4 ms·

I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention. First Chick-fil-A's CEO, now Amazon's. For someone who is socially lacking, cou

I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention. First Chick-fil-A's CEO, now Amazon's. For someone who is socially lacking, could someone explain to me why these generate so much news?

true_religion 14y ago
Their money spent is intended to affect change in the general population. It's not as if they just spent it on cars and caviar.
bmac27 14y ago
People gravitate towards these hot button, black or white issues. And when a major figure (be it a company, celebrity, athlete etc.) comes out for or against one of these issues, it generates a lot of unnecessary buzz. It's easy to rant about most people's priorities when it comes to the information they consumer (trivialities over real news) but the saddest thing to me is that the universally positive causes that public figures/companies etc. donate huge sums of money to (charities & the like) usually go unnoticed as a result.
afterburner 14y ago
The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money.
- learc83 14y ago
  >The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money. Since it's a privately held company, I don't really see much difference. Also Chick-Fil-A has been well known for decades, as a company that supports biblical principles. I live in Georgia where they're from, and I don't think they'd be nearly as large as they are today without the brand loyalty that support has built them.
  - mfringel 14y ago
    And now Chick-Fil-A continues to expand out of its home region, and the things they used to garner that support in Georgia may not help them in the Northeast, where religion is considered a more private affair.
  - afterburner 14y ago
    So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of company policy? Just curious. Besides, it's not like people are saying the Chick-Fil-A president can't say what he said. The story here is that a lot of people are deeply unimpressed with his statement, and are effectively enacting a de facto boycott (not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance). It's perfectly fine for this to be discussed, and besides you possibly not identifying with the complainants (as you point out in another comment here), I don't see why you object to it. (Note that I am mainly responding to the parent comment from another user: "I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention".)
    - learc83 14y ago
      >So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of company policy? Just curious. No, Amazon is a publicly held company, not solely Bezos' property (I doubt his board would even let him do the same thing). Chick-Fil-A is for all intents and purposes is the "personal money" of the owners, so I see no difference in what someone does with his money or his property. I'm fine with the boycott. I don't support it, but I respect it. What I'm not fine is this. >not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance If a local government denies building permits to a business because it disagrees with the owner's speech, that is a blatant first amendment violation. Far more knowledgeable people than myself have said the same thing. I really doubt the lawyers for whatever municipality plans on banning them will allow that to happen. If the people of a local community don't want Chick-Fil-A there, they won't patronize it. Chik-Fil-A's market research will probably find that out and they won't build there.
mhurron 14y ago
The issue with Chick-fil-A is not what the CEO does with his own money, but that Chick-fil-A the company donates money to anti-gay hate groups. Chick-fil-A gets their money from their customers. Personally, I would rather not have a hand in giving them more. I'm sure that the CEO also gives of his own money to the same and possibly more groups, but that is his money to do with as he pleases. It makes him look like a bigoted ass, but that's his choice.
gddr 14y ago
Theres's A LOT of emotional weight attached to these kind of issues. People tend to pick one side and feel identified with them (ingroups) and get angry at people at the other side. Politics basically. It's funny/depressing to go at certain forums/imageboards and see people CONSTANTLY attacking the same thing, every day again and again. If someone defends them (or attacks their own side) they are obviously gonna get angry.
rayiner 14y ago
These people are funding public campaigns and making public statements with their "own money." It's not like Chick-fil-A's CEO said something to one of Chick-fil-A's board members and the media jumped over it. He spent millions of dollars trying to raise public support for anti-gay legislation. They generate news because they entered a public debate with heir actions.

true_religion 14y ago

Their money spent is intended to affect change in the general population. It's not as if they just spent it on cars and caviar.

bmac27 14y ago

People gravitate towards these hot button, black or white issues. And when a major figure (be it a company, celebrity, athlete etc.) comes out for or against one of these issues, it generates a lot of unnecessary buzz. It's easy to rant about most people's priorities when it comes to the information they consumer (trivialities over real news) but the saddest thing to me is that the universally positive causes that public figures/companies etc. donate huge sums of money to (charities & the like) usually go unnoticed as a result.

afterburner 14y ago

The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money.

learc83 14y ago
>The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money. Since it's a privately held company, I don't really see much difference. Also Chick-Fil-A has been well known for decades, as a company that supports biblical principles. I live in Georgia where they're from, and I don't think they'd be nearly as large as they are today without the brand loyalty that support has built them.
- mfringel 14y ago
  And now Chick-Fil-A continues to expand out of its home region, and the things they used to garner that support in Georgia may not help them in the Northeast, where religion is considered a more private affair.
- afterburner 14y ago
  So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of company policy? Just curious. Besides, it's not like people are saying the Chick-Fil-A president can't say what he said. The story here is that a lot of people are deeply unimpressed with his statement, and are effectively enacting a de facto boycott (not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance). It's perfectly fine for this to be discussed, and besides you possibly not identifying with the complainants (as you point out in another comment here), I don't see why you object to it. (Note that I am mainly responding to the parent comment from another user: "I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention".)
  - learc83 14y ago
    >So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of company policy? Just curious. No, Amazon is a publicly held company, not solely Bezos' property (I doubt his board would even let him do the same thing). Chick-Fil-A is for all intents and purposes is the "personal money" of the owners, so I see no difference in what someone does with his money or his property. I'm fine with the boycott. I don't support it, but I respect it. What I'm not fine is this. >not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance If a local government denies building permits to a business because it disagrees with the owner's speech, that is a blatant first amendment violation. Far more knowledgeable people than myself have said the same thing. I really doubt the lawyers for whatever municipality plans on banning them will allow that to happen. If the people of a local community don't want Chick-Fil-A there, they won't patronize it. Chik-Fil-A's market research will probably find that out and they won't build there.

mhurron 14y ago

The issue with Chick-fil-A is not what the CEO does with his own money, but that Chick-fil-A the company donates money to anti-gay hate groups. Chick-fil-A gets their money from their customers. Personally, I would rather not have a hand in giving them more. I'm sure that the CEO also gives of his own money to the same and possibly more groups, but that is his money to do with as he pleases. It makes him look like a bigoted ass, but that's his choice.

gddr 14y ago

Theres's A LOT of emotional weight attached to these kind of issues. People tend to pick one side and feel identified with them (ingroups) and get angry at people at the other side. Politics basically. It's funny/depressing to go at certain forums/imageboards and see people CONSTANTLY attacking the same thing, every day again and again. If someone defends them (or attacks their own side) they are obviously gonna get angry.

rayiner 14y ago

These people are funding public campaigns and making public statements with their "own money." It's not like Chick-fil-A's CEO said something to one of Chick-fil-A's board members and the media jumped over it. He spent millions of dollars trying to raise public support for anti-gay legislation. They generate news because they entered a public debate with heir actions.