The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Can the NYS Thruway Ban Chick-fil-A?
A bill would require fast-food restaurants on the state highway to open seven days a week
I've never been to a Chick-fil-A. But people love the place. In fact, according to surveys, Chick-fil-A is the most popular fast-food restaurant in America, and has been for a long time. But the company has irritated progressives over the years because of its owners' Baptist convictions, including their once vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio at one point urged city residents to boycott the chain. The controversies have died down--mostly, I think, because Chick-fil-A has backed off some of its less popular public policy stands.
A bill currently under consideration in the NYS Legislature makes clear that progressive irritation with Chick-fil-A hasn't gone away entirely. Chick-fil-A restaurants close on Sundays for religious reasons, including seven Chick-fil-A franchises at rest stops on the NYS Thruway. The bill, sponsored by progressive Assembly Member Tony Simone, would put an end to Chick-fil-A on the Thruway, at least with respect to future concessions. Going forward, contracts for rest-stop concessions would require vendors to open seven days a week.
Simone argues that hungry drivers are on the Thruway every day of the week and need places to stop and eat. That makes sense. On the surface, the bill would seem to be a classic, "neutral and generally applicable" law that wouldn't cause problems under the Free Exercise Clause. Any effect on businesses like Chick-fil-A that close one day a week for religious reasons would be incidental and constitutionally unobjectionable.
But the bill is less neutral than first appears. The text of the bill targets Chick-fil-A's Sunday closing policy specifically, by name. The evil the bill seeks to remedy seems not the fact that some restaurants on the Thruway operate fewer than seven days a week to the inconvenience of motorists, but that one restaurant, in particular, does so, in order to observe the Christian sabbath. Chick-fil-A could argue plausibly that the bill doesn't qualify as neutral, but singles out religious observance--theirs--for disfavored treatment.
If that's the case, the bill would have to survive strict scrutiny, and it's not clear it could. Every rest stop on the Thruway has several fast food concessions, some of which have reduced hours on weekends. And at every rest stop, at least one concession is open 24/7. Hungry drivers thus have an option every day of the week. What would be the compelling state interest in requiring every other concession to be open every day of the week as well?
These are judgment calls and courts could go either way. But I suspect this bill will go nowhere. The state no doubt gets a lot of tax revenue from Chick-fil-As at rest stops, even if they're only open six days a week--and besides, most drivers would probably prefer having the option of Chick-fil-A six days a week to not having it at all. But, like I say, I've never been to Chick-fil-A.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
10 Chick-fil-a's in the Greater NY area (8 in Manhattan!) Only 1 in Boston but 10 in Tax-a-chussetts,
are they open on Sunday??
You know where Chick-fil-a is open on Sundays??
Mercedes Benz Stadium in ATL
hey it's Foo-bawl (or at least the Falcons version)
Do like Frank, get 2 of the Spicy Chick Sandwiches, don't get
the Waffle Fries (I like Waffles, I like Fries don't like Waffle Fries)
little Texas Pete,
and you can save the second sandwich for the next day
Frank
According to the stadium's website even that location is closed on Sundays.
This seems to me to be where the rubber meets the road. The (very perfunctory) bill says nothing at all about required hours of operation, nor does it make any pretense at all of measuring capacity vs. demand — on Sundays or any other day, much less at times of day any other restaurant might or might not be open. You know, the sort of thing you might actually do if you were truly concerned about transient drivers not being able to find sustenance rather than sticking it to the Jesus people.*
This sort of vendetta-driven play seems to pop up every year or so, but this doesn’t even strike me as a particularly creative one.
* Thought experiment: if you really, truly, think there might be a problem that needs solvin’, how about polling Thruway drivers themselves and asking them if they’d rather be able to access the most highly regarded fast food chain for 9 straight years six days a week, or not at all?
Clingers love their Bigot Chicken.
Especially drawling, rural, and superstitious clingers.
Plenty of Klingers paying hard earned Shekels for Chick-fil-a in Manhattan and Tax-a-Chussetts (and 167 locations(all packed) in Calvin Loathsome’s California) Jerry, Well of course you don’t get Chick-fil-a where you are, (Cathy family has its standards, https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx) You don’t know the manners of good society, do ya? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal – you sockdologizing old man-trap!!
Frank
Blessed are the cheesemakers, Rev.
That can be taken to include all makers of dairy products.
Praise Cheeses!!!
"Bigot Chicken"
From The Good Place:
"There's this chicken sandwich that if you eat it, it means you hate gay people. And it's delicious!"
