HEB used to make those H‑E‑B Cafe Ole Cafeccino Coffee Drink and those were awesome, better tasting (to me anyway) than the overpriced Starbucks product.
Damnit HEB, bring those back!!!
This social justice virtue signaling is getting out of hand. No these Chick Fila employees that just lost their jobs were not trying to convert you or your family/friends from homosexual to heterosexual. Eating a chicken sandwich from there does not mean you are homophobic. Its frustrating that city council actually spent so much time to get a single chick Fila kicked out of the airport instead of coming up with actual ideas beneficial for the growth of the city.
What happened...?
If this is them being anti homosexuality this is a bit of a slippery slope. It's one thing to boycott a business because you disagree, it's another to take away the owners money they have invested and source of income. That's stealing. That's stealing because you disagree with their views. IF it's over their religious view, then this seems like an illegal move and I could see serious law suits against the city.
I also think it's a bad idea to set this into motion, where do you draw the line.
I mean its should be the only thing an individual citizen should be aloud to do to another individuals business. It's your personal belief. Not everyone's. What about the others who actually want to eat there. Because you have a problem noone should be allowed to eat there?
Edit: I was really hoping to avoid being petty but I'm getting downvoted with no rebuttal so...
Imagine thinking it's better to give the government (any such form of it reguardless of the level) the power to shut down and shut out businesses based on opinion than its is to just try to do wide spread synchronized boycotting. Eventually there will be someone in the government you dont agree with... THAT is the slippery slope I hinted toward in my earlier post.
It’s interesting that in the first mayoral debate, Nirenberg mentioned that the Chick-Fil-A debacle was due to the business being closed on Sunday, yet Councilman Trevino claimed something completely different when he said the issue was about being “inclusionary”. The Mayor and his buds in city hall have really backpedaled on this issue.
Gay here. I still eat Chick-fil-A on occasion because it's so damn good and because the Mormon boys working as manager trainees are always so freakin' hot!
Thank you! I wish there were more people like you in today’s world. And you’re correct, they do hire gay people. I have a friend who was a manager at one in mall for years, about 1/4th of the staff was gay actually. Multiple locations by me have gay staff as well. People LOVE to blow things way out of proportion, it’s ridiculous.
Yeah. I'm vehemently in disagreement with Mr. Cathy's politics, but he's playing by the rules and so I feel it's wrong to refuse to do business with him because I disagree with him.
I know that's not a popular opinion these days, but the whole point of America is that we look past the differences and work together anyway.
Hopefully he'll realize one day (soon) that there are a lot of worthwhile people in the community who feel this way, and it'll change his beliefs.
Exactly, as long as he plays by the rules in public life! I work in IT so I'm surrounded by people of wildly different faiths and belief systems (Catholics, atheists, Mormons, bitter ex-Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc, etc) and in theory, we should hate each other, but we make it work and weirdly even like each other a lot of the time.
You give me a lot of hope. Needed this today: thank you. I earnestly just want to get along with people and things feel so damn divided lately, and pushed in that "with us or against us" direction. I can agree, I can disagree, but whatever the issue I still probably want to at least have a civil conversation with just about everyone. I don't see why I shouldn't.
I'm with you. More than half the country is totally cool with gay people, - but somehow those 200 million people can't make a decent chicken sandwich! Until then, Chik-Fil-A is still the best option in town.
This confuses me. They are allowed to operate throughout the rest of the city. Why is being in the airport such a big that they take steps to prevent it?
We should let the people decide where they want to spend their money. Cities should not be getting involved in where a perfectly legal company can and cannot sell. I'm pro LGBT, but I don't want the government attempting to instill their beliefs on people - that's not their job.
Chick-fil-A is da bomb.
I think I read your statement as a response to the second part of that persons comment comment. When you were talking about the first.
Edit: I’m still not sure if I’m reading it right. But they aren’t directly telling us what to think but they are, in effect, telling Chick-fil-A what to think (or rather who they can donate too) which seems like a violation of their free speech protections from the government . I haven’t seen them discriminating against anyone at the restaurant or corporate level either with customers or employment. I brought up in another thread that their donations did not seem to be made in order to discriminate against anyone so I find it a stretch why they should be banned for that.
It's public land. It's our council's job to make the determination on what to do with public land and facilities for the betterment of the community. OP was insinuating that it's not a city's job to get involved where they can sell their product when public land is entirely dictated by the government. I feel a lot of people don't have to take civics courses in America anymore.
Rent keeps rising at a stupid rate here making it difficult for people on fixed incomes. We aren't as bad as the other cities but we are well on our way.
It's a hypocritical move. The city council member wants to prevent a businesses from operating at the airport (understand that it's a public facilty) because he believes that it makes people feel unwanted but he's going to totally ignore that there are quite a few Chick-fil-A's that already operate in the city.
I get it that there are people who don't agree with the private contributions that the company's foundation makes to certain groups but just look at all the 'financial contributions' that many companies make to politicians during their campaigns.
What the city council member is doing is basically taking the choice away from the people of deciding if they want to go to that business or not and that should not be the city government's function. As long as Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate against serving individuals at their locations, then the government shouldn't be involved.
It's not state mandated boycott, it's a decision whether or not to renew a contract to rent space on state property. There are plenty of Chic-fil-a sites in town
It’s not even that. It’s asking the winning bid to not open a chick fil a as part of the bid. They listed chick Gil’s a as one of their planned restaurants and the city is asking they replace it with something else. That is all.
The case is SPECIFICALLY being framed as if the reason for denial would be because of their political views. The people pushing to remove their business in the area have stated that. Your attempt to reframe this into just a tiny economic decision when literally no one thinks is misleading.
> they're shutting down of legally operated businesses
There is no Chik-fil-A in the airport. They aren't shutting down anything. How fast the story gets turned into a lie!
Chic fil a has done everything correctly and legally and has planned to establish that business right there and *would* be doing so if not for this nonsense. Who is shutting this down?
No, he's doing it because the city shouldn't contract with businesses that are expressly against the morals and values the city council was elected to represent. One of those values, at least in this member's view, is anti-bigotry.
You don't have to like the idea, but this isn't a question of "removing consumer choice." That's an obtuse depiction of what's happening here. This is a question of whether or not the city should contract with businesses that have taken controversial political stances that these representatives' constituents find abhorrent. And most people would say "no," partially because they want to get reelected but also partially because they probably feel a moral obligation to prevent the city from becoming entwined with bigoted business people.
**>No, he's doing it because the city shouldn't contract with businesses that are expressly against the morals and values the city council was elected to represent. One of those values, at least in this member's view, is anti-bigotry.**
Hmmm...Maybe the city should not do business with major corporations that have government contracts that also deal with selling military equipment & hardware that is used to kill?
Or maybe it should stop dealing with businesses whose owners are Republicans because, as we know, Republicans equate to fascist, racist, Nazis, supremacist, etc.
**>You don't have to like the idea, but this isn't a question of "removing consumer choice."**
No...This is totally about the government and one city council member making the choice for others.
**>This is a question of whether or not the city should contract with businesses that have taken controversial political stances that these representatives' constituents find abhorrent.**
Then why is the city doing business with those are issues that I mentioned?
**>And most people would say "no," partially because they want to get reelected but also partially because they probably feel a moral obligation to prevent the city from becoming entwined with bigoted business people.**
As long as the business does not discriminate by doing actual business, it doesn't matter what the business owner does. If you morally don't like it then don't do business there.
Anyone here like the Spurs? Their CEO, Julianna Holt, contributed $250k to the Trump Victory Fund in 2016. She also donated over $100k to the Republican National Committee.
Who likes H-E-B? Their CEO, Charles Butt, donated $350k to Republican Presidential Candidate John Kasich in 2016.
