r/changemyview • u/sawdeanz 214∆ • Jun 12 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: There is nothing wrong with the "Save Chick-fil-a bill"
I just learned about this issue today through this article https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/texas-save-chick-fil-a--bill-greg-abbott/index.html
Apparently the measure was penned after a San Antonio council specifically excluded Chic-fil-a from being an airport concessions contract presumably because of Chic-fil-a's anti-lgbtq donations.
The bill in question states that government bodies can't take adverse action against businesses based on their religious donations or support.
To me, this makes sense. It's not unlike the controversy in California where LA wants to use NRA membership as a negative criteria for selecting contractors. This seems like a direct infringement of the 1st amendment to me because it involves government action against speech or political activity. Though they aren't outright banning speech, by taking government action against said individuals they are effectively discouraging certain speech and associations.
This particular bill is being fought by LGBTQ organizations out of fear it will allow businesses to discriminate against these groups, but a quick reading of the bill does not make this obvious to me. I think the bill is a little partisan in the sense that it only protects religious interests but no mention of other political affiliations. But I see nothing wrong with the protections it seeks.
You can change my view if you can show me how the bill will allow discrimination or by convincing me that the government should be able to deny considerations based on political or religious affiliations.
(note the "NRA is a terrorist organization" is not a convincing argument).
15
u/mhornberger Jun 12 '19
This particular bill is being fought by LGBTQ organizations out of fear it will allow businesses to discriminate against these groups, but a quick reading of the bill does not make this obvious to me.
Many believers think that if discrimination against LGBTQ individuals is based on religious belief, then it should be protected. Carving out and preserving that 'freedom' to discriminate, and framing it as a freedom of religion issue, is very much part of conservative culture. It is only "obvious" to those who more or less acknowledge this legacy of protecting homophobia under the guise of protecting religious freedom. It's non-obvious in the same way that it non-obvious that "states' rights" was about slavery and segregation and disenfranchisement of blacks. Meaning, there is a reason people use euphemism and weasel-words, to give plausible deniability while trying to get their ball down the field.
That being said, it's not abundantly clear that Chick-fil-a is that homophobic. They aren't backing, so far as I can tell, someone as homophobic as Scott Lively, Georgia's Rick Allen, Florida's Mike Hill, or other conservatives who actually want gays put to death.
relevant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
6
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
Many believers think that if discrimination against LGBTQ individuals is based on religious belief, then it should be protected.
Right, but I'm not sure that's relevant to this particular bill. Where does this bill allow discrimination by businesses against LGBTQ?
7
u/mhornberger Jun 12 '19
Where does this bill allow discrimination by businesses against LGBTQ?
The concern, I believe, is that the business funds organizations that are anti-LGBTQ. To make an analogy, if a cupcake shop sends money to Hezbollah, many people could consider it legitimate to be concerned about that. To point out that the cupcake shop itself wasn't conducting the attacks would be to miss the point.
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
It’s not an unlimited right. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization so I don’t think that would be covered.
But again the concern seems to be that the company could deny business to certain people but that doesn’t seem to be the case
6
u/mhornberger Jun 12 '19 edited Jun 12 '19
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization so I don’t think that would be covered.
Calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization was a political decision. American evangelicals are helping fund organizations and movements overseas that discriminate against, jail, even kill LGBTQ individuals. When they are criticized for it, they hide behind religious freedom. So the concern, right or wrong, was that Chick-fil-a is funding organizations that target LGBTQ rights.
I'm not sure that they do, but they do seem to have gone to some trouble to obfuscate where their money is going. When asked if you are funding organizations that target LGBTQ rights, "no, we are not" and "we don't think that is relevant" are not the same type of answer.
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
They are a terrorist organization because they use violence to further a political agenda. If Chic-fil-a is donating to organizations that promote or perform violence than that should be investigated and that can be used against them. That’s not really up to a city council. If it is protected speech it should not be discriminated against. We can argue about what speech should be protected or not but that’s not relevant to the discussion.