"Every rest stop on the Thruway has several fast food concessions"
Angola, West of Buffalo, has none.
The Friday after Thanksgiving, the sign was before the Westbound offramp: NO SERVICES. That's not the sort of sign that is put up and taken down quickly.
You can refuel with diesel, gasoline, or electric, and you can use the lavatory, but not a cup of coffee or bag of pretzels to be had.
If this is what Assemblyman Simone is complaining about, something is wrong other than Chik-fil-A being closed 1 day a week.
A truly objective evaluation would be hours open per WEEK and then the mean average of (a) number of items sold and (b) gross revenue -- the latter balancing out the cheap places for truckers versus the expensive places for tourists.
If Chick FillA is open as many hours as everyone else and selling as much (if not more) than everyone else, I think the state would be hard pressed to say anything.
You’ve never been to a Chick-Fil-A?? (Oh, you clerked for David Souter, Bruce Sutter would have been better) I shudder to think what that reveals about your Ego, Id, and Super-Ego… OK, in Georgia, I don’t know if I’ve met anyone who hasn’t been to a Chick-Fil-A, You drive up (Only Yankees or Homeless go inside) Fresh Scrubbed Teen takes your order, and your card (you can pay with cash, just takes longer) and the incredibly long line moves incredibly fast (OK, the limited menu selection helps) and don’t be a Rube and ask for all Dark/White or all Legs/Breasts, it’s Chick “Filet” Dammit!!!! and the milkshakes?? I avoid them because they’re that addicting…
Frank
I see them around, but the long lines scared me off every single time. So, I've never tasted their food.
If I ever see a Chick-Fil-A with no line, I'll try it.
Pros order from the app and have their food brought to them in the parking lot. Does require a bit of planning ahead so there's not a wait.
Yeah, really difficult tapping a few keys on your phone, and you're supposed to be a professional of some sort?
I've been there twice. The food is better than most fast-food places. It's a bit pricey though.
What struck me is when I entered, I was greeted by a worker loudly saying welcome in a tone that reminded me of how I was greeted at Mormon facilities in Salt Lake City. I wasn't sure if it was genuine or phony because it was required.
Probably phony because they’re mostly teenagers and you sound like a creepy Dude. In Your Defense (someone has to do it) Utah does sound like a disturbing place, only spent about 1/2 hour there when my Flight from NYC to LAX was diverted, that was enough.
Frank
I enjoyed Salt Lake City. The greetings were only mildly disturbing.
To somewhat less colorfully echo Frank, they have the most efficient throughput of any fast food/short order place I've ever experienced. Even if you don't plan ahead with the app per SomeGuy, just give it a shot sometime and you'll get a better (and hopefully favorable) sense of how a given line length scales to time in line.
Here's an article specifically on drive-through performance -- nearly half the time per car in line compared to its closest competitors, and not terribly much more total end-to-end time for an average line length: https://www.qsrmagazine.com/story/chick-fil-a-has-the-busiest-drive-thru-in-america/
"the long lines scared me off every single time"
Nobody goes there. It's too crowded.
"Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded."
- Yogi Berra
Simpler Frank: Chick-Fil-A rocks. Just do it.
Bigot Chicken fans of the world, unite . . . at the Volokh Conspiracy, naturally!
Ahh, yes...some goooood chicken viewed through The Lens of Resentment.
Better Americans don't resent gay-bashing, gullible bigots.
We disdain them. We mock them. We stomp them in the culture war.
Manhattanites eat at Chick-Fil-A, but we generally do not eat in our cars. It's uncouth. You may not like Yankees, but I say, "Stand up if you've won a Civil War!"
I prefer to go inside when I get Chik Fil A. I'm partial to the Spicy Southwest Salad.
So I guess we’re now arguing that laws aren’t facially neutral and generally applicable if the only ones meaningfully impacted by them are those with a religious reason not to comply with them?
Nothing about the bill text singles out Chick-fil-A for religious reasons. It simply notes their Sunday closure policy as the reason for the law. That their closure is religious-motivated is beside the point.
The podcast claimed Fulton established that exceptions trigger strict scrutiny. But, that's not the case. Fulton established that individualized exceptions trigger strict scrutiny which this law does not have.
Hostility or animus toward religion is relevant according to SCOTUS.
From: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) majority opinion.
Phillips was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, acting inconsistently with its consideration of similar cases, showed impermissible hostility toward his sincere religious beliefs.
We all agree on that. Simon is arguing the explicit mentioning of Chick-Fil-A and Sunday in the bill is not hostile or showing animus towards religious practice. I think Simon's argument relies on Chick-Fil-A being the only establishment closed on any entire day (others have reduced hours on the weekend). Permitting businesses to partially close on multiple days may undermine the state's case if greater than rational-basis review applies (the podcast argues intermediate scrutiny applies under NY law).
The principle you're asserting existed long before Masterpiece Cakeshop, it was invoked in Masterpiece Cakeshop to avoid a much harder constitutional question, and anyway that line of reasoning isn't relevant here, because Mark's attribution of "hostility" towards Chick-fil-A is not based in the law itself or any statements made by its sponsor.
I'd say "thanks for playing," but I wouldn't want to encourage you to leave further irrelevant comments.
Couldn't be bothered to read the article, huh?
As the article already points out, there's rather a bit of evidence right in the bill itself contradicting the claim that it's "generally applicable". Your argument is as transparently pretextual as the bill itself..
I read the OP. (Not an "article.") I also read the legislation Mark helpfully links.
If you do likewise, you'll realize that the following statement:
Imports into the law something it does not have, something essential to Mark's argument, namely, a specifically anti-religious motivation (the bit in italics).
I don't think they want to get rid of them because they're observing the Christian sabbath. I think they want to get rid of them because they don't like what the owners said and who the owners donated to.
The bill is clearly targeted against Chik Fil A due to political animus against it specifically. There was no popular public clamoring that every restaurant in NYS needs to be open 7 days a week.
The bill is clearly targeted against Chik Fil A due to political animus against it specifically.
In this, it's no different from the laws requiring state pension plans to divest from investment managers that boycott oil and gun companies.
There was no popular public clamoring that every restaurant in NYS needs to be open 7 days a week.
There wasn't a popular public clamoring to outlaw abortions in many states that have done so, either.
Are you going to provide an actual argument, or not?
Since the Brouhaha cfa has really bent over backwards to appease the left. Its stopped donations to Christian orgs and started donating to leftwing orgs and has enthusiastically bowed the knee to BLM and other prog causes. Yet I still see all this hate and attempts to undermine it from lefties spouting the same talking points. Wow you guys really don't forgive do you?
So, no, you're not planning on providing an actual argument.
You didn't contradict anything I said.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I simply made a true statement and you didn’t contradict anything I said.
I didn't contradict you because I don't disagree. My response was that there was hardly anything unusual - or unconstitutional - in targeting a company out of "political animus." Your response was argle bargle.
The Rev's Christian-bashing mouthbreathing bigots don't let up.
When they lose the culture war, they'll become even more violent. But their violence is speech.
What makes it any different from the government policies common in this country that boycotted black and Jewish-owned businesses? If your argument that the fact that government can boycott oil and gas companies also lets it boycott Christian-owned companies, why doesn’t this same argument meanthat government can boycott black and Jewish-owned companies? If government can limit its boycott to only Christian companies that make a fuss about Christian principles, why can’t government similarly limit its boycott to similarly uppity black-owned companies whose owners make a fuss about civil rights or uppity Jewish-owned companies whose owners refuse to assimilate?
What makes it any different from the government policies common in this country that boycotted black and Jewish-owned businesses?
Well, the bill isn't proposing a "boycott," for one.
You had used the term “divest” in the comment I had replied to.
Let’s substitute “divestment” for “boycott.”
Different result?
No, because the bill also isn't proposing a "divestment."
My point, in speaking of the politically-motivated laws enacted by other states, was to say that it's not (apparently) new for state legislators to enact legislation targeting perceived enemy corporations. Texas has chosen to divest from certain companies and to punish them for their political views. The Thruway bill - if it were aimed to punish Chick-fil-A, rather than to impose an express requirement that might have been the implicit common-sense expectation prior to Chick-fil-A's negotiating its current concession and disregarding that common-sense expectation - would be no different.
Please, do keep up.
I would also point out articles going back years of attempts by these same senators attempting to ban Chickfilla explicitly due to religious reasons (I saw articles date 2021). They were calling the company a hate group.
See article "Planned Chick-fil-A locations at thruway rest stops draw backlash, support from NY state lawmakers" dated July 2021.
This seems to be clear indication of animus.
Indeed. Since it’s a group they hate, the name is apt. It’s like the Edmund Pettis bridge people calling Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.. a terrorist.
Conservatives really have no problem just saying whatever feels true to them, without doing the slightest bit of fact-checking, huh?
