Posted on 03/25/2019 8:26:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
By now you’ve heard the news: San Antonio, Texas, has banned Chick-fil-A from San Antonio International Airport. The ban, passed by the city council in the form of a vendor contract, is based on a hit piece by the left-wing Think Progress. This the latest attempt by some on the left to ostracize and demonize Chick-fil-A over statements made by its founder or for its charity work -- matters that have nothing to do with its business competence.
City councilman from district 1, Roberto Trevino, made the move to punish Chick-fil-A, saying “With this decision, the City 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.”
“Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport. I look forward to the announcement of a suitable replacement by Paradies,” Trevino added.
Everyone, that is, except anyone who disagrees with Think Progress — which is an agenda-driven site funded by the left.
Let’s be clear: Chick-fil-A does not and never has discriminated in its hiring or service practices. No one is even accusing it of that. No one is accusing America’s most popular fast-food chain of malfeasance of any kind. The issues in play are free speech and free association issues — constitutional issues. Chick-fil-A says San Antonio never reached out prior to the ban, and says it hopes to have a conversation with the city.
Several cities, all run by Democrats, as San Antonio is, have attempted to ban Chick-fil-A in the past for similar reasons. In 2012, Chicago tried denying Chick-fil-A a permit to expand there. Liberals and conservatives alike slammed the city, and it backed down. Boston and Denver also tried banning Chick-fil-A, and they also eventually backed down.
At that time, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh spelled out the First Amendment issues with government banning a business based on ideology.
"[D]enying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). At that time, the American Civil Liberties Union also condemned Chicago’s attempt to ban Chick-fil-A."
I happen to know Councilman Trevino. We served together on the Alamo Master Plan Management Committee, a committee on which he still serves. Councilman Trevino is a thoughtful man. But thoughtful men can be wrong. He may not have considered how actions and statements such as this play into the distrust of him and the city council when it comes government generally and to its handling of the Alamo specifically.
Texas is a conservative state, and the Alamo is its most important battle site. The Alamo is owned by the state, but its historic footprint is mostly owned by the city as is Alamo Plaza today. It is in Trevino’s district, and is undergoing a historic renovation and preservation effort. Texans outside San Antonio have long suspected the city wants to impose a politically correct version of events that downplays the 1836 battle that made the Alamo the icon of Texas liberty. Past comments by former San Antonio mayor and now presidential candidate Julian Castro’s mother -- stating she hates the Alamo and all it represents -- did not help. In banning Chick-fil-A for obviously political reasons, the city has probably stoked those suspicions further. Virtue signaling in one direction creates division and suspicion in another.
San Antonio is named for Saint Anthony, the patron of lost and stolen articles. In taking this action against Chick-fil-A, San Antonio is losing its tolerance and inclusiveness. After all, how “inclusive” can its actions be when the city has gone out of its way to target and exclude a business over politics?
San Antonio's action will probably hurt its image more than it will hurt Chick-fil-A. The city now has a national backlash on its hands. Back in 2012, when liberal-run cities first attacked Chick-fil-A, the restaurant chain posted the strongest sales day in its history.
Isn’t that discriminatory against the Christian faith?
Time to fight back, and sue the airport, and stop permitting
only one side to bully everyone into compliance.
We don’t need no stinking tax revenue
Except Christians.
Boycott San Antonio.
Sue! There’s libel (anti-alphabet behavior) and there are damages. It’s a winner and it would send a message.
The left never misses a chance to trash the ones it hates the most: Christians who actually believe in it.
Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Go, Chick-fil-A
San Antonio will lose in a lawsuit.
SA is a huge military town both retired and active duty. I would have hoped it was more conservative and not elected such filth to city government.
Used to like San Antonio. Now it’s just Austin South.
A couple of other threads from a few days ago
on the topic if anyone cares to scan thru them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3736462/posts
San Antonio bans Chick-fil-A from airport ^
141 replies
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3736614/posts
an Antonio Bans Chick-Fil-A From Airport Over ‘Anti-LGBTQ Behavior’ ^
49 comments
What nitwit losers. These san antonio “officials” are hate-filled and discriminatory. I hope Chick-Fil-A sues them for mucho $$$$$. What intolerant goobers.
Every time one of these stories comes out, Chick-Fil-A makes a lot more money. #1 in sales per location in the fast food business despite being open 6 days per week.
Guess Roberto doesn’t want conservative tourists to fly into that airport. I certainly have no desire to spend money in a place that bans conservative businesses with an excellent reputation, such as C-F-A.
Now that they’ve banned the threat to their city of a fried chicken business, the San Antonio City Council may have time to ban the dozens of Mexican and Salvadoran gangs that fight for control of the robust drug traffic regularly kill each other in the streets of San Antonio.
This is a fine example of what happens to cities run and ruined by identity politicians.
If you axe me it dat craker privilege.
A few of the nicknames for the City of San Antonio
Nickname(s): Military City USA, River City, Alamo City,
The 210, S.A., Countdown City, Something to Remember
How about banning the paying of taxes to these subversive sons of bitches?
Charge these “city servants” with treason against the Constitution and drag their asses to jail...
Time to quit screwing with these people.
Seven years?
Guess one has to start somewhere but is 7 considered how long to ‘brainwash’ the public?
Why not 8 or 10? or forever?
Guess by putting a limit on it is ‘SUPPOSED’ to mean it is open to discussion if CFA ‘changes’ its attitude and proves it is worthy?
These clowns are sick.
Maybe time to ‘pre-book’ a convention or two or family reunion and string them along until it gets to the ‘deposit’ part THEN bring up Chik-Fil-A.
Nothing “Harry’s travel agency” can do about it BUT get enough cancellations and MAYBE the calls would start to get directed to the idiots that make these asinine decisions.
Quite a few years ago I was ‘doing bags’ from a local airport and the people running the concession screwed me out of some pay and basically told me to f off.
I just told them I would start calling the people who I delivered the lost luggage to and (nicely) dunning them for pay AND make sure I left them the Airport Mgrs phone #s.
The company laughed at me and said ‘good luck’ that wouldn’t do any good and I pointed out that I knew that but when the people I was ‘bugging’ started flooding the airport with calls about me calling, he would find himself out on the curb.
They promptly paid me, with interest etc.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.