Whatever your view, whatever your background, whatever your values, I have one goal here: to help you understand why the San Antonio City Council violated the First Amendment rights of Chick-fil-A by specifically excluding them from San Antonio Airport.
Part of me wants to stay far away from this issue…as far away as possible. I’m not writing this as clickbait. I’m not writing this to rile up people on either side of the debate. But as someone who has earned a law degree and studied the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution closely, I cannot help but address this conjunction of travel and law.
I should not have to do this, but let me start with this disclaimer. I don’t eat at Chick-fil-A or have any sort of fealty for the company. I don’t support employment discrimination of any kind and all three of my businesses do not discriminate in the hiring of employees or in the customers we serve on the basis of sexual orientation. I welcome any employee who works hard and every customer who is willing to pay. And I also love the U.S. Constitution, a document that has stood the test of time.
With that out of the way, let’s discuss the law.
First Amendment Protects Chick-fil-A
The First Amendment protects speech. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held this applies to government contractors. These contractors, whether persons or companies, are allowed to hold political viewpoints. Not every action, no matter how sincere, is protected. But, speech is. Courts have also held that political donations and associations are forms of speech, not unprotected action.
Robert Trevino, a San Antonio City Councilman, laid out the basis for Chick-fil-A’s denial:
With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion. San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior…Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport. I look forward to the announcement of a suitable replacement by Paradies.
In essence, San Antonio told Paradies, an airport concession contractor, that it could not add a Chick-fil-A because Chick-fil-A donated money to three Christian charitable groups that, among a laundry list of values, affirm a traditional understanding of marriage.
Flawed Logic
Yes, a city council demanded that a contractor not hire a subcontractor because that subcontractor made political donations to charitable groups that take lawful but divisive positions opposed by that city councilmember and a majority of the council.
So, under that logic what’s to stop a conservative city council from blocking a long list of popular eateries because of their political donations to organizations deemed destructive and immoral…like Planned Parenthood?
The same thing: the first amendment, which protects hateful, bigoted, speech just like it protects lullabies and nursery rhymes.
Chick-fil-A responded to the news in this way:
The press release issued by councilman Roberto Trevino was the first we heard of his motion and its approval by the San Antonio city council. We wish we had the opportunity to clarify misperceptions about our company prior to the vote. We agree with the council member that everyone should feel welcome at Chick-fil-A. In fact, we have welcomed everyone in San Antonio into our 32 local stores for more than 40 years. Our local restaurants consistently give back to the San Antonio community and have awarded more than $600,000 in scholarships to Chick-fil-A restaurant team members in San Antonio.
We would welcome the opportunity to have a thoughtful dialogue with the city council and we invite all of them into our local stores to interact with the more than 2,000 team members who are serving the people of San Antonio. We hope they will experience for themselves that Chick-fil-A embraces all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity. We are proud of the positive impact we are making in communities across America, and specifically in San Antonio, and have been transparent about our giving on our website.
A Legal Route To Exclude Chick-Fil-A
It’s not like the City of San Antonio or Buffalo (which also announced a ban on Chick-fil-A) are out of options.
San Antonio can require all contractors to ensure that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not occur. That could apply to Chick-fil-A, even as a subcontractor. And Chick-fil-A would have to obey it if it wanted to engage in business at San Antonio Airport.
As an aside, there’s no compelling evidence that Chick-fil-A, as a company policy, discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in its business practices. It does not ask customers if they are LGBTQ before serving them a chicken sandwich nor ask their employees the same question. Discrimination lawsuits are no more prevalent at Chick-fil-A than at McDonald’s or Burger King.
And if San Antonio was smart, it would have simply made a general rule that any airport eatery must be open seven days per week in order to operate. That broad, natural regulation would have likely excluded Chick-fil-A. Even if Chick-fil-A argued that it brought in more revenue in six days than most do in seven, San Antonio would argue that it has a right to require concessioners to serve travelers every day of the week if they wish to operate at SAT. Then again, Chick-fil-A may be able to argue that this move, though neutral on its face, runs afoul of the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, which protects the exercise of religious liberty, like Sunday closures, unless the overriding state interest is compelling.
But San Antonio doesn’t want to hide its true intentions. It wants to virtue signal that it is the moral actor and that is acting in accordance to its superior moral position.
Small problem for San Antonio: the Supreme Court has consistently held that discrimination on this basis is not permitted. The law is the law. The first amendment is the First Amendment. Unpopular viewpoints cannot be squelched by the government due to their unpopularity in the form of contract exclusion.
CONCLUSION
Let’s review. This article is not in support of Chick-fil-A. Rather, it is in support of the First Amendment, which in this instance insulates Chick-fil-A from government retribution—at all levels—for its political viewpoints.
If you don’t want to support Chick-fil-A, you don’t have to eat there. Just like you don’t have to buy Starbucks Coffee or Ben and Jerry’s if you are offended by the political donations those companies make.
