Chew on this: Chick-fil-A was not ‘saved’ by Texas Legislature

Like many Texans, I approve of Chick-fil-A’s Original Chicken Sandwich, and eat one occasionally.

However, the Spicy Chicken Wrap from Wendy’s is a better option for me when I’m seeking a quick lunch involving some form of fried chicken on the way into the office. It’s smaller and has 70 fewer calories than the Original Chicken Sandwich and is, as the name suggests, optimized for travel. That’s why I was eating a Spicy Chicken Wrap from Wendy’s on Tuesday, when the Texas House passed Senate Bill 1978, better known as the #SaveChickFilA bill. Although I was disappointed by the measure’s passage, my considerations about the matter aren’t ideological.

I realize we live in a hyperpolitical era. Still, a chicken sandwich doesn’t need to be a political football — and the people who are determined to make it one, in this case, have comported themselves in a way that I consider unduly cynical.

The measure, authored by Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola, seeks to prohibit local governments from taking adverse action against Texans based on their affiliation with, or support for, religious organizations.

A similar measure, House Bill 3172, was scuttled earlier this month by Democrats in the Texas House, via parliamentary maneuvers; in their view, it would create a “license to discriminate,” against LGBTQ Texans in particular.

And although both bills were filed at the beginning of March, they became focal points for social conservatives shortly thereafter; on March 21, the San Antonio City Council adopted an ordinance excluding Chick-fil-A from the city’s airport.

That struck some Christian conservatives as an example of religious intolerance. Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, is an observant Baptist who has described the business as an organization

based on “Biblical principles,” and Democrats have intermittently called for boycotts of the chain since he expressed his strong opposition to marriage equality in 2012.

After Democrats succeeded in killing the House version of the bill, Republicans, who control both chambers of the Texas Legislature, were spurred to action. S.B. 1978 passed on a mostly party-line vote and is now headed for Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk.

“So. What are the odds I’ll sign the Chick-fil-A bill?,” Abbott tweeted on Monday, after the Texas House gave the bill preliminary approval.

“I’ll let you know after dinner,” he added, sharing a picture of a large styrofoam cup from the chain in question on a laptop keyboard.

The governor knows his base is with Chick-fil-A on this one.

Social conservatives such as Jonathan Saenz, the president of an advocacy group called Texas Values, applauded this statement.

“I believe it’s safe to say Gov. Greg Abbott has an appetite for the religious freedom found in the #SB1978 #SaveChickfilA bill,” Saenz tweeted in response.

As a practical matter, the passage of this particular law will not prove all that consequential. As filed by Sen. Hughes, the bill stipulated that a governmental entity “may not take any adverse action against any person based wholly or partly on a person’s belief or action in accordance with the person’s sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction, including beliefs or convictions regarding marriage.”

That language was extremely broad. The bill’s critics were right to warn that such a law would create a “license to discriminate.” It would also — in theory — have given Texans the right to commit other forms of harm, and to flout any inconvenient or burdensome law.

The bill was watered down, however, on its journey through the Legislature. The measure that emerged from the Texas House on Tuesday stipulates that a governmental entity “may not take any adverse action against any person based wholly or partly on the person’s membership in, affiliation with, or contribution, donation, or other support provided to a religious organization.”

Of course the First Amendment already protects freedom of expression and association. And the Republicans who voted for S.B. 1978, and heralded its passage, know that too.

“The Constitution’s protection of religious liberty is somehow even better than Chick-fil-A’s chicken,” Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a March 28 letter to San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg and the members of City Council.

The San Antonio council’s move was a silly one, in my view; courts may eventually conclude that it was unconstitutional.

But San Antonio’s decision to block Chick-fil-A from setting up shop in a public airport was hardly tantamount to religious persecution.

And the conservatives who have called on the state’s leaders to “Save Chick-fil-A” are ignoring the fact that corporate leaders apparently didn’t ask for their help, nor play any role in the passage of this particular bill.

In fact, both Cathy and Chick-fil-A responded graciously to the backlash elicited by his comments on marriage, which he made in a 2012 interview with a North Carolina-based outlet, the Biblical Recorder.

“Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena,” the company stated in July 2012. The company recently said it does not discriminate and embraces “all people regardless of religion, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Perhaps Republican leaders in Austin, who like to preach the gospel of limited government, should let a large and successful company like Chick-fil-A — which was America’s most profitable fast-food chain on a per-unit basis last year — take care of itself.

It doesn’t need to be saved by state Republican leaders, who should be dealing with more weighty issues in the Texas Legislature’s closing days.