A popular fast-food chain becomes the target of LGBT intolerance
A condensed version of this essay appeared in City Journal on March 26, 2019 (here). Thanks to Real Clear Policy, Real Clear Politics, Real Clear Markets (here), and Instapundit (here)! And the N.Y. Post (here)! And the Dallas Morning News (here)!
Americans have grown accustomed
to liberal politics afflicting cities in Democratic-controlled bastions such as
California, New York, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington state. Accordingly, no
one is surprised when progressive policies in places like San Francisco, New
York City, Chicago, Portland, and Seattle produce disastrous urban maladies such
as rampant crime, homelessness, urban blight, crippling public-employee pension
debt, job-killing regulations, and high taxes. In Texas, where I live, observers
have long believed that a statewide Republican majority would insulate the Lone
Star State from such problems. Such nostrums are proving to be wishful
thinking.
The traditionally-liberal
politics of Texas’s state capital—whose unofficial slogan is “Keep Austin
Weird”—were usually regarded as an exception to the statewide
rule. As recently as last year, the notion of Austin, a city in conservative Texas, getting “woke” was remarkable enough to warrant a
“man-bites-dog” report in these pages, entitled “Woke City.” Judging from recent events in San Antonio, the state’s second-biggest city (and
ranking seventh-largest in the entire country), the Alamo City has gotten woke
also, blacklisting a well-respected business due solely to the owners’ political
contributions and religious beliefs.
San Antonio’s left-leaning city council, with the backing of mayor Ron Nirenberg, an activist elected in 2017, recently banned Chick-fil-A, a national fast-food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches, from becoming a concessionaire at the city-operated international airport. City officials reportedly cited Chick-fil-A’s political beliefs as the reason for its boycott of the company: “With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion,” said City Councilman Roberto Treviño. “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.”
That is quite a serious
charge. But is it valid? Is Chick-fil-A some type of corporate renegade—a rogue
company that flouts the law? Not at all.
Chick-fil-A is wildly successful because it offers appealing fast food and
courteous service at reasonable prices. The privately-owned fast-food chain,
based in Georgia, operates more than 2,100 restaurants in 46 states and the
District of Columbia (including 32 outlets in the San Antonio area, employing
more than 2,000 people). Founded in 1946 by a devout Christian, the
family-owned chain is famously closed on Sundays.
Nonetheless, despite
operating only six days a week, Chick-fil-A is so popular that it leads the
fast food industry in average sales per restaurant. The company has rapidly
expanded, becoming the nation’s third-largest fast food chain,
behind McDonald’s and Wendy’s. Chick-fil-A operates in
stand-alone locations as well as at universities, hospitals, and airports.
Since 1997, the Company has sponsored the Peach Bowl, a major college football
game, on New Year’s Eve in Atlanta. Chick-fil-A, in other words, is a model
business. Its loyal customers love
it.
The charge that Chick-fil-A
is “anti-LGBTQ” is based primarily on private
contributions (made through the WinShape Foundation) and statements by the
company’s owners in support of
traditional marriage, in some cases years
ago. The city does not challenge the
company’s employment practices or business policies. Prior to the Supreme
Court’s 2015 decision in the Obergefell
case, Texas law did not recognize same-sex marriage, so opposition to it–consistent
with mainstream religious beliefs–was hardly “extreme” or improper. Nor does
opposition to same-sex marriage amount to discrimination against LGBT employees
or customers. Federal law (Title VII)
does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in any
event. The company’s personnel policies conform to federal
employment law, and Chick-fil-A has issued a corporate statement of respect for
all people regardless of sexual orientation in an internal document
called “Chick-fil-A: Who We Are.”
The company’s owners are free to express their views without the threat of government
retribution.
Vindictive LGBT activists have targeted Chick-fil-A for years—unsuccessfully, until now. In 2012, when LGBT groups organized a national campaign to boycott the chain for its owners’ personal views in opposition to same-sex marriage, the backlash by the company’s devoted supporters—led by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee–resulted in record-breaking sales. The public has demonstrated that it does not object to the owners’ allegedly objectionable positions. Yet the single-minded activists tenaciously persist.
In San Antonio, the airport
boycott may also have been influenced by a recent report by the Soros-funded progressive group Think Progress criticizing the company’s corporate donations to charitable organizations
described as being “anti-LBGTQ,” such as the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of
Christian Athletes, and—prior to 2017—a program for at-risk young men called
the Paul Anderson Youth Homes. What these benign organizations have in common
is subscribing to traditional Christian beliefs. Condemning such organizations
for their religious values is reminiscent of the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center’s
equation of Judeo-Christian moral values with anti-LGBT “hate.” Only anti-Christian
zealots would treat religious opposition to same-sex marriage as identical to racist bigotry by the KKK,
neo-Nazis, skinheads, and similar groups.
The city’s black-listing of
Chick-fil-A seeks to punish the company (and its owners) for espousing mainstream
beliefs shared by most Americans—and, ironically, an overwhelming majority of San Antonio’s residents, many of whom are
Catholics. (San Antonio, one of the
oldest Spanish settlements in Texas, was named after Saint Anthony of Padua.) Unlike
ultra-liberal Silicon Valley, where Google fired James Damore for expressing
opinions deviating from rigid progressive orthodoxy, and where Mozilla shamefully
sacked its CEO, Brendan Eich, in 2014 for having contributed $1,000 years
earlier in support of California’s (successful) initiative in support of
traditional marriage, San Antone’s predominately Hispanic residents are
culturally conservative.
More importantly, Google and
Mozilla are not subject to the First Amendment, whereas the city, as a government entity, cannot selectively
punish constitutionally-protected speech based on its content. Government
contracts cannot be withheld based on potential vendors’ disfavored political
or religious beliefs. A slam-dunk lawsuit by Chick-fil-A is almost certain,
with the city’s taxpayers footing the bill for the council’s spiteful and
fool-hardy decision. Taxpayers are not the only victim of the city’s folly. Due
to the exclusion of one of America’s favorite fast-food restaurants from the seven-year concession agreement just
approved by the city, travelers using San Antonio’s airport will not be able to
enjoy a Chick-fil-A sandwich or waffle fries.
The
latest controversy, like many progressive crusades, is largely symbolic—but
important for precisely that reason: When politics become a weapon in the
culture war, the stakes have a tendency quickly to escalate. Winning emboldens bullies
to become more aggressive. San Antonio residents have to wonder: Who does the
mayor and city council represent? Think Progress, a small-but-vocal group of
LGBT activists, or the voters who elected them?