DIA Blocks Chick-Fil-A restaurant because of bigotry

Post Reply New Topic

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.

You're conflating three completely separate issues.



We're not discussing absolute free speech on government property, but I'll answer anyway.

Whenever the person engaged in speech has access to a decent lawyer.



Are you advocating punishment for thought crimes now?



Incorrect. Punitive measures on this basis would be a direct infringement of the right of freedom of association.

You are the one who said they are being denied over their religion and free speech, which is not the case...I only pointed out they've extended beyond simple distasteful speech, thus there is valid reason not to allow them on government space occupied by the public in my opinion.

Also even if someone had good lawyers there are limits to what is covered by 'free speech' on government owned ground. Pretty sure going to say some political speech by a politician on government property of some minority and you start screaming racial slurs and being disruptive....well no that is not going to be allowed.

And no I never advocated punishment for thought crimes....I advocated punishment for verbal harassment/abuse, including if it is of a bigoted, hate speech nature. Also I do not think there should be laws to protect bigotry...the CEO expressed his bigoted views the consequence is many people want nothing to do with his business and should not be forced to allow it to operate wherever it wants.

and fine be all worked up because an airport in my city doesn't want chick fil a at the airport, but I see no problem with refusing to allow a franchise that even gives to anti-gay causes/movements in opposition to gay rights to operate in government space

Ok, but who gets to decide whats "within reason"? Very slippery slope there. It's a similar concept to "common sense". By who's standards?

[/quote]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. [/quote]

How does it defeat the purpose? The purpose is the freedom to say what you believe without fear of governmental intervention. Period. Bigotry is an unfortunate part of that freedom. Either you infringe upon freedoms for the sake of controlling bigotry, or you accept bigotry as part of freedom you may not like. It cant be both. This is not logical. I choose the latter, you may choose the former. But the former is NOT freedom.

[/quote]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. [/quote]

On what grounds is the question...

[/quote]
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.[/quote]

Truth. It does not. But do the owners have this right when basing their decision on someone's ideological views? Again, if you care to, even in your own head, really think about how you would feel if this was a "gay company" (for a shorter term). Would you be defending the property owners right to refuse, or would you cry discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Honestly. You dont have to answer. Just think about it as non-biased as you can. You seem intelligent. Im fairly certain if you look at it in those terms, you'd have to admit there has become a bit of a double standard here. Thats really all I was really trying to say to begin with...

I bow out of the discussion as this has become more intense than I am in the mood for. Good evening to all, regardless of which side of this fence you are on. The beauty of the concept of freedom of thought are these type discussions/debates.