Banning Chick-fil-A is not only bigoted -- it�s illegal

[Cow Poke]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36158[/ATTACH]

The great irony of the Chick-Fil-A thing is that one member actually asked if the "Office of Equity and Inclusion" should help determine who should get all future contracts now.

Inclusion obviously now means exclusion in their backwards, Orwellian world.

[rogue06]

The great irony of the Chick-Fil-A thing is that one member actually asked if the "Office of Equity and Inclusion" should help determine who should get all future contracts now.

Inclusion obviously now means exclusion in their backwards, Orwellian world.

Only if you check all the right left-wing boxes do they believe that you should be allowed to conduct business.

[Cow Poke]

Only if you check all the right left-wing boxes do they believe that you should be allowed to conduct business.

And they PROMISED that all they wanted was "equality".

[JonathanL]

. . . all the right left- . . .

[Cow Poke]

And the Great Chicken Sandwich War rages on....


A Second City After San Antonio Declines to Let Chick-Fil-A Into Its Airport

[Sparko]

Councilman Greg Brockhouse Apologizes to Chick-Fil-A for City Council Vote to Ban It from Airport
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...RelatedStories

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah because they can't eat anywhere else in the airport.

If Chick-fil-A want's to rent space and not use it 24/7, then that's their business.

Chic-Fil-A doesn't serve meals on Sundays to give their competitors a chance to make up for lost revenue


Jim

[Cow Poke]

Chic-Fil-A doesn't serve meals on Sundays to give their competitors a chance to make up for lost revenue


Jim

[firstfloor]

At this point, I'm beginning to think you're just being silly, having recognized you haven't a leg to stand on, chicken or otherwise.

Here's what happened:

The city staff took bids for new restaurant concessions at the airport. A proposal that included Chick-fil-A scored roughly 96 out of 100. The next closest competitor scored only 73%. Since the plan with Chick-fil-A was clearly the best fit, the proposal was almost approved...

That is, until the anti-Christian zealots on the San Antonio City Council decided to intervene.

Citing the sincerely held religious beliefs of its leadership, the Council voted to reverse the city staff's decision and single out Chick-fil-A for exclusion from the airport.

The anti-Christian bigots on council -- SIX of them -- went against a very FAIR process whereby Chick-Fil-A was overwhelmingly approved.

And NOBODY is going to stand in front of Chick-Fil-A and force GBTLXYZ supporters to purchase and consume a chicken sandwich. The anti-Christian bigots, however, CHEATED all others of even making the choice.

[rogue06]

Out of curiosity, just when did it become a right to inflict harm on someone who disagrees with you and doesn't honor and celebrate the gay lifestyle?

[Sparko]

Out of curiosity, just when did it become a right to inflict harm on someone who disagrees with you and doesn't honor and celebrate the gay lifestyle?

Since the LBGT crowd associated their lifestyle with racism and claims if you disagree you are no better than people who were against interracial marriage.

[firstfloor]

Out of curiosity, just when did it become a right to inflict harm on someone who disagrees with you and doesn't honor and celebrate the gay lifestyle?

This is not a valid description of the situation under discussion. There is no right to inflict harm and no harm is intended. Do you claim that if you buy a chicken sandwich from vendor A you have harmed competitor B? People are entitled to be as anti-gay as they want. As I suggested before, they also need to consider their personal radius of disapproval in case some disapproval is reflected back on them.

[Cow Poke]

Well, hold it right there, buster! They don't HAVE a "political position" -- they sell chicken sandwiches.

but I think you are incorrect to see this as an attack on religious beliefs.

They even STATED it's because of Chick-Fil-A's owner's religious beliefs.

Religion has nothing to do with selling or buying chicken sandwiches in airports.

So there should be ZERO problem in allowing them to sell their chicken sandwiches!

The attitude of some councillors is simply supportive of gay rights,

Which they are entitled to do in their own personal lives -- they are NOT entitled to have their anti-Christian bigotry determine policy.

but that is not equivalent to anti-Christian or anything like it. As I have already said, this is a political fight, not a religious one.

You can keep saying it til the cows come home, but the anti-Christian bigots are on record as being against Chick-Fil-A's owner's personal religious beliefs.

[Cow Poke]

This is not a valid description of the situation under discussion.

It's EGGZackly what it is.

There is no right to inflict harm and no harm is intended.

Prohibiting Chick-Fil-A from doing business strictly because of their owners' religious convictions - even AFTER the planning commission gave a green light - is causing them harm - loss of potential revenue.

Do you claim that if you buy a chicken sandwich from vendor A you have harmed competitor B?

When given a proper opportunity to purchase either? No. But when you don't even allow one of them to compete, then, absolutely!

People are entitled to be as anti-gay as they want.

And this isn't that.

As I suggested before, they also need to consider their personal radius of disapproval in case some disapproval is reflected back on them.

UNIVERSALLY, Chick-Fil-A gets HUGE approval -- even from the planning commission and vendor selection process --- it's just these SIX anti-Christian bigots abusing their power that's causing the problem.

You and your fellow bigoted LBGTQXYZ supporters are free to not eat as many chicken sandwiches as you don't want to eat.

[Cow Poke]

First Floor's Olympics....

OK, EVERYBODY is entitled to run in this race, and the rules will apply fairly to EVERYBODY. With one catch, of course -- No Christians are allowed to even enter the venue! On your mark, get set....