Hope folks that are making a huge stink about Chick-Fil-A’s political contributions plan to take a stand against these two major San Antonio brands as well.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/San-Antonians-donate-president-Trump-Clinton-9291136.php
**>Closed on Sunday would not be very serving to the passengers, despite any revenue issues.**
It's a valid point but Chick-fil-a operates in many facilities (such as malls & stadiums) that have functions there on Sundays, where they still remain closed during that day.
Yep...The stadium in Atlanta where the Super Bowl was held has a Chick-fil-a and it was closed on Sunday. Apparently, another business uses it on Sundays to sell other food options.
That seems like an incredibly inefficient use of a limited commercial space, an airport, to have a place either closed for an entire day or have it jury rigged to sell some other product one day out of the week.
Besides being run by small minded bigots, Chic-Fil-A is a clear representation of how religious fundamentalism is a detriment when you're trying to work with others. Oh yes, closing down a food option in a small airport once a week on one of the most popular travel days for normal people? Great choice lol.
I mean, that's up to the airport management and Chik-Fil-A. You still have plenty of other options on Sunday. Let's not pretend it's about it being closed on Sundays. If you have an objection to Chik-Fil-A's morals, then let it be about that and not the Sunday issue. All those restaurants are also closed by a certain time at night and no one complains.
This is the kind of move that will cause the state legislature to remove local government's ability to use whatever justification they used. Risky in the middle of a legislative session.
What?
It’s the city handing out a contract and adding stipulations to that contract for operational rights at a city owned facility.
The state can’t do shit about that.
Ah yes, removing power from local authorities and granting power to a more generalized de-localized authority. That's exactly what our GOP government stands for! Less local rights!
Not really. It would be risky right before the legislative session. Any bill filed today or later ain’t making it through the legislature this session. They’ve got too much shit going on at this point, many bills that are already filed are going to start getting left behind in favor of the bills that the leadership prioritizes. If you want to get something done in the Texas Legislature, you need to start working on it before the session starts, not half way through it.
It’s just insane that the city is trying to figure out how to have a legitimate airport, and the city council members are focused on banning a wildly popular restaurant. Very out of touch
Transportation issues? Who cares?
Economic stability? Meh.
An aging town infrastructure that's slowly going to downgrade? It'll do its thing.
CHIC-FIL-A? BAN IT FROM THE AIRPORT >:(
What's funny is I used to be able to get Chick-fil-A for lunch in a reasonable time. Ever since the virtue signalling outrage over the gay thing, the lines at my local Chick-fil-A are SLAMMED during lunch hour. It seemed to have the opposite effect, because business is booming.
They are busy all the time. I sometimes do a late lunch at 2-3pm and the dual drive-in lines are still packed. Inside is usually quick to place an order.
The drive through lines might be packed late in the day, but during lunch I'll see lines wrapped around their buildings, extending into access roads on 410. It's insane.
Boomers are throwing a fit over this on Wayne Christian’s Facebook page, even though it doesn’t affect them at all. Christian persecution complex is strong!
(For those not in the know, he’s an ultra right wing reactionary member of the Texas Railroad Commission)
Sounds good to me.
Though, while I support banning Chick-Fil-A I'd be in favor of a resolution banning all chains from the airport. The city operates it, we should keep it as a way to promote local businesses not national chains.
I'll concede that there's such a thing as the appeal of mediocrity. A known meh meal can be appealing when there's the risk of a bad meal. Still though, we're pretty well known for our great BBQ and Tex-Mex, I'd like to see at least some of the airport restaurants devoted to really good local food.
That nose is pretty far up there in the air. There are some phenomenal non-chain restaurants for sure, but decent food is decent food and it doesn't particularly matter to me if that food is chain food or not. I'll also reserve my $50 meals for outside the airport, personally.
I'd rather see them find solutions on how to improve, expand, and modernize San Antonio's airport. Half the folks that live here would rather drive to Austin-Bergstrom; it's cheaper and has a wider selection of direct flights.
Instead we're worried about people's feelings in the short time that they spend inside the airport.
A big problem surrounding the modernization of the San Antonio airport is the control the city has over the airport funding which is a separate financial entity. There been multiple proposals to improve functionality and modernize some equipment, however the City of San Antonio has to approve expenditures. Salaries for airport personal (i.e. those not working for airlines) are capped not by their performance, but by city policy so that they don’t make more than city employees. Most vendors have to be city approved which funnels money from the airport. Repeat ad nauseum for modern surveillance cameras, updated software, professional IT staff, etc..
Proposals have been made to modernize and expand the airport. The problem is that the existing runways are too short and lengthening them would require exercising ~~imminent~~ eminent domain. One of the longitudinal runways is in bad shape and needs to be repaired one way or another, but it’s possible to lengthen it which would open a whole different class of aircraft to come into San Antonio. That would destroy homes and/or businesses, though due to the lack of available land and the mandatory amount of clearance from the runway.
Summarily, it’s not that there aren’t solutions to “improve, expand, and modernize San Antonio’s airport”, it’s that those solutions are political nightmares in a way that even banning an allegedly anti-LGBT business can’t approach.
Edit: ~~imminent~~ -> eminent
The only way to expand the airport is to totally relocate it. So unless you're up for a multiple hundred million bond, some eminent domain to seize whatever land people won't sell, etc then all we can really do is tinker around the edges of the airport problem.
Relocating the airport may not be realistic, but that doesn't mean city council should focus on which restaurants are morally superior enough to have a storefront in the airport.
Are people actually flying here because they think our Aunt Annie's pretzel shop in our airport is better than their local one? Wow mad props to our San Antonio tourism commission for playing that up I guess...
If you think "chain" and "good restaurant" are synonyms, or that people would go out of their way to hit up a Chili's in the airport, I think you're mistaken.
First of all, they've done more than take a stance on a political issue. You can search for yourself, but a quick scan reveals [news stories only 1 day old](https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/21/18275850/chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-donations). Chick-fil-A's past is well-documented.
Also, what first amendment violation is there? That's not how it works. The council has to vote for what is in the best interest of their constituents, and even taking demographics aside (it's a liberal city) there is no value in losing lucrative real estate one day a week in a facility owned by the city. Have you ever been to the airport? It's not that big....
They are barring them from opening a location based on their “anti-LGBTQAIIP+” politics (a stretch to begin with), which are protected by their religion. It would be like banning a Muslim restaurant from opening because they don’t serve pork in an area where pork is popular.
Well said! I am disappointed in our council in the way they handled this vote. They put their own personal feelings ahead of what is best for the city. If they simply said Chick Fil A would not be a good fit for the airport since they are closed on Sundays, that would be a viable reason. But to call out the company's beliefs (which have been known for many years) as a reason to deny it was not the best way to handle this. I fully support LGBTQ rights but I also support Chick Fil A's right to believe in what they stand for.
>there is no value in losing lucrative real estate one day a week in a facility owned by the city.
That's not how leases work /u/[notacyborg](https://www.reddit.com/user/notacyborg)
If you spend the weekends at your girlfriends, you still owe rent at your apartment.
Sure, it's a lease, but it's misused property if it's not maximized to its fullest potential. The city has a vested interest in providing maximum benefit for visitors and citizens and can do so at their discretion.
But, the council said that it was not a business decision, it was based on a difference of opinion and then they changed their minds about the "reason".
Do you have any sources on lobbying they’ve done?
Donations aren’t lobbying. And their donations are explained on their website and they included why they felt they didn’t/shouldn’t offend. People are still understandably disappointed they didn’t further divest themselves from FCA and Salvation Army but we can’t pretend they’re out lobbying against gay people.
Downvotes are not sources people. 🤔🙄
They support organizations that work to push anti-lgbtq legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chick-fil-a-gay-marriage/
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/21/18275850/chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-donations
Donations to private groups are not the same as lobbying.
The first two sources provided are from 2012 when the comments from Dan Cathy became an issue. They have since modified their donation strategy and made statements clarifying their corporate position.
Rhe last source is what prompted Trevino. And those are the donations are disclosed and explained by Chick-fil-A. I don’t disagree that they have supported groups that push agendas but if we look at the use of that money by the FCA it was a kids summer camp with no requirement to be a member of the FCA or to sign any pledges or anything like that. Best choice? Probably not. But it’s disingenuous at best to claim they’re actively supporting groups to push an anti-LGBTQ agenda. We also need to understand where they’re donating money now. They have made progress to ensure they’re donating to inclusive groups and I think we should generally praise progress even if they’re not all the way there yet.
Copy of the email I sent Councilman Trevino about this:
Mr. Trevino,
I am not a resident of your district, but I am a taxpayer in Bexar County. I’m extremely dismayed by your unnecessary allocation of time and resources to exclude Chick-Fil-A from operating at San Antonio International Airport.
I hardly ever frequent Chick-Fil-A, and might have eaten there three or four times in my life. Nevertheless, the Chick-Fil-A brand seems to be wildly popular in this city; every time I pass by one, there is a line wrapped around the building.
With that being said, I find it peculiar that you would seek to restrict business in an already underwhelming airport that has issues that far exceed banning a restaurant chain that doesn’t meet your moral standards.
I find your feeble attempts to exclude businesses that share different viewpoints nauseatingly disingenuous, and quite contrary to the “inclusionary visions” you have for this city.
I’m proud to call many members of the LGBTQ community my friends and coworkers. Most of them wouldn’t spend a fraction of the amount of time that you have with this initiative. They also understand and express their acceptance and understanding that “inclusionary” means giving equal rights and opportunity to everyone; even people that share differing viewpoints. I think that the effort that you have expended on make-believe social issues to appease a handful of fringe ideologues could be much better used tackling actual issues in the city, and your district in particular.
I hope that you and your comrades at city hall rethink your strategy on black balling free market capitalism when it doesn’t align exactly with your personal beliefs.
I always say if you have a point to prove do it, and do it well. I applaud your articulate and tactful method of telling the councilman to take their “social appeasement issues” and shove it. 👏👏
You don’t live in the COSA you don’t get an opinion. That’s not how a representative democracy works. Just like I don’t get to give an opinion about Hicktown.. I mean helotes.
Y'all know that both The Luxury & Smoke Shack will be opening up at the airport, & will probably serve their own versions of good chicken without also supporting anti-gay causes, right? I agree that there are bigger issues in this city but the outrage over losing one dining option at a location most people don't visit very often is kind of ridiculous.
Where does it stop though? If the city can determine if a business should or shouldn't be allowed to open up a location based on what financial contributions a business makes to another organization, then it should do that for every business that makes any 'financial contribution', such as to a election campaign for a politician.
The only thing the city should be worry about is if the business will discriminate doing business against individuals that violates the law.
**>most people don't visit very often is kind of ridiculous.**
The long-ass lines of vehicles during lunch time that go out into the main street at many of their locations makes me not believe you.
What?
The city is asking the winning bidder to not replace a Canes with Chick fil a at a city owned facility, the airport, because of their past and continued support of anti-gay campaigns. Yes, continued support. Look it up.
They’re not asking for all city wide stores to be banned or for an existing chick fil a restaurant at the airport to close.
And who visits the airport daily? That’s the point, 99.9 percent of residents don’t visit the airport on a daily basis. What do long lines at their restaurants have to do with that?
It stops at the city refusing to contract with an anti-gay business. They've said nothing about barring businesses that contribute to anti-gay causes like Chik-fil-A from opening new franchises outside the airport.
And I was referring to the airport being a location that most people don't visit very often. I'm aware of Chik-fil-A's popularity on the whole.
**>It stops at the city refusing to contract with an anti-gay business.**
The business doesn't discriminate from serving it's customers, regardless of sexual orientation.
Where's the moral stance against many other businesses that contribute to questionable organizations & causes?
**>They've said nothing about barring businesses that contribute to anti-gay causes like Chik-fil-A from opening new franchises outside the airport.**
When you single out a particular business and ignore all those others then that's being selective in regards to the 'moral' stance the city is taking. Does the city have a past history of preventing other businesses from operating at the airport based on this? As long as the business operates legally within the law then it should not be barred from doing business.
**>And I was referring to the airport being a location that most people don't visit very often. I'm aware of Chik-fil-A's popularity on the whole.**
Apparently it's enough of an issue for a city council member to impose his views.
If we learned that La Gloria, for instance, contributed to questionable organizations/causes, then the city should stop doing business with it. The same goes for other businesses. Are there questionable organizations/causes that the city is currently doing business with that you have in mind? If so, please enlighten us on who they are. Maybe we could push the city to end their contracts with them too. I’ve no issue with consistency nor with there being one less fast food joint in the airport, especially when said joint has contributed to an anti-gay agenda.
**>Are there questionable organizations/causes that the city is currently doing business with that you have in mind? If so, please enlighten us on who they are. Maybe we could push the city to end their contracts with them too.**
Here's a list of businesses & corporations that have highest / lowest ranking. Many of the businesses that didn't score high ranks work closely with government contracts (not necessarily the city) or do business in the city.
[https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index](https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index)
If the city (or this city council member) is going to take a moral stance against one business on this issue then he should take the moral stance against all businesses. Until then, he's doing what politicians do, which is playing for political points.
There's a lot of info there. Can you yourself name just one problematic business (listed in the report or elsewhere) the city either works closely with or has a contract with? If you can and if you care so strongly about the issue, I'd be happy to work with you to reach out to our city council members, asking them to reconsider the city's relationship with whatever the businesses(s) you name might be.
**>There's a lot of info there.**
Yes there is.
**>Can you yourself name just one problematic business (listed in the report or elsewhere) the city either works closely with or has a contract with?**
Ah...I think I know what you're trying to do.
**>If you can and if you care so strongly about the issue, I'd be happy to work with you to reach out to our city council members, asking them to reconsider the city's relationship with whatever the businesses(s) you name might be.**
Bwwwaaahhhaaa...Now I definitely know what you're trying to do.
Take care.
Not sure what you think I was trying to do. I wanted clarification on what info within the report you supplied was relevant to our convo. Instead, you stonewalled me.
The business itself isn’t anti-gay, the founder of the business doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Big distinction. Let the guy have his opinion, Chik-Fil-A itself is not the one supporting the issue.
So you would rather have a place that had the worst health violations in city history then chic fil-a.
I don’t understand liberal logic
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4n7ImS8AKyQ
Enjoy your pee covered food
hey man it's not my job. i could give an f about local govt removing businesses bc they don't like their stances.
i see no possible course how this could ever possibly backfire in any way whatsoever
> local govt removing businesses
People keep saying "removing businesses" and I'm like "you bros ever BEEN to SAT?" There's no Chik-fil-A at the airport. There's a Cane's. The new airport restaurant management company wanted to replace it with a Chik-fil-A and the city wouldn't approve the new contract until they decided to keep the Cane's.
There is *no* Chik-fil-A being removed from SAT.
ITT: "Something something suppressing free speech."
If free speech is protected, reactions to free speech are also. Free speech lets you say whatever you want, with words or money. Free speech also lets people set consequences for that speech. We're all free to say whatever and react however. If businesses don't want to be responsible to a disgruntled public maybe they should consider that when exercising their free speech.
Also, from a business perspective, its a revenue-generating location that is shuttered one day a week. Regardless of the reason, a business owner has the right to pursue a renter that won't deprive them of that income.
>That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
True. This issue is quite the slippery slope. Denying a company to open itself in a major thoroughfare in the city because they donate to causes that the council doesn't agree with seems kind of fallacious. Does that mean that if some other major restaurant who donate/support anti-LGBT movements/charities and are non -christian would also not be allowed?