But to ban an eatery because of its donations or personal viewpoints of its founder is not in compliance with current First Amendment jurisprudence.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in a city that excludes people who hold unpopular viewpoints. Imagine if they start discriminating against me because they don’t like who I donate to.
The answer to speech is more speech. Truth and justice will ultimately prevail.
Well Said
Good summation, not sure I agree on all points (but I’m also not a lawyer), but definitely appreciate the analysis. In a similar vein, some US states (including TX I believe) have laws that ban awarding government contracts to any entities that participate in a boycott of Israel. As this type of boycott seems to me to fall under the same “political speech” umbrella, why are those laws allowed but not this one?
Another neutral basis for potentially excluding Chick-Fil-A is that it would be closed on Sundays. I love Chick-Fil-A. I was so thrilled to see it in Denver and Pittsburgh airports. However, if I were in charge of selecting restaurants to serve passengers in the airport terminal I would feel obligated to make sure passengers got what they wanted and that the restaurant was consistent with airport operations. For example, imagine an airport at a leisure destination where 35% of the weekly flights are on the weekends. Let’s take it a step further and say this fictional airport had two terminals not linked airside and room for four restaurants/eateries in each of the terminals. 25% of the restaurant space in the terminal that gets Chick-Fil-A would be closed on Sunday. It would overwhelm the other restaurants and cause passenger frustration. As much as I love Chick-Fil-A’s food I would have to take a close look at the numbers to see if it was a viable option given its locations are always closed on Sundays.
This sentence is missing the word “more”” “Discrimination lawsuits are no prevalent.” Looks like you need to upgrade your Grammarly!!!
Because “follow the money”
“As an aside, there’s no compelling evidence that Chick-fil-A, as a company policy, discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in its business practices.”
How about no evidence? If there was, we would hear about each and every day.
I fly to SAT every now and then – this airport could use a CFA.
Donating money to asshole organizations falls under free speech?
Yes.
How so?
Citizens United.
surely SURELY this is really bad trolling… either that or you are legitimately very stupid.
How is it trolling? You’re the one being rude and avoiding answering my question, so who is the real troll here?
Nobody is telling CFA who they can or cannot donate to, so again, I’m not sure how their free speech is being stifled.
Just wondering, who made you the arbiter of assholery?
Therein lies the basis for the First Amendment. Subject to strict limitations no one is the arbiter of who is so odious that state power should be brought upon them, whether directly or indirectly, for having unpopular thoughts.
This is just one location, but, seriously, would you go so bar as to bar CFA from securing a building permit or licence to operate a store on account of its thoughts? And while we are at it, how about banning Catholics, Muslims and Jews from getting state issued business licences because some people think they are assholes?
“Just wondering, who made you the arbiter of assholery?”
Um, based on common sense and human decency?
“for having unpopular thoughts.”
Except this isn’t about unpopular thoughts, this is about them donating to asshole organizations.
“would you go so bar as to bar CFA from securing a building permit or licence to operate a store on account of its thoughts?”
On it’s thought? No. On it’s clear and visible actions? Why shouldn’t they face repercussions from that?
“how about banning Catholics, Muslims and Jews from getting state issued business licences because some people think they are assholes?”
If they do asshole things, then that particular religious organization (not the entire religion as a whole) and/or person should be willing to face the repercussions for what they do.
Granted, in the US, some people use their religion to justify being intolerant assholes (“We won’t sell cakes to the homos because Jesus said so!”) and get away with it…
Again, who died and made you the arbiter of assholery?
Protecting the rights of people whose beliefs are not in vogue is what the First Amendment exists for. Sorry if someone hates you (assuming that CFA does), but the Constitution does not recognize a right to be liked. The Constitution does guarantee that you will not be denied state benefits on account of thinking and speaking contrary to whatever orthodoxy might be in vogue any given day.
If you prefer a society that requires adherance to some orthodoxy to get along, I suggest hopping into your time machine and going to Moscow in 1934, or Kampala in 1977, or Madrid in 1480, Phnom Penh under Pol Pot.
I will not miss you or your imaginary monopoly on virtue.
Again, common sense and human decency?
Again, this isn’t about people having beliefs, this is about people taking action on those beliefs. Nobody is silencing CFA for what they are doing. At all. They can keep doing and saying what they are doing, they just need to be prepared to face pushback from people for doing what they do.
That whole “move to country x” argument is about as tired and played out as it gets, almost on the level of using “haters gonna hate” as a counterargument. And how sad that you even use that as an argument, which says quite a bit about you.
“common sense and human decency?”
That’s a very dangerous, very arbitrary method. Better to let people decide with their wallets and feet.
Full disclosure, I love Chick Fil-A, eat it as much as I can, even though I’m on the opposite end of the political spectrum as Truett and Dan Cathay. I also think that they have some of the nicest, most caring and polite employees out there to the point that they would immediately elevate the overall level of customer service at any airport in the country. The closed on Sunday piece could certainly be an issue for an airport with limited concession options, but smaller airports where this would be an issue isn’t really their market and they absolutely do bring in far more revenue in 6 days than others eateries draw in 7.
