San Antonio sued for excluding Chick-Fil-A from airport

San Antonio sued for excluding Chick-Fil-A from airport


INDICTED IN THE
5 NEW CASES AND REMAINS JAILED
IN LIEU OF MILLION BOND IN EACH 5 NEW CASES AND REMAINS JAILED
IN LIEU OF MILLION BOND IN EACH
OF THOSE CASES. IN LIEU OF MILLION BOND IN EACH
OF THOSE CASES.
>>TURNING NOW TO THE LATEST IN OF THOSE CASES.
>>TURNING NOW TO THE LATEST IN
THE SAGA OF SAN ANTONIO VERSUS>>TURNING NOW TO THE LATEST IN
THE SAGA OF SAN ANTONIO VERSUS
AT CHICK-FIL-A THE CITY NOW THE SAGA OF SAN ANTONIO VERSUS
AT CHICK-FIL-A THE CITY NOW
BEING SUED FOR ITS DECISION TO AT CHICK-FIL-A THE CITY NOW
BEING SUED FOR ITS DECISION TO
BAN THE RESTAURANT FROM BEING SUED FOR ITS DECISION TO
BAN THE RESTAURANT FROM
THE AIRPORT AS STEPHANIE SERNA BAN THE RESTAURANT FROM
THE AIRPORT AS STEPHANIE SERNA
REPORTS TONIGHT, THE SAN THE AIRPORT AS STEPHANIE SERNA
REPORTS TONIGHT, THE SAN
ANTONIO FAMILY FOUNDATION REPORTS TONIGHT, THE SAN
ANTONIO FAMILY FOUNDATION
ASSOCIATION RATHER A GROUP ANTONIO FAMILY FOUNDATION
ASSOCIATION RATHER A GROUP
BEHIND THAT SUIT SAYS THEY’RE ASSOCIATION RATHER A GROUP
BEHIND THAT SUIT SAYS THEY’RE
PREPARED TO TAKE THE LAWSUIT BEHIND THAT SUIT SAYS THEY’RE
PREPARED TO TAKE THE LAWSUIT
ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME PREPARED TO TAKE THE LAWSUIT
ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME
COURT. ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME
COURT.
>>THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY COURT.
>>THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY
OVER ITS DECISION TO BAN>>THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY
OVER ITS DECISION TO BAN
CHICK-FIL-A FROM OVER ITS DECISION TO BAN
CHICK-FIL-A FROM
THE AIRPORT. WHAT IS FILED CHICK-FIL-A FROM
THE AIRPORT. WHAT IS FILED
UNDER WHAT’S KNOWN AS A THE AIRPORT. WHAT IS FILED
UNDER WHAT’S KNOWN AS A
CHICK-FIL-A LAW THAT TOOK UNDER WHAT’S KNOWN AS A
CHICK-FIL-A LAW THAT TOOK
EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 1ST CHICK-FIL-A LAW THAT TOOK
EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 1ST
UNDER THE LAW CITIZENS MAY SUE EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 1ST
UNDER THE LAW CITIZENS MAY SUE
A GOVERNMENT ENTITY. THE TAKE UNDER THE LAW CITIZENS MAY SUE
A GOVERNMENT ENTITY. THE TAKE
ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST SOMEONE A GOVERNMENT ENTITY. THE TAKE
ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST SOMEONE
BASED ON ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST SOMEONE
BASED ON
THEIR DONATIONS TO RELIGIOUS BASED ON
THEIR DONATIONS TO RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION HAS ALREADY BEEN THEIR DONATIONS TO RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION HAS ALREADY BEEN
ADJUDICATED NATIONWIDE. EVERY ORGANIZATION HAS ALREADY BEEN
ADJUDICATED NATIONWIDE. EVERY
PRECINCT SAYS IS A ADJUDICATED NATIONWIDE. EVERY
PRECINCT SAYS IS A
NOW BOOK. PRECINCT SAYS IS A
NOW BOOK.
>>AN OVERREACH FROM THE CITY NOW BOOK.