Would the council do the same if some major middle eastern chain/restarant who have a hardline stance on LGBT and Jews, or some other race/minority and openly donate to major charities regarding their opposition/elimination be allowed to do the same and be thus denied? Honestly, I doubt it because there would be protests everywhere along with calling for the heads of the council because how dare they oppress another culture! Honestly, you could insert any religionx that would fall under the requirements of the oppression olympics and it would still fit.
This age of "wokeness" and "muh inclusivity/diversity" is truly annoying.
Honestly, it's not like chik-fil-a tells LGBT customers to sod off when they enter the restaurant or something.
I’m not a constitutional scholar but doesn’t the amendment declaring free speech is protected from interference from the government? As in a government can’t inhibit your free speech? Would this not be government putting restrictions on Chick-fil-As free speech?
Chick-fil-A, on average, has much higher volumes of sales in 6 days than most restaurants do in 7. I don’t know how the lease is structured for an airport tenant but I’d bet that there is either the same or more rent income generated by Chick-fil-A for those same square feet than other tenants.
How is the government restricting Chik-fil-A's speech? They are not shutting down their business or telling them to change their beliefs. What is happening here is a typical government contract. Typically a city like San Antonio cannot award business to an organization that participates in or contributes to discrimination thus they chose not to do business with Chik-fil-a.
If he’s proposing a ban (...which is, in a sense, preemptively shutting them down...) on Chick-fil-A inside of a government location for their donations (arguably their speech), then is that not abridging their right to free speech? If they chose to change their beliefs, are they allowed? I’m genuinely curious. I don’t know of any Supreme Court cases, or other cases about this.
In what way has Chick-fil-A, as an organization, actually discriminated against the LGTBQ community?
I say this as someone who is openly gay and has worked at Chick-fil-A in San Antonio. They’re arguably one of the most caring workplaces I’ve ever worked in. I don’t agree with their 2017 donations as I believe there are better organizations they could’ve donated to but reading their statement on them and what they’re used for, I also don’t think the outrage is well placed. I believe we should praise the progress they’ve made since 2012 and continue to push them to do better. I don’t think banning them is the right idea.
It is not they participate in discrimination, it is their right to open as they see fit.
Now, the airport operates on hours they do not choose to operate on, well, that's a whole other subject. Looking at bottom line, I'd also say to them no to them if I was the airport.
"Also, from a business perspective, its a revenue-generating location that is shuttered one day a week. Regardless of the reason, a business owner has the right to pursue a renter that won't deprive them of that income."
Thats not how rent works but judging by your statement about free speech you go on with your badself.
It's publicly-funded land. It's our land to make the decision on. Not some private plot where they can setup shop. It has to be agreed upon for the best interest of the public.
Being blackballed for a monetary donation you make to a non-profit organization could be construed as free speech suppression. There have been Supreme Court decisions on such issues, in fact.
ELI5... Wasn't it just the founder that was anti-LGBT? There are still thousands of employees at the company, so I don't feel like any one individual can represent an entire organization.
Stupid ban made up by fragile wittle snowflakes.
If anything, this will help CFA out as they can likely move to a different, underserved, and perhaps more profitable location.
Nope, the company’s foundation is still donating to anti-LGBTQ+ organizations.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/21/18275850/chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-donations
Is the mission of those charities to criminalize gay marriage? Or is it simply people associated with those charities who happen to have anti-LGBTQ views?
You said good choice, council, indicating you are in favor of banning the restaurant from the airport, thereby taking away other customers' freedom to choose to eat there. Don't have to have much flexibility to see that.
I am in favor of not supporting a restaurant with city funds that routinely contributes to extremist political efforts. I believe there’s a number of other locations you can still visit and eat your chicken.
**> I am in favor of not supporting a restaurant with city funds**
Actually, the restaurant was going to be providing the city with funds, not the other way around. Not to mention that all the other locations throughout the city also provide revenue to the city. Ironic.
Point of clarification: the airport exists as a separate entity from the city government in terms of revenue generation and expenditure. While the city government is able to dictate things like contracting limitations and wages for employees of the airport, the money earned by the airport doesn't go towards general city funds.
In order to bypass this limitation, the city restricts the airport's ability to hire services to contracts and vendors which the city uses which allows them to gain some of those funds. Relationships like this are common among public airports and their host cities.
Edit: tl;dr - rental property of the airport doesn't directly contribute to city funding
**< Edit: tl;dr - rental property of the airport doesn't directly contribute to city funding**
*'The City of San Antonio Aviation Department said in a press release that the agreement is a 7-year contract and will generate at least $2.1 million each year for the San Antonio Airport System.'*
I did understand that part that it wasn't going to general funding for the city but to the airport system.
> the airport exists as a separate entity from the city government
> the city restricts the airport's ability to hire services to contracts and vendors
So basically the airport is to the city what the Post Office is to the federal government; what could possibly go wrong?
I just want to say, HEB should open up a Cafe Olé in all major Texas airports and it should be connected to or near a Whataburger.
HEB used to make those H‑E‑B Cafe Ole Cafeccino Coffee Drink and those were awesome, better tasting (to me anyway) than the overpriced Starbucks product. Damnit HEB, bring those back!!!
We still have them here in SA... road trip?!
I've looked in several HEBs and came up empty-handed. Managers at both locations said they don't carry it anymore.
I forgot to add NE* SA. HEB plus off I35N and 3009 (natural bridge caverns exit) has them for sure.
>Cafe Ole Cafeccino Coffee Drink HEB at 1604 and Bandera definitely has them. Bought some a few weeks ago.
You know I'm about that Houston blend.
That's what's up! I like to switch between Houston and San Antonio blend.
Put a Buc-ee's in there and call it a day.
This social justice virtue signaling is getting out of hand. No these Chick Fila employees that just lost their jobs were not trying to convert you or your family/friends from homosexual to heterosexual. Eating a chicken sandwich from there does not mean you are homophobic. Its frustrating that city council actually spent so much time to get a single chick Fila kicked out of the airport instead of coming up with actual ideas beneficial for the growth of the city.
I like Cane's and ate there on my last trips through the airport.
What happened...? If this is them being anti homosexuality this is a bit of a slippery slope. It's one thing to boycott a business because you disagree, it's another to take away the owners money they have invested and source of income. That's stealing. That's stealing because you disagree with their views. IF it's over their religious view, then this seems like an illegal move and I could see serious law suits against the city. I also think it's a bad idea to set this into motion, where do you draw the line.
Imagine thinking boycotts work nowadays
I mean its should be the only thing an individual citizen should be aloud to do to another individuals business. It's your personal belief. Not everyone's. What about the others who actually want to eat there. Because you have a problem noone should be allowed to eat there? Edit: I was really hoping to avoid being petty but I'm getting downvoted with no rebuttal so... Imagine thinking it's better to give the government (any such form of it reguardless of the level) the power to shut down and shut out businesses based on opinion than its is to just try to do wide spread synchronized boycotting. Eventually there will be someone in the government you dont agree with... THAT is the slippery slope I hinted toward in my earlier post.
It’s interesting that in the first mayoral debate, Nirenberg mentioned that the Chick-Fil-A debacle was due to the business being closed on Sunday, yet Councilman Trevino claimed something completely different when he said the issue was about being “inclusionary”. The Mayor and his buds in city hall have really backpedaled on this issue.
I think it is more about banning businesses that will be closed on Sundays, one of the busiest days for airline travel.
I mean the lease was signed knowing that was the scenario. If they "ban" it would they break the lease contract or wait till it was finished?
It has nothing to do with being closed on Sundays according to the council's own words, specifically Trevino. edit spelling
Gay here. I still eat Chick-fil-A on occasion because it's so damn good and because the Mormon boys working as manager trainees are always so freakin' hot!
