FAA Investigating Ban on Chick-Fil-A at SAT (merged threads) (Post: sales, lawyer)

[rynetwo]

Originally Posted by thenewtexan

It's never been about the First Amendment. Never has been. It was a business decision for the city that will surely be upheld.

At the cost of millions of dollars lost. The FAA will not see this like the SA council.

Just as a reminder most of the city council districts are made up of lower middle class voters. These people vote for the donkey, but they are not progressive and most of them are more socially conservative than a typical middle class republican.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by ged_782

I think it's fair to say more departing passengers visit food concessions at an airport, than those arriving and are at the end of their destination. And it's also fair to say there are more late arrivals than departures. I've certainly picked up my share of family members and visitors over the years who arrived at SAT on a late-night flight (be it a scheduled late flight or delayed flight).


However, when you do check those flight schedules during the week, you are going to see many more evening departures than you do on Saturday and Sunday nights. In fact, typically there will probably be 15+ departures scheduled past 7 PM on weeknights, with some (particularly Southwest) scheduling departures after 10 PM, long after the concessions have closed.

You need to factor in connecting flights - a lot of people eat at the airport during the layovers. If departures and layovers significantly slow down or cease after a certain time, there is no benefit to a restaurant to be open after that time.

[adriver]

Originally Posted by yukon

You need to factor in connecting flights - a lot of people eat at the airport during the layovers. If departures and layovers significantly slow down or cease after a certain time, there is no benefit to a restaurant to be open after that time.

Both Dallas airports are hubs. Houston is a hub. Austin flies to every location San Antonio does (to the other hubs) & more. Austin also handles about twice as many flights a day as San Antonio. San Antonio is NOT a hub. Only about 10% of the locations that fly in or out of San Antonio are not hubs, (west of here, Alb NM, and some Socal. Not sure how many flights are actually going there a day though). Layovers and connecting flights should be a very minimal factor.

[hschulz3]

Originally Posted by thenewtexan

It's never been about the First Amendment. Never has been. It was a business decision for the city that will surely be upheld.

While I understand the "business decision" argument, your statement that there is not a First Amendment issue here is at variance with reality.

https://www.sanantonio.gov/Departmen...es-Lagard232re

[Kthnry]

Originally Posted by hschulz3

While I understand the "business decision" argument, your statement that there is not a First Amendment issue here is at variance with reality.

https://www.sanantonio.gov/Departmen...es-Lagard232re

Why is a statement by one councilmember being held against the mayor? Can anyone provide a citation that the mayor based his opposition to CFA on the company's anti-LGBT views? All I've ever heard him say is that it's because they're closed on Sunday.

[sapphire]

Originally Posted by hschulz3

While I understand the "business decision" argument, your statement that there is not a First Amendment issue here is at variance with reality.

https://www.sanantonio.gov/Departmen...es-Lagard232re

Please, don't confuse him with any facts. Everyone understands the city's right to make business decisions, but that's not what Trevino mouthed off about. He was pandering, because that made him feel special and heroic. Dumb ass stepped right in it. And then Nirenberg joined along. They want to represent the people they want to, and screw everyone else.

[hschulz3]

Originally Posted by Kthnry

Why is a statement by one councilmember being held against the mayor? Can anyone provide a citation that the mayor based his opposition to CFA on the company's anti-LGBT views? All I've ever heard him say is that it's because they're closed on Sunday.

I didn't say anything about the mayor, and don't know whether the basis for his opposition extended beyond the business reasons (i.e., non-local business not open on Sundays). The vote was one by the city council, of which Trevino is a part, and his perception of CFA's stance on LGBT issues appears to have played a part in his vote. That potentially creates a First Amendment problem.

And, as long as we are being precise, I'm not sure CFA has an anti-LGBT view. I am also unclear whether CFA's founder has an anti-LGBT view, although I have heard he has donated money to organizations of which the LGBT community does not approve.

[vater]

Investigations mean nothing nowadays when they involve people of power. All the city council has to do is ignore subpoenas, the GOP said it's okay.

[Slowpoke_TX]

Originally Posted by hschulz3

And, as long as we are being precise, I'm not sure CFA has an anti-LGBT view. I am also unclear whether CFA's founder has an anti-LGBT view, although I have heard he has donated money to organizations of which the LGBT community does not approve.

They serve, employ, and franchise to LGBT people, so it's safe to say that they are not anti-LGBT.


We really need to stop the false dichotomy mindset that says "if you don't support me and my cause it's because you hate me and my cause."

[hschulz3]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

They serve, employ, and franchise to LGBT people, so it's safe to say that they are not anti-LGBT.


We really need to stop the false dichotomy mindset that says "if you don't support me and my cause it's because you hate me and my cause."

Agreed. It is a false choice, and kills dialogue (resulting in further polarization).