DIA Blocks Chick-Fil-A restaurant because of bigotry

Post Reply New Topic

You mean these people Denver City Council?



Sounds like a local government to me.

Yep, it's a government agency and they also happen to be the legal property owner of said location. I mean, unless you're against property ownership and rights, what's the issue here?

You are the one who posted the hypothetical senerio about someone complaining about every restaurant but the one they want to go to being banned in response to a comment about there being many chick-fil-a in the denver area.



So seemed you thought the airport is a largely sought out location for eating fast food specifically chick-fil-a and not having one in the airport would cause your hypothetical of someone complaining about not being able to go to the restaurant they want becuase there isn't a chick-fil-a in the denver airport. Or did you mean something else, if so please explain.

If Denver City Council owns it, that they can deny a franchise the liscense/permission to operate on that property is very relevant....and that is what I have suggested. Whoever owns it gets final jurisdiction of what businesses are and aren't operating on the premise that is all stuff I have said so how none of what I've posted is 'relevant' beats me, you'd have to explain that one.

If their stated reason is bigotry on the part of the CEO and that they refuse certain insurance coverage to employees based on religious bigotry....then no it cannot be classified as religious discrimination, that would be if their reason is 'the CEO is a Christian' thus far it does not appear that is the reason their application to operate in the airport was denied.

Extreme example but what if a business owned by a CEO involved in the KKK wanted to create a franchise in the airport...would them being denied that licences be 'religious discrimination' because KKK members identify as white protestants? Or would it be the management of the airport making a decision based on not wanting to make its. patrons/customers uncomfortable? Much of the public is displeased by Chick fil a's display of intolerance...they aren't being disallowed for being 'christian' their being disallowed for being bad for airport business.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 27 Aug 2015, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Whats hypocritical to me is if this was a business that was owned by an openly gay individual, and they are denied ANYTHING ANYWHERE (however inconsequential) on a basis of that outspokenness (as confirmed by the council member), it would be completely unacceptable to the same people who support this very decision adamantly. There would be marches, demonstrations of all kinds and a huge blowback over this. There would be lawsuits, the councilperson who spoke would probably have to resign.

Im not sure why Christianity gets singled out as anti-gay. Last I checked, Islam and Judaism are also "anti-gay". Combine these three groups and you get an overwhelming majority of our population. And, I still don't get why someone is "anti-gay" because they disapprove of someone's behavior on moral grounds. I mean I am not familiar with too many people or organizations that call for penalties for homosexual behavior. Never heard anyone positioning for bedroom checks.

We all should have the right, as an allegedly free country, to believe what we want, express said beliefs openly and dislike people for whatever reason we choose should we be so inclined. If we cannot than how can we be considered free? It is inevitable some people will not like you. If you cannot accept that, you have bigger issues than sexuality, restaurants or marriages. So who gives anyone, government or otherwise, the right to tell you what are acceptable and non-acceptable ways. Allow the free market system to work. Obviously chick-fil-a's business has not suffered due to the owners Christan beliefs. So why isn't that enough? Just like gays and gay right advocates fought for legal marriage and won. It went though the system we have, and that's that. Some will like it. Some will not care. Some will actively hate it.

Part of tolerance is tolerating the things you dislike and disagree with.

That is because its illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and you still have yet to prove those running the denver airport denied chick fil a their franchise in the airport on account of them being 'christians'...seems like you think all Christians use their beliefs to discriminate against homosexuals thus denying a business on a property they don't own on the basis of discrimination against homosexuals is 'religious' discrimination against said business.

Actually it really depends on the individual following one of those religions and their interpretation, what denomination/type of said religion they follow. But thank you for further proving that you think being denied a franchise in the airport on the basis of being 'anti-gay' is the same as denying them for being christian. Because anti-gay is a very pristine religion that needs protecting? Also plenty of religious people support 'conversion therapy' for gays which has been proven to be very damaging psychologically and think allowing same sex couples marriage licences that simply grant them the same rights/legal validity as heterosexual couples somehow impedes on their right to have a heterosexual marriage. But again none of those are core beliefs of Christianity as a whole....

Well i suppose to clarify this discussion we need a more clear definition of "discriminate". I think people are too quick to throw that around. Disagreeing with someone is not discrimination no matter how loud you shout it. Denying someone a business is. At least by the definition I understand. Though these words are always being changed by the powers that be anyways, so who knows what the dictionary says now.

Im not really a practicing Christian, however I support conversion therapy. Who is the government to tell you that if you feel you are gay and dont want to be that you cannot have someone help you with that? We have all sorts of "risky" treatments. It should always be up to the individual to decide. I will never support the government controlling anything on the grounds that we need to be protected from ourselves. I believe that to be quite contrary to the concepts of free thought and individual choice.