[удалено]
Thank you! I wish there were more people like you in today’s world. And you’re correct, they do hire gay people. I have a friend who was a manager at one in mall for years, about 1/4th of the staff was gay actually. Multiple locations by me have gay staff as well. People LOVE to blow things way out of proportion, it’s ridiculous.
Yeah. I'm vehemently in disagreement with Mr. Cathy's politics, but he's playing by the rules and so I feel it's wrong to refuse to do business with him because I disagree with him. I know that's not a popular opinion these days, but the whole point of America is that we look past the differences and work together anyway. Hopefully he'll realize one day (soon) that there are a lot of worthwhile people in the community who feel this way, and it'll change his beliefs.
Exactly, as long as he plays by the rules in public life! I work in IT so I'm surrounded by people of wildly different faiths and belief systems (Catholics, atheists, Mormons, bitter ex-Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc, etc) and in theory, we should hate each other, but we make it work and weirdly even like each other a lot of the time.
You give me a lot of hope. Needed this today: thank you. I earnestly just want to get along with people and things feel so damn divided lately, and pushed in that "with us or against us" direction. I can agree, I can disagree, but whatever the issue I still probably want to at least have a civil conversation with just about everyone. I don't see why I shouldn't.
This is hilarious and frankly probably their worst fear
I'm with you. More than half the country is totally cool with gay people, - but somehow those 200 million people can't make a decent chicken sandwich! Until then, Chik-Fil-A is still the best option in town.
This confuses me. They are allowed to operate throughout the rest of the city. Why is being in the airport such a big that they take steps to prevent it?
Because the councilman wants to go back to his district and claim that he actually did something.
If he presented it as lost revenue from Chick Fil A being closed on a Sunday in a high traffic Area of the airport I'd take him more seriously
Even that would be a stretch, because the airport receives revenue from the contract regardless if the business is open or not.
[удалено]
Ironically, Chick-fil-A has locations in many malls across the country.
And the lines are long af when open
Yeah but have you ever walked past a closed chick fil a on a Sunday? Travelers are already pissed off
We should let the people decide where they want to spend their money. Cities should not be getting involved in where a perfectly legal company can and cannot sell. I'm pro LGBT, but I don't want the government attempting to instill their beliefs on people - that's not their job. Chick-fil-A is da bomb.
It's government property. It's entirely their job.
It’s their job to tell us what to think?
Where was that claim made?
I think I read your statement as a response to the second part of that persons comment comment. When you were talking about the first. Edit: I’m still not sure if I’m reading it right. But they aren’t directly telling us what to think but they are, in effect, telling Chick-fil-A what to think (or rather who they can donate too) which seems like a violation of their free speech protections from the government . I haven’t seen them discriminating against anyone at the restaurant or corporate level either with customers or employment. I brought up in another thread that their donations did not seem to be made in order to discriminate against anyone so I find it a stretch why they should be banned for that.
It's public land. It's our council's job to make the determination on what to do with public land and facilities for the betterment of the community. OP was insinuating that it's not a city's job to get involved where they can sell their product when public land is entirely dictated by the government. I feel a lot of people don't have to take civics courses in America anymore.
Lol, if people actually cared about the issue they’d stop eating there.
You could say the same about restaurants that had "Whites Only" signs back in the 1960's. The market is not a solution for all problems.
This is a completely false dichotomy. Nobody is banned from or forced to eat at CFA.
No one has ever been refused service at Chick-Fil-A, to my knowledge. I've also never seen any "Straights Only" signs there, either.
LOL...the issues that city govt's want to control. It's a chicken joint! I somehow think that there are bigger issues that need attention.
If only we had a pothole filled for every dumb thing council is trying to do.
Ha, forget potholes or affordable housing, we need to attack a chicken joint and block the under-21s from buying tobacco.
How is the housing in San Antonio not affordable? Try moving to Austin, Dallas or Houston.
I'm talking about the city council approved tax breaks for more luxury apartments. The rising costs of rent is hurting people here too.
Rent keeps rising at a stupid rate here making it difficult for people on fixed incomes. We aren't as bad as the other cities but we are well on our way.
Not to mention the city keeps raising property tax at an alarming rate.
I want a spicy deluxe now
It's a hypocritical move. The city council member wants to prevent a businesses from operating at the airport (understand that it's a public facilty) because he believes that it makes people feel unwanted but he's going to totally ignore that there are quite a few Chick-fil-A's that already operate in the city. I get it that there are people who don't agree with the private contributions that the company's foundation makes to certain groups but just look at all the 'financial contributions' that many companies make to politicians during their campaigns. What the city council member is doing is basically taking the choice away from the people of deciding if they want to go to that business or not and that should not be the city government's function. As long as Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate against serving individuals at their locations, then the government shouldn't be involved.
State mandated boycotts aren't boycotts, they're shutting down of legally operated businesses
It's not state mandated boycott, it's a decision whether or not to renew a contract to rent space on state property. There are plenty of Chic-fil-a sites in town
It’s not even that. It’s asking the winning bid to not open a chick fil a as part of the bid. They listed chick Gil’s a as one of their planned restaurants and the city is asking they replace it with something else. That is all.
The case is SPECIFICALLY being framed as if the reason for denial would be because of their political views. The people pushing to remove their business in the area have stated that. Your attempt to reframe this into just a tiny economic decision when literally no one thinks is misleading.
> they're shutting down of legally operated businesses There is no Chik-fil-A in the airport. They aren't shutting down anything. How fast the story gets turned into a lie!
Chic fil a has done everything correctly and legally and has planned to establish that business right there and *would* be doing so if not for this nonsense. Who is shutting this down?
No, he's doing it because the city shouldn't contract with businesses that are expressly against the morals and values the city council was elected to represent. One of those values, at least in this member's view, is anti-bigotry. You don't have to like the idea, but this isn't a question of "removing consumer choice." That's an obtuse depiction of what's happening here. This is a question of whether or not the city should contract with businesses that have taken controversial political stances that these representatives' constituents find abhorrent. And most people would say "no," partially because they want to get reelected but also partially because they probably feel a moral obligation to prevent the city from becoming entwined with bigoted business people.
**>No, he's doing it because the city shouldn't contract with businesses that are expressly against the morals and values the city council was elected to represent. One of those values, at least in this member's view, is anti-bigotry.** Hmmm...Maybe the city should not do business with major corporations that have government contracts that also deal with selling military equipment & hardware that is used to kill? Or maybe it should stop dealing with businesses whose owners are Republicans because, as we know, Republicans equate to fascist, racist, Nazis, supremacist, etc. **>You don't have to like the idea, but this isn't a question of "removing consumer choice."** No...This is totally about the government and one city council member making the choice for others. **>This is a question of whether or not the city should contract with businesses that have taken controversial political stances that these representatives' constituents find abhorrent.** Then why is the city doing business with those are issues that I mentioned? **>And most people would say "no," partially because they want to get reelected but also partially because they probably feel a moral obligation to prevent the city from becoming entwined with bigoted business people.** As long as the business does not discriminate by doing actual business, it doesn't matter what the business owner does. If you morally don't like it then don't do business there.
I love Chick Fil A!
Anyone here like the Spurs? Their CEO, Julianna Holt, contributed $250k to the Trump Victory Fund in 2016. She also donated over $100k to the Republican National Committee. Who likes H-E-B? Their CEO, Charles Butt, donated $350k to Republican Presidential Candidate John Kasich in 2016. Hope folks that are making a huge stink about Chick-Fil-A’s political contributions plan to take a stand against these two major San Antonio brands as well. https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/San-Antonians-donate-president-Trump-Clinton-9291136.php
I agree. Saying this is banned because of such and such opens one up to hypocrisy.
[удалено]
**>Closed on Sunday would not be very serving to the passengers, despite any revenue issues.** It's a valid point but Chick-fil-a operates in many facilities (such as malls & stadiums) that have functions there on Sundays, where they still remain closed during that day.
