San Antonio hates tasty chicken sandwiches. This isn’t my view, but the official view of Peter Kirsanow, a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
If the City Council had banned Chick-Fil-A from the airport because its members hate the
tastiest chicken sandwiches in creation, there would be no constitutional violation. The City
Council, however, explicitly banned Chick-Fil-A because of the company’s charitable donations
to religious organizations. Fortune reports:“With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion,” said City Councilman Roberto Treviño. “San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our facilities for a company with a history of anti-LGBTQ behavior.”
The lack of self-awareness in that statement is astonishing. Exclusion in the name of
ostensible inclusion; intolerance in the name of tolerance.
It may not be all that “astonishing,” frankly, even though its hypocrisy is facial. If anything, it’s banal at this point to note that social justice is inherently an excuse for flagrant hypocrisy.
But does it violate the First Amendment? Eugene Volokh says probably. Hans Bader says definitely. The ACLU says send money to fight Trump. Oh wait, they backed Chick-fil-a in 2012 when Chicago tried to play this game, but are too busy picking out new curtains to have anything to say this time.
As Kirsanow notes, if the powers of woke in San Antonio fail to separate their “moral vanity” from their obligation to allow travelers in their airport to purchase the chicken sandwich of choice, the taxpayers of the city might end up footing the bill. But that doesn’t answer the real question, whether the elected officials care or whether the taxpayers mind.
Maybe it’s a price they’re willing to pay to have government use their fiat to ram one ideological view down the throats of a business, and thereby send a message to other businesses that San Antonio is more than willing to deny its peeps the tastiest chicken sandwiches in creation, even though they’re going to pay for the meal when the judgment comes down.
Will it be a happy meal? It may well be the only meal you’re going to be allowed to eat if the forces of inclusion are in charge of the menu. If it’s not constraining enough to regulate tasty food out of existence because it’s not heart-healthy, or involves the death of animals because it’s hard to eat them alive, or to snort them through a nostril for lack of a criminal straw, then the downstream political views of its owners will suffice as a warning to all: Be woke or starve.
Their sandwiches are yummy, but I’ve stayed away from them for years out of dislike of their political and religious viewpoints. That’s my right as an individual consumer, but obviously a governmental entity is under different rules.
Thank you for sharing your eating preferences and virtue.
I didn’t know that a sandwich could have a political and religious viewpoint. All the ones I’ve asked in the past have refused to answer.
More of the crazy fanaticism that has fallen over our society.
So that’s a vote for tasty chicken or what?
Yes.
You realize the only reason I wrote this post was to include the song, but the Art Carney version used to be on Youtube and I can’t find it anymore. It was my favorite 78 when I was a kid until my friend Spencer sat on it and broke it. Spencer was always a clod.
the one you put up in reply to something i said a couple months ago?…gone?
Maybe Spencer got a job at you tube…?
( i’ll do some looking for you next time i’m at the local old vinyl shop)
I’m not sure tasty chicken is the issue. This is only at the airport, right? So actual citizens of San Antonio can still patronize this business, while the impact of the ban falls on furriners in transit through the “hub” there.
Anyway, given the overarching objections to charity and religion, I have no doubt the governing body will be renaming “San Antonio” (as soon as someone explains that to them).
Are travellers to San Antonio expected now to fly with their own sandwiches?
Indeed, it’s not a food issue. I don’t typically eat this kind of stuff, but if my plane arrives late and I’m hungry, grabbing a chicken sandwich is just right while other places are already closed.
if some people will stop eating at Chick-Fill-A, some wouldn’t fly through San Antonio as traveller unfriendly.
Julia, if not Chick-fil-A, it might be Wendy’s. The issue is not that Julia will go hungry at the airport.
I’m for tasty chicken. And, strangely enough, for Chick-fil-a. Out of a feeling that their items are good, that the owner actually lives up to his claim of being a concerned Christian (i.e. being closed on Sundays), and that the money that he gives for what some (including myself) consider bad causes will go to waste in the long run.
I rarely inquire as to the religious or sexual views of the guy who wakes up early to make my donuts. I just like donuts.
Not so concerned about the views one way or the other, it does matter that they try to live up to what they claim to believe because it affects all areas of their business as well. Ethics matter. There is a Chick fil A here in town that does a LOT of business, so much so that they had to close it for several months and remodel the drive through to 3 lanes to handle the load. They paid all the employees their normal wages while the store was closed and they weren’t working. I’m sure there were conditions attached and that the store benefited from that because they already had a very good team that was able to handle the work flow of that much business, but still it matters that they took care of their employees because almost no other business would do the same. Now I think I’m going there for lunch.
I assume, wading through that gibberish, that what you’re trying to say is business ethics matter to you, which has zero to do with the issue in this post and, while I will assume you’re sincere, would you refuse a tasty chicken sandwich there had they not paid their team during renovations?
Not just business. I can get that a lot of people don’t have the same views on a lot of issues that I do, but as long as they practice what they are preaching we can discuss the differences. Assuming they’re open to discussion. Hypocrites piss me off.
I’m not a fan of hypocrites either, but I’m not so curious as to find out when it comes to my food purveyors.
So long as he’s not a dough-ie, you should be OK.
Spending any time thinking about the sexual proclivities of a guy who is in charge of making a hole in your tasty donut will probably lead to some kind of weight loss.
That’s needlessly rude. And icky. Stop it.
Good thing your donuts don’t need repair.
Now, please excuse me while I duck and run.
The constant appeal to “compassion”, “empathy”, “believe X”, misuse of “equality” and “inclusion” to demand special treatment feel like narcissistic manipulation. In the world where everybody is equal nobody is entitled to compassion, it can be only given freely by private citizens. Those with power trips and no compassion towards the others usually get none. Power trips by the government for reasons of compassion is an oxymoron.
Why do you hate me?
Not allowing a business because they’re religious is different than not allowing a business that donates to organizations that disallow out gay people to participate. Chick Fil A gives tons of money to anti-LGBTQ youth sports, and young people that are coming to terms with their identity are extremely vulnerable. That the municipality doesn’t want to rent a space to a chain that hurts young gay people is moral. If they were just a Christan company and the company itself didn’t donate to these types of groups there might be a case here, but governments are allowed to have policies that protect LGBTQ people.
Sit down. I have something to tell you and it’s going to make you sad.