Shad
Veteran Member
There is a difference between boycotting and protesting to the point of closure. Closure is not because of lost profits but of a minority screaming a lot.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"LGBTQ Activists Shut Down Britain’s Only Chick-fil-A Just 9 Days After Opening"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
There is a difference between boycotting and protesting to the point of closure. Closure is not because of lost profits but of a minority screaming a lot.
Sounds like the closure was mainly because the landlord decided that Chick-fil-A's lease would not be extended beyond the trial period. Once that happened, it seems that Chick-fil-A decided to close immediately instead of waiting until the end of the term of their lease.
Edit: the protestors exercised their free speech, and the landlord exercised the legal rights in their agreement. What do you think Chick-fil-A was entitled to that they didn't get?
Shad
Veteran Member
Yes hence why I said profits which would be an internal reason to close. It was the Mall reacting to the screaming of a minority of a minority (Alphabet people that are activists and leftists).
Makes sense to close when the leaser is outright not going to provide a new lease. It takes time and money to remove stock and equipment. Cut your loses and get out of a dead deal.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Did not you know? Christian Privilege guarantees them the "right" to persecute any and all people they consider inferior?
Whenever this expected Privilege is curtailed? They cry "persecution"... as if it was...
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
They can go on believing all of the dumb, silly crap they want. What's important to me is that people's rights and freedoms are upheld and protected, so I wouldn't want my money funding anything contrary to that.
It makes sense for a business to consider the opinions of the customers they want to attract. What's the issue?
That's what I was getting at.
Shad
Veteran Member
Which was already considered as they opened the store. If you haven't noticed the business has not really cared about a tiny minority of activists flipping out. At times it helps their business as real customers and new customer increase their level of patronage.
The closure was due to the lease not being renewed due to non-customers action. Neither of us know how profitable the store in quest was. Again a minority screamed and the Mall didn't like the optics.
Sure but the closure was coming regardless due to the outrage mob's acts. The Mall didn't care until the optics were released followed by a dose of guilt by association.
The business I was talking about was the landlord: the food court owner. However few activists there were - plus however many other people who now saw their business in a negative light - it was enough that they decided to terminate the lease.
Now... whether this was due to an attack of conscience, concerns about their reputation, a dropoff in sales to their tenants, or difficulties arising with getting new tenants, that's not clear. Whatever the case, they had the right to boot Chick-fil-A out and saw that it was in their interest to do so.
But then when the business saw the damage that was being done to their reputation, they did damage control by invoking their rights in the lease. Makes sense to me.
Yes, I agree with that. As I said, I don't spend money at this particular chicken house, nor will I buy beer from Coors, which used to spout anti-LGBTetc. stuff. But while I spend my money as I choose, I don't see it as my place to tell anybody how to spend theirs, or even to tell the owners of a business what they ought to think and say.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What's the story with Coors?
I did a quote google search and found this: Coors Light’s Commitment to the LGBTQ Community | The Center on Colfax - LGBTQ Colorado
Not that I drink that swill anyway.
That's now. Coors did not always say that -- quite the reverse in the 1970s, when they had a practice of firing gay people when they were found out, so it's just something I've never wanted to purchase. And in any case, you're right -- it's swill.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Coors is akin to sex in a canoe... it's..... something-something close to water...
I actually like Coors. It's Miller and Bud that's swill (although Bud Light Platinum is great). If a company has changed its way and been consistent with it, I don't see the point of holding it against them now.
May I quote this in a thread making fun of Coors drinkers?
I'll put it in the jokes forum, since everyone knows that Coors is a joke.
Tom
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I'm not big on domestics in general. My favorite is Moosehead lager.
I prefer IPAs and craft beers in general, myself.
I misspoke. I meant Chevron, not Shell. Chevron is destroying the Amazon rainforest.
I started drinking about five years ago. Can’t stand lagers and was hooked on IPAs. I’ve recently tried branching out to pilsners wietbiers, other ales, ciders and so on. It’s quite the adventure!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
My current favorite is Irish Death Ale.
Their packaging got me to try it. I could not resist their Square root of 36 pack. "Because math".
Ah. Apparently, there are no Chevron stations in Canada except for B.C., so that one's a moot point for me, too.
Edit: I guess except when I'm travelling in the US. As it is, I try to avoid BP, but I'll try to avoid Chevron down there, too.