I did a deal with the NY/NJ Port Authority a while back, it was interesting to say the least. So happy to be out of Public Sector sales. The good side is that they always have money and are pretty stupid about how they spend it. The bad side is the exact same because its our moneyairport authorities (and i imagine port authorities as well) are crooked as hell
So people won't go to Denver because if a fast food place in the airport food court?It seems to me that Denver city council is more in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment than it is protected by principles of government speech.
Article
Denver city council claims the fast food chain CEO’s support of “biblical marriage” would hurt the city’s reputation.
Airport concession officials chose Chick-Fil-A based on explicit traveler preferences (2013 survey) and track record. There are currently 30 Chick-Fil-A restaurants operating in the Denver area.
Isn't the city actively spending money to get people to call it by the full name? I thought I read that somewhere. Anyway I too call it that.i just call it hartsfield
sound like something they'd do. Not gonna happen. Old time Atlantans like myself and 92 will always leave off the Jackson. His cronies were indicted for their graft at ATL, he name does not deserve to be up there with the guy who had the vision to bring the International Airport to AtlantaIsn't the city actively spending money to get people to call it by the full name? I thought I read that somewhere. Anyway I too call it that.
i'm sure they are. there are grifts a plenty in the atlanta metro areaIsn't the city actively spending money to get people to call it by the full name? I thought I read that somewhere. Anyway I too call it that.
yeah, there are some straight up crooks around here. after a while, you just shake your head when you hear about it.sound like something they'd do. Not gonna happen. Old time Atlantans like myself and 92 will always leave off the Jackson. His cronies were indicted for their graft at ATL, he name does not deserve to be up there with the guy who had the vision to bring the International Airport to Atlanta
Sorry, guys, you haven't convinced me this equates to those cases. In fact, the the bulk of the free speech argument lies on the side of the company...Also, Walker v Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/walker-v-texas-division-sons-of-confederate-veterans-inc/
I'm obviously not a lawyer but if I'm understanding you here - you're saying that Chik-fil-A is the "wronged" party here (unless as you say they 'must' be open 7 days contractually) and the airport is out of line? Is my understanding correct?Let me try again for clarity. There simply is no equivalence between a state refusing a certain slogan on a tag and the denial of the license as in this case. The owner of the Chik-Fil-A and his company are two distinct separate legal entities. IOW, corporations are people for, it seems, all purposes. What the principle shareholder says about his personal beliefs is not what the corporation says and the government cannot equate the two. It's totally different from the cases cited. Now, if they wanted to deny the license because they don't serve seven days a week, then they would be free to do that (so long as that was a requirement for all firms). They cannot deny licenses based on the beliefs of a separate legal entity (a shareholder)...
I am not arguing with you, but I do want to clarify my point and why I see similarities between this situation and the case I posted.Let me try again for clarity. There simply is no equivalence between a state refusing a certain slogan on a tag and the denial of the license as in this case. The owner of the Chik-Fil-A and his company are two distinct separate legal entities. IOW, corporations are people for, it seems, all purposes. What the principle shareholder says about his personal beliefs is not what the corporation says and the government cannot equate the two. It's totally different from the cases cited. Now, if they wanted to deny the license because they don't serve seven days a week, then they would be free to do that (so long as that was a requirement for all firms). They cannot deny licenses based on the beliefs of a separate legal entity (a shareholder)...
Bottom line: Government cannot favor religion or nonreligion or one particular viewpoint over another. If it opens a venue for one viewpoint it must open it for all, no matter how outlandish (not anything that incites violence - you know, within the limits of free speech). Speech is different from behavior that, for instance, discriminates. So while the CEO is free to speak his mind freely without punishment from government, he is not free to conduct his business in a way that violates law. If pure speech violates the law and government can punish for any viewpoint it doesn't like then we are all in trouble.I am not arguing with you, but I do want to clarify my point and why I see similarities between this situation and the case I posted.
This apparently is not a simple matter of whether or not to issue a business license to operate within the city limits of Denver. The license is to open an establishment in the Denver airport which (1) has only a few spaces for such businesses compared to the entirety of the city of Denver and (2) is actually city/county property not private property.
A license plate on a car is apparently government property, and anything printed on the tag is government speech. The Denver airport is also government property like a license plate, and maybe likewise, the city/county could argue that the establishments they admit constitute an endorsement of sorts (i.e. government speech).
We're already in trouble then.Bottom line: Government cannot favor religion or nonreligion or one particular viewpoint over another. If it opens a venue for one viewpoint it must open it for all, no matter how outlandish (not anything that incites violence - you know, within the limits of free speech). Speech is different from behavior that, for instance, discriminates. So while the CEO is free to speak his mind freely without punishment from government, he is not free to conduct his business in a way that violates law. If pure speech violates the law and government for punish for any viewpoint it doesn't like then we are all in trouble.
The Denver Business Development Committee has unanimously approved a seven-year lease for a Chick-fil-A restaurant at Denver International Airport.Originally, the Denver City Council had placed a two-week pause on the request, citing the company's reputation as an opponent of same-sex marriage.
Now, the vote goes to the full city council for them to consider. Denver City Council's first openly gay member Robin Kniech at the meeting on Tuesday told 9NEWS' Brandon Rittiman that her concerns were eased.
In 2012, Chick-fil-A's president publicly reaffirmed his support of what he called the "biblical definition of the family unit" that did not include same-sex marriage. He has since said he regrets inserting the company into political debates.
Chicago officials tried to block a new Chick-fil-A location for similar reasons but relented when the chain reiterated a non-discrimination statement.
Sorry, but as a legal analogy, that doesn't hold water. Are you a lawyer or is this just your hobby?I am not arguing with you, but I do want to clarify my point and why I see similarities between this situation and the case I posted.
This apparently is not a simple matter of whether or not to issue a business license to operate within the city limits of Denver. The license is to open an establishment in the Denver airport which (1) has only a few spaces for such businesses compared to the entirety of the city of Denver and (2) is actually city/county property not private property.
A license plate on a car is apparently government property, and anything printed on the tag is government speech. The Denver airport is also government property like a license plate, and maybe likewise, the city/county could argue that the establishments they admit constitute an endorsement of sorts (i.e. government speech).
I watch Judge Judy and Perry Mason was a favorite years ago. Plus I've read all the John Grisham novels!:wink: Supreme Court here I come!