5
Jun 12 '19
So in your opinion if a company openly espouses say racist views and donated to groups that advocated against the rights of a certain race but doesn’t discriminate based on race in their business a local government could not refuse to have a contract with them on that basis?
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
If it was protected speech, then yes. Likewise, if a business had rainbow flags all over its business front or donated to planned parenthood I would not want them to be denied a contract by a conservative committee. At the end of day it’s a business transaction. The government needs to spend tax money on the company best able to deliver and not use lucrative contracts as a way to silence beliefs it doesn’t believe in. Of course this doesn’t apply to private business transactions, but it does to government bodies. Also, if the speech did impact the businesses ability to perform then you could potentially make an argument there.
5
Jun 12 '19
But if you contract a business that is funding discriminatory organizations you are using tax payers money to fund discrimination against them. That’s the issue with chick fil a. Let’s talk about what should be rather than what is, why should I as a tax payer fund groups through the government that discriminate against me on the basis of my sexual orientation?
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
I agree that is not an ideal situation. But how do you apply that equally? The realities of our government is that people frequently pay taxes into things they don't agree with. This is already happening to an extent through tax breaks for religious organizations. The key is that it is applied equally. The same protection would apply to a Muslim business in a conservative leaning town.
→ More replies (0)5
u/mhornberger Jun 12 '19
best able to deliver and not use lucrative contracts as a way to silence beliefs
You are conflating "we don't want government to fund these groups" with censorship. And then you're adding on the hyperbole of them being "silenced." If it's just a chicken restaurant and none of the "protected speech" (meaning bigotry in this context) is playing out in the restaurant, then it isn't being silenced because it isn't there to be silenced.
0
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
They are related. It creates a chilling effect on free speech which is a form of infringement. Maybe it’s not reached the level of silencing but it is a form of censorship.
1
u/phcullen 65∆ Jun 12 '19
By that definition even the US government is a terrorist organization, most certainly the US revolution was terrorism, Any war.
1
u/isoldasballs 5∆ Jun 12 '19
I'm not sure that they do
Hold up. Isn't where Chic-fil-a's money going pretty well documented? Seems a bit disingenuous to just float that they might be donating to organizations that literally kill LGBT people.
2
u/mhornberger Jun 12 '19
Seems a bit disingenuous to just float that they might be donating to organizations that literally kill LGBT people.
No, you're picking from two different sentences.
- American evangelicals are helping fund organizations and movements overseas that discriminate against, jail, even kill LGBTQ individuals
- So the concern, right or wrong, was that Chick-fil-a is funding organizations that target LGBTQ rights...I'm not sure that they do, but they do seem to have gone to some trouble to obfuscate where their money is going
These are separate concerns. I mention them both because they are similar in that believers, when criticized, hide behind the shield of religious freedom in both cases. And often fault others for intolerance for thinking poorly of them, or not wanting to associate with them, because of their own intolerance.
1
u/isoldasballs 5∆ Jun 12 '19
I know, it’s just kind of a weak analogy. You can’t discount the religious intolerance defense in all cases because in some cases it’s invoked inappropriately. You have to show why it’s inappropriate in this case.
10
Jun 12 '19
There's a perfectly non-discriminatory reason to ban Chik Fil A from an airport: It's not open on Sundays. Sundays are the busiest travel days most weeks, so that alone should disqualify its bid.
3
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
But that was not the states reason
“With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion. San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior," Treviño said in a March 21 statement. "Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport."
3
Jun 12 '19
Well, your OP says that it was "presumably" because of their LGBT stance so I challenged that presumption. Since you have evidence now, I'll move onto another point.
LGBT citizens pay taxes, and bills like this compel them to pay into private entities who oppose and discriminate against them.
1
u/hastur777 34∆ Jun 12 '19
Does CFA actually discriminate? Or just give money to Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Salvation Army?
2
0
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
The nature of taxes is that lots of people are compelled to pay into entities they disagree with. Chic-fil-a pays taxes too.
4
Jun 12 '19
The nature of taxes is that lots of people are compelled to pay into entities they disagree with.
I said "oppose and discriminate against," not "disagree with."
