Chick-fil-A Rejected From San Antonio Airport
Chick-fil-A is one of the most popular restaurants in the United States and even though the locations are closed on Sunday, they still make more per restaurant than Subway, McDonald's, and Starbucks combined.
Recently, they've had some trouble though, after city council members in San Antonio had voted to keep the restaurant chain out of the San Antonio International Airport.
Since that rejection, now the Texas AG has opened an investigation and many have claimed that it's unjust discrimination that's taken place.
The AG will be looking to determine if by refusing to have Chick-fil-A in the airport, whether or not they violated the Constitutional protections for religious liberty. The city council in Texas could've rejected Chick-fil-A for a variety of reasons but they decided to do it over discontent for religious views.
Critics of the uproar over the situation have pointed out that there are probably much more pressing matters to contend with in Texas, than worrying about an issue of Chick-fil-A being rejected from an airport. They're still going to be just fine without that revenue stream.
Both sides of the political aisle have now addressed the issue, with one seeing it as a Constitutional infringement on religious liberty, and the other an issue with equality. Perhaps they could solve this issue if they turned toward private investment and private companies to own and operate the airport? Then they might be likely to approve or reject based on business decisions and not political reasoning such as disagreement over religious views. But while it remains under state control, we will continue to see these sorts of disagreements.
The government shouldn't be able to use force to bar any business from operating based on their personal views or statements, such an infringement violates their freedom. Let the people decide for themselves whether or not they want to spend their money there and have the business see longevity.
Constitutional rights are also violated on a daily basis all across the United States and so it's interesting to watch which instances of such injustice the media or government is going to cherry-pick to focus in on. They can never pass up an opportunity to fuel division and play some of that trench warfare.
Yes I’d like the #4 combo, no ice in the drink, and if you could hold your religious beliefs and personal judgements towards the world, that would be great! 🤣
Posted using Partiko iOS
don't forget the ranch sauce!
I’m more into BBQ... But if I had to choose between BBQ and listening to somebody’s religious beliefs I would happily go with no sauce at all 🤣
Posted using Partiko iOS
My God, @doitvoluntarily, after that Chick-fil-A, people will need @gringalicious’ kitchen to regain some health :)
https://steemit.com/photography/@gringalicious/mexican-brown-rice-tortilla-soup-food-photo-shoot
their grilled chicken nuggets aren't that bad! 😂😂! ... have you seen the recent black forest rolls though?😋😋
Wish we had one up here where I live, never tried it before!
never too late to plan a vacation ! 😄
From a Christian prospective, there are some things we can't TOLERATE, meaning, partake in, be party to, endorse, encourage, or enable.
But we're also not to hate people for their sin, because we're all just as guilty.
None of this hinders us from employing people or feeding them. The owner, while I'm positive has his own flaws, seems very principled.
Matthew 7:
...You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
Despite all the hate the man gets, I think he's setting a good example for other Christians and non Christians alike.
Now, all joking aside.....
Haha.
Luckily, you don't have to endorse or support someone's actions personally, in order to support their freedom to choose for themselves to engage in those actions. For example, you might be against criminalizing drug use, prostitution, and gambling, but that doesn't mean that you engage in or support those activities yourself. You might have never gambled or touched a joint in your life etc, but you can still choose not to stand in the way of others exercising their free will and making that choice. Getting a central mob involved to extend that preference onto others via government, regardless of what side left or right the preferences are coming from, just makes things messy. There's never a need to use force to try and avoid "partaking" in what one person might find offensive and another might not. And it sure gets confusing when those who claim to be pushing toward a higher ideal are frequently seen acting in revenge or speaking out of hate, just doesn't seem to fit with the message? 👍
You're absolutely right! That's exactly what the Bible teaches. Sad thing is most people, including christians, haven't bothered to get a deep enough understanding of scripture to understand that.
It doesn't matter if you come to it from a theological world view or a secular one. The fact remains that voluntaryism is one of the most simple, and important moral principals.
Posted using Partiko Android
nice quote find!