Chick-a-boom, it is about what we think, not who we serve

Craig Hall, Publisher
Craig Hall, Publisher

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a
self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.” — Ayn Rand

And this brings us to the think tank that is the Denver City Council.

In what should be a “no-brainer” for approval given its successful business track record and projected revenues for Denver International Airport, of course the progressives oppose Chick-fil-A’s concession at DIA. After all, duplicity is at the core of the progressive playbook. Excerpts from the Denver Post story provide some gems from the city council meeting to show you just how talking point concerned they are with the possibility of a Chick-fil-A franchise being allowed inside the discriminating walls of DIA:

  • Robin Kniech, the council’s first openly gay member, said she was most worried about a local franchise generating “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.” No word on whose corporate profits Kniech is using to discriminate against Chik-fil-A, its customers and DIA.
  • “We can do better than this brand in Denver at our airport, in my estimation,” new member Jolon Clark said. Particularly a brand that is the second most requested for DIA (Chipotle being first, but it had no interest in the space) and a brand that’s noted for generating more business in a six-day-a-week operation than most fast food concessions do in seven, according to DIA. Forget about the fact Chick-fil-A operated at the airport over a decade ago.
  • Mike De La Rosa, Delarosa’s president (the franchisee), said the licensing agreement requires sharing 7 percent of royalties with Chick-fil-A, a proportion Councilman Albus Brooks said was lower than he’d expected. Perhaps the Honorable Mr. Brooks could have done some research before asking the question. Then he could have said something brilliant like, “Well 3.4286 percent is OK, but I personally feel 7 percent is too high.”
  • Councilman Paul Lopez called opposition to the chain at DIA “really, truly a moral issue on the city.” Lopez compared Chick-fil-A’s past politics to divisive remarks made this year by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump about immigration and other issues, saying: “I would throw up in my mouth a little bit if we did business with Trump.” Gee, I wonder just how many times the esteemed Mr. Lopez has done business with an affiliate of Trump, the Koch brothers or locally with someone who thinks about issues 180 degrees opposite the way he does? I pray he doesn’t choke.
  • Kniech asked De La Rosa, “If the national corporation with which you are affiliated once again puts themselves at the center of a national debate about depriving people and their families of rights, would you as a concessionaire have any ability to influence that?” “I don’t believe so,” he said. “I don’t think you would, either,” Kniech said, “And that’s my concern.” In other words, Mr. De La Rosa can do everything correctly under the unconstitutional and discriminatory anti-discrimination laws, and if someone in Chick-fil-A’s home office tweets something, De La Rosa is responsible?

So here we have a franchise and franchisee with track records of providing customers with clean, quality restaurants in which to eat, all while providing the same level of service to each and every customer and employee with no complaints the city council could find (otherwise you know the do-gooders would have brought it up) regarding discriminatory practices, under scrutiny for trying to provide a profitable and oft-requested product and service that DIA’s own concession divisions says would be a good thing for all involved.

Just WOW.

You know it must be a huge election talking point when politicians give up tax and airport revenue while slandering a local, successful restaurateur (who I’m sure is within the anti-discriminazi regulations) to make a stand like this. And it is. Just don’t tell me it’s about what the city council says it’s about. Because it isn’t.

None of the lawsuits, or in this case the grave concern, have anything to do with denying anyone’s rights, whether that right is found in a food group, job or ability to buy something.

I’d have more respect for the council had it simply looked up and said, “We just don’t like what your owner said and how he thinks.”

But that won’t happen. Because if it did, the crazies on the city council would have fight off the fact the Chick-fil-A folks have unalienable rights. And government control can’t allow that, or it would be doomed.

As for the rest of us, we’ll simply avoid places we don’t like. For a lot of folks, that’s Denver and DIA. I wonder why?