>>87438684>But he did. Fired in 2014 for something that happened in 2008.>. No one should be fired for opinions the held in the pastAnd again, he wasn't fired for what he was thinking back then, but what he was thinking now.
>AND no one should be force to apologize and follow moral fashionsBut you can still get consequence from the view you hold now.
>Agreed, but that'snot the issue. I'll get to that in a minute.It's the very issue of it.
>It was a twitter mob, not a majority of customers. You don't know what a mob is.Going "we will no longer support this product if you keep supporting this view" is not a mob. There can be a lot of whinning added to that, it will still not be a mob.
> Did this cause them to change their mind?For some business it can. But Chick-fill-a has already been established as not following the crowd, nothing new, there. It' snot a mob either.
>Eich getting fired was the equivalent of listening to the twitter complainers and bringing back an underperforning sandwich just to quiet them. 1. I wouldn't compare not wanting to deal with someone who want to forbid rights to gays to desiring the return of an underperforning sandwich.
2. In the end, in either case, it's a business decision. and in either case it is not a mob. but people expressign displeasure with business practices/choices.
>In 2008, Obama was anti-gay marriage.False, he didn't express opinon about it, or considered it was a state legislature issue. that is not the same as being anti-gay.
>So you do seriously support the "no bad tactics, only bad targets" thing. No. I don't. I am saying that it's so much as there is a "moral fashions" as there is rahter a will to progress and make thing fairer to everyone.
THERE IS bad tactics, I simply stated that customers expressing their displeasure with a business for views that have reached the public ear is something, in itself completely legitimate. Not only that, but that is how things have been doing for years.