What I love about the SAT and BUF cases is that Chick Fil-A already has locations that are a stones’ throw from the airport today, in fact there’s over 30 locations around San Antonio….so the fact that their city council claims they don’t fit with the values of San Antonio enough to be at the airport while they clearly have no problem issuing permits to operate throughout the city is utter hypocrisy. When I hear stories about this it just makes me want to eat there more.
I think the Supreme Court has made relatively clear that comments made by a single legislator (or even the Chief Executive Officer of the United States) are at best evidence — and maybe not even that — of whether or not a legislative body has acted with discriminatory intent. For all I know (maybe you know more), this single councilman on an 11-member Counsel (including the Mayor) might simply be attempting to make a political statement that does or does not reflect the actual basis on which the body acted. Perhaps six of his colleagues might give a different basis for the way they voted, and perhaps the Council will be entitled to a presumption of neutrality, which is a complicated matter under the law.
But even if we accept your premise that he spoke for the Council, or that this statement would be viewed as highly persuasive evidence of legislative intent, or that if sued the Council would admit that it made a content-based decision, I’m not really sure it’s correct to say that “if the council was smart,” it would have come up with a content-neutral basis for exclusion. This is, fundamentally, a political act by a political body. Sure, they may need to cough up some attorneys’ fees if they are actually sued by Chik-Fil-A in a 1983 lawsuit. But if their end goal is a political one — that they care more about making the statement than they really care about whether Chik-Fil-A is allowed at the airport — then they’ve achieved their goal. It’s just a different goal. Politicians care about votes more than whether or not the actual restaurant gets to be in the airport. The perception of taking a stand and blaming the courts is probably a more palatable outcome in some council districts than others.
Thanks for your well-written article. I’m surprised that local govt officials often feel they’re larger than they are; that San Antonio thinks it’s the moral police for the state and the nation. I’m also amused that San Antonio would not be worried about damaging the relationship they currently have with Chick-Fil-A…32 stores and 2,000 employees in the area? All over one location. I doubt Chick-Fil-A will lose much sleep not getting the airport location but something like this could make them rethink more city-wide locations. After all, isn’t govt all about funding and tax revenue and isn’t business all about making money? Seems like Chick-Fil-A would be a partner then city would love to grow…
Yes because San Antonio is so unique in trying to act as the moral police for the nation…
My understanding is that the first amendment provides us freedom of speech, but does not provide us freedom from the consequences of our speech. There are many examples of organizations terminating employment of professionals when they made speech the organization did not agree with. I am genuinely curious as what the difference is here? Is it because SAT acts as a governmental entity?
“Is it because SAT acts as a government entity”?
Yes.
Bingo.
Once a state actor metes out the consequences of protected speech, its another ballgame.
These Chicken people are creepy nutters, directly, unapologetically funding hate groups. Well done SAN Antonio for shutting them out. I live in hope that other cities will follow suit by showing the hate filled whack jobs the door. And good riddance to them and their equally vile supporters. Shame on those of you who put access to a chicken sandwich above common decency…fortunately you brief shining moment in the ascendency is coming to an end.
This has very little to do with a chicken sandwich, it has to do with standing for our rights. Many groups speak differently to my values yet they have the right to do that and I do not have the right to restrict that speech. As a govt agency it is not acting as a steward of the constitution when it steps into fights like this on moral grounds, that’s what is at issue.
It’s the same crazy argument used by the gun freaks, ie that circumstances at the time the Constitution was written are “ writ in concrete”,; and the same as the religious loonies with their ultra literal reading of the Bible, with an eye for an eye and the abomination of same sex activity.
A pox on the lot of them as long as they continue to try to force others to live by their crazy, creepy, hate-filled ‘reality’
The chicken sandwich is gone and it ain’t comin’ back. No court is going to change that.
Fanatics for a cause is what makes the USA a great place. Everyone has a voice and that voice can be as loud as wanted. Sure, there are a few limits on what can be said and from where, but that’s exactly the problem in this case. Every ‘loony’ can broadcast from any public sidewalk. So what makes a paid spot in the airport any different? It’s still a govt owned public space. While I don’t have an opinion either way in this argument I can say that I’ve never heard any hate speech while in a Chick-Fil-A restaurant from a Chick-Fil-A employee or from the company itself.
I’d be hard pressed to avoid a lot of businesses whose moral stance i disagree with. But visiting one of those businesses is in no way an endorsement from me. If we closely looked where we spend money we’d probably not like who/what those companies pay money to.
@Paolo: your opinions are strong, but I”m telling you to set aside the feelings and focus on the law and the ethic of reciprocity. Imagine a City Council in cattle-rich Texas banning a company because it opposed beef. Just imagine if the shoe were on the other foot.
