To the Editor,
A letter to the Editor on January 3rd, 2024 by Steve Davis (in response to Frank Mauriello) argued forcefully in favor of new requirements for Thruway rest stop restaurants to be open seven days a week, in reference to possible new restrictions placed on Chick-fil-A. His argument was framed in such a way as to suggest that Chick-fil-A was not meeting its contractual obligations and that State Assembly action would remedy the situation.
I believe this framing is significantly flawed and that Mr. Mauriello was ultimately correct. When the new Thruway rest stops were announced, it was no secret that Chick-fil-A would be included by the rest stop operator, Applegreen. There was no expectation that it would be open seven days a week, hence the need for this supposed correction. Additionally, state leaders knew or should have known that Chick-fil-A isn’t open every day of the
week. This was not a new development that occurred after the agreement with Applegreen was reached. Going back now and changing the requirements would show bad faith on the part of the State, not Chick-fil-A.
Steve also stated this wasn’t a First Amendment issue. I don’t agree. When the Assemblyman introducing the legislation made it clear he has a political axe to grind with Chick-fil-A, the motives – and Constitutional legitimacy – of changing
State contracting should definitely be called into question.
While it may seem like a frivolous item of discussion, this issue isn’t ultimately about chicken sandwiches. It’s about the State knowing what it was agreeing to when signing an agreement and certain State actors trying to change the rules afterwards driven by unconstitutional motives.
Anthony DiPiazza, Cohoes
This story was featured on page 6 of the January 17th , 2024 print edition of the Spotlight
