Graham declares ‘war’ against NY to protect Chick-fil-A’s Sundays off

[ThatRobGuy]

Graham declares ‘war’ against NY to protect Chick-fil-A’s Sundays off

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared “war” Friday over a New York state bill that would require some Chick-fil-A restaurants to operate on Sundays. “This is war,” Graham wrote on X, the platform f…

thehill.com

The aforementioned New York bill aims to have restaurants in state highway system rest areas operate for the entirety of the week, according to The Associated Press (AP).

However, Chick-fil-A is well known for its policy that keeps its doors closed on Sundays. The policy is intended to allow its employees to spend time with their family and “worship if they choose,” per the chain’s website.

“Look, if you want to eat fried chicken while traveling over the holidays, then Chick-fil-A should be open on Sundays,” Simone argued.


This one is a tad odd for a few reasons.
1) A federal senator being overly interested in a state-level bill in another state
2) A NY state democrat forcing Chick-fil-a to increase their profit potential by 14% at some of their locations by being open for that extra day (Democrats and Chick-fil-a haven't always seen eye to eye on things)

While it's clear that Graham is using this as a means to virtue signal...(no shocker there)

I wonder if there's some ulterior motives happening with regards to this one on Simone's part as well...perhaps it's not so much because "he wants New Yorkers to have the Chick-fil-a option on a Sunday" as much as it is "We want the ability to deny Chick-fil-a any new State Thruway contracts for other reasons"

It should be noted that Rep. Tony Simone is the first openly gay NY Assembly member, representing the Chelsea District, and is a member of several LGBTQ+ orgs...and some of Chick-fil-a's past stances and donations have been a point of contention with both progressives and the gay community.

It'd be sort of like if a legislator (with a track record of advocating for mandatory coverage for birth control by employers), out of the blue, suddenly said "We want to demand that Hobby Lobby remain open on Sundays...y'know, because we just want people to have a variety of retail shopping options"

 

[SimplyMe]

There was a thread on this in American Politics. Basically, the Religious Right appears to largely be misrepresenting what this bill is actually calling for and what effect it would have. The bill isn't aimed at Chick-Fil-A but is expressly limited to restaurants located in the Rest Areas along the New York Thruway; the idea being that restaurants located in the Rest Areas should be open 7 days a week to better be able to serve those traveling on the Thruway; particularly since, being a toll road, it costs extra for people to leave the Thruway to get their food and then get back on, in extra tolls.

More to the point, this does not effect the current contracts, meaning the earliest this would effect any existing Chick-Fil-A store (force them to be open on Sunday) is 33 years from now, when their current contracts expire. It would not force Chick-Fil-A to be open on Sundays, but would prevent them from competing for a new contract 33 years from now, unless they are then willing to stay open on Sunday.

 

[Yttrium]

More to the point, this does not effect the current contracts, meaning the earliest this would effect any existing Chick-Fil-A store (force them to be open on Sunday) is 33 years from now, when their current contracts expire. It would not force Chick-Fil-A to be open on Sundays, but would prevent them from competing for a new contract 33 years from now, unless they are then willing to stay open on Sunday.

33 years? The thruway will be underwater by then...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There was a thread on this in American Politics. Basically, the Religious Right appears to largely be misrepresenting what this bill is actually calling for and what effect it would have. The bill isn't aimed at Chick-Fil-A but is expressly limited to restaurants located in the Rest Areas along the New York Thruway; the idea being that restaurants located in the Rest Areas should be open 7 days a week to better be able to serve those traveling on the Thruway; particularly since, being a toll road, it costs extra for people to leave the Thruway to get their food and then get back on, in extra tolls.

More to the point, this does not effect the current contracts, meaning the earliest this would effect any existing Chick-Fil-A store (force them to be open on Sunday) is 33 years from now, when their current contracts expire. It would not force Chick-Fil-A to be open on Sundays, but would prevent them from competing for a new contract 33 years from now, unless they are then willing to stay open on Sunday.

I don't doubt that the religious right is misrepresenting certain aspects o(which is why I said that it's pretty obvious Lindsey Graham is using it for virtue signaling)

...but I do think it's quite possible that the Democratic NY Assemblyman is misrepresenting what it's about too.