I would tell you to brush up on the law here. And on procedure.
You’ve provided a quote from a politician. You need the City’s letter rejecting or suspending the tenancy to establish your claim. You have not done that.
Basic rules of evidence. The city did not end the tenancy with a communication from the politician you quoted.
There are just too many precedents that support a city’s right to pick and choose vendors/tenants at city operated facilities to give much credence to your claim.
I would advise you to brush up on the First Amendment and surrounding case law, not your recollection of what airports may have done in the past.
I would refer you back to:
– your area of expertise, as demonstrated through your track record of successes in this civil liberties litigation
– my original points about both the law and procedure.
Is this just an elaborate troll?
Courts often use contemporaneous expressions from lawmakers concerning a challenged law or regulation to demonstrate legislative intent to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.
Do the 2A next 😉
I’ll avoid that one until we can work in a travel angle
It is useful to consider these points. However, I have another issue with the city of San Antonio.
Their airport amenities are crap. There is nothing to eat there. I would rather drive a few miles west to the Arby’s and buy a roast beef sandwich before a flight.
SAT is a lousy airport except that it’s not congested so you don’t have to get there too early. San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the country. At 1.4 million, it is only exceeded by (using airport codes) JFK, LAX, ORD, IAH, PHL, PHX but its air service is far, far worse than SEA, SFO, DEN, SLC, DFW, MIA, DCA, BOS. Rather than attack Chick Fil-A, SAT should work on getting better air service. San Antonio city government is like Venezuela’s Maduro, who criticizes others but is lousy himself.
I can’t recall but aren’t you a lawyer? If so, you should understand that the First Amendment protects you against government prosecution for exercising free speech. This is a civil matter, for which the First Amendment provides no protection. A famous example is the famous photo of the lady who gave Trump’s motorcade the finger. No doubt Trump would want her prosecuted but he can’t because of the First Amendment. However, she was fired from her job for that photo and she has no recourse.
How is this a civil matter when the San Antonio city council (government) is acting in its official regulatory capacity to stifle free expression?
I agree with @Matthew, the assertion of a public entity to take a side in a moral issue is not correct. Freedom of choice has been the govt position for some time now.
This is a civil matter because they are not prosecuting the company for anything they’ve said. They are simply not allowing the company to have an outlet at the airport. This is a civil matter 100% because it has to do with money and business. The airport authorities have not said anything about whether the company can stake that position. You might not like it but they are acting within the law and it is not unconstitutional.
I’m sorry but you are patently and unquestionably wrong. I beg of you, please please please don’t say you have a law degree… because that would only further erode confidence in the system.
By prohibiting exactly one company for expressing exactly one opinion, it is pure and simple discrimination and prohibition of free speech. Your understanding of civil matter and prosecution is disastrously incomprehensible. When a government entity prohibits anything because of a spoken viewpoint, that’s plain and simple unconstitutional action. In its most basic form.
Thank you for writing that for me.
Well, it is certainly not a criminal matter.
Rather it is certainly a civil matter, with constitutional matters being a subset of civil matters. I’d have to do more research to determine whether money damages are available under any supplemental statutory scheme, but an injunction could issue absent money damages.
I have to ask, who was her employer?
Was it a state or private actor?
Was it in a state (like California) with robust state level employment statutes that ban employment actions on account of political activity. Your information is too vague to comment upon.
Matthew, with my above defenses of your view in place, I take issue with one point: And if San Antonio was smart, it would have simply made a general rule that any airport eatery must be open seven days per week in order to operate.
This is looking at form over function which has not been permitted, especially in Constitutional cases, in a long time. We look to the substance and effect of the rule: here that creates a de facto discrimination against one and only one company. I think you might reexamine this point.
Your point is very well-taken. But that’s why I referenced the Texas RFRA (not the federal RFRA, which the Court held unconstitutional as applied to the states in Boerne v. Flores). My reading of that law and the Court’s jurisprudence, is that such a neutral law could past muster. But I’m open to being convinced otherwise.
OK gotcha, tracking you now. Sad if the court would go that way since it undermines the whole point… but you addressed that with the PP example.
Unfortunate that the worst city in Texas continues to push the rest of the state away from freedom. So nice that weird Austin and Red Dallas can coexist, but SAN has to ruin all the fun.
Would be interested to see how the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act impacts that? Especially with the SAN roots in City of Boerne…
No. No. No. Save the grandstanding and virtue signaling for a real issue.
Airport authorities have broad discretion to pick and choose the food outlets they allow in their facilities. Many cities impose tough standards for food outlets. They may allow fast food chains, but there’s absolutely nothing that would prevent them from imposing standards of demonstrated community service or inclusion if they wish to do so. It’s hardly a matter of free speech.
In the 1990s, the city of Chicago, San Francisco, NYC and others restricted contracts with companies that failed to recognize LGBT equality. Not a constitutional issue, simply a matter of selection criteria. Other cities have done likewise over labor practices and other civil rights issues.