>>AN OVERREACH FROM THE CITY
COUNCIL STANDPOINT, AND IT>>AN OVERREACH FROM THE CITY
COUNCIL STANDPOINT, AND IT
REALLY IS BECAUSE IT IS COUNCIL STANDPOINT, AND IT
REALLY IS BECAUSE IT IS
AGAINST RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND REALLY IS BECAUSE IT IS
AGAINST RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND
RELIGIOUS A FREEDOM MY KONECKI AGAINST RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND
RELIGIOUS A FREEDOM MY KONECKI
WITH THE SAN ANTONIO FAMILY RELIGIOUS A FREEDOM MY KONECKI
WITH THE SAN ANTONIO FAMILY
ASSOCIATION AND ONE OF THE 5 WITH THE SAN ANTONIO FAMILY
ASSOCIATION AND ONE OF THE 5
PLAINTIFFS. ASSOCIATION AND ONE OF THE 5
PLAINTIFFS.
>>TELLS US THAT THE PLAINTIFFS.
>>TELLS US THAT THE
ASSOCIATION IS THERE TO PROTECT>>TELLS US THAT THE
ASSOCIATION IS THERE TO PROTECT
FAMILIES. SO THEY HAD TO DO ASSOCIATION IS THERE TO PROTECT
FAMILIES. SO THEY HAD TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THE CITY’S FAMILIES. SO THEY HAD TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THE CITY’S
DECISION BUT WHAT THEY DIDN’T SOMETHING ABOUT THE CITY’S
DECISION BUT WHAT THEY DIDN’T
THINK ABOUT IT A COUPLE OF DECISION BUT WHAT THEY DIDN’T
THINK ABOUT IT A COUPLE OF
THINGS FIRST OF ALL WHAT WHAT’S THINK ABOUT IT A COUPLE OF
THINGS FIRST OF ALL WHAT WHAT’S
IT GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYERS THINGS FIRST OF ALL WHAT WHAT’S
IT GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYERS
OF SAN ANTONIO. IT GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYERS
OF SAN ANTONIO.
>>TO DEFEND SUCH A WEAK CASE OF SAN ANTONIO.
>>TO DEFEND SUCH A WEAK CASE
BECAUSE OUR FACTS ARE>>TO DEFEND SUCH A WEAK CASE
BECAUSE OUR FACTS ARE
IRREFUTABLE A HIT. WE’RE GOING BECAUSE OUR FACTS ARE
IRREFUTABLE A HIT. WE’RE GOING
TO WIN THIS CASE, IRREFUTABLE A HIT. WE’RE GOING
TO WIN THIS CASE,
WE’LL TAKE IT ALL THE WAY THE TO WIN THIS CASE,
WE’LL TAKE IT ALL THE WAY THE
SUPREME COURT IF NECESSARY WE’LL TAKE IT ALL THE WAY THE
SUPREME COURT IF NECESSARY
TODAY, THE CITY RELEASED THIS SUPREME COURT IF NECESSARY
TODAY, THE CITY RELEASED THIS
STATEMENT THAT SAYS IN PART. TODAY, THE CITY RELEASED THIS
STATEMENT THAT SAYS IN PART.
>>THIS LAWSUIT IS AN ATTEMPT STATEMENT THAT SAYS IN PART.
>>THIS LAWSUIT IS AN ATTEMPT
BY THE PLAINTIFFS TO IMPROPERLY>>THIS LAWSUIT IS AN ATTEMPT
BY THE PLAINTIFFS TO IMPROPERLY
USE THE COURT TO ADVANCE THEIR BY THE PLAINTIFFS TO IMPROPERLY
USE THE COURT TO ADVANCE THEIR
POLITICAL AGENDA. AMONG THE USE THE COURT TO ADVANCE THEIR
POLITICAL AGENDA. AMONG THE
MANY WITNESSES IN THEIR CASE. POLITICAL AGENDA. AMONG THE
MANY WITNESSES IN THEIR CASE.
THEY ARE TRYING TO RELY ON THE MANY WITNESSES IN THEIR CASE.
THEY ARE TRYING TO RELY ON THE
LAW THAT DID NOT EXIST WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO RELY ON THE
LAW THAT DID NOT EXIST WHEN
COUNCIL VOTED ON THE AIRPORT

One thought on “San Antonio sued for excluding Chick-Fil-A from airport

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *