…and is surprised when it hits them in the face. And the ass.
Our lefty, virtue-signaling city council has decided to pick a fight on Chik-fil-A, one of America’s most successful fast-food companies. This doesn’t look like too smart a move, even for nanny-staters. Clearly this is viewpoint discrimination by a government entity, and puts the City in an indefensible situation, especially considering the recent Riley’s American Heritage Farm v. Claremont Unified School District decision coming from Judge Jesus Bernal of the Central District out in California.
Terminating this benefit is a matter of discretion reserved to the District and its agents; however, Defendants’ cannot terminate the benefit for unconstitutional, retaliatory reasons. Because Plaintiffs plausibly allege the cancelled field trips and prohibition of field trips were in retaliation for Riley’s online political commentary, Plaintiffs state a claim for First Amendment retaliation.
Of course, what really gripes me is that (1) Chik-fil-A should sue the pants off the City of San Antonio and the members of the City Council who voted in the ordinance, but (2) should Chik-fil-A win such a lawsuit, it would be city, not Ron Niremberg and his band of stooges, who would pay. Meaning ME, and my fellow city taxpayers.
Look at the lineup:
In this corner, Chik-fil-A
- Over 2200 locations in the US, Canada, and (!) South Africa
- Over $9 billion in annual revenue
- Over 40,000 employees
And, in the opposite corner, the City of San Antonio
- one location, ostensibly in Texas, USA. But looking more like Massachusetts or California, one of those moonbat places.
- $2.8 billion budget for 2019
- Over 11,000 employees
Update: I’m not the only one who thinks this is a bad idea. (two guys stuff here)