Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Chick-fil-A and Government Bans – Which is the real threat to safety?
This is a branch off @rushbabe49 mentioned the proposal in the Texas state legislature to deal with the City of San Antonio’s decision to ban Chick-fil-A from consideration for an airport food concession.
Background
A few weeks ago the San Antonio City Council banned Chick-fil-A from being considered for a concession spot in the San Antonio Airport. The reason given was because the Chick-fil-A’s charitable foundation gave money to the Salvation Army and to Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Neither of these groups has as a primary mission anything to do with sexual orientation or same-sex relations. But they both have among their list of expected behaviors for employees expectations for sexual behavior. Most of the expected behaviors, including the ones on sexual activity, are fairly typical for employees of religious organizations. So, one has to dig down fairly deep below the restaurant in the airport to get to the homosexuality issue that animated the members of the San Antonio City Council. There have been (to my knowledge) no allegations that any customer or proposed customer of the restaurant has been refused service or mistreated. Nonetheless, the San Antonio City Council claims that homosexual people will feel “unsafe” walking through an airport with a Chick-fil-A restaurant in it. Again, not because of any actions by the restaurant itself, but because of employment policies of separate organizations to which the restaurant corporation donates money.
The Buffalo (NY) City Council made a similar determination, apparently for the same reason, and is preventing the master concessionaire at Buffalo Niagara Airport from considering a bid from Chick-fil-A to have an outlet at the airport.
Analysis and Questions
So, according to these city councils, Chick-fil-A must be banned to create a “safe” environment for “all.” But, in doing so, haven’t the city councils created very unsafe-feeling places? Now, instead of deciding whether I should patronize a business with which I might not agree, I have to worry about a government that disagrees with me, and a government has the power to prevent me from doing business and to put me in jail based on that disagreement.
Am I going to be prevented from doing business with or in San Antonio or Buffalo because I donate to the Salvation Army or to Fellowship of Christian Athletes or similar organizations? Can I be blocked from doing business with or in San Antonio because I am a Christian who holds traditional Christian views of expected sexual behavior? Might I be arrested in San Antonio’s airport because I am wearing apparel or jewelry that conveys a religious message, or I’m carrying a Bible or other literature that includes sections that teach toward certain views of sexuality? Why should I feel safe in San Antonio?
On the legal front, the Texas state Attorney General is looking into the actions by the San Antonio City Council, and the state legislature is considering legislation nicknamed the “Save Chick-fil-A” bill intended to reinforce the notion we thought everybody understood that government is not permitted to discriminate against a person or a business because of its religious views or opinions.
Second Question – Why is “non-discrimination” considered THE top moral imperative for the government?
On a secondary note, in the debate over business owners with religious views, one side keeps saying, “We cannot allow religious views to justify discrimination.” My question – what is the foundation of the assertion that non-discrimination is THE top moral imperative, and that all other considerations must be subservient to non-discrimination? Non-discrimination is not mentioned particularly well in the US Constitution. There’s actually some stuff in the US Constitution that assumes people are generally free to discriminate (freedom of association). And “non-discrimination” is an odd choice for a top moral imperative because its parameters are so fluid and subjective – they are completely subject to the whims of whomever is deciding what characteristics count for “non-discrimination”: Race? Skin Color? Sex? Sexual preferences? Personal beliefs? Political opinions? Hair color? Physical ability? Mental ability? Education? Clothing choices? Everybody “discriminates” multiple times every day on a variety of factors. We could not survive if we didn’t. An arbitrary notion of “non-discrimination” is an odd choice for one’s paramount moral imperative.
Published in Politics
Chic fil A is a Christian restaurant, even closed on Sundays.
That is the reason for this, the rest is just justification. The simple fact is that it makes some people feel ‘unsafe’ to be exposed to Christianity in any form, including respectful friendly service and tasty chicken sandwiches.
The incumbent mayor’s election opponent (it’s going to a runoff) is wholly owned by the PD and firefighter’s unions. The mayor’s tone deaf support of the Chick-Fil-A Ban has allowed his opponent to beat him like a drum. It’s now a choice between two complete tools. Pretty depressing.
