Free Speech

New Chick-fil-A Law Reveals Texas Politicians' Hypocrisy on Corporate Speech

Fans of the state's new Chick-fil-A law should take a look at the anti–Boycott, Divestments, and Sanctions law.

|

The San Antonio city council voted in March to block the addition of a Chick-fil-A at the San Antonio International Airport, citing the restaurant's "legacy of anti-LGBT behavior." The chicken chain has long been under fire for donating to groups that oppose LGBT-friendly laws, as well as for CEO Dan Cathy's remark that America is "inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."

The state recently responded with a "Save Chick-fil-A" bill, or Senate Bill 1978, which prevents the government from taking "adverse actions" against a company or individual for exercising religious freedom. After signing the bill, Abbott tweeted: "No business should be discriminated against simply because its owners donate to a church, the Salvation Army, or other religious organization. Texas protects religious liberty."

Abbott felt rather differently about Texas' 2017 law aimed at the Boycott, Divestments, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. That bill barred state agencies from contracting with companies that boycott Israel. At the time, Abbott said, "Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally."

There is, to be clear, an important distinction between the two laws. Texas would not be constitutionally allowed to refuse to contract with a business that simply donated to BDS groups or was led by an owner who criticized Israel. But Texas' anti-BDS law targets actions directly carried out by the company itself, not donations or private speech. The legislation's defenders say it is more analogous to a law barring contracts with companies that refuse service to gays and lesbians.

That said, the two bills may not be so far off in principle. While the state of Texas is right to recognize speech and donations as forms of free expression, direct actions can be expressive too. And I wonder how many people's positions on these laws would change if the underlying political causes were different. Suppose a state decided that because representation in the workplace is an important value, it will not extend contracts to companies that did not have a certain number of women sitting on their boards. How many people who hate the anti-BDS law would accept that one? How many who love the anti-BDS law would cry foul?

This is the sort of thing that happens when governments wander into these waters. It's not long before taxpayers find their dollars are supporting a cause with which they fundamentally disagree.

NEXT: The Article II Executive Power and the Rule of Law (Part I)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

    click here ======►► http://www.Theprocoin.com

  2. Good article.
    Government should not dictate when , where and with whom a company may conduct lawful business. San Antonio was wrong to ban Chik-Fil-A . Texas is wrong to discriminate against companies the boycott Israel. The Feds are wrong to discriminate in favor of minority and female owned companies. And on and on …

    1. Bake the cake, you bigot!

      1. There is in fact nothing any more “hypocritical” about the government’s actions in this regard than there is about a variety of other little matters that need to be handled with the utmost delicacy. We recognize, for example, that respectable individuals like Mr. Epstein are allowed, at least in Florida, to do certain things that others are not. And we recognize that some forms of overtly declared “parody” are admissible, but other forms, particularly ones that can deceive gullible readers and damage (however “truthfully”) the reputations of certain highly respectable members of the academic community, are illegal. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    2. Just another reason to drive the progressives out of America.

  3. So Texas passes a law saying local governments cannot discriminate against businesses because of their political beliefs and reason thinks this is a bad thing? Restricting governments’ ability to punish people for wrong think is now bad.

    How exactly is that A Libertarian position?

    1. It is certainly an idiosyncratic reason to object to a law banning religious tests by local governments.

    2. Right, if it were banning private organizations from doing the same, I would find it objectionable. But government should not discriminate because of political or religious beliefs.

    3. > Restricting governments’ ability to punish people for wrong think is now bad. How exactly is that A Libertarian position?

      Uh, really? It’s called the Non-Aggression Principle. Look it up. Even under a non-
      purist libertarian polity, it’s not within the government’s legitimate scope to regulate or control peaceful activities. Which includes banning “wrong think”.

      Or were you just trying to be sarcastic? If so, you missed the /s tag.

      1. Lol your idiot ass totally misunderstood his post lololol

      2. It seems a certain segment of reason commenters resort to yelling NAP, often incorrectly, when they are devoid of a rational argument.

      3. This may be hard to understand, but the government telling other parts of the government that it can’t discriminate doesn’t violate the NAP.

    4. “How exactly is that A Libertarian position?”
      It isn’t, but the sexual picadillos covered by the LGBTQWTFBBQ rainbow are holy and their defense must supersede libertarian principles.

    5. The irony is that the reason writer is ignorant that both bills are consistent. They both require the non discrimination of religious people.

  4. Should a government impose a religious test on the owners of businesses they contract with? Which is essentially what San Antonio was doing with regards to Chik-Fil-a. Chik-Fil-a as a company does not discriminate. Is the anti-Semitism of the BDS movement comparable?

  5. Texas is the reason that the President’s dead.

    1. You gotta suck, suck, Jackie suck

    2. What are you two misfits even talking about?

      1. Shut the fuck up Screech.

        No one cares if you’ve got something to say.

          1. Apologize immediately you worthless bitchass kiddie raping piece of shit.

  6. “That said, the two bills may not be so far off in principle. ”

    So, the headline was click bait then.What is the name of this site/magazine again? Was it “Emotion” or some such?

    1. Yeah, “That said, the two bills may not be so far off in principle. While the state of Texas is right to recognize speech and donations as forms of free expression, direct actions can be expressive too.” sounds an awful lot like a wordy regurgitation of “words can be violence”.

    2. Both are dealing with economic issues. The Chick fil a is government hurting a company for its political beliefs. You don’t want this.

      The anti-BDS is banning discriminatory action. While the value of the policy is debatable, in form and propriety, it is doing the opposite, preventing discrimination.

      1. Both cases are examples of religious discrimination. The two orders are parallel.

  7. It seems like both these bills were anti-discriminatory in nature. Because the new Left is intolerant and likes to use the organs of government to discriminate.

    1. Reason is The New Left, apparently

      1. “Reason is The New Left, apparently”

        I wouldn’t go that far. But they clearly want to get invited to the same cocktail parties.

        1. It is happening before your eyes. Orange Man Bad, and all the young writers must agree.

  8. “Suppose a state decided that because representation in the workplace is an important value, it will not extend contracts to companies that did not have a certain number of women sitting on their boards.”

    Sort of like CA’s law requiring women be on board publicly-traded corporations. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusiness/2018/10/01/california-mandates-female-representation-public-company-boards/#6d31dd71775d)

    The immediately obvious question, of course, is, does a “woman” mean a transgendered man would count? Or perhaps a man who “identifies” as a woman? Or, perhaps… well. You get my drift. This might be fun to watch, at least from my safe distance from Oregon….

    1. Yeah, it was weird to include that quote as the stinger for the article. Local municipalities have had requirements it companies have certain percentage of minority ownership or certain percentage of contracts go to minority owned contractors for many decades.

      Even at the federal level, when the resolution trust corporation was cleaning up the savings and loan scandal they had set aside specifically for minority-owned companies. My wife at the time worked for a company that got one of those contracts. They simply subcontracted out all the work to a bigger firm and collected a vig on the contract.

      So it is really odd, decades later, to be commenting on these measures from the right that seat to stop the left from using government against private corporate opinions as if they were the opening salvo in a potentially dangerous new movement. Heck, even in the context of the two Texas laws, they are both in response to left-wing politicians who are using the government against private individuals because of political opinions. So what is the point of warning that there might be a left-wing version of this? This has been bog-standard behavior for democrat-controlled governments for all of your adult life.

      1. True on that. My concern is the continuing, and continually increasing, moves by government, of whatever “stripe,” to tell privately-owned businesses how they have to run their business, be they corporations or not. Right now it’s “publicly-traded” corporations. Since their are many huge “closely-held” or “family-owned” corps out there, will they be next? The really sad part of this, of course, is that women have made great headway in the corporate world as of late. And this is a good thing. The “glass ceiling” is now more like cellophane. Why do some in government insist on policies to “improve” situations which are already taking care of themselves, through natural processes, without quotas rules, and other impediments?

        1. Why do some in government insist on policies to “improve” situations which are already taking care of themselves, through natural processes, without quotas rules, and other impediments?

