In related news, I'm amazed at the people who not only think a boycott is ineffective, but that one shouldn't consider a business to be boycottable simply because of things like donations and personal views of the man who is effectively the company's "face".
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... -a/260139/
It's a slippery slope argument... but the religious-wrapped-nutbars have already been mandating the "boycott unless they absolutely stay out of the field or come down firmly on our side" line.
On the other hand, that the company has made these donations at all means, no matter the arguments that the debate needs to remain solely in the governmental and political arenas and not spill over into the business arena, the company has firmly involved itself in those arenas.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... -a/260139/
It's a slippery slope argument... but the religious-wrapped-nutbars have already been mandating the "boycott unless they absolutely stay out of the field or come down firmly on our side" line.
On the other hand, that the company has made these donations at all means, no matter the arguments that the debate needs to remain solely in the governmental and political arenas and not spill over into the business arena, the company has firmly involved itself in those arenas.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor