The New York legislature is considering a bill that would require Chick-fil-Ato be open on Sundays. The bill would essentially establish an alleged right to eat fried chicken. The bill’s author said, “Look, if you want to eat fried chicken while traveling over the holidays, then Chick-fil-A should be open on Sundays.” In other words, it is the responsibility a business to satisfy every consumer desire, regardless of the business’ own desires.
Chick-fil-A often draws the ire of Progressives Regressives because the owner takes positions that the political Left doesn’t like. Closing on Sunday to allow employees to “rest or worship” has been a company policy since its founding in 1946, and Regressives don’t like that policy.
Of course, there is no such thing as a right to eat fried chicken. There is a right to produce and sell fried chicken on the terms of one’s choosing. For consumers, there is the right to buy fried chicken from willing sellers on terms that are mutually agreeable. The proposed law would force Chick-fil-A to trade on terms that it did not voluntarily choose.
The bill’s author claims that it is intended to provide travelers with a “diversity of food options.” But what if travelers want chicken tikka masala, smothered pork chops, or a shrimp Po-boy? According to the bill’s author, restaurants should be forced to add these items to their menu. Otherwise, travelers will be denied a “diversity of food options.”
Businesses have a vested interest in providing consumers with options. But no business can be all things to all people. The options that it offers are determined by what the owner thinks most appropriate.
If government officials truly want consumers to have a diversity of options, then those officials should restore freedom to producers. We don’t need a “right” to eat fried chicken. We do need the right to produce and trade.