          Same reason the Connecticut Yankee insisted that the sun vanished and reappeared on his command.

          1. Of course.. because they can….. or think they can… or… something…

      2. I’m going to get one of those genetic tests that show I have a small percentage of black ancestry, then pursue one of these contracts aimed at minorities. I will then claim to inventory as black, and back that up with the test. Which will validate me. As I am fairly certain those rules lack the specificity to disqualify me for a low percentage of black ancestry.

        1. “I’m going to get one of those genetic tests that show I have a small percentage of black ancestry, …”

          And you’ll quickly find out that those contracts go to highly connected people regardless of what maybe claimed.

          1. Entirely likely. But that just leads to my discrimination suit against those racist crackers in the Civil Service.

      3. You mean I can now self-Identify as a minority contractor?

        I’m gonna make a fckton of money by bidding (A Ridiculous Pad – $1)

    2. Why not all of the above? Required by law, of course.

      haha

  9. There is, to be clear, an important distinction between the two laws.

    Yes there is. They are polar opposites. One prohibits Government from assessing religious beliefs. One requires it. The fact that you think they’re related simply because they both deal with religion is ludicrous.

    1. REASON WRITERS (most of them ) ARE DIPSHITS

      This is an incedible waste of an effort.

      Chik Fil A never discriminated against anybody. Anybody can walk in an order delicious food, no matter who they are or what they want it for. But the owner committed Thoughtcrime outside the restaurant.

      Again, it takes an admirable effort to note the distinction, and STILL endeavor to be this big of a mendacious dipshit

    2. One prohibits Government from assessing religious beliefs. One requires it.

      They’re saying it’s hypocritical to have both laws on the books.

      1. It’s not. In any way.

        In one instance you are punishing a business for business actions the business takes.

        In another instance, you are protecting a business that takes no punishable business actions, other than the private beliefs of the owner

  10. restricting contracts because of the beliefs of the parties is ridiculous.

    1. Yes. Or restricting them because of their “lack” of beliefs.

  11. I think I’m gonna eat some chic fil a for lunch today

    1. Since they now have vegetarian offerings, I might, too. Well, excepting that the nearest one is a three-hour drive from me. (this should in no way be taken as a sign that I agree with their religious or political beliefs, just that they have a right to possess and express them without penalties from the government).

      1. They are building one now 5 min from my house which makes me happy. My wife is also because she is gluten sensitive and they have gluten free options.

        1. More options are always better!

      2. Vegetarians are the worst type of people.

        1. Really, JesseAz? Are you an expert on vegetarians?

  12. Well, I think they needed the new law because leftists found a way around the older, more specific, anti-anti-BDS law.

    But onther than being more general, the laws are identical–

    Senate Bill 1978, which prevents the government from taking “adverse actions” against a company or individual for exercising religious freedom.

    The weird thing is that we have a federal law that supersedes all this–the First Amendment.

    And let’s not pretend that BDS means anything other than the most final type of anti-Semitism.

  13. You forgot the most important distinction of all: “anti” LGBT groups are correct on many issues, like sex equality in athletics and careers. BDS is just the SA by another name.

  14. Corporations should be entitled to free speech any more than the masses.
    Free speech only confuses and angers the little people in thinking our obvious betters are only out to aggrandize their bank accounts, their power over us and engage in some sort of nefarious oppression.
    The Ministry of Truth was set up to ensure the little people who slave for our wonderful, thoughtful and benign ruling elites understand that we are nothing and should be grateful to send our hard earned money to the powers that be because they are so much more educated, refined and wise to the ways of Marx, redistribution of wealth and glorifying The State. Therefore, let us all stop all this silly nonsense about free speech and let the turds who suppress daily do our thinking and speaking for us. After all, an ignorant and subdued society is a happy one.

  15. This is the sort of thing that happens when governments wander into these waters. It’s not long before taxpayers find their dollars are supporting a cause with which they fundamentally disagree.

    And this applies to the current bill how?

  16. Progs are going to turn Texas in to Cuckxas.

    ‘Don’t mess with Texas’ will morph into ‘Mess with Texas….and its wife.’

