be open on days that are often heavy business days, especially for Stadiums, not sure about airports, just know I often fly on Sundays so I can be at a location on Monday for work. It at least would be a better argument than the one the city is using.

[Fly320s]

I don’t think they should be disallowed for political reasons. Which this obviously is. I have no problem with their corporate decision not to open Sundays. I do think that for locations like Airports or Stadiums an argument could be made that they should not be allowed if not open Sundays in those types locations. Taking up what is often limited space when you won’t be open on days that are often heavy business days, especially for Stadiums, not sure about airports, just know I often fly on Sundays so I can be at a location on Monday for work. It at least would be a better argument than the one the city is using.

I agree with that. 

All of the restaurants in Boston Logan are open 7 days a week and nearly all of them serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

[Ben]

I agree too. I like Jesus chicken as a fast food place, because of the very nice employees, and because the company stands for what it believes. However, yeah, in a place like an airport, you want as many food choices as possible 7 days a week. So from that standpoint I could understand the decision. Of course that's not what the haters based their position on.

[Ron]

Sunday is a pretty busy travel day.

Certainly the airport has the right to take that into consideration.

It just may not be a good fit.

Are airports accommodating other businesses allowing them a day to be closed?

[BobR]

It could be a win for another business that is trying to get off the ground, let Jesus Chicken in and on the Sunday they close let another small business open in the same location. IIRC isn't that what they do at the Jesus Chicken spot in whatever stadium the last SuperSportsBallBowl game was played at?

bob

[zxcvbob]

It could be a win for another business that is trying to get off the ground, let Jesus Chicken in and on the Sunday they close let another small business open in the same location. IIRC isn't that what they do at the Jesus Chicken spot in whatever stadium the last SuperSportsBallBowl game was played at?

bob

I like that idea, but how do they share the kitchen, signage, etc?  Seems like logistics would be a nightmare for both parties, but especially the Sunday-only shop.

[BobR]

I like that idea, but how do they share the kitchen, signage, etc?  Seems like logistics would be a nightmare for both parties, but especially the Sunday-only shop.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/super-bowl/2019/01/22/chick-fil-a-closed-super-bowl-sunday-stadium-location-atlanta/2650539002/

https://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2017/8/16/16156300/falcons-stadium-chick-fil-a-closed-sunday

They flip the signs and it becomes a different place on Sundays.

bob

[Fly320s]

On Sunday it becomes Mohammed Chicken.

[dogmush]

All that seems reasonable, except that the whole "closed on Sunday's" things is explicitly NOT why Chik-Fil-A wasn't allowed in the Airport.

The City Council voted them down because of their support for other entities the City Council deemed "anti-LGBThowevermanyletters"

From the ABC story on the original vote:

The San Antonio City Council narrowly voted to prevent Chick-fil-a from opening a restaurant at the city's airport on Thursday due to the company's alleged bias against LGBT rights.

....

With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion," District 1 Councilman Roberto Trevino, who voted against Chick-fil-a, said in a statement Friday. "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.

My understanding is that at least two of the organizations that were deemed anti gay were the Fellowship of Christian Athletes & the Salvation Army.

So there's two questions here.  

1. Is Chik-Fil-A anti gay? and if so is that allowed under their sincere religious beliefs?  

and

2. Is it appropriate for a city council to to decline to do business with a company based on that companies political or charitable donations?

For the answer to 1, maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but they are certainly not refusing to "bake the cake" as it were.  So they aren't being discriminatory.  So it's allowed.

For 2. I think it probably is appropriate.  If the residents of San Antonio disagree with their council on what organizations belong on a donation "black List" for city business, they can certainly take that up with the council or vote them out.  But local council's like that are probably the best place to make that kind of ethical call for the community, as arguably, they best represent that community's ideals.  Certainly better than state or Federal government's reaching down and imposing their ideals on the city.


San Antonio doesn't want to do business with Chic-Fil-A because they see themselves in opposition to that companies morals.  Whether you think that's a reflection on Chic-Fil-A's morals or San Antonio's is up to you, but it would seem to be reasonably in the purview of a City Council to decide that, and absent recall petitions or election upsets, the stance of the residents of San Antonio as well.

Perhaps something to remember when planning a vacation or weekend away.

*ABC Article REFed above:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/san-antonio-city-council-votes-stop-chick-fil/story?id=61886874&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed

[lupinus]

I will also offer a counter to the closed on Sundays issue. And count it much the same as Jesus chicken locations in malls and such.