There was no challenge then, there will be no challenge now.
This is not a First Amendment issue, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Wrong. Did you even read what I wrote? This is not a generally applicable ban on non-discrimination but a specific punishment against Chick-fil-A.
I did read your post. These are primary errors of rhetoric. Your argument is based on a politician’s quote, not the actual mechanics or legality of the interaction.
And you seemed to miss the actual points of law here.
If you don’t want to take my word for it, ask google. There are plenty of scholarly articles backing me up.
Oh dear… (Facepalm)
I would suggest you to refer to legal journals and/or legal doctrines and/or jurisprudences instead of scholarly articles…
You’ve misunderstood the points of law here
this is in no way a FA case. It’s about municipal governance.
No legal source would back you up. Look at comparable cases – I’ve already pointed them out to you. San Jose (CA) is currently insisting that CFA hire LGBTQ employees, a much riskier strategy, IMO.
You might want to learn how to use Google wisely. The Texas Tribune has covered this matter in some detail. Had you read that coverage – visible in Google – you wouldn’t be posting these things. The mayor gas been very clear about revenue targets.
I realize you don’t hold yourself out as a lawyer, but you’re out of your depths here. This is a vanilla case of municipal contract management, not a case that even goes near the FA.
@James:
Plenty of legal cases in you for you to read:
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/26/san-antonio-violates-chick-fil-as-first
@Patrick: If it is about revenue, Chick-fil-A makes more in six days than others make in seven…
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-chick-fil-a-is-so-successful-2017-8
Clearly, this wasn’t about revenue.
https://www.scribd.com/document/403231230/Chick-Fil-a-Letter#from_embed
No. OMG, no.
The letter doesn’t describe anything about the criteria used to select vendors. It proves nothing other than one Council member’s ability to write and post a letter. And that people like you will confuse this with evidence that CFA was singled out for illegal discrimination. Because that’s what you want to believe.
If you are persuaded by this kind of evidence, you need to ask about a refund on that law degree.
You claimed it was about revenue, I said that it wasn’t and demonstrated that revenue was unlikely the issue.
You dismissed the letter from the councilman, I see it a prima facie evidence of an unconstitutional discriminatory intent by the majority of the SAT City Council.
I welcome your attempt to prove me wrong. Please do demonstrate why the Council voted to deny Chick-fil-A.
Here you go, it’s the city’s statement about the contract with a third party management company. The reasoning is vague, but the curated list of providers emphasizes local businesses.
https://www.sanantonio.gov/gpa/News/ArtMID/24373/ArticleID/15248/City-Council-Approves-New-Food-Beverage-and-Retail-Prime-Concessionaire-Agreement-at-the-San-Antonio-International-Airport
To prove your argument, you must show:
– That the underlying contract singles out CFA for exclusion
– That the exclusion is motivated by illegal, politically motivated animus toward CFA
CFA was not “banned”, it was not singled out for “punishment”. This is manufactured outrage designed to whip up the far right in the run up to an election. Or, as in Texas, to divert attention from a technically bankrupt state seeking far reaching changes to taxation.
By the logic of this manufactured outrage, every vendor that applied for inclusion but was not included could claim to have been singled out and “banned”. Do you know how many vendors were considered and rejected? No.
You walked right into the kind fabricated “legal” debate that the far right love, especially as a diversionary tactic. That’s why Paxton is involved. That’s also why Treviño saw this as an opportunity to claim that the city’s decision reflected his political platform. His opposition to the state GOP is what elected him. The documents don’t back him up. The mayor’s statements directly contradict Treviño.
There is no basis for claiming any vendor was “banned”, much less “punished”. Most vendors that apply are rejected. The city has broad latitude to select vendors in the airport facility it manages. Being closed on a day when the airport operates is reason enough, as the mayor has said.
The only controversy here is the one manufactured by self interested politicians and media outlets that don’t have real legal analysts or even journalists.
The Texas Tribune sums it up nicely: https://www.texastribune.org/2019/04/01/texas-lawmakers-can-focus-on-meat-and-potatoes-or-chick-fil-a/
Finally, while it’s clear to me that you are neither a legal expert nor a Constitutional scholar, and while you show an unhelpful propensity toward self aggrandizement, I value your travel reviews.
Patrick, thank you for this. Before I respond, does this represent the totality of your argument? Do you have any other evidence you wish to add to undermine the claim that the City deliberately targeted Chick-Fil-A?
Hard to say.
Are you going to push more poorly sourced blog posts as “evidence”?
Are you going to continue to pass yourself off as someone with legal expertise in these matters?
Will there be more references to crappy blog posts by right wing muck-rakers as “prima facie” whatever you make up?
Let me know when you’ve exhausted all the crappy third and fourth hand accounts of this municipal contract approval process.
Or maybe I can help you learn to use Google to find a primary source or two?