So - no, Tony Simone, the sponsor of the bill described in the OP, wasn't a member of the Assembly in 2021. Linda Rosenthal, who was and continues to be a member of the Assembly, and who is quoted in the piece you linked as expressing concern over Chick-fil-A's political positions, is not a co-sponsor of the bill. The other person cited in the story as somewhat opposed to Chick-fil-A's contract, Sean Ryan, is now a state senator and so also not a co-sponsor of Simone's bill, and is quoted as expressing concern over precisely the issue the bill would address (i.e., the fact that Chick-fil-A closes on Sundays, a heavy travel day).
Facts are hard!
I don't think strict scrutiny attaches, because they're targeting Chick-Fil-A for being closed on Sunday. That the reason Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sunday is irrelevant. This is the liberal version of that Texas book rating system. From a policy perspective this is nonsense-- Chick-Fil-A is super popular and presumably travelers would rather have it be available six days a week rather than zero. But governments are allowed to enact stupid policies, this clears the super low bar of rational basis.
"presumably travelers would rather have it be available six days a week rather than zero"
I don't live in NY, but if I'm on the Thruway I'm stuck there until I can get to the other side. But I want someplace to refuel and get a bite to eat. It might be Sunday, or it might not. I don't much care if it's a chicken joint or something else. The restaurants there are to provide a service to drivers, and if it's closed it's not providing a service. Hopefully at least the authorities are charging them rent based on 7X the average daily take, so somebody is coming out ahead to compensate for the poor service.
If people are going onto the Thruway in order to eat at Chick-Fil-A, that company needs to open more restaurants in other places. And no, I wouldn't be ok with a kosher or halal restaurant that only kept religious hours either. Can't they hire an atheist work crew for those times (like how Orthodox Jews sometimes hire goy to do the necessary bits of life on the sabbath)?
Their special snowflake superstition is more important that your (or the government's) interest . . . well, for so long as right-wingers are calling the shots, which means . . . for a limited time only.
True, but that's also true for the places that are open 7 days a week but not 24 hours a day.
The question to me is whether there's an actual problem here being solved. Are motorists not being served well enough by the other establishments on Sunday? Are there long lines? If so, the law is fine. If not, then not.
(like how Orthodox Jews sometimes hire goy to do the necessary bits of life on the sabbath)?
They are severely restricted in what they can do – and running a restaurant on Shabbat would assuredly violate Jewish law even if every staff member were non-Jewish.
Note that B&H in Manhattan, a legendary photo store in Manhattan owned by frummers, not only is closed on Shabbat and Jewish holidays, even its website doesn’t allow you to buy anything during those times.
Agreed. But the Free Exercise Clause is an enumerated constitutional right, deeply rooted in this nation’s history, implicit in the concept of ordered linerty, and deserving of more defereence than any old notion of liberty.
Like Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, it's always about killing chickens.
But I’m guessing they would be fine with a Kosher food vendor being closed from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, or a halal restaurant that’s closed during daylight hours for Ramadan.
Don't know if "they" would be fine with that or not, but speaking as a consumer, I would not be fine with it. Food at toll plazas tends to be crappy because there's little competition; if you're driving on a toll road, your choices are take it or leave it. So I'm opposed to anything that further reduces such competition as actually exists. I favor encouraging all toll plaza vendors to be open the longest hours feasible for them to still turn a profit.
I have no animus toward Chick-Fil-A or a kosher deli. I just think if they want a contract for toll plazas they should be willing to do what's in the best interests of consumers as part of the bargain.
And you'll get food poisoning.
You do not want places open during low volume times because they will have stuff that has been sitting around and spoiled.
I apologize if this is a dumb question, but why is this even necessary? These roads aren't exactly middle of nowhere Texas with nothing for 50 miles in either direction. Why do these state-owned rest stops even exist? Why is it crucial to have service there at all? Why can't you wait five minutes until the next small town to get your coffee or lunch?
Texas rest stops are often small parks with bathrooms or historical markers, but don't have anything more than a vending machine.
Because on toll roads, people have to take time and pay a toll to get off the highway and get back on. Plus it’s convenient. And the rents make some money for the state that could have been forked over by taxpayers. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the idea, as long as people refrain from using it as a stick to beat people’s heads over with.
The bill requires all businesses to be open every day of the week. That would apply to Jewish and Islamic businesses just as well as Christian ones.
Interestingly, since the Jewish sabbath is observed sundown-to-sundown, rather than during the "calendar day," they might technically count as "open" on both Fridays and Saturdays if they close at sundown on Friday and open at sundown on Saturday. The bill probably should be revised to account for that.