  17. It’s only hypocrisy if you drink the Kool-Aid.

    Both bills are fully consistent with the consistent principles of the Texas Republican party, which is to use the state to settle social/cultural questions and support one version of a specific religion over others.

    1. In other words, assuming what you say is accurate, it’s the same thing that the CA government does through many laws and regulations: try to build their own version of social utopia. Both are to be condemned equally.

      1. Sure.

        My point, which appears to have been missed by Honky below, is that the perceived hypocrisy only exists if you think the politicians were being honest about their motivations, a terrible mistake to make.

    2. Awwww, poor little faggot can’t be a virulent anti-semite in Texas. Maybe poor little faggot should travel to a state where poor little faggot can be a virulent anti-semite with no repercussions. I’d be willing to donate to a poor little faggot relocation fund.

      1. I’d be willing to donate to a poor little faggot relocation fund.

        Well, your bid for a state contract is rejected then.

  18. As others point out, it’s apples and oranges. The BDS movement is anti-Semitic. It is quite similar to refusing to serve people based on skin color or ethnicity. So a law that opposes companies participating in this movement seems reasonable. It’s not a libertarian position but then again, neither are laws barring racial discrimination by private businesses. There are practical limits to libertarian philosophy – these practical limits begin when ones’ liberties start infringing on that of others. In the above cases, racial/ethnic discrimination by private businesses would interfere with activities of daily living – buying food, gas, living accomodations, etc.

    1. In the above cases, racial/ethnic discrimination by private businesses would interfere with activities of daily living – buying food, gas, living accomodations, etc.

      Reason’s fine with certain people not being able to buy food, gas and living accommodations just so long as its trannies, faggots and racial minorities withholding the food, gas and living accommodations.

    2. “The BDS movement is anti-Semitic.”

      Bullshit. The BDS movement is anti-Israel using the power of the state to suppress, rob, and murder people is doesn’t like.

      1. No you disgusting fuck, it is straight up anti-Semitic, and that rightly embarrasses you, so you fabricate cunty little excuses for why your anti-Semitic behavior isn’t anti-Semitic.

      2. God it I’d amazing how dumb some of you are. The bds is purely anti semetic in nature. They have a few useful retards who think anti Zionist doesnt just mean anti Jewish, but they are retards. The BDS movement is designed to hurt the only Jewish state in a reason under constant rocket and terrorist attacks. You’re a fucking idiot if you think it is not religious in nature.

    3. “In the above cases, racial/ethnic discrimination by private businesses would interfere with activities of daily living – buying food, gas, living accomodations, etc.”

      Oh well, you would be inconvenienced, that’s certainly a good reason to enslave people.

    4. The BDS movement is anti-Semitic.

      As is any criticism of Israel. If you don’t like what they do, you’re racist, QED.

      1. Criticism of Israel != questioning the validity of the existence of the state of Israel.

        1. More specifically, focus on the corollary. Most of BDS challenges the validity of the state, questions a Jewish right to settle, demands reparations and migration that it is not entitled too (sorry Arabs, but refugees from Transjordan and Egypt who were displaced because of a war the Arab League started don’t have a right to demographically replace us Jews and end the Jewish state effectively), and tacitly supports terrorist organizations.

          1. ‘Transjordan’. And here I thought the Muslims had a problem with those folk. I didn’t know the ME Arabs got woke and put together a tranny homeland.

  19. Good to see Reason picking up the virulent anti-semitism along with the rest of the progressive ideology.

  20. That said, the two bills may not be so far off in principle. While the state of Texas is right to recognize speech and donations as forms of free expression, direct actions can be expressive too.

    First of all, the awarding of government contracts to private businesses simply isn’t a libertarian issue at all, since under libertarian government, such a thing essentially doesn’t exist.

    Now, as for the system we actually live under, it’s simple: you have a right to free speech, but you do not have a right to government contracts. Government contracts are in practice given out subject to a combination of economic, legal, and political constraints. Go deal with it, and stop trying to treat this as a “free speech” issue when it is not, either under a libertarian analysis (where it is not an issue at all) or under US law.

