Chic-fil-A Law

[Orange]

2 hours ago, CV147 said:

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

 

He's not.

[bluerules009]

1 minute ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

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.

I am fine with you and your first amendment rights.

@Orange and @SJSUMFA2013 may not be if your speech doesn't agree with their thoughts.

[mugtang]

3 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

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.

You’re well within your rights to boycott them. I fully support your right to boycott. 

[renoskier]

3 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

An article says it was a city council that vetoed a chick fil a concessionaire license in an airport.

Maybe the airport requires concessionaires to be open 7 days a week. Aren't Chic Filet's closed on Sundays?

[East Coast Aztec]

2 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Maybe the airport requires concessionaires to be open 7 days a week. Aren't Chic Filet's closed on Sundays?

I think one of the council members stated the donations as a reason, so they would have lost that rational Sunday closure argument.

[SJSUMFA2013]

17 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

I am fine with you and your first amendment rights.

@Orange and @SJSUMFA2013 may not be if your speech doesn't agree with their thoughts.

Finally someone comes right out and admits this is some citizens united “corporations are people” bullshit.

[East Coast Aztec]

The law not only includes religious convictions, but moral as well.  How the hell does moral conviction get decided?  Some gray area ambiguity right there.

If you can't blame your hate on your deity of choice, how do we classify personal convictions?

[bluerules009]

10 minutes ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

Finally someone comes right out and admits this is some citizens united “corporations are people” bullshit.

Is the CEO and owner of Chick-Fil-A not a  person?

Because he owns a business he doesn't have rights anymore?

 

Not to mention corporations have been considered an entity since the 16th century when they were first born into law.   Citizen United just confirmed 500 years of existing law and practice.   If they weren't a legal entity you couldn't sue them, they wouldn't have to pay their debts, they couldn't enter into contracts.   They couldn't be taxed.    Not to mention they just gained the same rights as labor unions which represent groups of people as do corporations.

 

[retrofade]

20 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

They may have been doing a favor for chik-fil-a's reputation.  I won't ever re-experience airport chik-fil-a.  It does a disservice to the chain.

This is so very true. I had just flown on a redeye from LA and was in Detroit on a layover. I got a chicken biscuit that was probably the worst breakfast food I've had in my life. I wasn't a huge fan of their food to begin with, but I was hungry. Never again though, that shit was vile. 

[Mano]

Do you have to now state reasons for not eating at Chick Filet, and if it is because you think the owner is an asshole due to stance against lgbtq you face prosecution?

[Guest #1Stunner]

I'm undecided on if this bill is a big deal or not...

Can someone give a specific example of the harm this bill could cause?  What a business like CFA might do that would harm an individual?

Not just a general statement that it would harm the LGBTQ...but a specific example.

Is this the sort of bill where a cake shop could refuse to bake a cake for an LGBTQ wedding, and their would be no recourse if they did?

Thanks.

[NorCalCoug]

17 hours ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

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.

Nobody cares about your virtue signaling, including Chick Fil-A.

[SDSUfan]

 

22 hours ago, tspoke said:

Seems weird. Now you can't not open a chic filet or what?

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-03-22/chick-fil-a-banned-from-opening-in-san-antonio-airport

[SleepingGiantFan]

1 hour ago, NorCalCoug said:

Nobody cares about your virtue signaling, including Chick Fil-A.

Nobody cares about it? Well, you obviously do. YOU don't like it, which is YOUR constitutional right. 

[NorCalCoug]

1 minute ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

Nobody? Well, you obviously do. That is to say, YOU don't like it, which is YOUR constitutional right. 

Just keep feeling moral and sticking it to Chick-Fil-A. You’re making an impact.  They feel it!  

[Joe from WY]

On 7/19/2019 at 2:12 PM, 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.

You can tell he isn't an employment lawyer. He's throwing loaded terms around which he clearly lacks cognizance of the meaning of, given his continued insistence that a CEO's donation to a cause can legally constitute a "hostile work environment" in a huge chain like CFA. 

But are we really surprised anymore at this point? 

[Joe from WY]

22 hours ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

Finally someone comes right out and admits this is some citizens united “corporations are people” bullshit.

The idea of corporate personhood is much, much older than Citizens United. It's the basis for our entire economic system in a sense. 

[sebasour]

To my knowledge Chic fil A isn't discriminating against LGBT customers or employees, so the government shouldn't be getting involved, and I don't think the City of San Antonio should be banning them from the airport.

 

People have a right to be homophobic assholes in this country

[pokebball]

7 hours ago, Mano said:

Do you have to now state reasons for not eating at Chick Filet, and if it is because you think the owner is an asshole due to stance against lgbtq you face prosecution?

no