3 ms·

>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

by 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.

afterburner 14y ago
That's not the distinction I'm making. But I see where we're talking past each other: you're primarily concerned with what the company or CEO has a right to do. I'm talking about how big a deal that action is (personal donation of CEO vs company policy statement from CEO). And it has nothing to do with private vs publicly held. Sure, I agree, they both have a right to do what they did. But, opinions on the key issue aside, those two actions had a different scale and connotation to them. As for rights, try to keep in mind the key issue here is a debate on a specific right as well. What people are debating is changing the law, changing your rights. If local governments feel a certain right or something they desire to be considered a right is being infringed on or threatened by a company, then it's no longer so black and white.

by learc83 14y ago

afterburner 14y ago

That's not the distinction I'm making. But I see where we're talking past each other: you're primarily concerned with what the company or CEO has a right to do. I'm talking about how big a deal that action is (personal donation of CEO vs company policy statement from CEO). And it has nothing to do with private vs publicly held. Sure, I agree, they both have a right to do what they did. But, opinions on the key issue aside, those two actions had a different scale and connotation to them. As for rights, try to keep in mind the key issue here is a debate on a specific right as well. What people are debating is changing the law, changing your rights. If local governments feel a certain right or something they desire to be considered a right is being infringed on or threatened by a company, then it's no longer so black and white.