Chick Fil A does not evangelize, proselytize, or otherwise engage in overtly religious activity. At least not those I have visited. Will we ban eastern restaurants because their owners may be Buddhist or Muslim? What about Mexican or Italian Restaurants whose owners may be Catholic. I think there are Mormon-owned hotel chains and soft drink companies. Don’t forget the local Jewish deli.Where does this stop?
What? Are they worried that the chickens will run out and attack them?
Non-discrimination may be one of the top moral imperatives of the government, and I might argue that it should be. But forcing private organizations to make it a top moral imperative shouldn’t be.
The whole kerfuffle here was caused by the city council and their virtue signaling against Chick-fil-A, because the San Antonio Airport branch was part of a package concessionaire deal that was up for bids. So the winning bidder isn’t just taking Chick-fil-A out of the airport, it’s also removing Starbucks in favor of another coffee company. But it was the desire of the progressives on the council to essentially spike the football not just on the Cathy family, but on anyone in San Antonio and the surrounding area who might hold religious views similar to the family that cause the controversy.
They could have simply awarded the bid with zero comment and allowed the new concessionaire to make the store brand changes. But it was the desire to stick a boot in the face or practicing Christians that cause the six members on the council to single out Chick-fil-A for removal, in order to show the world how noble and committed the were to The Cause (and if you go back in Texas history for the past 80-plus years, while Austin gets all the limelight as the state’s progressive Mecca, San Antonio’s held it’s own over the years with a series of pols and activists who would have felt right at home ideologically in New York or San Francisco).
Thank you for the distinction clarification.
Hence my doubt whether I’d feel safe in San Antonio as a practicing Christian.
Apparently they’re afraid all those rabid snarling mean and vicious Chick-Fil-A employees will run out and beat them – because Chick-Fil-A is widely known for it mean and nasty employees. <sarcasm off>
When you’re a Leftist bully you don’t have to make sense.
Yup. Emma Tennayuca, Mayor Maury Maverick, the COPS group and LULAC. Electing Nirenberg was a huge jump in the progressive direction.
I don’t know enough about these situations to comment intelligently… On one hand, I would think that a city council would have the right to make these sorts of choices for any reason; aesthetic, image, bribery, whatever. On the other hand, we see a classic case of lefty tactical projection, discriminating against Chick-fil-A, and making up some nonsense that includes accusing them of being discriminatory.
But meanwhile, I’d like to point out that Chick-fil-A has become the third largest restaurant chain, behind Starbucks and McDonalds.
Think how dangerous San Antonio could be with Austin’s money! In Austin, the restaurants are of the local flavor. The food is better than the chain stuff at other airports, but newbies will scratch their heads at unfamiliar brands.
It would be interesting if this creates a merger of the Masterpiece Cake case and the church playground that was denied state assistance in resurfacing a playground.
Even if San Antonio had other reasons for removing Chick fil a (awarding a bid to a concession group that doesn’t include chick fil a), their public statements are along the lines of those made by the Denver City Counsel that was exactly what the SC ruled against, making it publicly about religious liberty.
Second, avoiding “establishment of religion” by preventing religious-adfiliated organizations from participating in the same activity available to other organizations and businesses is effectively the same as establishing non-religion. I’m sure the SC was more eloquent, but that’s the gist.
Essentially, you can’t ban a religious affiliated organization from competing equally with other organizations for government contract AND the public statements made by the city government create a religious discrimination case, even if there wasn’t one in actuality.
“The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children” perhaps? Or else
a. politicians like power
b. power is about influencing the future
c. so claiming there is a “right side of history” and you know how to get us there is standard procedure for pols.
A federal pol in Canada railed against inviting Jordan Peterson to testify on “hate” because “Peterson is seriously on the wrong side of history” or some such blather. He too will cause fear and harm, merely by not buying into the politicians’ dream world.
An African owned or a Muslim owned restaurant would never be treated like this. Nor should they be. Just eat your &%# chicken and be polite to the servers.
Yet another reason why airports should be privately-owned rather than government-owned.
This thing is insane, and it’s orchestrated by a small number of radical activists. I am sure the average gay person in America does not feel unsafe being in the presence of people or companies who have donated to The Salvation Army. Is the city of San Antonio going to tell priests and nuns they cannot come to the airport in their religious garb because it will frighten homosexuals? It’s insulting to gay people to portray them as a bunch of hand-wringers who have anxiety attacks when confronted with the thought that someone might not approve of their sexual behavior.