Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

toonkee

Chic-fil-A Law

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

How can one discriminate against a business? 

Quote

 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg and city council members letting them know he is opening an investigation surrounding the city’s decision to exclude Chick-fil-A from a concession contract that city staff recommended.

According to Paxton, “The Council was in the process of approving a concessionaire agreement with Paradies Legadere (Paradies) to run concession facilities in the San Antonio airport. The Paradies proposal included a license that would bring Chick-fil-A to the airport.”

“The City of San Antonio’s decision to exclude a respected vendor based on the religious beliefs associated with that company and its owners is the opposite of tolerance,” Attorney General Paxton said. “The city’s discriminatory decision is not only out of step with Texas values, but inconsistent with the Constitution and Texas law.”

By separate letter, he also requested Secretary Elaine Chao of the United States Department of Transportation open an investigation into “the city of San Antonio’s potential violation of federal law and Transportation Department regulations when the city banned Chick-fil-A from operating a restaurant in the San Antonio International Airport based on the company’s religious beliefs.”

Paxton cited comments from a city council meeting in the letter to Chao where he alleged discrimination. He said that when the council moved to approve the contract that would have allowed the restaurant at the airport, a council member instead moved to exclude and replace Chick-fil-A.  Paxton said, “His [the council member’s] rationale was that Chick-fil-A has a ‘legacy of anti-LGBT behavior.’” Paxton said the Council member who seconded the motion referred to Chick-fil-A as a “symbol of hate.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Orange said:

The same people who said "integration goes against our customs and traditions" are the people who cry "religious discrimination" when they're not allowed to discriminate against gay people.

Funny how so much "tradition" in America is related to subjecting vulnerable groups to oppression.

Plain old bull crap as usual. Bernie man. You are so outed here it is entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CV147 said:

I don't understand this post.

First, how could that even arguably create a hostile work environment?

If you're an attorney you should know there are specific parameters of what a hostile work environment is, legally.

Second, how does supporting a traditional marriage make a gay person's life hell?

Why does supporting one lifestyle "make" another person suffer? I'm of the opinion of live and let live.

If someone wants to donate to support gay marriage, that doesn't make anyone's life hell, either.

Being vocal about being opposed to the lifestyle of a given employee could definitely constitute a hostile work environment.  I'm surprised you're surprised by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

But does Chick Fil-A discriminate against them?  Do they ban them from employment?  Pay them lower wages?  Create a hostile work environment?  Refuse to sell them delicious chicken? I’ve never heard those complaints about the company.  I understand the owner donates to causes that support traditional marriage, etc. 

Even the gay presidential candidate agrees.

Quote

 

But the reality is, we, I think, sometimes slip into a sort of virtue signaling in some cases where we’re not really being consistent.

I do not approve of their politics, but I kind of approve of their chicken

 

-mayor Pete Buttigieg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

So anti-lgbt behavior = religious beliefs? Sounds like sharia law to me.

It's pretty +++++ed up that a government entity would refuse a contract because the owner donates money to certain causes.  Unless they are funding terrorists, it shouldn't be part of the discussion.  Literally the definition of corruption in San Antonio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

It's pretty +++++ed up that a government entity would refuse a contract because the owner donates money to certain causes.  Unless they are funding terrorists, it shouldn't be part of the discussion.  Literally the definition of corruption in San Antonio.

Anti-lgbt attitudes have led to violence before. What’s the difference? 

I’m not saying San Antonio did the right thing necessarily, I’m just wondering what this can be used as a pretext for in the future. Is it ok to donate to neonazi groups? Nambla? Antifa? So long as it’s done in the name of religious beliefs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Orange said:

Being vocal about being opposed to the lifestyle of a given employee could definitely constitute a hostile work environment.  I'm surprised you're surprised by this.

Did he send an email to all employees stating that he donated?

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

So explain to me the crime here from your perspective.  Please tell us how he is creating a harsh environment for the poor souls employed at CFA.

CFA’s are owned by franchisees.  The restaurant employees don’t even work for CFA.  They work for the franchisees. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Orange said:

Being vocal about being opposed to the lifestyle of a given employee could definitely constitute a hostile work environment.  I'm surprised you're surprised by this.

How is the CEO being vocal in an individual employee's place of business, by donating to a political group?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

Isn’t that discriminating against the owners? Is that what was happening to chick-fil-a?

Technically, no.  The owner isn't selling the goods, the business is.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

Anti-lgbt attitudes have led to violence before. What’s the difference? 

I’m not saying San Antonio did the right thing necessarily, I’m just wondering what this can be used as a pretext for in the future. Is it ok to donate to neonazi groups? Nambla? Antifa? So long as it’s done in the name of religious beliefs?

One's an attitude without violence

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

How can one discriminate against a business? 

 

4 hours ago, Orange said:

Arguably, yes, when the CEO publicly supports organizations whose primary purpose is to make a gay person's life hell.

Yeah who cares about free speech right.

You authoritarians hate the bill of rights top to bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mugtang said:

Like I said in the Berkeley thread, I support State and Local rights. They can pass whatever law they want as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution. 

I fully agree.

And I'm sure you won't take issue with my right to no longer eat at Chick-Fil-A's here in California since the company felt compelled to sponsor such inane legislation in Texas.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...