Does anyone honestly think that an LGBT pioneer (of sorts) and activist is sincere when they say something like "Chick-fil-a should remain open on Sundays, because...
I want to allow travelers in the Empire State to have a diversity of food options, if you want to eat fried chicken while traveling over the holidays, then Chick-fil-A should be open on Sundays,” , knowing the someone contentious history Chick-fil-a has with the gay community due to their giving patterns and religious leanings of their leadership team?

...and I would suggest that it doesn't cost extra for people to leave and reenter the toll road (at least not in my experience, and I've been on the i-90 NY state thruway no less than 20 in the last year). It's all electronic tolling now, so you don't have to slow down to exit and reenter the toll road, and I can't say I've noticed any sort of significant price difference. (if they were worried about price, you'd think they'd focus more on the fact that it costs an extra 35 cents per gallon to use a toll road gas station, and each of their fast food establishments easily charge 20% more than their non-Thruway counterparts)

Is it even the slightest bit possible that this bill is a "convenient" way to prevent Chick-fil-a from securing any future contracts using the "welp, sorry, they're not open on sundays" (which is legal) angle instead of "welp, sorry, they're a conservative Christian company and we disagree with their stance because of that" (which would be illegal)


I could be wrong here, but I'm thinking it's quite possible that this could be another one of those situations where it's illegal to target a group, so they target an attribute to sidestep it.


Not unlike when cities in the south (back in 2018 if you remember that whole fiasco) were trying to pass bills that allowed restaurants to refuses service based on "no baggy pants" provisions.

Did anyone actually believe that was really about an objection to "baggy pants", or was that a thinly veiled attempt to target something else?

 

[Nithavela]

Over here in germany, while most stores close on sundays, restaurants are generally open on that day (but are forced to choose one other day of the week as a rest day). Fast food chain restaurants are exempt from that and open every day (and often 24/7). I'm sure there are many fast food workers who are devout christians. At least in my city, you can go to church on sunday evening if you're busy in the morning (or prefer to sleep in).

Somehow, Döner shops are also open all day on friday, instead of closing for mosque. They manage, so I'm sure those few Chick-fil-a can manage, too. Just hire a few non-christians to cover the sunday shifts (and then give those employees another day off to spend time with their families).

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't doubt that the religious right is misrepresenting certain aspects o(which is why I said that it's pretty obvious Lindsey Graham is using it for virtue signaling)

...but I do think it's quite possible that the Democratic NY Assemblyman is misrepresenting what it's about too.

Does anyone honestly think that an LGBT pioneer (of sorts) and activist is sincere when they say something like "Chick-fil-a should remain open on Sundays, because...
I want to allow travelers in the Empire State to have a diversity of food options, if you want to eat fried chicken while traveling over the holidays, then Chick-fil-A should be open on Sundays,” , knowing the someone contentious history Chick-fil-a has with the gay community due to their giving patterns and religious leanings of their leadership team?

...and I would suggest that it doesn't cost extra for people to leave and reenter the toll road (at least not in my experience, and I've been on the i-90 NY state thruway no less than 20 in the last year). It's all electronic tolling now, so you don't have to slow down to exit and reenter the toll road, and I can't say I've noticed any sort of significant price difference. (if they were worried about price, you'd think they'd focus more on the fact that it costs an extra 35 cents per gallon to use a toll road gas station, and each of their fast food establishments easily charge 20% more than their non-Thruway counterparts)

Is it even the slightest bit possible that this bill is a "convenient" way to prevent Chick-fil-a from securing any future contracts using the "welp, sorry, they're not open on sundays" (which is legal) angle instead of "welp, sorry, they're a conservative Christian company and we disagree with their stance because of that" (which would be illegal)


I could be wrong here, but I'm thinking it's quite possible that this could be another one of those situations where it's illegal to target a group, so they target an attribute to sidestep it.


Not unlike when cities in the south (back in 2018 if you remember that whole fiasco) were trying to pass bills that allowed restaurants to refuses service based on "no baggy pants" provisions.

Did anyone actually believe that was really about an objection to "baggy pants", or was that a thinly veiled attempt to target something else?

You think they are trying to prevent Chick-Fil-A from rebidding for a contract 33 years from now? I think if this was aimed at "punishing" Chick-Fil-A, they'd be trying to grandfather it into current contracts. Besides, assuming what you are saying is true, why would Chick-Fil-A not just build locations just off the turnpike, where people could get off and grab food quickly, rather than having to charge them extra for the high fees associated with renting a spot in the rest stop?

 

[RileyG]

They should have Sundays off. That is their right.

 

[Nithavela]

They should have Sundays off. That is their right.

Sadly, not in the USA. But I think that everyone should have at least one day per week off. In german law, this is mandatory. At least one uninterrupted 24 hour rest period per week. In the USA, workers are far less protected and basically just have to suck up the terms they agree on.

 

[SimplyMe]

They should have Sundays off. That is their right.

And no one is trying to deny them of that. At worst, in 33 years it may make them decide not to have rest stop restaurants on the NY Turnpike.

 

[RileyG]

Sadly, not in the USA. But I think that everyone should have at least one day per week off. In german law, this is mandatory. At least one uninterrupted 24 hour rest period per week. In the USA, workers are far less protected and basically just have to suck up the terms they agree on.

It's their religious right. As a Christian company, they have a right to have Sundays off IMHO.

 

[IceJad]

What a dumb law. A business should be able to choose and determine their own operating hours. Seeing that fast food is not essential services there should be no need to have enforced operating hours. Will the government reimburse losses for operating on a Sunday if there is no business? No need to answer because its obviously no. No wonder NY is in such as bad state today. One dumb law after another. Burdening local businesses illogical red tapes and high taxes. At the same time spending their taxes frivolously on more bureaucracy.

In Malaysia restaurants can choose their own off days and operating hours regardless of operating locale. No government enforcement will force them to open by law. During Chinese New Year some Chinese restaurants are off for nearly 3-4 days. Same goes for Malay restaurants during Eid. Some highway rest stops have zero restaurants opened. People just went on fine. No one died of hunger.

 

[Nithavela]

It's their religious right. As a Christian company, they have a right to have Sundays off IMHO.

It's not just a religious right, it's a right of free business as a company. They might as well decide to have tuesdays off, or any other day.

At the same time, it's the right of the entity leasing them their land to not continue the lease after the old one ran out if certain stipulations aren't met.

 

[SimplyMe]

What a dumb law. A business should be able to choose and determine their own operating hours. Seeing that fast food is not essential service there should be no need to have enforced operating hours. Will the government reimburse losses for operating on a Sunday if there is no business? No need to answer because its obviously no. No wonder NY is in such as bad state today. One dumb law after another. Burdening local businesses illogical red tapes and high taxes. At the same time spending their taxes frivolously on more bureaucracy.

In Malaysia restaurants can choose their own off days and operating hours regardless of operating locale. No government enforcement will force them to open by law. During Chinese New Year some Chinese restaurants are off for nearly 3-4 days. Same goes for Malay restaurants during Eid. Some highway rest stops have zero restaurants opened. People just went on fine. No one died of hunger.

Again, this new law has no effect on any current Chick-Fil-A restaurant. Having said that, there are apparently a number of Chick-Fil-A restaurants that currently have open hours required of then in contacts they have signed to rent a location. For example, in their current contracts to have restaurants in the rest areas of the New York Thruway, they have hours that they are required to be open (though they are allowed to close on Sunday). Various malls have a requirement that restaurants must keep the same hours as the mall on days they are open. So, if the hours of the mall are 10-9, Chick-Fil-A must be open from 10-9, other than their Sunday exception.

What NY is looking at is that people travel 7 days a week, and Sunday is the busiest travel day, so it doesn't make sense for restaurants that are part of the rest stops (again, owned by the state of NY) to not be open on the days people are traveling. Again, it doesn't affect current Chick-Fil-A restaurants as their contracts will not change. It merely affects the terms of any new contract for a rest stop restaurant in 33 years, and Chick-Fil-A is free to not bid on those contracts.

