You're a Mean One, Grinch Alert

[paft.livejournal.com]

Robert Jeffress:

Well, you know every year people bemoan the War on Christmas and I thought, “Let’s do something positive about it,” so we created this website, Grinchalert.com, it allows people to go on our website and, uh, if they’ve encountered a business that shuns Christmas they can talk about it and put that business on the naughty list but if they find a business that celebrates Christmas, they can put that business on the nice list. It’s just a fun way to say to businesses and organizations, “You don’t have to bow to political correctness. It’s okay to say, “Merry Christmas…”

John Roberts: What if businesses who are on the naughty list lose customers?... Would it be a good idea to affect people’s business at this season, which can be make or break for some people, and in this economic climate?

Jeffress: John, let me make it clear, we have never even hinted at a boycott…

"Never even hinted at a boycott?" Really? Here’s what Jeffress said on Fox:

Jeffress: One great example in the Dallas area, there was a bank that took down a Christmas tree because they said it would offend customers. Well, there was another bank that got put on our nice list, the Providence Bank, because they put up a nativity scene. The CEO told me yesterday that there were customers changing from the bank that removed the Christmas tree, and they’re flocking to his bank.

Gretchen Carlson: You are not calling for a boycott of any of these businesses….

Jeffress: Oh, not at all, not in any way! You know, there’s a Mexican restaurant you mentioned that was saying Happy Holidays, but our family still goes there every week…

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

So it’s all about reassuring businesses. Honest! It’s all about making them feel nice and safe. He’s not advocating a boycott.

But he’s delighted to share as an example that little story of a bank losing customers because they took down a Christmas tree.

See, here's what mystifies me about this... Jeffress likes the idea of forcing other people and businesses to utter "Merry Christmas" and post signs saying "Merry Christmas" who are uncomfortable doing it. Do the people at "Grinch Alert" really imagine that businesses and retailers intimidated into towing Grinch Alert's line are acting in the spirit of the season?

And here's one more video, especially for the Reverend Mr. Jeffress:

Thanx to Juliebogen

Crossposted at Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I've been libertarian in my views for many years now, and I actually have shopped at the local Whole Foods since the time it was called Wild Oats before it was bought out by the former.

If you think the impression of Whole Foods was that of a company that supported liberal causes, Wild Oats was a place where that impression was fostered moreso - the staff wore friggin' Che style berets for extra added effect. They had good food, which I why I went there.

I get that there are people who feel strongly enough about it to stop shopping there (the response letter you cited was rather inflammatory, by the by, with ad-homs and mischaracterizations), just as I get that there are people for whom hearing "Merry Christmas" is important enough to change their shopping habits. I say that if that's what they want, more power to them. I can still think in my own detached estimation that both seem equally silly, but it also doesn't bother me the way the subject of the OP seems to bother paft.

"It was fine when I thought Whole Foods CEO shared my politics, but now that he's expressed himself to the contrary, I can't shop there anymore." sounds every bit as silly as "It was fine when that store used to say 'Merry Christmas', but now that I heard them saying 'Happy Holidays', they won't get my dollar any more."

It's a silly prerogative to me, but it's their prerogative.

[nikoel.livejournal.com]

Not allowing workers to unionize and telling them to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas are not equatable in the least. It's pretty offensive for you to try.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I'll say it again: The boycott against Whole Foods was organized in response to this op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html), not in reaction to company policy on unionizing. In other words, as a reaction to free political speech.

I'll give you a bazillion kudos if you can find where in the article it pontificates on unionization. And yes, I do know of Mackey's position against unionization. It was in place well before the boycott was called. Even the Kos response nevermind6794 linked to didn't even get into unions, even though it took the time to try and assume positions Mackey never talked about regarding the Iraq war.

[nikoel.livejournal.com]

You're right that it doesn't mention being anti-union, that's just my own personal reason for boycotting Whole Foods. I also staunchly disagree with his op-ed piece and it solidified my desire to never shop in one of his stores. It's pretty damn disingenuous considering his employees make an average of $12/hr and the deductibles on the company provided health care are so high. Then you add the fat shaming, ignoring of hereditary disease and the fact that there are millions of Americans who work for employers that don't provide health care at all and their wages are so low they can't afford the ridiculous costs. These latter people wind up in our ERs and the taxpayers wind up footing the bill because the people simply can't afford to pay. "Obamacare" doesn't even go nearly far enough to address these issues, but it's a step in the right direction.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I think they're both generally silly, but Mackey went out of his way to offend his silly customers. It was a complaint about something he actively did.

That doesn't seem equivalent to customers being offended by a company being inclusive in its holiday wishes, since the complaint in that scenario is about the company not actively excluding people.

And I don't think anyone is claiming these people don't have the prerogative of shopping where they want for any reason they want. I think it's about Christians who are part of the majority boycotting inclusiveness, and then misrepresenting it.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I guess that in most posts here the first thing I look for is the political angle. We are talk_politics, after all. Beyond that, when I hear someone talk about how someone is forcing or coercing someone else, it comes natural to me to think that there must be an expectation of reciprocity of force, typically the province of government in that respect even for libertarians.