As for halal during Ramadan - I think you fundamentally misunderstand Islamic religious practice during that month.
As I mentioned above, it may be difficult for the state to defend an “open at least sometime during a calendar day” policy if intermediate scrutiny applies because it results in some businesses being closed more hours than Chick-Fil-A is closed.
But additionally, such a policy might be considered to be gerrymandered against Chick-Fil-A since it conveniently does not apply to the Jewish business (similar to how the law in Lukumi was judged). Such a determination would trigger strict scrutiny.
The sort of "gerrymandering" present in the ordinance considered in Lukumi would not be present for a law that requires businesses to be open every day of the week, or for at least the daylight hours, or whatever.
The ordinance considered in Lukumi specifically targeted ritual animal sacrifice. It then expressly permitted various kind of animal slaughter unrelated to ritual animal sacrifice. The purported purposes served by banning ritual animal sacrifice were not served by the exceptions provided for, while ritual animal sacrifice conducted in a manner that would serve the purpose was not permitted. That is how the ordinance was "gerrymandered" to prohibit the specific religious practices of a distinct religious sect.
That's not what the NYS Thruway bill would do. It just says, "You have to be open seven days a week." It doesn't say, you can regularly close on a day of the week for business reasons unrelated to religious observance. It articulates the need - we need these services for drivers every day of the week - and the requirement exactly addresses that need.
.
The law permits a business to be closed during peak travel time, so long as they are open sometime during the calendar day (effectively, an exception). That doesn't strike me as a law that meets the needs of drivers. That's likely not enough by itself to run afoul of Lukumi, but it appears to meet one of Lukumi's symptoms of gerrymandering (the law's purpose is not served by the exception).
And again, even if I am wrong about that, the exception calls into question the ability of the law to survive intermediate scrutiny (which the podcast claimed is the standard under NY precedent).
OK, they are open up to 11:59 Saturday night and the reopen at 00:01 on Monday morning.
They then are open all seven days of the week when measured on anything other than a midnight to midnight scale, which would be unreasonable unless all other businesses were required to be open at midnight, and most aren't and won't be.
So on a day that starts at 9AM, and assume they open at 9 am on the other days, it comes out like this.
They are open 14:59 hours on Saturday, 8:59 hours on Sunday -- the reason this works is that Sunday night after midnight is technically Monday morning.
Perhaps they could have a vending machine full of pre-made sandwiches. Sure, it would sell out fast, but they'd be 'open'.
Is English your native language?
See, in pre-K, one generally learns the days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Those are well-defined words. Is CFA open on Sunday, according to the actual definition of "Sunday"? No. Is Sunday a day of the week? Yes. So, no, they are not open all seven days of the week.
I can remember when the only food choice on the thruway/mass turnpike was Howard Johnson’s-good ice cream but the food -barf!!!
HoJos made nice mac & cheese at least on the Maine turnpike.
Service was slower than hell, though.
I'm not typically a fast-food kind of guy, but I do eat fast food, especially on road trips. Our go-to is McDonald's: Clean, consistent, and inexpensive single burgers (three for me, two for my wife), a Diet Coke... then 300 more miles before we rinse and repeat. Eventually, we arrive at our destination (typically the American south during winter), sated, happy, but ready to move on from "road food".
But... one time, on our way back north after sheltering from another polar vortex, we spied a Chick-Fil-A on a highway exit. "Waddya think? Should we try it?" The dulcet yet constant refrains of "Best fast food in America" drew us in. We ordered. We sat down. We ate...
Meh.
Seriously. It's fast-food fried chicken. Maybe better than KFC, maybe not. I'm not the one to judge.
But if you operate a concession as a vendor on a thruway, then you absolutely should be open 7 days a week. I'm looking at you, Angola, NY McDonald's...
TL;DR: "Hardcore burger couple went to chicken place, with expected result."
“Hardcore burger”. Ha. Not even remotely. I’m lucky to get a burger once a quarter.
Like it or not, I wasn’t impressed with Chick-Fil-A. Maybe it was an off night, I don’t know. If it makes you feel better to think we’ve never eaten other food, go for it. But, their food has never spurred us to return. Take that as you will, but that’s pretty well the litmus test for a fast-food restaurant. If you can’t convert casual diners to repeat customers, that’s an issue.
Anyway, they should still be open Sundays if they bid on Thruway concessions. If they don’t want to open Sundays, open stores adjacent to the Thruways.