    1. There are constitutional prescriptions against religious tests to hold public office. Arguably that should also apply to contractual offices as well.

      1. The issue is some people are intentionally conflating a policy requirement (“This contract will only be awarded to contractors with a non-discrimination policy that includes the following…”) with a religious preference, and a policy of general applicability with singling out a religion.

  21. The San Antonio city council voted in March to block the addition of a Chick-fil-A at the San Antonio International Airport

    Why does the city council even have the power to do this? If there is no law saying that a business must not donate in certain ways if they want to operate in the airport or elsewhere. If there is, then that’s another story (and problem). But, if there’s no law that says that, then the city council should have no power to grant or withhold permission to do business based on their feelings that day.

    1. Why does the city council even have the power to do this? If there is no law saying that a business must not donate in certain ways if they want to operate in the airport or elsewhere.

      Like I said way back when this story broke, the city council could have saved themselves a lot of trouble just by saying, “Sorry, you’re closed on Sundays and our airport isn’t big enough to accommodate a large vendor that’s not open on such a busy travel day.”

      Funny thing about San Antonio is the food scene in that city is complete garbage. The only real claim to fame they have from a culinary standpoint is a bunch of shitty taquerias that serve up the same slop you’d find in a college cafeteria. It’s also filled to the brim with just about every franchise concept that’s ever been invented. The food in Albuquerque, a city about half the size of San Antonio, blows them completely away.

      1. “Like I said way back when this story broke, the city council could have saved themselves a lot of trouble just by saying, “Sorry, you’re closed on Sundays and our airport isn’t big enough to accommodate a large vendor that’s not open on such a busy travel day.””

        That would really crimp the virtue signaling.

  22. There is, to be clear, an important distinction between the two laws.

    There’s more than one. The anti-BDS law prevents the state from contracting with the business. Without the Chik-Fil-A law the city council can prevent a business from opening at all.

    1. That’s up in the air. Chicago politicians mouthed similar prohibitions then had it pointed out it would almost cretainly lose in the courts because it’s unconstitutional in general to hurt people because of religion, and the very words of the politians displayed this.

      You don’t want government backdoor censoring by punishing speech they don’t like. Sorry, front door censoring.

  23. Educated, modern Americans should call this the Bigot Chicken For Jesus Bill.

    Intolerant slack-jaws and superstitious hypocrites can respond by working on new ways to use government to destroy Planned Parenthood.

    Until the right-wingers are replaced by better Americans as our nation continues to improve against the wishes and efforts of Republicans, that is.

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. So boiling your rhetoric down to its essence, you are in *favor* of religious discrimination by local governments?

      1. He’s in favor of getting his tired NPC blather shoehorned into every story.

        He has 3 or so scripts
        Clingers.exe
        Backwoods.exe
        Ouachita.exe

        1. Like that knuckle-dragger could actually compile a program.

          More like:
          yeah_for_my_team.bat
          im_moar_betta_than_u.vb
          people_I_dont_like.xls

    2. Time was, the left (e.g. the ACLU) stood up for Nazi speech and marching rights.

      For the ignoranti out there, the First Amendment isn’t about the value of any particular words barfed out someone’s mouth. It’s about denying potential tyrants one of their primary tools: censorship (and also religious oppression in this case.)

  24. Can we, as a society and moreover as a species, please stop trying to divine political messages from chicken sandwiches? I am forever mystified how eating Chic-Fil-A became a political statement. Chic-Fil-A is not a political restaurant. There are no images of aborted babies on their tray papers, no platitudes that marriage is between a man and a woman adorning their cups, not even an odd cross here or there. The only indication, the merest hint, one might even get of its christian nature is from its hours of operation.

    This mania of people to close down Chic-Fil-As or go out of their way to eat at them as some kind of show of support makes me nauseous. If you want to be political, go do that. Encourage people to vote. Attend a rally of some sort. Donate money to your favorite cause. Then, when you’re done, you can decide whether or not to eat a chicken sandwich based purely on whether you happen to like chicken sandwiches.

    1. I always laugh at the atheist liberals in my life who blast Chik-fil-a, yet wax rhapsodic about In N Out Burger, which puts Bible verses on its packaging.

