I think several here were saying the same thing (IMO).



This is highly vulnerable to interpretation bias and personal convictions?

IMO

how so?

How you view that is different than the CC, which is probably different than the SDA, etc. Also inside of that is the personal level of personal convictions as to 'what' breaks G-D's heart.

(Tongue in cheek): McDonalds should put its money where its mouth is. Personally I don't take my mouth anywhere near McDonalds because they serve sub-standard food!

IMO the whole issue is fairly simple: The beauty of the market is that it allows consumers to vote with their money. So, if you disagree with McDonalds stance on the issue and how they're promoting a particular agenda, you can vote by not giving them your money in future. Just as if you support their stance you can vote by giving them your money and buying some cheeseburgers etc..

As such I don't see any problem with such a boycott. If some people believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and don't wish to support companies that promote same-sex marriage, that's their right. It's their money to spend, after all.

Maudlin27,

BINGO! It is as you say, the whole issue is fairly simple...the consumer has the power of the purse!

One other thing..in order to get more bang to the boycott...the boycotter ought to write or call the company and tell them that he's no longer going to be a customer and why.

I just read this from LifesiteNews and thought I'd post it as a follow-up....

Boycott Successful: McDonald's Abandons Homosexual Activism

By Kathleen Gilbert

OAK BROOK, Illinois, October 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The American Family Association (AFA) announced the end of a successful boycott yesterday against McDonald's Corporation. McDonald's has severed its ties to a homosexual business group and declared neutrality in the culture wars as per AFA's request.

AFA's five-month boycott ended after Richard Ellis, former McDonald's vice president of U.S. communications, left his seat on the board of directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).  McDonald's, which was offered the seat after donating $20,000 to the NGLCC, has announced there are no plans to replace Ellis on the board. 

In an email to its franchise owners, McDonald's said, "It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald's remains neutral on same sex marriage or any 'homosexual agenda' as defined by the American Family Association."

"The franchise owners understood very early that this was an issue that McDonald's did not need to be involved in from a corporate level and they needed to stick with serving good food products in a convenient way, at a good price," said AFA's director of special projects Randy Sharp,

Although McDonald's still appears as an official partner and sponsor on NGLCC's website, the burger giant told the AFA that the restaurant chain does not plan to renew its membership after it expires in December.

The AFA, a Christian association dedicated to advancing traditional family values, launched the boycott in May shortly after McDonald's became an official NGLCC sponsor and received a seat on the board with its donation at the chamber's annual fundraising gala.

"I'm thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work," McDonald's Ellis had said upon joining the NGLCC board in March. "I look forward to playing a role in moving these important initiatives forward."

In response Tim Wildmon, president of the AFA, asked McDonald's Corp. not to align themselves with the homosexual agenda and to end their association with the NGLCC. 

"This is so strange, because it's the family that McDonald's appeals to," Wildmon had said. "And they are promoting a lifestyle that would utterly destroy the traditional family."

In a May 29 letter, McDonald's global chief diversity officer Pat Harris responded to Wildmon that they would continue to support the NGLCC's agenda, and would "take this opportunity to reaffirm our position on diversity."

The NGLCC lobbies Congress for homosexual equality, including legal recognition of homosexual unions.

AFA then urged its 2.2 million members to reject McDonald's and spread the boycott message, which was "not about hiring homosexuals or how homosexuals are treated," but only "about McDonald's, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars." 

Now that McDonald's has declared neutrality regarding homosexuality, said Wildmon, the boycott can finally be declared a success.

"The fact of the matter is they've done what we've asked them to do," he said.

Wilson added a note of gratitude in the AFA website's statement.  "We appreciate the decision by McDonald's to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations," he said.  "You might want to thank your local McDonald's manager."

 

Lula I wrote an update on this as soon as it came out like a week or two ago. 

I was away from work, home and computer when this news story (and your update) came out.  

Ah, c'mon LW, stop pressing the wrong button.....no one involving or supporting the boycott is against homosexuals owning or working at eating establishments...(and again, who would know anyway, unless they want to be detected)?

 

 

In some ways this is an example of a better functioning Democracy than what is going on at the moment! Some people feel McDonalds should support an issue, others feel they shouldn't/should remain neutral, and the group that feels most strongly about it overall (i.e. the group who will 'put the most money where their mouth is', and hence the group that McDonalds will maximise revenues by choosing) 'wins'. Meanwhile it still leaves a niche there for another company to support the issue if they feel that there are sufficient revenues to justify their entry. Thanks for providing the update on it!

yes, and I'm all about going to McDonalds now to get my ice cream!  Here it's just a short golf cart ride away. 

I ran across this "heated" article and while it is a subject I'm not very interested in personally, I am interested in the human condition as a whole. That said, let me get to the point.

Apparently something has occurred in stark contrast to Chucks article here. Target (and Best Buy) has donated a large sum of cash to a Republican, I will assume for his pro business stance. It turns out this Republican politician is not a fan of the gay agenda. Now gay activists are proposing a boycott of Target (and Best Buy) until they contribute a like amount to a pro-gay politician (which one can assume is a Democrat). You can read the details HERE.

I realize many of this articles commenter's no longer post here, so this may be skewed. I'm curious if everyone applies the same logic to their position now that the target (no pun intended) is reversed. What say you?

They have been trying to do that for a long time.  Like most boycotts that are mostly political instead of ethical, they have never had any success.

When it comes to a pissing contest, gays will lose, and most know it, so they do not go along with it.

Yeah, I have my opinion on the controversy. I'm not really interested in the right or wrong of it. What does interest me is the position of the commenter's here. Would they support the opposition now that the position is reversed, or keep to the group they support despite the which side of the boycott the two parties are on. I remember this article when it first appeared. I didn't participate due to lack of interest. Now that the situation (while not exactly the same, but close enough) is reversed, I thought it would be interesting to compare attitudes on the issue. Some times these older articles hold their relevancy. At the very least it helps one determine if they support a principle or a cause. I'm not looking to reheat anything, just take an introspective look.

I know.  This is true.  I have yet to hear of one successful homosexual boycott.  They are having enough time trying to go thru the judical system getting their way and in order to do so they have to circumvent the vote of the people every time. 

I had to take a minute to remember this article I wrote so long ago now.  You bring up an interesting point Nitro.  I was wondering where you were in the discussion as I looked over a few of the pages to refamiliarize myself with the subject matter.  I recently heard about the Target situation but didn't know it included Best Buy as well. 

To me I think it makes more sense for a business to give to the Conservatives than it does the Liberals.  To me it just makes good economic sense.  I can't imagine a business wanting to give to the liberals who are not only willing to take that money but the rest that's in the till as well. 

So what is your opinion?