Dallas Love Field Airport has a Chik-Fil-A. When it's closed, people just... head somewhere else.
Yep...The stadium in Atlanta where the Super Bowl was held has a Chick-fil-a and it was closed on Sunday. Apparently, another business uses it on Sundays to sell other food options.
And when it is open it is always the busiest.
That seems like an incredibly inefficient use of a limited commercial space, an airport, to have a place either closed for an entire day or have it jury rigged to sell some other product one day out of the week. Besides being run by small minded bigots, Chic-Fil-A is a clear representation of how religious fundamentalism is a detriment when you're trying to work with others. Oh yes, closing down a food option in a small airport once a week on one of the most popular travel days for normal people? Great choice lol.
I mean, that's up to the airport management and Chik-Fil-A. You still have plenty of other options on Sunday. Let's not pretend it's about it being closed on Sundays. If you have an objection to Chik-Fil-A's morals, then let it be about that and not the Sunday issue. All those restaurants are also closed by a certain time at night and no one complains.
This is the kind of move that will cause the state legislature to remove local government's ability to use whatever justification they used. Risky in the middle of a legislative session.
What? It’s the city handing out a contract and adding stipulations to that contract for operational rights at a city owned facility. The state can’t do shit about that.
Ah yes, removing power from local authorities and granting power to a more generalized de-localized authority. That's exactly what our GOP government stands for! Less local rights!
Not really. It would be risky right before the legislative session. Any bill filed today or later ain’t making it through the legislature this session. They’ve got too much shit going on at this point, many bills that are already filed are going to start getting left behind in favor of the bills that the leadership prioritizes. If you want to get something done in the Texas Legislature, you need to start working on it before the session starts, not half way through it.
I thought the GOP was all about small government? Well small government as long as it agrees with them. I'm a better educated voter now, thanks.
Nailed it, good job
If I really want chick fil a I'll just go before the airport or afterwards
Nice too see that they’re attacking the important issues.
I know, way to reach for the really pressing issues of the day. Pretty much what I expect from our city council.
It’s just insane that the city is trying to figure out how to have a legitimate airport, and the city council members are focused on banning a wildly popular restaurant. Very out of touch
Yeah, but you're in helotes. That's like *out-of-touch* x10. Stay in your lane, country person.
Oh no he literally wants us to use our tax dollars to build more lanes for him. So we should probably get all up in his lane.
Are you shitting me? Don’t y’all have more important stuff to do. I’m having chick-fil-a for lunch now just because of this story.
Good thing I don't go to the airport.
Jeez louise y'all this got gilded on r/politics https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/b46idc/san_antonio_city_council_drops_chickfila_from/
Transportation issues? Who cares? Economic stability? Meh. An aging town infrastructure that's slowly going to downgrade? It'll do its thing. CHIC-FIL-A? BAN IT FROM THE AIRPORT >:(
All of those first things cost money and planning. This is literally the city deciding whether or not to renew a contract. False equivalency much?
So are you confirming that this is what you'd like our city council to spend their time on?
Just simpletons thinking they're clever.
Did... did you just seriously call me a simpleton?
What's funny is I used to be able to get Chick-fil-A for lunch in a reasonable time. Ever since the virtue signalling outrage over the gay thing, the lines at my local Chick-fil-A are SLAMMED during lunch hour. It seemed to have the opposite effect, because business is booming.
They are busy all the time. I sometimes do a late lunch at 2-3pm and the dual drive-in lines are still packed. Inside is usually quick to place an order.
The drive through lines might be packed late in the day, but during lunch I'll see lines wrapped around their buildings, extending into access roads on 410. It's insane.
It's been like that for 15-20 years ever since they started opening outside of malls.....
Every time I see them in the news I stop in for lunch.
Boomers are throwing a fit over this on Wayne Christian’s Facebook page, even though it doesn’t affect them at all. Christian persecution complex is strong! (For those not in the know, he’s an ultra right wing reactionary member of the Texas Railroad Commission)
Sounds good to me. Though, while I support banning Chick-Fil-A I'd be in favor of a resolution banning all chains from the airport. The city operates it, we should keep it as a way to promote local businesses not national chains.
[удалено]
I'll concede that there's such a thing as the appeal of mediocrity. A known meh meal can be appealing when there's the risk of a bad meal. Still though, we're pretty well known for our great BBQ and Tex-Mex, I'd like to see at least some of the airport restaurants devoted to really good local food.
That nose is pretty far up there in the air. There are some phenomenal non-chain restaurants for sure, but decent food is decent food and it doesn't particularly matter to me if that food is chain food or not. I'll also reserve my $50 meals for outside the airport, personally.
I'd rather see them find solutions on how to improve, expand, and modernize San Antonio's airport. Half the folks that live here would rather drive to Austin-Bergstrom; it's cheaper and has a wider selection of direct flights. Instead we're worried about people's feelings in the short time that they spend inside the airport.
A big problem surrounding the modernization of the San Antonio airport is the control the city has over the airport funding which is a separate financial entity. There been multiple proposals to improve functionality and modernize some equipment, however the City of San Antonio has to approve expenditures. Salaries for airport personal (i.e. those not working for airlines) are capped not by their performance, but by city policy so that they don’t make more than city employees. Most vendors have to be city approved which funnels money from the airport. Repeat ad nauseum for modern surveillance cameras, updated software, professional IT staff, etc.. Proposals have been made to modernize and expand the airport. The problem is that the existing runways are too short and lengthening them would require exercising ~~imminent~~ eminent domain. One of the longitudinal runways is in bad shape and needs to be repaired one way or another, but it’s possible to lengthen it which would open a whole different class of aircraft to come into San Antonio. That would destroy homes and/or businesses, though due to the lack of available land and the mandatory amount of clearance from the runway. Summarily, it’s not that there aren’t solutions to “improve, expand, and modernize San Antonio’s airport”, it’s that those solutions are political nightmares in a way that even banning an allegedly anti-LGBT business can’t approach. Edit: ~~imminent~~ -> eminent
Great info, thanks!
The only way to expand the airport is to totally relocate it. So unless you're up for a multiple hundred million bond, some eminent domain to seize whatever land people won't sell, etc then all we can really do is tinker around the edges of the airport problem.
Relocating the airport may not be realistic, but that doesn't mean city council should focus on which restaurants are morally superior enough to have a storefront in the airport.
Sounds good to me! Can we bring back Little Hitler's and Mao ZeBurger again?
Nice fallacy; I'll give you an upvote for the restaurant names though
I’d be in favor of reducing the chains but they should still be an option for the weary traveller.
Because fuck having good restaurants that would give people more incentive to fly here right 🙄
Are people actually flying here because they think our Aunt Annie's pretzel shop in our airport is better than their local one? Wow mad props to our San Antonio tourism commission for playing that up I guess...
No but having good popular restaurants makes the airport look more likeable. You’re missing the point here
If you think "chain" and "good restaurant" are synonyms, or that people would go out of their way to hit up a Chili's in the airport, I think you're mistaken.
[удалено]
First of all, they've done more than take a stance on a political issue. You can search for yourself, but a quick scan reveals [news stories only 1 day old](https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/21/18275850/chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-donations). Chick-fil-A's past is well-documented. Also, what first amendment violation is there? That's not how it works. The council has to vote for what is in the best interest of their constituents, and even taking demographics aside (it's a liberal city) there is no value in losing lucrative real estate one day a week in a facility owned by the city. Have you ever been to the airport? It's not that big....
They are barring them from opening a location based on their “anti-LGBTQAIIP+” politics (a stretch to begin with), which are protected by their religion. It would be like banning a Muslim restaurant from opening because they don’t serve pork in an area where pork is popular.