LMK
Like an opinion piece from the Texas Tribune? Thanks as always for opinions. You may think you are the wiser one, but we see right through your shaky “evidence” and conclusory reasoning. Maybe you’ll allow yourself to be educated by this discussion?
Patrick, see below for a final response to your confusion on this issue.
The more important question here is simple – why should faith be given a free pass?
There are massive tax breaks given to religious organisations in this country, religious agendas imposed upon the populace (and women in particular) and demands made of everyone that faith-based positioned be respected with precisely zero evidence.
Further, any respect of some of those positions requires a complete disregard of logic and reality.
An idea being considered illegal currently does not automatically indicate that the idea is somehow wrong.
To answer your question, the First Amendment and wall of separation between church and state.
And the faith-based positions promoted by many representatives and the laws forcing them upon everyone else are examples of this actually working in practice?
Your problem is with the Constitution.
Hmm… Interesting… A trip and travel blog discussing a legal issue due to the writer holds a legal degree.
Anyway, is this really an issue that falls under the protection of first amendment or a private matter that was spun by a politician into public statement?
Are we talking about the refusal from the airport authority to enter into an agreement with Chick-fill-A (or its assignee or franchisor) or a decree or regulation issued by government authority that singled out Chick-fill-A?
Do you have any prima facie evidence for your narration under sub title “Flawed Logic” or merely based on your assumption?
Let’s just get back to trip reviews. Let the lawyers deal with legal issues. They hold on to legal facts.
No, it’s not a private matter. Would you like me to refer you to some case law on this subject? I tried to keep this article easy to read.
And while I am mildy amused by your frequent contributions, try not to make your own assumptions before accusing others of doing so. Please.
Thanks. Your reviews are nice to read, I enjoy it.
Anyway… Can I clarify few things to be on the same page?
1. When you wrote, “No, it’s not private matter”, which it are you referring to? The politician’s statement (as you quoted) or there’s any legal product(s) / action(s)? Please kindly enlighten.
2. Thank you for the offer of referring other case. However, my understanding regarding legal disputes, is that each and every case is different and have their own consideration as the basis for deliberation. Two cases may be viewed as the same or entirely different depending on who and why the case served as references. So it won’t be necessary.
3. My apologies if my previous post offended you or sound as accusing. That was not my intention. I was sincerely asking as I try to dissect the article to identify the issue.
Yes!!!!! +100000
Back off the legal “analysis” and focus on travel reviews.
Bravo!
You’ve beautifully and dispassionately stated the correct legal position here.
Thank you for the clarity in summarising what has the potential to be a complex and divisive issue.
They don’t even put sauce on their sandwiches.
I guess they’re just really scared of creamy white stuff.
1) Hate speech isn’t protected
2) There is plenty of evidence and a long paper trail of these chicken people donating money to virulently anti-LGBT groups
And on that note, I think this blog has outlived its usefulness for me. I’ll be sticking to OMAD, Turning Left For Less and God Save the Points from now on.
I appreciate that you’ve outed yourself as a bigot at least, it’s really so much easier when the vermin willingly comes out of the woodwork.
Please Mari, help me understand why I am bigoted. Or do you consider any contrary opinion—some of which are far more nuanced than you can even fathom—hateful?
Yet you have done a hate speech against this blog for the article which you presumed as a support for an anti LGBT. Gyahahaha…. Idiots…
He’s not a bigot. He’s just not very good at legal analysis or understanding discrimination. He saw a case that politicians have tried to use for political gain and thought he’d write a contrarian piece that would get a few clicks. Mission accomplished.
Cities can and do prohibit contracts (including leases) with entities whose policies are at odds with theirs. There isn’t any question about the legality of these rules (broadly known as equality or inclusiveness clauses). They’ve been in use since the 196os.
Bottom line: Yes, San Antonio can ban CFA for being homophobic so long as it’s a policy that applies more broadly in governing contracts.
That doesn’t appear to be the motivation here, and it’s not what happened. But it would be legal. Many cities require non-discrimination policies that roughly mirror their own. Texas is trying to prevent cities from enacting non discrimination ordinances, which is why the state AG got involved.
This is a case of state versus city. That’s it, basically. In TX, cities tend to be much more liberal than the state as a whole. Matthew isn’t a journalist. He’s also not a legal analyst.
I do find it interesting that there’s none of this talk when a halal restaurant wants to open its doors.
Probably because it’s a stupid comparison to make?
Chick-fil-A was targetted because its speech was prominent. In AlexS’s example, why wouldn’t the City of San Antonio have the same problem with a halal restaurant operator who donated to his conservative mosque? Or a Christian who donated to his conservative church or Jew who donated to his conservative temple?
You have yet to prove any of this nonsense. Your wild eyed accusations lack any credible evidence. And you continue to post this foolishness even after you’ve been corrected.
Your legal analysis is beyond incompetent. You are now pandering to a dubious group of people who don’t know any better. You’d be wise to stop.
