National Review Online
Monday, April 08, 2019
In the past two weeks, two different airports have
blocked Chick-fil-A from the premises. First, the city council of San Antonio
banned the chain because, in the words of councilman Robert Trevino, “everyone
should feel welcome when they walk through our airport.” Then, two weeks later,
a New York Democratic assemblyman, Sean Ryan, announced that the Buffalo
airport food vendor was prohibiting Chick-fil-A from operating in its food
court. Ryan was explicit about the reason, declaring in a statement that “the
views of Chick-fil-A do not represent our state or the Western New York
community.”
The immediate justification for the bans was a ThinkProgress allegation that the
Chick-fil-A foundation supported “groups with a record of anti-LGBTQ”
discrimination.” ThinkProgress was
resurrecting a 2012 controversy over Chick-fil-A contributions to an affiliated
foundation that gave grants to conservative Christian groups, including groups
that opposed same-sex marriage, and over comments by Chick-fil-A president Dan
Cathy supporting the traditional, biblical definition of marriage. There was no
allegation that Chick-fil-A discriminated against gay customers or gay
employees.
In 2012, a wave of Democratic city officials, including
the mayors of Boston and San Francisco, threatened to block Chick-fil-A from
opening restaurants in their cities, and Chick-fil-A’s customers responded with
an immense “buycott” as a show of support. By the end of 2012, the storm
appeared to have passed.
Until now. While ThinkProgress
has continued to call attention to Chick-fil-A donations for years, this year
San Antonio and Buffalo decided to act. And once again Chick-fil-A faces
explicit, official retaliation not for any incidents of discrimination in its
stores, but rather for the constitutionally protected freedom of expression of
its associated foundation. This is intolerable on two counts.
First and most importantly, it is plainly and clearly
unconstitutional for government officials to punish private corporations for
the political or religious views of their owners or affiliates. This basic
principle of constitutional law was recently reaffirmed in a federal court in
California, when an Obama-appointed district judge protected a “living history”
farm from public reprisal against the conservative views of its owner. When the
local school district canceled field trips to the farm in protest of the
owner’s private political views, the court’s ruling was clear: “Defendants
cannot terminate [the trips] for unconstitutional, retaliatory reasons.”
Simply put, there is a fundamental difference between
enforcing a valid anti-discrimination or public-accommodations statute — such
as a law prohibiting discrimination in the provision of services — and blocking
a restaurant that complies with
anti-discrimination law simply to punish the politics (and faith) of its
owners.
Second, it’s worth pointing out the sheer extremism and
intolerance of San Antonio’s and Buffalo’s actions. Chick-fil-A is being
punished not for giving money to political or culture-war organizations, but
rather for donations to the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian
Athletes, and a small donation to a youth home. The result is a declaration by
government actors that even the most mainstream of traditional Christian
organizations should be officially marginalized. Groups that are instrumental
in the lives of the poor and in the lives of American youths are too toxic even
for private donations, and donors should face economic punishment for having
the audacity to support the charity of their choice.
Fortunately, a backlash is already building. Texas
attorney general Ken Paxton has launched an investigation of the city council’s
action, and Buffalo’s decision was condemned by the New York Civil Liberties
Union, and the transportation authority is blaming the decision to block
Chick-fil-A on an outside vendor.
The virus of public reprisal against private expression
is spreading. For example, the Los Angeles City Council now requires
contractors to disclose any ties with the National Rifle Association. In 2017
it passed an ordinance requiring contractors to disclose if they’d submitted
bids to work on President Trump’s border wall.
It is the role of government to protect liberty, not
promote ideological conformity by punishing dissent. San Antonio and Buffalo
are on the leading edge of a dangerous trend, and if they don’t relent, then
Chick-fil-A should sue. It’s time to make unlawful retaliation costly for
America’s most intolerant cities.
No comments:
Post a Comment