May I point out something? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it's various downstream derivatives prohibit discrimination in public accommodations. You know, like...drinking fountains, and lunch counters. And while sex was not specifically mentioned in that Title of the Act, race and religion were specified. In 1990, the ADA was passed, essentially adding disabilities. At some point, Colorado went a step further and stated that, in gen­eral, busi­nesses that hold them­selves out to the pub­lic may not dis­crim­i­nate when pro­vid­ing ser­vices to cus­tomers based on their race, sex, reli­gion, sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion, age, dis­abil­ity, or any other pro­tected char­ac­ter­is­tic. Col­orado pub­lic accom­mo­da­tion laws require busi­nesses that offer goods and ser­vices to all cus­tomers equally.

Certain Christians sincerely believe they aren't allowed to work on Sunday. If a business covered by those public accommodation laws decided to not be open one day a week based on that belief, no Christians of the same sect would be affected. Only those of a different religion or those who hold no religious beliefs would be denied service.

Also sure part of tolerance is to tolerate things you dislike and disagree with....but within reason, part of tolerance is not accepting bigotry or perpetuating ongoing stigma against vulnerable/disenfranchised groups and/or minorities...or that kind of defeats the whole purpose. Free speech is good when it does not serve to impede the freedom of others or perpetuate stigma and discriminatory treatment. That said no one is telling chick-fil-a to shut down or what they can and cannot say, they have lots of franchises there are probably plenty of places that would be glad to have one.....they simply aren't approved to do so at the airport. They can build another one elsewhere and continue being as bigoted as they want on their own property, IDK what the issue is. The free market system does not extend to giving the likes of chick-fil-a the right to override decisions not to allow their franchise in certain spaces due to management/owners of said spaces saying no.

Wherein you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the important legal differences between privately owned property and government owned property.



Which you've clearly misunderstood.



Please point out where I mentioned chic-fil-a, the airport or the citizens of Denver in my hypothetical scenario. You're either being disingenuous or unnecessarily adding entire paragraphs of your own design between the lines.



Which would be where it ended if it was privately owned property. As it's owned by the government, their stated reason constitutes punitive measures taken against free speech.



The religious beliefs of the CEO are immaterial, regardless of what effect they have on his expressed opinions.

See Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Public Service Commission

In which Justice J. Stevens focused on the language of the First Amendment of the Constitution, noting that "any suppression of expression on a particular topic, just because it may be controversial, is an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech."

As things stand, Denver City Council has enacted a punitive measure against protected speech and has left itself wide open under the First Amendment.

Well exactly if the airport operates on sunday, and chick-fil-a abides by 'no work on sunday' then logically it would make sense for them to instead accept a business that will be open during all the airports hours of operation....rather than one that would sit there closed just taking up space on sundays. Then I also looked up apparently they have donated to bigoted causes which means the government cannot very well allow them on government property to operate since it would be illegal for the government to funnel money into anti-gay organizations via having a chick fil a on government space probably. If it was so simple as the CEO disagrees with same sex marriage I could see all the complaining...but they apparently have been actively involved in 'anti gay' activism on top of that.

Apparently, so what did you mean than?

And you didn't but I figured in a thread discussing chick-fil-a, especially in response to a comment referencing chick fil a....your post would in some manner relate to chick fil a. If not, its off topic than because there isn't an issue of your hypothetical persons place they want to eat being banned.

Free speech does not extend to denying employees certain insurance coverage based on religious beliefs, funding/donating to anti-gay causes. Also since when is absolute free speech allowed on government property anyways? The government also has a duty to make sure speech/operation on government property is not discriminatory towards any of the public...if chick fil a has indeed donated to bigoted religious organizations attempting to fight gay rights it would be very irresponsible and in bad taste to allow them to have a franchise on government property used by the public.

Read the post again, along with the specific point I was replying to. My response was highlighting the logical flaw of implying that a ban somehow doesn't count if it's geographically specific.

No, I know the difference, I don't think you do. Yes, a government has certain discrimination laws it has to obey on it's own property, outside those concessions private property laws come into play. Those concessions are generally pretty small, namely during operating hours the government can't deny access to any group. Access isn't the same as a right to operate a business. Example: the City of Denver also owns the roads, by law if the KKK wanted to hold a rally and filled out the appropriate paperwork the city, by law, would have to allow them to hold said rally in the streets. That being said, that doesn't mean the city has to allow the KKK to hold a bake sale fundraiser at city hall. Bigot's Chicken employees, managers, etc, can still go to DIA, hell even in their uniforms if they want, what the property owner denied them was the ability to do business on said property. One is a speech and access issue, one is a business issue. I don't know of any law that states the government has to allow a business to operate on it's own property, if you do please enlighten me.