Also, it was a pretty good story, right? Spurred *you* to comment. You can feel my pain.
My friend, you were the one that wrote the “5 burgers between us every 300 miles, and who am I to even be able to compare KFC and Chick-Fil-A” story — I just read it.
Seems like you could have just dispensed with the pointless window dressing and led with your closing sentence: you want to force a place you don't even like to be open on a day they choose not to do business.
Look at you, commenting again. I’m glad you enjoyed my story, and that it has spurred you to further engagement. I may change my career to creative writing.
But, to go back to the subject at hand: I like some restaurants, I like some fast food. I didn’t particularly think Chick-Fil-A was all that, especially given the hype. But I don’t have an axe to grind against them. You seem to want to marry them for some reason.
At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect vendors on the thruway to be open seven days a week to serve customers.
I eat there 3-4 times a year; my wife/kids somewhat more. And no equity ownership -- the petty attacks on one of the most successful fast food chains of the present day just get old.
You and many others, who freely admit they could give a rat's behind about the restaurant or the food, think it's "unreasonable" that the Cathys don't bend the knee to the state; I think it's "unreasonable" to be such jerks about a business decision that has no actual, measurable effect on anyone. Uncomplicated enough at bottom.
Chik Fil A could throw a couple of bucks at a food truck----Jamaican jerk, Turkish pide, breakfast burritos, doesn't matter, it could be a different truck every Sunday---to be open during those hours that the Port Authority wants them to be open. A banner proclaiming "brought to you by Chik-Fil-A!!" is strung from the truck to the nearest light standard.
Problem solved.
Unless that is not the real problem. Have we figured out what the real problem is yet?
I wish there were a Jamaican jerk truck on the Thruway during the week...though I'm fortunate that I live close to an excellent jerk place - Tropical Jerk.
"Seems like you could have just dispensed with the pointless window dressing and led with your closing sentence: you want to force a place you don’t even like to be open on a day they choose not to do business."
That is one peculiar example of "force."
By way of the proposed bill, isn't that what the state is trying to do? To force food vendors to do business whether they want to or not?
No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything.
Ok. How about "require" instead of "force"? All applicable service providers would be required to be open 7 days a week (even if they don't want to).
I don't understand your problem with "force." If Chick-Fil-A wants to keep their existing NY State contracted operations running, they'll have to change the way they do business per the new provision. That's a coercive provision. I'm not saying it's wrong or illegal. But it's coercive. It's a take-it-or-leave-it provision. So "force" seems to be an applicable word.
If there are multiple food vendors involved it is arbitrary to require them all to be open seven days a week when none are required to be open 24 hours a day. When ChickFil is closed on Sunday, it just means more biz for the other vendors.
So long as Chick-fil-a is free to accept or reject the contractual terms, there is no force (or coercion) involved.
Eh, I like chicken sandwiches better than burgers, and Chick-Fil-A is better than KFC's, but, surprisingly, not as good as Burger King's.
OTOH, around here, BK's service sucks big time, while 6 days a week Chick-Fil-A's service is exceptional.
...and he brings in The King for better chicken, all the way from right field. Who saw *that* coming???
Chick-fil-A is always recognized as bigoted, but not always recognized as better than Burger King (or Popeye's).
Chick-fil-A is popular for reasons beyond taste. Tribalism.
Superstition. Bigotry.
If CFA is always recognized as bigoted, it's because you are rhetorically beating a drum in Nick Sandmann's face.
Put the drum down and see your own bigotry, Rev.
Anybody who'd actually tried their "Royal Crispy Chicken" sandwich? (I prefer the "spicy" version.) Which is an actual fried chicken breast, not reconstituted mystery meat, like their "Original" chicken sandwich.
I have to admit, I was rather surprised at how good it was, significantly juicier than CFA's.
I'm psyched to give it a try at my next BK visit. Your reputation will ascend or descend based on my verdict. A middling so-so verdict will go against you. (OK...I'll limit your reputational damage to the realm of "chicken." Your other stuff is too worthy of consideration to go down with the chicken.)
I am with Bwaaah here. Ima gonna try it, Brett: Royal Crispy Chicken - spicy.
I know it's chicken, but I can't get it out of my head now because it could be even better than a Royale with cheese.
(no risk of disappointment here)
Royal Crispy Chicken - spicy.
The next-to-last time I passed through, July '23, we stopped at Angola. The McDonald's is gone. Their brand is visible on the wall by the outlines the letters sun-bleached into the paint.