In the meantime, any other Chick-Fil-A restaurants are free to keep they hours they want (or that their contracts require) and they don't have to open on Sundays. Additionally, Chick-Fil-A can buy land at NY Thruway exits and open restaurants and decide what hours they want to be open, including not being open on Sunday. Just as Chick-Fil-A is free to set their own hours (or sign contracts with hours of operation that are acceptable to them), it is the right of the State of NY (or other owners where Chick-Fil-A wishes to operate) to require a restaurant to have set times they require them to be open (to include Sundays) in the owner's building.

 

[RileyG]

It's not just a religious right, it's a right of free business as a company. They might as well decide to have tuesdays off, or any other day.

At the same time, it's the right of the entity leasing them their land to not continue the lease after the old one ran out if certain stipulations aren't met.

Fair enough

 

[IceJad]

Again, this new law has no effect on any current Chick-Fil-A restaurant. Having said that, there are apparently a number of Chick-Fil-A restaurants that currently have open hours required of then in contacts they have signed to rent a location. For example, in their current contracts to have restaurants in the rest areas of the New York Thruway, they have hours that they are required to be open (though they are allowed to close on Sunday). Various malls have a requirement that restaurants must keep the same hours as the mall on days they are open. So, if the hours of the mall are 10-9, Chick-Fil-A must be open from 10-9, other than their Sunday exception.

What NY is looking at is that people travel 7 days a week, and Sunday is the busiest travel day, so it doesn't make sense for restaurants that are part of the rest stops (again, owned by the state of NY) to not be open on the days people are traveling. Again, it doesn't affect current Chick-Fil-A restaurants as their contracts will not change. It merely affects the terms of any new contract for a rest stop restaurant in 33 years, and Chick-Fil-A is free to not bid on those contracts.

In the meantime, any other Chick-Fil-A restaurants are free to keep they hours they want (or that their contracts require) and they don't have to open on Sundays. Additionally, Chick-Fil-A can buy land at NY Thruway exits and open restaurants and decide what hours they want to be open, including not being open on Sunday. Just as Chick-Fil-A is free to set their own hours (or sign contracts with hours of operation that are acceptable to them), it is the right of the State of NY (or other owners where Chick-Fil-A wishes to operate) to require a restaurant to have set times they require them to be open (to include Sundays) in the owner's building.

A law that is illogical is still illogical regardless. I'm not here for just Chick-Fil-A. I'm talking about this law in general. Just because it is a law doesn't make it well thought out.

In Malaysia if you open a restaurant in a mall you're beholden to the mall's contract. A Mall is private business therefore it is between 2 business owners. Mall contracts can be negotiated and it happens all the time. They define rent, services charges, operating hours and even shop decorations.

We are now talking about a government entity with a private business. It is law vs business contract. There is a difference.

 

[SimplyMe]

A law that is illogical is still illogical regardless. I'm not here for just Chick-Fil-A. I'm talking about this law in general. Just because it is a law doesn't make it well thought out.

In Malaysia if you open a restaurant in a mall you're beholden to the mall's contract. A Mall is private business therefore it is between 2 business owners. Mall contracts can be negotiated and it happens all the time. They define rent, services charges, operating hours and even shop decorations.

We are now talking about a government entity with a private business. It is law vs business contract. There is a difference.

Not really. Again, the government is running a type of "mall" at highway rest stops, to make it easier for travelers to pull off the highway before traveling further. It is still a business contract -- though, being the government, they are encoding some of the requirements in law. Again, this law only is creating requirements for the contracts with private companies that wish to have stores in the rest stop malls, it doesn't affect any other stores.

 

[IceJad]

Not really. Again, the government is running a type of "mall" at highway rest stops, to make it easier for travelers to pull off the highway before traveling further. It is still a business contract -- though, being the government, they are encoding some of the requirements in law. Again, this law only is creating requirements for the contracts with private companies that wish to have stores in the rest stop malls, it doesn't affect any other stores.

There is a big difference between law and business contract. You can't just waive away a part of the contract as law but the rest is still consider a business contract. Because the part of the contract that is law can't be negotiated else it would be breaking a law. Business contract however can have all its parts negotiated until an agreement is achieved. Since I work on IT tender contracts, I know parts that are laws can't be amended however any others parts can be and is always negotiated.