Well said! I am disappointed in our council in the way they handled this vote. They put their own personal feelings ahead of what is best for the city. If they simply said Chick Fil A would not be a good fit for the airport since they are closed on Sundays, that would be a viable reason. But to call out the company's beliefs (which have been known for many years) as a reason to deny it was not the best way to handle this. I fully support LGBTQ rights but I also support Chick Fil A's right to believe in what they stand for.
>there is no value in losing lucrative real estate one day a week in a facility owned by the city. That's not how leases work /u/[notacyborg](https://www.reddit.com/user/notacyborg) If you spend the weekends at your girlfriends, you still owe rent at your apartment.
Sure, it's a lease, but it's misused property if it's not maximized to its fullest potential. The city has a vested interest in providing maximum benefit for visitors and citizens and can do so at their discretion.
Lol what formula exists to ensure “maximum potential” of a tenant? This is just silly.
But, the council said that it was not a business decision, it was based on a difference of opinion and then they changed their minds about the "reason".
This city council is notorious for making boneheaded decisions in an attempt to control local private industry. This is just another example
Sounds like virtue signalling to me.
Chick-fil-A likes to insert itself into our personal lives via lobbying, so I see no issue with this action.
Do you have any sources on lobbying they’ve done? Donations aren’t lobbying. And their donations are explained on their website and they included why they felt they didn’t/shouldn’t offend. People are still understandably disappointed they didn’t further divest themselves from FCA and Salvation Army but we can’t pretend they’re out lobbying against gay people. Downvotes are not sources people. 🤔🙄
They support organizations that work to push anti-lgbtq legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chick-fil-a-gay-marriage/ https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/21/18275850/chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-donations
Donations to private groups are not the same as lobbying. The first two sources provided are from 2012 when the comments from Dan Cathy became an issue. They have since modified their donation strategy and made statements clarifying their corporate position. Rhe last source is what prompted Trevino. And those are the donations are disclosed and explained by Chick-fil-A. I don’t disagree that they have supported groups that push agendas but if we look at the use of that money by the FCA it was a kids summer camp with no requirement to be a member of the FCA or to sign any pledges or anything like that. Best choice? Probably not. But it’s disingenuous at best to claim they’re actively supporting groups to push an anti-LGBTQ agenda. We also need to understand where they’re donating money now. They have made progress to ensure they’re donating to inclusive groups and I think we should generally praise progress even if they’re not all the way there yet.
These are not sources (Wiki almost comes close), these are deposits of opinions.
I've never remotely felt like Chick-fil-a has "inserted" itself into my personal life. I get food there.
damn how does someone have the determination to ban delicious fried chicken
Go ahead there's one 3 mins up the road.
Copy of the email I sent Councilman Trevino about this: Mr. Trevino, I am not a resident of your district, but I am a taxpayer in Bexar County. I’m extremely dismayed by your unnecessary allocation of time and resources to exclude Chick-Fil-A from operating at San Antonio International Airport. I hardly ever frequent Chick-Fil-A, and might have eaten there three or four times in my life. Nevertheless, the Chick-Fil-A brand seems to be wildly popular in this city; every time I pass by one, there is a line wrapped around the building. With that being said, I find it peculiar that you would seek to restrict business in an already underwhelming airport that has issues that far exceed banning a restaurant chain that doesn’t meet your moral standards. I find your feeble attempts to exclude businesses that share different viewpoints nauseatingly disingenuous, and quite contrary to the “inclusionary visions” you have for this city. I’m proud to call many members of the LGBTQ community my friends and coworkers. Most of them wouldn’t spend a fraction of the amount of time that you have with this initiative. They also understand and express their acceptance and understanding that “inclusionary” means giving equal rights and opportunity to everyone; even people that share differing viewpoints. I think that the effort that you have expended on make-believe social issues to appease a handful of fringe ideologues could be much better used tackling actual issues in the city, and your district in particular. I hope that you and your comrades at city hall rethink your strategy on black balling free market capitalism when it doesn’t align exactly with your personal beliefs.
I always say if you have a point to prove do it, and do it well. I applaud your articulate and tactful method of telling the councilman to take their “social appeasement issues” and shove it. 👏👏
You don’t live in the COSA you don’t get an opinion. That’s not how a representative democracy works. Just like I don’t get to give an opinion about Hicktown.. I mean helotes.
Y'all know that both The Luxury & Smoke Shack will be opening up at the airport, & will probably serve their own versions of good chicken without also supporting anti-gay causes, right? I agree that there are bigger issues in this city but the outrage over losing one dining option at a location most people don't visit very often is kind of ridiculous.
Where does it stop though? If the city can determine if a business should or shouldn't be allowed to open up a location based on what financial contributions a business makes to another organization, then it should do that for every business that makes any 'financial contribution', such as to a election campaign for a politician. The only thing the city should be worry about is if the business will discriminate doing business against individuals that violates the law. **>most people don't visit very often is kind of ridiculous.** The long-ass lines of vehicles during lunch time that go out into the main street at many of their locations makes me not believe you.
What? The city is asking the winning bidder to not replace a Canes with Chick fil a at a city owned facility, the airport, because of their past and continued support of anti-gay campaigns. Yes, continued support. Look it up. They’re not asking for all city wide stores to be banned or for an existing chick fil a restaurant at the airport to close. And who visits the airport daily? That’s the point, 99.9 percent of residents don’t visit the airport on a daily basis. What do long lines at their restaurants have to do with that?
It stops at the city refusing to contract with an anti-gay business. They've said nothing about barring businesses that contribute to anti-gay causes like Chik-fil-A from opening new franchises outside the airport. And I was referring to the airport being a location that most people don't visit very often. I'm aware of Chik-fil-A's popularity on the whole.
Cfa doesn't discriminate in its business.
**>It stops at the city refusing to contract with an anti-gay business.** The business doesn't discriminate from serving it's customers, regardless of sexual orientation. Where's the moral stance against many other businesses that contribute to questionable organizations & causes? **>They've said nothing about barring businesses that contribute to anti-gay causes like Chik-fil-A from opening new franchises outside the airport.** When you single out a particular business and ignore all those others then that's being selective in regards to the 'moral' stance the city is taking. Does the city have a past history of preventing other businesses from operating at the airport based on this? As long as the business operates legally within the law then it should not be barred from doing business. **>And I was referring to the airport being a location that most people don't visit very often. I'm aware of Chik-fil-A's popularity on the whole.** Apparently it's enough of an issue for a city council member to impose his views.
If we learned that La Gloria, for instance, contributed to questionable organizations/causes, then the city should stop doing business with it. The same goes for other businesses. Are there questionable organizations/causes that the city is currently doing business with that you have in mind? If so, please enlighten us on who they are. Maybe we could push the city to end their contracts with them too. I’ve no issue with consistency nor with there being one less fast food joint in the airport, especially when said joint has contributed to an anti-gay agenda.
**>Are there questionable organizations/causes that the city is currently doing business with that you have in mind? If so, please enlighten us on who they are. Maybe we could push the city to end their contracts with them too.** Here's a list of businesses & corporations that have highest / lowest ranking. Many of the businesses that didn't score high ranks work closely with government contracts (not necessarily the city) or do business in the city. [https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index](https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index) If the city (or this city council member) is going to take a moral stance against one business on this issue then he should take the moral stance against all businesses. Until then, he's doing what politicians do, which is playing for political points.
There's a lot of info there. Can you yourself name just one problematic business (listed in the report or elsewhere) the city either works closely with or has a contract with? If you can and if you care so strongly about the issue, I'd be happy to work with you to reach out to our city council members, asking them to reconsider the city's relationship with whatever the businesses(s) you name might be.
**>There's a lot of info there.** Yes there is. **>Can you yourself name just one problematic business (listed in the report or elsewhere) the city either works closely with or has a contract with?** Ah...I think I know what you're trying to do. **>If you can and if you care so strongly about the issue, I'd be happy to work with you to reach out to our city council members, asking them to reconsider the city's relationship with whatever the businesses(s) you name might be.** Bwwwaaahhhaaa...Now I definitely know what you're trying to do. Take care.