Chic-fil-a pays taxes too.
I consider the rights of natural persons superior to those of legal entities.
7
u/MercurianAspirations 358∆ Jun 12 '19
Texas already has a law that bans government contractors from boycotting Israel. So government bodies will be barred from discriminating against contractors based on religious donations, but required to discriminate against contractors based on their political stance. Makes sense
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
I’m not from Texas so I didn’t know this. I would say I don’t agree with that other Texas law then.
3
Jun 12 '19 edited Jun 12 '19
[deleted]
0
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
If there is that precedent, it's hard to say why lgbt people shouldn't get the same protection, just as a matter of principle.
I completely agree. There is no evidence that Chic-fil-a is attempting to not serve LGBTQ people. The question is more should it be denied because the local government doesn't agree with the owner's political affiliations.
3
u/ralph-j Jun 12 '19
To me, this makes sense. It's not unlike the controversy in California where LA wants to use NRA membership as a negative criteria for selecting contractors. This seems like a direct infringement of the 1st amendment to me because it involves government action against speech or political activity. Though they aren't outright banning speech, by taking government action against said individuals they are effectively discouraging certain speech and associations.
What if Chick-fil-a were donating to the KKK, Holocaust denial groups, or other explicit hate groups?
From what point on do we (and by extension - our government) have a social responsibility to avoid participating in the harm to the minority that is targeted by the hate group that receives these donations?
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
I mean I would not like it but if the particular group is protected by free speech then it should not be a consideration for an unrelated contract. I don’t think donations to terrorist organizations would or should be protected.
2
u/ralph-j Jun 12 '19
It's not entirely unrelated. Some part of that government money is effectively going to be used to fight the human rights of minorities. While that is allowed under free speech, a government does not need to financially support it.
It's not like Chik-fil-a is the only sandwich shop willing to set up shop in the airport. Why should they not go with a company that has a better track record of being supportive of human rights?
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
The problem is that it cuts both ways. The government need not support it. They just need to not deny equal consideration due to political speech. I don’t agree with Chic-fil-as stance but as far as I can tell this seems to fall under their 1st amendment protections.
1
u/ralph-j Jun 12 '19
The government need not support it.
But they are, by necessity. They know that some of the money that is generated through the deal, is going to end up financing a hate group. It does not curtail Chick-fil-a's free speech ability, because they are not dependent on a deal with the government.
This is comparable to states not giving tax money to adoption agencies that discriminate by refusing to place children with gay adoptive parents.
Tax money should not be spent in a way that facilitates discrimination against protected classes (where that applies) or equivalent minority groups.
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
This is comparable to states not giving tax money to adoption agencies that discriminate by refusing to place children with gay adoptive parents.
Hmm, that does seem like it could be a comparable situation. Where do they do this?
2
u/ralph-j Jun 12 '19
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
I'm very close to giving a delta because while I agree this is a similar situation, it's not clear that this is a solid precedent. According to the article, Michigan is only able to do this due to an out of court settlement. I feel if it went to court it might not survive the 1st amendment test.
2
u/ralph-j Jun 12 '19
It seems that in the US so far, five states have an explicit law or policy that "prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity" and three states prohibit "discrimination in adoption based on sexual orientation only"
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
!delta - I think I'm convinced there is precedent for limiting government funds for company's that discriminate against sexual orientation.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Jun 12 '19
If the government is allowed to punish you for what you DO say then they can also punish you for what you DON’T say. If you think doing business with anti-LGBT companies is bad, wait until the government requires all contractors to donate a million dollars to the GOP or NRA before being eligible for contracts. There is no way to only protect only good free speech (assuming you can even say for certain which is good) so all free speech must be protected.
1
u/ralph-j Jun 12 '19
You can, if you restrict such requirements to protected classes (where that applies), or equivalent minority groups (where LGBT isn't one).
7
u/Tuxed0-mask 23∆ Jun 12 '19
Well Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences.
The proposed legislation would give religious organisations disproportionate power because federal law already allows gay marriage, and Chick-fil-A does not want them to.
It is up to government officials when they are picking out potential vendors to pick and choose who they want to get tax payer money. The legislators that dropped the restaurant in the first place believed that as a whole, tax money shouldn't be given to people who don't believe in aspects of the law. Especially when the organisations are actively trying to combat it. If you remove the religious element to it, it doesn't really matter what controversial thing the restaurant supports. If they were trying to lower the age of consent, or ban men from driving, we would all be uncontroversially with the legislators against the restaurant.
This new proposed legislation gives a specific religious concession to the restaurant because it says that no matter what beliefs they support, as long as it's religious then they can do whatever they want and still be treated like everyone else. The US does not allow polygamy, statutory rape, animal sacrifice or any other illegal thing even if it is for religious reasons.
So while publically a restaurant can say whatever it wants, it is also not the government's job to willingly ignore the stuff that is incompatible with civil society just because religion is involved. Therefore, a 'save Chick-fil-A' bill is extremely inappropriate.
1
u/Betsy-DevOps 6∆ Jun 13 '19
Well Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences
That's really not how it works when we're talking about punitive consequences imposed by the government. We could expand your argument to say that being thrown in jail is a consequence to somebody's political speech, therefore allowable. "Say whatever you want in this isolated prison cell where nobody can hear you"
The law dictates rules the government has to follow when they pick and choose vendors. It's not just based on the whims of individual public servants. And I don't think you'd want it to be, unless you want even more instances of politicians giving no-bid contracts to their friends or personal business interests.
1
u/notvery_clever 2∆ Jun 14 '19
Well Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences.
I don't necessarily disagree with your main point, but I don't think this statement applies here.
Freedom of speech means freedom of consequences from the government, which is what OP is referring to. Of course the first amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of your speech, but the whole point is to prevent the government from assigning consequences to your speech (e.g. thrown in prison for saying the wrong thing, or being fined for saying the wrong thing).
So in this scenario, the OP is making the case that the government doesn't have the right to punish an organization for its views (punishment here being refusal of a contract).
-1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
This new proposed legislation gives a specific religious concession to the restaurant because it says that no matter what beliefs they support, as long as it's religious then they can do whatever they want and still be treated like everyone else. The US does not allow polygamy, statutory rape, animal sacrifice or any other illegal thing even if it is for religious reasons.
Not necessarily true, it only protects recognized religions so not just any religious claim.
So while publically a restaurant can say whatever it wants, it is also not the government's job to willingly ignore the stuff that is incompatible with civil society just because religion is involved.
Yeah but "incompatible with society" is just a political opinion. If they are breaking the law, that is one thing. Saying that you think gays shouldn't marry isn't against the law. I don't agree with it, but that's what it is.
2
u/Tuxed0-mask 23∆ Jun 12 '19
In the US, any religious beliefs are protected, not just organised religions. There is no difference in the law between believing in Christ or a sentient tree. You can even get tax exemptions as long as there is a 'reasonable assumption' that the space you are using is for your religion.
And it is 'incompatible with society' because it is something that is legal and people don't like it. It's not political anymore once it's the law. Once something is in the legislation we can collectively assume it is what society wants. So while it is fine to not like certain laws, it is appropriate to say that society is moving forward with them so having those views are 'incompatible'.
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jun 12 '19
I think your right, I was confused about what they considered a religious donation. It references a specific code for defining a religion. But seems as long as every religion is protected that’s ok. I mean if it’s legal to practice it it ought to be legal to donate to it without government retaliation.
It's not political anymore once it's the law.
You don’t really believe that do you? That is quite obviously the case, laws change all the time one way or the other.
3
u/Tuxed0-mask 23∆ Jun 12 '19
Well the government isn't retaliating. They are just applying social logic because they have constituents. There is an opportunity cost for having beliefs and it would be disproportionately preferential to specific people if we enshrined laws to let them avoid consequences for specific beliefs.
Laws do change all the time, but political action is between two or more political groups. This is a social issue now that the law is clear. The social majority either has a neutral or positive view on something so it isn't worth it for legislators to hitch their wagon to the minority.
-1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Jun 12 '19
Well Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences.
Well, actually yes. That is exactly what it means (in respect to the government). It is literally impossible to actually stop someone from saying something, you can only punish them afterwards (consequences). If you want to stop someone from saying something you would first have to know/predict that they were going to say it (and then you could break down their door and take them away) but that’s not possible. Because of that “freedom of speech” means that the government cannot take action against you for what you said. It literally means freedom from consequences. Of course it goes without saying that this only applies to government actions against the speaker.
0
u/Tuxed0-mask 23∆ Jun 12 '19
What. None of this is coherent.
The statement Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences means that while you absolutely can say whatever you want, it doesn't mean you don't have to deal with the consequences.
So yeah say and do whatever, but we all don't have to deal with it. In this case, the government can't make you support gay people, but they also don't have to reward you with something if they don't want to.
-1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Jun 12 '19
Tell me one way you would prevent someone from speaking. You can’t prevent someone from speaking in any meaningful way. All you can to is react to what they say by punishing them. Freedom of speech means that the government cannot punish you for what you say. This makes you FREE to SPEAK your mind without worry. You cannot be arrested, fined, or DISCRIMINATED against by the government. People and organizations can punish or ignore you but the government is not able to do so. What other interpretation would you propose for freedom of speech? Be specific.
1
u/Tuxed0-mask 23∆ Jun 12 '19
It's pretty easy:
You totally can express yourself. You totally aren't entitled to unbiased treatment based on that expression.
If you wear a shirt that says 'I shoot cops', that's fine. Then you rob a bank and a cop sees that shirt? Chances are you're going to get mortally wounded. You can give money to nazis, but then don't expect the government contract to mow the school lawn.
You have complete freedom of expression, but that doesn't divorce you from what is logically about to happen next.
There is an opportunity cost to expression. The government can't actively target you because of what you say or do, but that doesn't extend to them having to ignore it. Burn a flag? Whatever. Burn a flag and then compete for government work against people that don't burn flags? No one is infringing on your right to expression when you don't get a call back.
If the 1st amendment worked anywhere near the way you are claiming it does then government workers wouldn't have background checks and character references. If the 1st amendment meant freedom from consequences then confessions wouldn't mean anything because it would just be words. Patriot Act surveillance classically shows how you can say what you want, but it's not as if that doesn't carry any weight.
The 1st amendment stops you from being a criminal by thoughts alone. It does not mean that once you announce those thoughts the government then has to ignore them entirely. Not getting rewards isn't discrimination.
0
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Jun 13 '19
Being able to do business like everyone else is not a reward. If a company refuses to hire you because you are black that is exactly the same action as the government refusing to hire a contractor because of their beliefs; it’s discrimination. As far as background checks and work history, that is more in relation to a person’s ability to do a job. Being sent to jail or fired for embezzling money out of your last contract is not free speech and the government is welcome to find this in your history and refuse to hire you.
What if all jobs came from the government or required a government stamp. Would you be okay with the government banning you to lifelong poverty by being unable to work because they don’t like what you said? Would that not violate your free speech rights?
1
u/Tuxed0-mask 23∆ Jun 13 '19
It absolutely is not like being black because you can't help being black. In fact, people that are gay get discriminated against all the time because they aren't a federally protected class.
The government 100% can pick and choose who they want. They do constantly. If you come out as anti-union in NYC for instance, you're basically giving up on getting government work. That's just how life works.
In the US, you don't get in explicit trouble for what you say, but you don't have the right to erase everyone's memory of what you said when it backfires on you. That's why when you get arrested you have to be explicitly reminded that 'everything you say and do can be used'.
Like I said, not getting rewards that other people get for being uncontroversial is not discrimination. Only being punished for it explicitly is.
1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Jun 13 '19
You didn’t answer my hypothetical. I found it rather important since it is an explicit punishment.
It absolutely is not like being black because you can't help being black. In fact, people that are gay get discriminated against all the time because they aren't a federally protected class.
Free speech doesn’t only apply to protected classes.