Patrick, it is fine if you wish to try to out-shout me, but please don’t bring up “proof” or continue to spout your opinion as if it fact or under the assumption that you are an erudite legal analyst. Based on current 1st Amendment jurisprudence, San Antonio does not have the right to punish Chick-Fil-A for its political speech. Maybe you should speak to Erwin Chemerinsky or Eugene Volkh. Legal scholars from the left and right agree with my opinion on this matter. So Patrick, it is you who would be wise to stop.
Chick-fil-A likely won’t pursue this matter further. That’s a shame, but I cannot blame them for wanting to focus on making money. But this is not just a municipal contracting matter or a struggle between cities and Texas.
It’s similar, though with a different fact pattern, to the Delta fuel subsidy issue in Georgia.
I’m not trying to “out shout” you. I’m trying to shame you. There’s a difference. I know what I’m talking about here, it’s not a difference of opinion.
You are confused: you made up an argument, one for which you’ve presented zero evidence, and now you’re claiming some knowledge of “jurisprudence “ when you’re still in error about the basic points of law involved. There was no punishment for political speech. That’s the drama you borrowed from other bloviators without a clue. Like the one you cited. Chemerinskey and Volokh. You’ve got to be kidding. Yet I fear you’re not.
And now you’ve got homophobic comments. Nice work, Matthew.
Stick to the reviews.
To avoid going around in circles, let’s try something different.
For the avoidance of doubt, which argument was made up?
Can you actually point to evidence demonstrating why Chick-fil-A was denied? A .pdf format would be preferred.
And I would not be so quick to dismiss the opinions of brilliant legal minds like Chemerinskey and Volokh.
@Patrick: And you failed miserably. Next time put in account for “fanboys” or “asslicker”.
Only some understood what exactly can be qualified as legal action. Lol
Because LGBT needs to be proud, to exist, and insisted to be treated special due to their status of LGBT. Look at the parade.
Whereas muslim, christian, jew can live and get along nicely with each other or any other religions and also atheist and agnostic. They didn’t demand to be treated special due to their religion.
They are not snowflakes….
Okay, we now have a post displaying foul anti-LGBT bigotry.
Matthew, you should think about what you’re enabling here.
Stick to what you know.
This is the same James you agreed with above telling me to stick to trip reports.
In any case, I’ll let the ignorant, bigotted comment stand. Just like all of them. History will judge them harshly, including the jejune comment above by James.
It’s a funny thing. I read your travel reviews. While the writing needs work, I see value in at least some of them.
People aren’t good at everything. James and I agree about the value of your legal analysis. I’m not surprised to learn we diverge on other matters.
I’m thrilled that you and James agree, but while I note your opinion and will file it accordingly, I must also add that I see little value in your conclusory opinions and generally circular reasoning. I trust you are not a constitutional law attorney. But you’re still welcome to comment.
And for the record, I appreciate the banter and thank you for your contributions here.
Well, someone compared CFA (as assumed anti LGBT) with Abrahamic religions. Bigotry? Naah…. LGBT parade do exist, while in Jerusalem, those 3 religions live happily next to each other.
LOL @Patrick… his “trust me I know what I’m talking about” is VERY convincing. You convinced us dude… you’re a muni, legal, constitutional scholar for suuuure.
the first rule of trolling is to make it ambiguous as to whether you actually know your stuff and are just being ironic or if you’re really truly dumb… you’ve outed yourself as genuinely stupid and that’s unfortunate because I enjoy a good troll
This was a very interesting topic and discussion. The 1st Amendment is well outside of my area of expertise. Still, I would have been surprised to learn that the U.S. Constitution sanctions a quasi-governmental entity issuing or not issuing permits based on the positions of the religious charities to which the applicant donated.
@Matthew
Thanks for the link. Again, I would emphasized on legal journal and/or so on, rather than an article.
Anyway… The title of article on the aforementioned link is “San Antonio Likely Violating Chick-Fil-A’s First Amendment Rights”, written by Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law.
Now, I wonder why the said article was not published under UCLA School of Law? I also wonder why there’s word “likely” on the title? James killed Matthew and James likely killed Matthew have HUGE difference in law.
It’s always technically “likely” until the specific case is adjudicated. As you said, every fact pattern is slightly different. But this appears like an open-shut case to me if the Supreme Court still believes in what the majority (7-2) held in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996).
If you care to read it, here’s a link to the case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/518/668/#tab-opinion-1959933
Note: The government may not discriminate based on a business’s speech or expressive associations.
In the San Antonio case, the Mayor only used the Sunday closing as a post hoc justification after Councilmembers Roberto Treviño and Manny Peláez made clear they wanted to block CFA due to their belief that the company was bigotted.
Treviño said, “The heart of the LGBTQ community is in District 1, and that community has come together to voice its disapproval of this proposal because it includes a company with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.”