Are they paying their full rent, regardless of their decision to close a day each week? If so, then it shouldn't make a lick of difference from the business end of things.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Ron]

I will also offer a counter to the closed on Sundays issue. And count it much the same as Jesus chicken locations in malls and such.

Are they paying their full rent, regardless of their decision to close a day each week? If so, then it shouldn't make a lick of difference from the business end of things.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Driving traffic and customer experience are also metrics looked at when making these types of decisions.

[Perd Hapley]

I'd have more sympathy with the airport, if another airport were allowed to restrict businesses that were in some way supportive of homosexuality. I'm old enough to remember about 2 decades ago, when that was a thing.

[Jamisjockey]

All that seems reasonable, except that the whole "closed on Sunday's" things is explicitly NOT why Chik-Fil-A wasn't allowed in the Airport.

The City Council voted them down because of their support for other entities the City Council deemed "anti-LGBThowevermanyletters"

From the ABC story on the original vote:

My understanding is that at least two of the organizations that were deemed anti gay were the Fellowship of Christian Athletes & the Salvation Army.

So there's two questions here.  

1. Is Chik-Fil-A anti gay? and if so is that allowed under their sincere religious beliefs?  

and

2. Is it appropriate for a city council to to decline to do business with a company based on that companies political or charitable donations?

For the answer to 1, maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but they are certainly not refusing to "bake the cake" as it were.  So they aren't being discriminatory.  So it's allowed.

For 2. I think it probably is appropriate.  If the residents of San Antonio disagree with their council on what organizations belong on a donation "black List" for city business, they can certainly take that up with the council or vote them out.  But local council's like that are probably the best place to make that kind of ethical call for the community, as arguably, they best represent that community's ideals.  Certainly better than state or Federal government's reaching down and imposing their ideals on the city.


San Antonio doesn't want to do business with Chic-Fil-A because they see themselves in opposition to that companies morals.  Whether you think that's a reflection on Chic-Fil-A's morals or San Antonio's is up to you, but it would seem to be reasonably in the purview of a City Council to decide that, and absent recall petitions or election upsets, the stance of the residents of San Antonio as well.

Perhaps something to remember when planning a vacation or weekend away.

*ABC Article REFed above:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/san-antonio-city-council-votes-stop-chick-fil/story?id=61886874&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed

In my book, no.  Chickfila's morals shouldn't matter to the city council.  Is their product legal, in demand, and will they fill the need.  Looking beyond that means that the city council is picking winners and losers, and that shouldn't be governments job.  The SA city council should be tarred and feathered, but we don't do that anymore.

[MillCreek]

^^^Here in Seattle, the City Council makes those sort of vendor and business decisions all the time: picking and choosing whom to do business with based upon subjective political criteria.  Examples include getting out of a specific mutual fund in the City retirement plan because that fund had tobacco stocks; or not choosing a construction company because it had an insufficient number of female workers; or moving the City's banking business because the national bank had subsidiaries that did business in South Africa during the apartheid days.

[Perd Hapley]

^^^Here in Seattle, the City Council makes those sort of vendor and business decisions all the time: picking and choosing whom to do business with based upon subjective political criteria.  Examples include getting out of a specific mutual fund in the City retirement plan because that fund had tobacco stocks; or not choosing a construction company because it had an insufficient number of female workers; or moving the City's banking business because the national bank had subsidiaries that did business in South Africa during the apartheid days.

"Insufficient number of female workers"

[Firethorn]

Dogmush - on them being antigay.

It was discovered years also that among the portfolio of charities that they donated to that a couple were indeed arguably anti-gay.  I say arguably because you had to look into their actions and not just their mission statements.

Chick-fil-a looked into it, and stopped donations to those charities within a reasonable period of being made aware.

They still get hit with *expletive deleted*it like this *expletive deleted*it though.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Like most of you, I'd buy the not open on Sunday as a legit reason to not give them the space.

I also think Terry could have the right of it. If it was the federal government saying that Chic-fil-a couldn't be in any airport, nation wide because of any reason, I'd say no. At the State level I'd say absolutely not if it was due to political reasons, but on the local level...
Our government is supposed to work like that. Minimal input on daily lives from the Feds, with the States having more individual determination and leaving the nitty gritty little stuff up to the locals of a particular area.
If the locals don't want a restaurant in their government funded airport because of whatever reason, that's up to them. Mind you, if the business is outside the airport and on privately owned property, that's another story.

[Angel Eyes]

Add Buffalo to the list:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/buffalo-airport-bans-chick-fil-a?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM-Final%202019-03-30&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM%20-%20last%20270%20days

This one appears to be clearly aimed at Jesus Chicken's allegedly anti-LGBTWTFBBQEIEIO values.