DIA Blocks Chick-Fil-A restaurant because of bigotry

Post Reply New Topic

Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bans discrimination in all public accommodations engaging in interstate commerce on the basis of religion

But is it truly on the basis of religion?

I agree with this. If this is legal then why can't any discrimination be legal? Chick-Fil-A is not discriminating against anyone outside of the personal opinion of one person in the organization. So basically this is just religious discrimination.

What other reason is there? Unless Chick-fil-a is actively discriminating against employees or costumers, I really don't care what their corporate executives believe. Christian companies don't scare me to be honest, there are way more scary insidious multinational corporations that blend into government who I am sure have weird Eyes Wide Shut devil orgies where some cloaked figure with a goats head sacrifices the blood of the innocent but who am I to judge?

It's such a bully mentality, oh lets pick on Chick fil-a but will you take this to its logical extreme? Will you boycott everything you disagree with? Should Islam be discriminated against because of its nonprogressive or violent ideas? Christians? Jews? Do you even really believe in freedom of religion? Rights aren't for the popular, we have to resist this mob mentality.

Denver city/county could simply argue that chick-fil-a's presence in the airport would be divisive and potentially provocative of a security issue.

I don't see why you're looking at this as bullying. Someone applied to open a licensed franchise in the airport and the airport's owners think maybe they don't want it.

What do you mean by scare? that's entirely the wrong emotion you're referencing.

It's not fear. It's offense.

I find it offensive when a business owner says "I believe that birth control is wrong, so i will not allow my employees to receive birth control through their insurance, EVEN IF SOMEONE ELSE PAYS FOR IT."

Just by way of example.

If the owner of a chain restaurant converted to islam and started putting verses from the koran on cups, plates, bags, etc, people would lose their minds over it. That's fear. It's different from offense.

Lets pick on chick-fil-a? maybe chick-fil-a started it by picking on people who don't have southern baptist values.

But they didn't. They declined them on the basis of the outspoken views of individuals.



Entirely wrong? If you have nothing to fear from them, why do you support punitive measures against their free speech?



So what? If we're going to ban business on the basis of what people find offensive, we might as well abandon commerce entirely.



Narrow-minded people might, certainly.



Who has chick-fil-a targeted?

I don't care for any religion, but I am a firm advocate for unrestricted freedom of speech. If the stated reason for denying their business is the actual reason, this is a clear example of discrimination.

Individuals who own and operate that closely held company and officially speak for it with regard to those views.



Because a person shouldn't have to have their health insurance limited by the personal views of the CEO.



You conservatives always talk about things being banned.

CFA has more than a dozen locations in the greater denver area. It just appears that they are being declined a spot in the airport.



Gays, lesbians, women in general. Have you even paid attention to why some people find them objectionable?



Freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom from consequences of speech.

I'll be flying through DIA as usual in four days. I don't want my taxes paying rent for lame fried chicken with an oppressive message to some good friends of mine, and hands down I don't want to see any more wasted space in that airport. The airport in its' own right wastes plenty of space.

And this makes a difference how exactly?



And such a person is well within their rights to:

1. Sue for discrimination.
2. Find employment elsewhere.



Conservative?



Person 1: I'm not banned from all the restaurants in my town, just the one I specifically want to eat at.
Person 2: Oh, so you're not actually banned then!
Person 1: ...



Picked on... in general? Care to try again? With examples?



I suggest you have some reading to do. There are legal consequences and illegal consequences. Can you guess which category government intervention on the basis of speech falls under?

Comparatively very few patrons of that or any other major airport are going to care one way or another if one of the many eating establishments there is a Chick Fil A.
It's a non-issue.

Save for the fact we could have any number of better chicken joints in our airport...

However, they do have an arcade there which helps pass the time.

We don't have a Chik-Fil-A in the Spokane area here in Washington state, so I have no idea about the quality - or lack of - of their food. All I know is, the food is highly politicized, as right wing homophobes make it a point of pride to eat there as a statement against LGBT rights. Personally, I can do without either crappy fast food, and crappier politics.

If you don't want to associate with someone (someone = business) because there's something you find offensive about them, you'll end up not associating with anyone if you don't want to be a hypocrite, because everyone has a belief and opinion that's offensive to everyone. They're more likely pertinent to you too than the gays (considering they're a small minority and it's unlikely you're one).

It's kinda funny how the media can make single issues seem so important to people, when they're basically of zero consequence other than "muh feelings".

People need to buckle the hell up.

Jews are also a small minority. By that logic, I shouldn't have a problem associating with Antisemites. It's not just a matter of disliking someone because they hurt someone else' feelings, but because they despise someone else for who and what they are.

That's just one form of offensive behavior. There's more than you can count.

Most businesses won't hire someone with an ASD unless they're highly functional and require little assistance; they are the minority of people with an ASD. Most of us will never be hired because of the ASD.

The same with friendships and relationships.

This is clearly "offensive", and far more so than the gays and their marriage plight and cake problems.

Should we not boycott almost everyone?