That’s the reason CFA was denied. And that’s not permitted under the 1st Amendment.
But this isn’t worth CFA’s time to make a point. That’s too bad.
Ok “Patrick”, now we get to see if you are a troll or not. Based on some of your mean-spirited comments I have deleted, I think the answer is clear. Do note that your IP address gives away your exact location…
Let’s deconstruct your “evidence”, one line at a time.
You state that the reasoning is vague. Indeed it is. In fact, it is off-topic and does not help in any way our understanding of why the City Council specifically told Paradies Lagardere that it could not include a Chick-fil-A.
That has already been done. The City Council voted 6-4 to single out CFA for exclusion.
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/28/texas-investigating-san-antonio-kicking-chick-fil-out-airport/
The amendment to the airport concession contract was due to hostile political animus led by Councilman Roberto Treviño.
Referring to Chick-fil-A Treviño stated,
“The work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion should not be undone so easily.”
That doesn’t sound like a Sunday closure concern to me!
You can watch the video of the City Council meeting, if you so desire. Discussion over the airport concession contract beings at 2:15:00. Treviño starts speaking at 3:53:00.
https://sanantoniotx.new.swagit.com/videos/26748#
We later learned that the original plan was for a Panda Express (also not a local chain) but that city staff had substituted it for CFA because they believed CFA would bring in more revenue.
https://www.ktsa.com/smoke-shack-spurs-and-other-coming-to-san-antonio-international-chick-fil-a-blocked/
Trevino later tried to cover his tracks by stating (in follow-up interviews like the one below) that his reason for denial was because Chick-fil-A closed on Sundays, “Because travelers come in every day of the week and we know that 15 percent of volume in the airport happens on a Sunday.”
This echoed how the Mayor tried to reframe the debate, though the notion that the City would lose 15 percent of its revenue because CFA closed on Sunday is ludicrous if the goal is to maximize revenue. The CFA was projected to outperform any other contender, the reason for its planned inclusion in the first place. The “Sunday closing” became just a smoke screen.
https://www.expressnews.com/news/news_columnists/gilbert_garcia/article/Nirenberg-shies-away-from-moral-implications-of-13718806.php
Yes, as I demonstrated above it was banned by the City Council and specifically singled-out for exclusion. I don’t really care about your theories on why this ban has produced outrage.
This is a classic slippery slope argument, which is nothing but a strawman. You should know better than to try this.
Only CFA was actually singled out in City Council and banned via amendment.
In response to your second question, two vendors were seriously considered, HMSHost and Paradies Lagardere. The CFA ban would have applied to either one.
Your biases are becoming clearer. But you’re also digging yourself in a deeper hole. You say “Treviño saw this as an opportunity to claim that the city’s decision reflected his political platform” That’s not true – your timeline is off. Treviño sponsored the amendment to ban CFA on the basis of CFA’s political donations. The Mayor agreed to the amendment and smartly tried to recast it in light of an illogical but likely constitutionally permissible revenue concern over CFA’s Sunday closure. As shown above, CFA would likely make more in six days than most do in seven, so it was not about absolute revenue and was not cast by the mayor as ensuring that travelers have a place to eat on Sunday.
CFA could make a disparate impact argument against the City, arguing that its neutral post-hoc justification for banning it represents as smokescreen; an implicit and impermissible punishment for speech protected by the First Amendment.
When you say “the documents don’t back him up” it just shows me that you never listened to what he actually said.
And the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Acts mandates that a government agency may not substantially burden a company’s free exercise of religion unless the government agency demonstrates that the application of the burden to the company:
* is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
* is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.110.htm
CFA has many remedies available if it wishes to fight this action. Texas waived sovereign immunity if CFA brings suit under this law.
You’re repeating yourself. Please understand that the City Council voted to ban CFA as a condition for awarding this contract. Please also understand that CFA did not apply; it was singled out after earlier having been chosen by a non-partisan staff of city officials making restaurant recommendations based upon revenue projections.
Circular reasoning (circulus in probando). Had you attended law school, you would have learned to avoid that in your 1L year.
An opinion piece that parrots your point of view. Wow, I’m really impressed…
Which is more than I value from you.
I don’t know what it is that you do in life, but it clearly isn’t law…
But I do thank you for this back-and-forth. It has been fun.
Hi “Patrick”…your recent comment made me laugh. You really gave yourself away. A few comments. First, I provided primary sources including transcript and speeches from the council hearing (the “procedural records” you requested). This included the vote to ban CFA. Texas law was cited to demonstrate that the ban runs afoul of Texas State law (and constitution) and the U.S. Constitution. Of course you didn’t address it and resorted to personal attacks because you have no argument. Second, I never lose a case. Finally, concerning the IP addresses…you’re not as clever as you think you are. You have to turn it on for it to work. Every time.
Have a wonderful day.
Brilliant Matthew. You’re the true legal mind here, not that troll Patrick. You clearly proved your case.