I know, right? Aaagh!
We knew it was the death-knell as we passed by in November 2023. Nobody in the parking lot, but I thought "Let's stop anyway... we can get a burger!".
Nope. Renovations. FOR A YEAR!
Maybe they'll put in a Chick-Fil-A!
If the Thruway can accept that there are no services, for a year, at their plaza, then how can they complain that a concessionaire won't be open on Sundays?
Chik-Fil-A refusing to do business on Sundays isn't the real problem.
The Port Authority needs a year to renovate a spot for some fastfood business to replace a McDonald's in a service plaza----my guess, less than 1000 square feet of space. A similar space on the North end of the bridge, about the same size, for a convenience store that is no longer there, needs even less renovation.
Something else is the real problem. How much does Thruway want for the rights to do business there?
Be careful of McDonalds -- when they are busy, they love to serve their burgers raw. Somethign about the warming tray is part of the cookng process and if it isn;t in there long enough it winds up still red and cold.
This fucking guy!
Is it a coincidence that the NY governor is married to the CEO of one of the biggest food service vendors? Someone should investigate if they hold the contract for the service plazas.
You mean this guy?
Seems to be an attorney unless I'm missing something.
Bill Maher is right, 'the Battle for This Country Isn't Right or Left, It's Normal vs Crazy'
No. I think it's mainly between Left and Right, and how you define "normal" and "crazy." See if you can fill in the following line: "For me, when I look at the political scene, the people on the [fill in Left or Right] look kind of crazy."
You can't fill that in comfortably?
I don't agree with Maher, but the fringe left thinks the left generally is awful.
The fringe right likewise hates the GOP in office right now.
Difference is, the left isn't voting Biden. The fringe right is Trump's base.
Seriously, take a look at the Republican polls, and refresh your understanding of the meaning of "fringe".
Trump's base is the Republican mainstream.
Sick own of the Republican Party.
But also look at who is in office for the GOP now.
This posting doesn’t address it, as most commentaries on this don’t, but I’m left wondering…
Doesn’t Chick-fil-A have a contract to operate these locations? Does the contract allow the state to revise the terms? If not, I don’t see how the state can unilaterally by a law (ala Vader in The Empire Strikes Back) change the rules. It’s not like Chick-fil-A’s business principles were unknown before it began operating on the Thruway.
People are so eager for the culture war, and their virtue signalling, I never see this rather obvious initial question addressed. Seems like a straight forward contract issue.
The law only applies to new businesses not already under contract.
So why are people thinking this applies to currently operating Chick-fil-A's? Or am I misunderstanding that the chain still has more restaurants to open? Even if they are not yet operating, surely the pre-existing contract terms apply.
Seems like a fake controversy, politicians grandstanding, yada yada...
The contracts are for limited times. Pass this law and they'll be gone within a few years.
Perhaps. As long as the contract doesn't guarantee essentially an automatic renewal. The Pennsylvania Turnpike rest stops had some vendor turnover during/after the pandemic. I couldn't tell as a customer whether that was because a dearth of business forced some providers out (voluntarily and/or bankruptcy) or it was the usual churn. Was really bummed the couple of Shake Shacks went away.
Contract expiration hasn't stopped people from talking about this like it's the present tense, not future. That clouds the legal issue.
So why are people thinking this applies to currently operating Chick-fil-A’s?
Because media outlets reporting on either side of the issue have an interest in engaging their readers. Conservative outrage, liberal schadenfreude. Mark himself notes the prospective nature of the bill only briefly, and in passing.
If this really specifically targets Chik-fil-a, it is impermissible under the Hialeah animal sacrifice case.
Indeed.
But the OP doesn’t cite that case, but just a hand waiving ‘Chick-fil-A could argue plausibly that the bill doesn’t qualify as neutral, but singles out religious observance–theirs–for disfavored treatment.’
Without a showing of animus, I don’t think that kind of disparate impact is how the law currently works.
I'm not sure I buy the evil the law is trying to remedy, though it is plausible that it'd impact drivers and cause Sunday congestion at the rest stop.
So you don't think this is motivated by animus? Or you just don't think animus can be proven?
I don’t know if this is motivated by animus.
It would not be my first assumption - not everything bad that happens to a company you like for political reasons (even if it isn't really doing that political stuff anymore) is persecution.
You've accurately described my issue here...except you're also doing the very thing I'm talking about: only when it happens to the "other guys". This state rep is just being principled, defending the hungry travelers. Because no other politician has ever grandstanded about them being a hateful corporation. No idea where I would get such a ridiculous notion.
