May 30, 2019

Mr. Ryan clearly laid out his animus against Chick-fil-A with series of public Tweets on the platform Twitter related to the values, religious beliefs of Chick-fil-A and their owners on March 28 through March 29, 2019. His initial tweet of March 28^th stated the following:

I was disappointed to learn of the NFTA’s decision to introduce Chick-fil-A as a restaurant option at the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport. Chick-fil-A has a long history of supporting and funding anti-LGBTQ organizations. In fact, the San Antonio City Council recently rejected a plan to open a Chick-fil-A at the San Antonio International Airport due to the company’s discriminatory advocacy. As a state entity, the NAFA has a responsibility to avoid doing business with corporations who fund hateful and divisive groups. I strongly urge the NFTA to reverse this decision.

As you may be aware, New York State currently has a state funded travel ban in place for travel to North Carolina due to a law allowing for transgender discrimination that is on the books until 2020. Recently, several SUNY swimmers were unable to stay in North Carolina for the DIII championship because of this travel ban. It sends the wrong message to allow a state entity to do business with an anti-LGBTQ corporation when our SUNY system worked to remain in compliance with the travel ban. All of our state agencies and entities need to be held to a higher standard.

I don’t believe the leadership of the NFTA intends to help spread hate and discrimination, but allowing a corporation like Chick-fil-A to do business at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport will help to fund continued divisive anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. New York is a welcoming state that celebrates diversity. The views of Chick-fil-A do not represent our state or the western New York Community, and businesses that support discrimination have no place operating in taxpayer-funded public facilities. Once again, I urge you to reverse this decision and identify a different restaurant to operate at the airport.”

In his second Tweet, with a response from the NFTA, he stated the following:

I just received a statement from @NFTAMetro on the potential Chick-fil-A location at the @BUFAirport. I don't believe there is anything to discuss with the NFTA on the issue. We can't allow companies who support anti-LGBTQ groups to do business at state owned facilities.

[NFTA Statement] First and foremost, the NFTA is an organization that prides itself on its strong commitment to diversity and inclusion and stand firmly against any form of discrimination. We have the upmost respect for Assemblyman Ryan and consider him a great partner and friend to us. We will reach out to him to discuss his concerns.

The company which was initially approved as a vendor in the renovation plans of the Buffalo Niagara International Airport by hospitality management company Delaware North along with the NFTA was removed as a vendor on Friday, March 29^th after Assemblyman Ryan pressured the NFTA to remove Chick-fil-A.

In his third Tweet of March 29, 2019, Mr. Ryan confirmed his success at removing Chick-fil-A as an airport vendor after the company was previously approved:

Earlier today I spoke with the vendor of the Buffalo Airport food court project, and they informed me they will not be opening a Chick-fil-A as part of their airport project. A publicly financed facility like the Buffalo Niagara International Airport is not the appropriate venue for Chick-fil-A restaurant. I applaud the decision that has been made to remove Chick fil-A from the plans for this project.

We hope in the future the NFTA will make every effort to contract with businesses that adhere to anti-discrimination policies, and we’re confident another vendor who better represents the values of the Western New York Community will replace Chick-fil-A as a part of this project in the very near future.

His final tweet on the matter, “Update: I applaud the decision that has been made to remove Chick-fil-A from plans for the Buffalo Niagara International airport. Thank you to everyone who reached out to share their opinion.

In the case legalizing homosexual marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S 2015, Justice Kennedy writing for the Majority held that , "Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here...  Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

As part of his Dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts held that, "Today's decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution...  Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority's decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 2607. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission,, 584 U.S. 2018, the court reiterated its view that opposition to homosexual marriage is rational as a matter of law, however it also held that “while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applica­ble public accommodations law.”

How can a company that was named the “Best Franchise Brand” by Airport News, named one of the Top 100 Best Places to Work with a Glassdoor Employees’ Choice Award and named as one of Forbes Best Employers be able to engage in wonton discrimination as asserted? There is no evidence that the company has a policy or practice that would refuse service or treat a customer in a different manner based on one’s status or membership in any protected class. The same can be said of their hiring practices which treat all applicants and employees with fairness, dignity and respect based on Christian values to love one another. 

The NFTA which is a governmental actor failed to act in a neutral manner towards the religious beliefs of the owners of Chick-fil-A when considering the request by Assemblyman Ryan to remove Chick-fil-A as an approved airport vendor contrary to the Free Exercise Claus. The NFTA, Delaware North and Assemblyman Ryan acted in an overt hostile manner toward Chick-fil-A and decided to pass judgment on the Cathy family’s deeply held religious beliefs, expressions and the company’s adherence to Christian principles as illegitimate. The decision by the NFTA and Delaware North to remove Chick-fil-A as an approved airport vendor was arbitrary and capricious in that there is no evidence that Chick-fil-A engaged in any unlawful discrimination against any prospective customer or in their employment practices. In fact, NFTA and Delaware North engaged in discrimination against Chick-fil-A solely based on the company and its owner’s religious beliefs, expression and viewpoint. 

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 2014, the Supreme Court recognized that a closely held for-profit corporation does have a right to express their religious beliefs and is a covered entity under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Chick-fil-A is no different.

As a protected entity under the religious liberty clause of the first amendment, RFRA and as enumerated in Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty [1] with the US Attorney General’s Memorandum of Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty, [2]  it is without question that Chick-fil-A has standing to contest the unlawful discrimination taken by state actors who receive federal funds.

As a Christian, a taxpayer, a resident of New York, and an airline consumer, I find the actions of Mr. Ryan, NFTA and Delaware North to be chilling as they are all well aware of the fundamental constitutional rights afforded to all Americans even closely held companies. [3] The basis of their decision to remove Chick-fil-A as an airport vendor is absurd. If their so-called reasoning is carried to its logical conclusion, that would mean any person or covered entity of faith who donates to a church, religious institution or organization that espouses their deeply held beliefs about traditional marriage or other honest disagreements over morality, they would be barred from participating in society related to business and government contracts in effect becoming outcasts.

If these discriminatory actions are left unchallenged, it would place all Americans of faith at risk of becoming second class citizens simply due to their deeply held beliefs, one’s disagreement with changes to public policy or expressing their public opinion on matters of morality.  

As the NFTA along with the Buffalo Niagara International Airport receive federal funds and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for investigating complaints against recipients of Federal financial assistance in FAA programs, I am therefore requesting that the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Civil Rights launch an investigation into this matter.