Chik Fil A Caves To Activist Mayors

19 Sep 2012 13:36 #1 by FredHayek
Announcing today that they will no longer support anti-gay groups.
How are they defining anti-gay groups I wonder? Obama's re-election committee pre-2012? :lol:

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Sep 2012 13:40 #2 by Martin Ent Inc
Mayors against Illegal straight chickens?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Sep 2012 14:41 - 19 Sep 2012 14:45 #3 by LadyJazzer
While some suggest that the long lines on the Huckabee-declared "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" demonstrate that the company's bottom line wasn't affected, I would suggest to you that there's really no other reason for the company to back down other than it hit them in the bottom-line. We KNOW it wasn't because they had a sudden change-of-heart about their bigotry.

So, I guess the 1-2 day rush of business couldn't make up for the longer-term boycott of their businesses... (Seems I remember predicting that at the time...) :biggrin:

To answer the question in the OP, I think they're defining anti-gay groups as the clowns at places like Exodus International, Focus-on-your-own-damn-Family and the Family Research Council, ad nauseum.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Sep 2012 14:43 #4 by Martin Ent Inc
They are opening several new stores here in CO.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Sep 2012 14:48 #5 by LadyJazzer

Martin Ent Inc wrote: They are opening several new stores here in CO.


How exciting.... Since I've stopped going to their joints, I wish them well with their revised, profit-centric, business model.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Sep 2012 14:59 #6 by Martin Ent Inc
Creating Jobs both now and after they are finished.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Sep 2012 15:27 #7 by PrintSmith
Don't know that I would classify a promise to "re-evaluate" something as caving, more like appeasing long enough to get something approved, but that's just me I suppose. Had they promised to "end all funding" for such groups instead of saying that it would be "re-evaluated", I think you might have an argument that they caved, but it seems to me that the "re-evaluation" could easily result in a decision to continue doing what they've been doing.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Sep 2012 15:56 #8 by navycpo7
So what I am understanding, is that freedom of speech is only free if governments(city, county, state, federal) allows it to be. These mayors need to be pulled aside and given alittle lesson in what freedom of speech is. Now boycotting someone cause you do not like what they did or said is one thing, but this seems alittle more of the pressure thing that just boycotting. Not a damn thing wrong with what they did. He stated his stance on an issue. Mayors don't like it. To damn bad get over yourselfs.
So long as the laws are followed, nothing the mayors can do, unless they are doing it without following the laws. (we all know that does not happen in this country)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Sep 2012 18:51 #9 by Wily Fox aka Angela

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

19 Sep 2012 18:59 #10 by LadyJazzer
Thanks... I signed the first one... But since I don't do FB, I had to skip that one...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.166 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+