The city of San Antonio has spent more than $300,000 in its effort to prevent a Chick-fil-A restaurant from opening in its airport because of the company's alleged "legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior," according to KENS-TV.

Since the city council voted to exclude Chick-fil-A from airport plans last March, the city has been hit with two lawsuits and an investigation by the state's attorney general.

In response to the original decision to ban Chick-fil-A, Texas lawmakers passed a "Save Chick-fil-A" law, which "prohibits government entities from taking "adverse actions" against businesses or individuals because of their religious beliefs or moral convictions," according to NBC News.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, in addition to signing the "Save Chick-fil-A" bill, supported state attorney general Ken Paxton in opening an investigation into potential religious discrimination by the San Antonio City Council.

"The Constitution's protection of religious liberty is somehow even better than Chick-fil-A's chicken," Paxton wrote in a letter to the council. "Unfortunately, I have serious concerns that both are under assault at the San Antonio airport."

At issue is Chick-fil-A's Christian principles, which led it to donate to organizations that are deemed by some to be anti-LGBTQ, such as the Salvation Army or the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Chick-fil-A recently ended its support for the groups in question, sparking criticism from supporters that the company was caving in to liberal demands and abandoning Christian organizations.

CEO Dan Cathy later expressed regret that the move was interpreted as discrediting Christian organizations, and claimed that the company was not abandoning its long-held values.

"We understand how some thought we were abandoning our longstanding support of faith-based organizations," Cathy wrote in a letter. "We inadvertently discredited several outstanding organizations that have effectively served communities for years. Some also questioned if our commitment to our Corporate Purpose was waning. Let me state unequivocally: It is not."