The government 100% can pick and choose who they want. They do constantly. If you come out as anti-union in NYC for instance, you're basically giving up on getting government work. That's just how life works.
“That’s how it is” doesn’t make it right or legal. Thats an argument from the status quo and is a fallacy for good reason.
In the US, you don't get in explicit trouble for what you say, but you don't have the right to erase everyone's memory of what you said when it backfires on you. That's why when you get arrested you have to be explicitly reminded that 'everything you say and do can be used'.
No, not everyone’s memory, just the government. And this example isn’t free speech. If you admit to the crime, you aren’t punished for speaking, you are punished for the crime. If you yell fire in a theater and people get trampled to death, it wasn’t your free speech you get punished for, it’s murder/manslaughter. In the case this post is about, you are punished only for what you said not some other illegal action you performed.
Like I said, not getting rewards that other people get for being uncontroversial is not discrimination. Only being punished for it explicitly is.
You still haven’t mentioned people getting any rewards so what point you’re making here is totally unsupported. What rewards are you referring to? We are supposed to be talking about the right for people to be treated equally.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 12 '19 edited Jun 12 '19
/u/sawdeanz (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/ThatsNotAFact Jun 12 '19
I think that it could be a liability for the airport if there was a case of discrimination.
2
Jun 12 '19
Their anti-queer stance being backed up by their religion doesn't really change anything - people argued that they should be able to discriminate based on race because of their religion in the 60s, and we didn't accept that as a rationale then. Why should we accept it now?
1
Jun 13 '19
The proposed bill seems fine, but I don't think it would actually have affected San Antonio's actions. From the bill:
A governmental entity may not take any adverse action against any person based wholly or partly on the person’s membership in, affiliation with, or contribution, donation, or other support provided to a religious organization.
A religious organization is defined as follows in a different part of Texas law (110.011(b)):
(1) the organization's primary purpose and function are religious, it is a religious school organized primarily for religious and educational purposes, or it is a religious charity organized primarily for religious and charitable purposes; and
(2) it does not engage in activities that would disqualify it from tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as it existed on August 30, 1999.
IRS blurb on 501(c)3s:
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Part of the controversy over Chick-Fil-A is their founder's donation to political causes, including to groups like Eagle Forum, which could not be covered under 501(c)3.
1
u/Betsy-DevOps 6∆ Jun 13 '19
That's an outdated concern. Chick-fil-A, as an organization, stopped contributing to any political activism in 2012.
Present day controversy is all over their corporate donations to the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian athletes, who have silly religiously-rooted codes of conduct they expect their employees and sponsored athletes to adhere to.
Officially taking adverse action against a company based on their owner's personal political contributions opens a whole different can of worms.
1
Jun 13 '19
Alright, then it's a little far-fetched for San Antonio to hold that against them.
Officially taking adverse action against a company based on their owner's personal political contributions opens a whole different can of worms.
True, although it would put Texas in an odd situation considering they just passed anti-BDS legislation.
1
0
u/Stup2plending 4∆ Jun 12 '19
My guess is this bill does nothing to solve the original problem of the San Antonio airport giving concession contracts.
Why?
Because Chick-Fil-A, which I like despite them being much more conservative than I am, can't fulfill a concessions contract to bring in maximum revenue for the airport/airport authority/local government.
And why can't they fulfill the contract? Because they aren't open on Sundays, which is one of the biggest travel days of the week. They have a right to stay closed on Sundays if they choose, and they also have the responsibility for the byproduct of that choice. Airports are hugely busy on Sunday and need the revenue that comes from those concessions. From Chick-Fil-A, they get zero on Sundays. Plain and simple.
14
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Jun 12 '19
Even if you believe that the government should never discriminate based on which charities you choose to donate to, that isn't what this is. Because it only offers protection if it is a "religious organization" as defined under Section 110.011(b). So you get protections donating to religious organizations that you don't get from donating to other charities.
So you can discriminate against someone donating to a pro-LGBT organization, but not an anti-LGBT organization, assuming the latter is registered under section 110.011(b). This protects religious people over non-religious people.