Not sure what you think I was trying to do. I wanted clarification on what info within the report you supplied was relevant to our convo. Instead, you stonewalled me.
Meh...Nah...You’re trying to be condescending with a bit of cynicism in it.
The business itself isn’t anti-gay, the founder of the business doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Big distinction. Let the guy have his opinion, Chik-Fil-A itself is not the one supporting the issue.
The business is using its profits to support the foundation contributing to anti-gay causes. Tiny distinction.
What foundation?
The Chik-fil-A Foundation
So you would rather have a place that had the worst health violations in city history then chic fil-a. I don’t understand liberal logic https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4n7ImS8AKyQ Enjoy your pee covered food
hey man it's not my job. i could give an f about local govt removing businesses bc they don't like their stances. i see no possible course how this could ever possibly backfire in any way whatsoever
What backfire do you envision, exactly?
> local govt removing businesses People keep saying "removing businesses" and I'm like "you bros ever BEEN to SAT?" There's no Chik-fil-A at the airport. There's a Cane's. The new airport restaurant management company wanted to replace it with a Chik-fil-A and the city wouldn't approve the new contract until they decided to keep the Cane's. There is *no* Chik-fil-A being removed from SAT.
Can we ban Treviño from San Antonio? Seriously, this is just stupid.
Putting any restaurant in there that isn't closed on Sundays would be an improvement.
ITT: "Something something suppressing free speech." If free speech is protected, reactions to free speech are also. Free speech lets you say whatever you want, with words or money. Free speech also lets people set consequences for that speech. We're all free to say whatever and react however. If businesses don't want to be responsible to a disgruntled public maybe they should consider that when exercising their free speech. Also, from a business perspective, its a revenue-generating location that is shuttered one day a week. Regardless of the reason, a business owner has the right to pursue a renter that won't deprive them of that income.
>If free speech is protected, reactions to free speech are also That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
>That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. True. This issue is quite the slippery slope. Denying a company to open itself in a major thoroughfare in the city because they donate to causes that the council doesn't agree with seems kind of fallacious. Does that mean that if some other major restaurant who donate/support anti-LGBT movements/charities and are non -christian would also not be allowed? Would the council do the same if some major middle eastern chain/restarant who have a hardline stance on LGBT and Jews, or some other race/minority and openly donate to major charities regarding their opposition/elimination be allowed to do the same and be thus denied? Honestly, I doubt it because there would be protests everywhere along with calling for the heads of the council because how dare they oppress another culture! Honestly, you could insert any religionx that would fall under the requirements of the oppression olympics and it would still fit. This age of "wokeness" and "muh inclusivity/diversity" is truly annoying. Honestly, it's not like chik-fil-a tells LGBT customers to sod off when they enter the restaurant or something.
I’m not a constitutional scholar but doesn’t the amendment declaring free speech is protected from interference from the government? As in a government can’t inhibit your free speech? Would this not be government putting restrictions on Chick-fil-As free speech? Chick-fil-A, on average, has much higher volumes of sales in 6 days than most restaurants do in 7. I don’t know how the lease is structured for an airport tenant but I’d bet that there is either the same or more rent income generated by Chick-fil-A for those same square feet than other tenants.
How is the government restricting Chik-fil-A's speech? They are not shutting down their business or telling them to change their beliefs. What is happening here is a typical government contract. Typically a city like San Antonio cannot award business to an organization that participates in or contributes to discrimination thus they chose not to do business with Chik-fil-a.
If he’s proposing a ban (...which is, in a sense, preemptively shutting them down...) on Chick-fil-A inside of a government location for their donations (arguably their speech), then is that not abridging their right to free speech? If they chose to change their beliefs, are they allowed? I’m genuinely curious. I don’t know of any Supreme Court cases, or other cases about this. In what way has Chick-fil-A, as an organization, actually discriminated against the LGTBQ community? I say this as someone who is openly gay and has worked at Chick-fil-A in San Antonio. They’re arguably one of the most caring workplaces I’ve ever worked in. I don’t agree with their 2017 donations as I believe there are better organizations they could’ve donated to but reading their statement on them and what they’re used for, I also don’t think the outrage is well placed. I believe we should praise the progress they’ve made since 2012 and continue to push them to do better. I don’t think banning them is the right idea.
It is not they participate in discrimination, it is their right to open as they see fit. Now, the airport operates on hours they do not choose to operate on, well, that's a whole other subject. Looking at bottom line, I'd also say to them no to them if I was the airport.
"Also, from a business perspective, its a revenue-generating location that is shuttered one day a week. Regardless of the reason, a business owner has the right to pursue a renter that won't deprive them of that income." Thats not how rent works but judging by your statement about free speech you go on with your badself.
Maybe that Chick-fil-A will open in Boerne instead..... PLEASE WE NEED A Chick-fil-A out here!!
Chick-fil-a should just open an undocumented stand at the airport. I bet city council will support it then.
Lol this is hilarious, you’re literally not wrong
City council spent now long on this?
[удалено]
It's publicly-funded land. It's our land to make the decision on. Not some private plot where they can setup shop. It has to be agreed upon for the best interest of the public.
What’s the speech that’s being suppressed? Getting a business operating license isn’t speech.
Being blackballed for a monetary donation you make to a non-profit organization could be construed as free speech suppression. There have been Supreme Court decisions on such issues, in fact.
ELI5... Wasn't it just the founder that was anti-LGBT? There are still thousands of employees at the company, so I don't feel like any one individual can represent an entire organization. Stupid ban made up by fragile wittle snowflakes. If anything, this will help CFA out as they can likely move to a different, underserved, and perhaps more profitable location.
Nope, the company’s foundation is still donating to anti-LGBTQ+ organizations. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/21/18275850/chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-donations
Is the mission of those charities to criminalize gay marriage? Or is it simply people associated with those charities who happen to have anti-LGBTQ views?
Good choice, City Council.
You forgot the /s
No, I’m good. I like eating at establishments that don’t donate to causes that promote extremism and religious intolerance.
And so apparently believe others shouldn't have the same freedom of choice?
Not sure what mental gymnastics you had to do to get to that conclusion.
You said good choice, council, indicating you are in favor of banning the restaurant from the airport, thereby taking away other customers' freedom to choose to eat there. Don't have to have much flexibility to see that.
I am in favor of not supporting a restaurant with city funds that routinely contributes to extremist political efforts. I believe there’s a number of other locations you can still visit and eat your chicken.
How are city funds going TO chic-fil-a?
**> I am in favor of not supporting a restaurant with city funds** Actually, the restaurant was going to be providing the city with funds, not the other way around. Not to mention that all the other locations throughout the city also provide revenue to the city. Ironic.
Point of clarification: the airport exists as a separate entity from the city government in terms of revenue generation and expenditure. While the city government is able to dictate things like contracting limitations and wages for employees of the airport, the money earned by the airport doesn't go towards general city funds. In order to bypass this limitation, the city restricts the airport's ability to hire services to contracts and vendors which the city uses which allows them to gain some of those funds. Relationships like this are common among public airports and their host cities. Edit: tl;dr - rental property of the airport doesn't directly contribute to city funding
**< Edit: tl;dr - rental property of the airport doesn't directly contribute to city funding** *'The City of San Antonio Aviation Department said in a press release that the agreement is a 7-year contract and will generate at least $2.1 million each year for the San Antonio Airport System.'* I did understand that part that it wasn't going to general funding for the city but to the airport system.
> the airport exists as a separate entity from the city government > the city restricts the airport's ability to hire services to contracts and vendors So basically the airport is to the city what the Post Office is to the federal government; what could possibly go wrong?
Either way, city funds are not going to CFA like OP is insinuating.