      1. What funny about that?

        The Chik-Fil-A boycott isn’t about religion, it’s about their anti-gay political activism. If In N Out Burger engages in similar anti-gay political activism, they’ve done a much better job of keeping it on the down-low.

        It’s only discordant if you don’t understand the issue.

        1. Some are unable to apprehend the distinction between religion and bigotry.

          In N Out seems religious.

          Chick-fil-A is bigoted.

          Bigotry is not improved by being cloaked in religion.

  25. Chick fil a is a franchise. So they are really just discriminating against someone who has nothing to do with the opinions of the parent company. The parent company does get a hefty share of the profits.

    The people who are using the airport are also losing out. I really like chick fil a. It the the perfect food for an airport. You can just put it in your bag to eat on the plane or while you are waiting to board. Service is quick. It is not messy or difficult to deal with and still good even an hour later.

    Yes it is stupid for all of the reasons cited in the article and comments so won’t repeat that.

    BDS is different. The states and federal governments consider Israel an ally and trading partner. Individuals and companies are free to boycott whatever they want. The state is not going to boycott Israel and awarding a contract is participation in the boycott.

    If BDSrs knew how many things in their lives were developed or invented in Israel they would have a heart attack. Wait, don’t have one or be sure that the surgeon does not use a flexible stent to open the artery. And check your medicine cabinet.

  26. Reminder Chick fila was not anti whatever, one of its CEO’s on the other hand personally donated money to an anti whatever campaign but people don’t seem to differentiat the two or just want to punish anyone associated nearby you know for collateral damage

  27. It’s not Chick-fil-A’s fault progressives can’t make a decent chicken sandwich.

    1. Hard to make a chicken sandwich out of bean curd.

      1. “Hard to make a chicken sandwich out of bean curd.”

        But more difficult to make a first- or second-tier school out of a conservative-controlled campus.

    2. Right-wingers get the friend chicken sandwiches and fried potatoes.

      The liberal-libertarian mainstream gets the strong schools.

      The future is becoming quite predictable, and is to resemble the most recent half-century or so.

      Carry on, clingers. Enjoy those sandwiches. Until you are replaced by better Americans.

  28. “There is, to be clear, an important distinction between the two laws.”

    But let’s whip up the outrage against Texas anyway.

    Did Texas do the right thing? If not, why should local governments be allowed to discriminate against businesspeoples’ religious beliefs and associations?

  29. Isn’t this basically the same thing?

    The left wants to boycott Chick Fil A because they hate Christians

    The left wants to boycott Israel because they hate Jews

    I fail to see any hypocrisy.

    1. Jews voted for Democrats 75% in the last election.

      Tell me what’s wrong with Jews that they vote for people who hate them so overwhelmingly. This should be good.

      1. If you look at the demographics, where Jews live, income and education level they are pretty much in line with other Americans with similar characteristics.

        One thing in Jewish demographics is that it is less common to find communities in smaller towns and rural areas than in the past and most live in larger cities clustered on the east and west coasts which tend strongly to Democrat.

        Jewish people are not recent immigrants and are for the most part well integrated and assimilated. Other than religion they tend to be indistinguishable from other Americans.

        My explanation anyway.

  30. I’d probably go to Chikfila if there were one on the way to work. I’m not boycotting Hobby Lobby either, even though my crafting days are long gone. I don’t have to make everything I do about politics, even if the proprietors of those companies do.

    1. To be honest, Popeye’s came out with a better fried chicken sandwich right now, original or spicy Just make sure you make them leave off the nasty mayonnaise/Cajun sauce.

      I’ve always loved Chik-fil-a, but Popeye’s has become my chicken sandwich mistress.

    2. Tony
      July.22.2019 at 7:26 pm
      “I’d probably go to Chikfila if there were one on the way to work. I’m not boycotting Hobby Lobby either, even though my crafting days are long gone. I don’t have to make everything I do about politics, even if the proprietors of those companies do.”

      The proprietors do nothing of the sort; fucking lefty ignoramuses do, fucking lefty ignoramus.

  31. Both the Chick fil Lay law and the anti boycott law is about religious freedom. In one case it is about Christian religious freedom and the other is about Jewish religious freedom. One may state is is about Israel, but it is about the Jewish state. Both are anti religious boycotts at their base. Texas’s stances on both are quite similar, and not illogical at all. However, having said that, The boycott is a choice by institutions and the Chick fil Lay ruling is governmental action. I support the Chick fil Lay action, but not the anti boycott as that is a matter of choice. However, the state should be able to control the choice of its universities. So state institutions should not be part of any boycott not supported by the legislature that represents the overall will of the state citizens. The real injustice with the Chick fil Lay ruling is punishing the company for the owner’s personal beliefs when no one has ever shown anti gay activity for the company itself.

    1. How many Chick-fil-A operators are gay? How many are evangelical Christians? How many are women? How many are graduates of religious schools?

      I am not afraid of the answers, but those attempting to defend Chick-fil-A’s position should be.

  32. The sad part is that the Texas Constitution bans dueling. Dueling, and legal betting on the outcomes could provide revenue, spectator entertainment, and thin out two warring tribes of mystical bigots eager for the initiation of force. How about a Texas Amendment to bring back the Code Duello?

  33. If the courts are willing to strike down an otherwise legal use of the President’s power to restrict immigration because they felt it was motivated by animus, why can’t they do the same to this bill? Or to similar policies by other local governments even if the policies are informal?

  34. Ahhh…my Rhoemite friends. you antisemites whine about any attempt to stop the murder of six million more jews, (which you will deny even happened if, G-d forbid, it does happen) You judenhass types are wandervogel wannabes. You know, those German hippies in the 20s and 30s who later eclared their allegiance to the fuhrer. It would be nice if you were patriotic Americans instead of siding with American’s enemies since the founding of the Republic; i.e., The Muslims.

    .The Troll Song

    1. Hello, there, Underzog, it’s so…interesting…to see you again!

      Do you and Al Sharpton like to hang out and share race-baiting tips?

  35. The people of Texas understand the difference between the two laws even if the idiot who wrote this article does not.

  36. […] at the San Antonio International Airport because of the fast food company’s alleged “legacy of anti-LGBT behavior.” Four months later, the state of Texas passed a bill protecting religious freedom and individual […]

  37. […] at the San Antonio International Airport because of the fast food company’s alleged “legacy of anti-LGBT behavior.” Four months later, the state of Texas passed a bill protecting religious freedom and individual […]

  38. […] at the San Antonio International Airport because of the fast food company’s alleged “legacy of anti-LGBT behavior.” Four months later, the state of Texas passed a bill protecting religious freedom and individual […]

  39. These are not even remotely relevant. One prevents viewpoint discrimination by government. The other ensures that the government doesn’t *ACTIVELY SUBSIDISE* a viewpoint.

    Man, are reason writers becoming dumb.

  40. It would certainly seem that what San Antonio did was in violation of Chik-fil-A’s equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution to be free from religious discrimnination. Federal statute provides a procedural vehicle for bringing such a claim in federal court. Not every state does so, however. It may be that all Texas did here was create that procedura vehicle.

    As to the BDS movement and its boycotts, one assumes that that position is based on anti-Semitism. Prohibiting state agencies from contracting with companies that are anti-Semitic would seem consistent with Texas law.

  41. […] at the San Antonio International Airport because of the fast food company’s alleged “legacy of anti-LGBT behavior.” Four months later, the state of Texas passed a bill protecting religious freedom and individual […]

  42. […] at the San Antonio International Airport because of the fast food company’s alleged “legacy of anti-LGBT behavior.” Four months later, the state of Texas passed a bill protecting religious freedom and individual […]

  43. Corporations are non-human entities, if you can’t hold the owners responsible as a human then corporations cannot have human religions. The owners can’t use corporate law to protect them from responsibility of their personal decision and then claim personal rights for the corporation. And of course we know this has nothing to do with religious freedom but Christian freedom, the courts have declared other religions aren’t real enough to have freedom.

Please to post comments