I have no love or hatred for Chik-fil-A. Never eat there, even though there's one close by. Maybe that's because of the long lines, like Yoga Bera once said.
I do think there's a difference between animus existing and being able to prove it legally. I don't like having my intelligence insulted.
This is what I don't understand: this state legislator is like Captain Renault, shocked, shocked that Chick-fil-A doesn't operate on Sundays. If that is the objection, that it's bad for travelers, it's somewhat disingenuous. The incompetence of whoever negotiated this deal seems like the problem, if that really matters. I kind of think it doesn't, which makes it an inconvenient pretext. No give backs.
I wish people who are citing Lukumi up and down this thread might take a moment to refresh on the facts and reasoning in that case, rather than to just assert that it points in a particular direction here.
I think is a textbook case for why Smith is unworkable, and why heightened scrutiny is essenti The bill names Chic Fila’s owners by name, in a way that suggests that Lukumi Banlo Aye could be brought to bear. But that issue could easily be addressed simply by deleting the reference, and what would we have?
If this bill is constitutional, Congress could just as easily say that the free flow of interstate commerce requires that all businesses be open and all employees must work 7 days a week. George Washington’s address to the Newport Jews guaranteeing them the right to keep their sabbath, on which a fundamental understanding of the original meaning of the Free Exercise Clause is based, would become a nullity.
I think that a bill specifically assuring travelers have food available could pass heightened scrutiny, so for example with a properly crafted bill, with fact finding showing that travelers actually find it a problem, Chic-Fil-A might only be able to open new franchises in travel plazas big enough to support multiple options. But there has to be a close connection between at least an important government interest and the remedy. It can’t be a pretense for boycotting Chic-Fil-A because the New York legislature hates Christians.
Food is available. ChickFil is not the sole vendor.
I miss when Thruway rest stops had real restaurants. They were called "Hot Shoppes" and they had great prime rib.
That....was a long time ago, captcrisis. 😉
FWIW the rest stops are being revamped ATM - I drove up and back to Saratoga County last week from LI and they're all either newly refreshed or in the process of it.
I am not really a fast food chap, though. I've had one sarnie from Arby's - on the Thruway - I've been into McDonalds once in the last twenty years, went to one White Castle and enjoyed it but vowed never again, though I have had Popeyes on the New Jersey Turnpike more than once.
AFAIC what we need are quality fast food places - Bonchon and Nando's spring to mind.
I'm wondering if CFA, and the other concessions at the plaza, pay rents appropriate for the location, or if they get some sort of break.
If the latter, it doesn't seem unreasonable to require them to stay open. If not then they ought to be able to close, provided there are other places open.
I also don't understand the "seven days a week" business. If they closed at 12:01 AM every Sunday, would that satisfy the requirement?
Again, hindsight second guessing. Did the state really not know they didn’t operate on Sundays when initially contracting with them? Maybe people didn’t mind at the time, because their food is wildly popular, and there were other vendors available.
This sudden search for reasonableness seems awfully pretextual (but not necessarily illegal). For something that could easily have been foreseen–the need for travelers to eat 24/7. Except in my non-NY experience, limited access highway rest stops do have some concessions which don’t operate the full 24 hours (overnite, leaving that to a 7-11 style shop).
I think the NYS Thruway Authority in the future needs to amend their contracts on Rest Stop Operators. I think they dropped the ball on this one. I think they are stuck until the contract runs out.
That said.
I would NEVER patronize Chick Whatever because of their crazy religious beliefs. I have made a conscious decision to not give money to any organization that worships zombies. I know bold. Right. Zombies? Yes, zombies. OK, at least one. Follow along. Jesus, their god was crucified by the Romans. He died. He came back to life. That describes a zombie and he can not have my brain.
Oh, and we should not reward a SCAM with tax-free status.
No zombie chicken for me!
As a customer, you don’t even have to ever enter a shop owned by black people if you think they all look ugly. But the State of New York can’t do things like that.
In interviews Simone flat out states that the bill is aimed at Chik Fil A
The context of this case makes Chik-fil-A a little less sympathetic than it might otherwise be.
Not everyone that Chik-fil-A hires would object to working on Sunday. There is no religious test for working at Chik-fil-A (and such a test would be illegal)... the employees aren't all baptist or something like that.
So, what is proposed to receive special protection is Chik-fil-A's belief that non-believers also shouldn't work on Sunday? This is moving well beyond protecting personal conscience.