DIA Blocks Chick-Fil-A restaurant because of bigotry

Post Reply New Topic

Again, this isn't a speech or access issue, it's a business issue. The City of Denver doesn't owe jack or s**t to any business that wants to operate on it's property. If someone wants to protest on the City of Denver's property, they're allowed-- assuming proper permits have been filed. If someone wants access to city property during business hours, they're allowed. If a business wants to set up shop on the City of Denver's property the city has every right to deny said business if they so choose.

I am not suggesting it be made illegal to be a bigot or hold bigoted views...however allowing verbal abuse or harassment on account of ones bigoted views should not be protected under free speech. Hell its even legal for nazi groups to hold rallies and scream about their white supremacy....but there are limits they cannot do this wherever they please or extend to harassing those passing by. Its not just hate groups and bigots who are entitled to freedom....so that has to be taken into consideration. There has to be some regulation to keep their 'freedom' from interfering with other peoples 'freedom'. Allowing for rampant unregulated bigotry in all spaces public or not...would only serve to deny equal freedom to the groups targeted by said bigotry. But that is my view on it....you don't have to agree.

That no one is telling chick fil a to shut down was not a question it was a statement.

Also as I already stated discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal so no I would not support a business being denied because the CEO is gay.....discrimination on the basis of 'religion' is illegal that does not mean the owner of a space cannot deny a business for members openly expressing bigoted ideology.

couldn't fix the text mess so only put part of the post I was responding to...not sure that is better but cleaner looking on my end.

When did I say this?



Extended into financial support of the political agenda of their choice (which they have since ceased doing after their side lost the battle). I responded to this already under freedom of association. If they have broken any laws through their associations, that should be dealt with through the proper channels. If, however, they have merely contributed support to unpopular opinion, they are very much within the bounds of freedom of speech.

Again, it doesn't matter what you or I think of their views. It's what the law and the constitution say that counts.



You're again bringing up free speech on government property, something that is only potentially valid here in a hypothetical future. You cannot discriminate on the grounds that someone might at some future time say something offensive.



You just did it again.



Should such punishments be applied unilaterally or do you believe in due process?



If there were, you would be unable to express that opinion. Ironic, no?



What kind of skewed narrative is that you're trying to spin? Forced to allow a business to operate? A free market operates on consent. Feel free to boycott whomever you wish. Business owners, however, should not be forced to kowtow to yours, or mine or anyone else's ideological values.



Now I'm "worked up" because I don't share your viewpoint? What a staggeringly ignorant thing to say.



And do you apply this standard universally, or only in relation to those companies which aren't in line with your personal political values? If the latter, you're guilty of discrimination too.

^ridiculous. And just to clarify nowhere did I ever say 'thought crimes' should be punished that's ridiculous. I said verbal harrassment/abuse should have consequences and it shouldn't get special protections just because someone claims their religion makes them right. But this is kind of off topic anyways there is no punishment of thought crimes going on here...its not a punishment that they aren't going to be able to put up a franchise in the airport. If chick fil a feels that is unjust they can sue.

Agreeing with harassment being illegal isn't the same thing as wanting 'thought crimes' punished...honestly I don't even agree with the concept of thought crimes, I'd never suggest 'thinking' be a crime so quit accusing me of that.

Then what on earth was-



-all about?

The only possible way this could be remotely relevant to the discussion is in a hypothetical future scenario in which you predict an occurrence of racial antagonism. Otherwise, I have literally no idea why you're bringing it up.

I don't eat there because the nearest is a 200 mile round trip. If I'm driving 100 miles to eat and 100 miles back, I'm looking for something besides fast food.

More than a tad troubling.

I'd just like to point out that I've never eaten at a chick-fil-a, not because of political views, but because there's not one within 200 miles of me. I feel fortunate, every review I've read intimates that the food there taste like ass and this is before the controversy over their beliefs started a few years back. Since the conversation is well outside the scope of the initial post I'd just like to know, is their food really that bad?

If you can discriminate against a business because of religion then you can discriminate because of race or sexuality or anything. It doesn't matter what the religious beliefs of Chick-fil-A's corporate structure are if it in no way effects their business. Saudi Arabia beheads homosexuals in public squares and we're talking about chicken sandwiches, this stupid non-thinking twitter activism has to stop. I think this is another example of do gooder liberal guilt giving way to totalitarian thought police. You don't have to like each other, just because you buy a product doesn't mean you whole heartedly agree with all the views and actions of everybody involved in the chain of that one transaction. Who cares? It's such a weird thing to stick your flag in the ground for, most of the stuff we buy every day is made by slave labor in China but we need to boycott Chick-fil-A because their 90 year old founder didn't support gay marriage? Remember Obama didn't until the very end of his first term.

If you want to make a libertarian property rights type argument then you would also have to believe that private businesses should be able to discriminate for any reason as it is their money and property but I don't think any of you will make that leap. You just want your views and your morals enforced, I live and let live.

I've never eaten at Chick-fil-A, I don't eat fast food often and there is a about 15 other places I'd eat at before settling for Chick-fil-A. The nonly person that I've ever known to like it is a lesbian ironically enough, she apparently wasn't bothered by it. Some people get offended by the hidden scripture and stuff but In-N-Out does that too and they're the GOAT.

How about we ignore the law in their case, instead nixing CFA because their food's questionable, as well as the fact that they're abrasive and stupid? Don't they know they would sell more chicken if they kept the puritanism to themselves?

They seem to be doing quite well for themselves, their sales have exploded over the last couple years. Chick-fil-A is apparenty the most profitable per restaurant than any other fast food place and will likely continue to expand probably at the fastest pace in the industry. People don't care about twitter activists, it causes more backlash than anything.

Just more PR doublethink... be hated and become a household name

That's because it's become the political in-thing for the anti-LGBT rights crowd to eat there.

I don't think most people are making any political statement when they go eat fast food

Certainly not every customer - probably not even the majority - but the religious right/Fox news fans certainly had provided an upswing in business by spending their money there as a political statement, when the company CEO made his public anti-gay marriage statement. And they've made it a habit to go to Chik-Fil-A ever since.

I've eaten at them before and consider them to be pretty much like any fast food. When I want a chicken sandwich, I'd much rather have a grilled chicken sandwich.

I'd take Chick-Fil-A any time over many of the fast food hamburger places, especially Burger King.

their franchisee process is significantly different from most other fast food chains: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140725 ... istian-way