The more parts that you put as law the less negotiable the contract will be. The higher the cost of execution and less flexible the contract will be. Therefore more unfriendly it will be for businesses. So you will have to excuse me when I say this NY bill is dumb and illogical. Highly unnecessary and have little tangible benefits to the consumers.

 

[SimplyMe]

There is a big difference between law and business contract. You can't just waive away a part of the contract as law but the rest is still consider a business contract. Because the part of the contract that is law can't be negotiated else it would be breaking a law. Business contract however can have all its parts negotiated until an agreement is achieved.

Sure, but all businesses have items in a contract that they find non-negotiable. All this law is defining is something the state believes is non-negotiable. And the reason for this is to ensure that restaurants are open in rest areas on the busiest travel days. It doesn't make any sense to negotiate with restaurants and allow them to close when demand is the highest. That is all NY is attempting to do with this law.

Since I work on IT tender contracts, I know parts that are laws can't be amended however any others parts can be and is always negotiated.

The more parts that you put as law the less negotiable the contract will be. The higher the cost of execution and less flexible the contract will be. Therefore more unfriendly it will be for businesses. So you will have to excuse me when I say this NY bill is dumb and illogical. Highly unnecessary and have little tangible benefits to the consumers.

Sorry, the idea of "higher the cost of execution and less flexible" is not necessarily true, and is definitely true in this case. Of all the "major" fast food restaurants, Chick-Fil-A is the only one that I can think of that demands (or even requests) to close on a particularly day. In fact, with Chick-Fil-A demanding to close on some of the busiest travel days (since that is a non-negotiable item for them), it can be argued that it is actually costing money -- as they are closed on some days when the demand is the highest. Additionally, it is not being open on some of these busiest days that causes a loss of tangible benefits to customers -- the opposite of your claim.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You think they are trying to prevent Chick-Fil-A from rebidding for a contract 33 years from now? I think if this was aimed at "punishing" Chick-Fil-A, they'd be trying to grandfather it into current contracts. Besides, assuming what you are saying is true, why would Chick-Fil-A not just build locations just off the turnpike, where people could get off and grab food quickly, rather than having to charge them extra for the high fees associated with renting a spot in the rest stop?

That's their "rebid" period for ones they already have...however, NY State is in the middle of a big revamp project in which they'll be rebuilding and expanding 23 of their 27 facilities over a rolling period.

Service Area Redesign and Redevelopment Project - New York State Thruway

In a separate news story about this (that came out prior to the one about Graham)
The New York State Thruway’s rest areas are currently undergoing a $450 million upgrade and adding new restaurants. Seven of the Thruway rest area locations now contain a Chik-fil-A, with three more to be added, CBS 6 reports. Chik-fil-A’s company-wide policy calls for stores to be closed on Sundays, but the new legislation would challenge this.


So it sounds like there are 3 proposed new locations on the Thruway that are "at risk".

And democrats in the NY State Assembly have tried to target Chick-fil-a before

Lawmakers voice opposition to Chick-fil-A at Thruway service areas

A modernization project for service areas on the New York State Thruway is expected to usher in a number of new restaurants along I-90. But one of the potential newcomers to the rest stops is drawing some criticism from some state leaders. As reported last week, the $450 million modernization...

cnycentral.com

...originally they were petitioning to get Chick-fil-a removed from the concessions list back in 2021 prior to some new locations getting added, but failed in that effort.

Tell the NYS Thruway Authority Chick-fil-A is Not Welcome at Our Rest Stops

Recently the NYS Thruway Authority announced they will be modernizing 27 rest stops along I-90. Included in their list of approved concessions is Chick-fil-A — a company with a long history of donating millions to organizations hostile to LGBTQ+ rights. Assemblymember Harry Bronson, along with...

docs.google.com

Given their track record, it sounds like they're less interested in "making sure people can have chick-fil-a as an option on Sundays", and perhaps more inclined to prefer that people not have it as an option at all because they disagree with some of their corporate philosophies.

Otherwise, "we don't want it to be on the thruway at all" morphing into a "we want people to have it as an option 24/7" in a period of 2 years seems like a pretty big 180.

 

[hislegacy]

Now the government can tell a privately company when they should open?

Every time I hear things like this, it makes me even happier I left the State