Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Does a company have any rights ?

Tags:
  • Politics
  • TV
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
December 12, 2011 1:01:18 PM

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20111...

not even sure if this topic should go into TV or politics or elsewhere , but here goes.
Does a company have the right to choose where it advertises ?
and what if the situation were reversed , suppose a TV show refused to air an ad from a certain company ?

More about : company rights

December 12, 2011 1:48:19 PM

No, not in the current political climate in the USA. You watch, lawsuits coming.
Score
0
December 12, 2011 10:46:28 PM

Problem here is, traditionally, thered have to be a contract, and a breach of that contract, but today.....

I look at alot at whats going on as, some people are children, living at home, and expect certain things, apply that to people doing whatever at a business, or their expectations, simply because theyve transferred this childlike attitude over towards this relationship towards businesses.
Score
0
Related resources
December 13, 2011 12:43:32 AM

I geuss I thought a company was free to choose where it spends its' advertising dollars..just as the TV show is free to choose what companies it advertises on its' programs , or what companies you choose to do business with. (that was a horribly grammatically incorrect terrible run-on sentence , but I think the point is made).
And I suppose it would depend on the exact wording of any contract(s) involved.
lol OldManG ..yes I fully expect lawsuits , seems to be par for the course these day on any and every thing.
But I do think it brings up an interesting subject , can you be forced to support with your economic dollar , someone or something that you have freely chosen Not to support, for whatever reason ? if a company chose not to advertise on MTV Raps because they may play 'gangsta-rap' and thus not want to support crime ..would that be considered bigotry ?
Score
0
December 13, 2011 1:46:05 AM

Its not the spending money-yet- thats been put under duress, its the accepting money, or denying customers for specific reasons.
Theres very little legal ground here, it just depends on who takes it up, and of course, the media
Score
0
December 13, 2011 4:46:45 PM

No matter how they spin it, the Florida Family Association just comes off as being bigots and ignorant xenophobes.

I am not surprised that some wack-job California State Senator is heading the charge with resolutions and legislation.

Shame on California Senator Lieu!

Doesn't anyone understand the free market and the 1st Amendment anymore?!

Situations like this are just completely FUBAR.

FUBAR I TELLS YA!!!!
Score
0
December 15, 2011 12:47:20 AM

Does anyone have a link to the actual commercial? Without actually seeing the commercial I don't know how to take all of this. I heard the uproar a short time ago about it all, but I do not watch any television so I have not been exposed to the ad.

I've been searching and I have been unable to find any recording of the ad.

chunkymonster said:
I am not surprised that some wack-job California State Senator is heading the charge with resolutions and legislation.

Shame on California Senator Lieu!

Doesn't anyone understand the free market and the 1st Amendment anymore?!


So he, as an American minority being Asian, isn't qualified to voice his opinion? I don't know where you come off calling him a whack job either, he graduated from both Georgetown and Stanford, so I can only assume he's quite educated. Sounds like someone else is being discriminatory just because they disagree... Oh, and I'm going only off of what you said here because I really have a lack of understanding of what this issue is, you just sound like you are spouting off, quoting the constitution as if it only applies to who you see fit.

***

After reading on the issue further, my statement stands. Picking and choosing who has rights and who doesn't is discriminatory no matter how you look at it, and Lieu has just as much a right to his opinion as you do Chunkymonster, but I'm not trying to silence you through defamatory remarks about how you think.
Score
0
December 15, 2011 1:22:50 AM

I did some general searches and came across KPCC's Reader's Sound Off and I think I gather the jist of all of this, however I think the Lowe's caved in and the reaction is over dramatized a bit.

However, to address ltrazaklt post;

I agree companies should be able to pick and choose where they want to display their ads, but they should not cave to political pressure just because an advertisement is run across a specific time slot. Advertisement as a whole is discriminatory, not in the sense that it's wrong, only in the sense that they are TRYING to target specific audiences. Just as you don't see expensive luxury items advertised during shows that attract a lower income audience, you don't see lower income retail or food outlets advertising on shows that attract a more wealthy viewer base. Originally I was going to use specific examples, but I'm afraid of being labeled as a discriminator when I'm truly not and a lot of people don't truly understand demographic targeting.

IMO, the 1st amendment doesn't, or at least shouldn't come into play, because fundamentally I believe businesses should not have the rights of a man. There should be certain protections, but extending constitutional rights to faceless, and more importantly, conscienceless entities drums up entirely separate problems altogether. That does not mean that Lowe's doesn't have, or shouldn't have, the right to pull the ad, but I feel the backlash is warranted because of the very visible reasoning that has come about. However, I feel the media's running with this story to be truly counter-productive.

A comparison was made to Chic Filet in one of the comments (on the KPCC link), and because of the very prejudice views that Chic Filet publicly maintains as a company, I choose not to spend my money there. I could go one step further and try to bring more focus on the company for their values, educating people who may not know that they are openly anti-gay. But that is my right as an individual to boycott and/or raise further awareness about their practices. I believe the same thing extends to this very topic.

Because of the decision that Lowe's has made to stop advertising, on the basis of a Christian group who is openly anti-Muslim, they will/have and probably should endure some backlash; it's the citizens rights to do so. Just as the Florida group has the right to be as publicly prejudice as they want, those who disagree with the decision are also entitled to their opinion, and part of the reason I made my comment directed at Chunkymonster.

People love to quote the constitution and apply it to where they see fit and they get offended when you call them out. This is one reason I am a big supporter for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. This is not a Christian nation, even though it is comprised of a majority of Christians. To push Christian values or any religion on others is doing both sides a major disservice.

Lastly, a company is comprised of individuals, and those individuals may have very differing views of the world, religion, politics and the like. This is why I'm so much against businesses influence in politics, and why I believe business shouldn't be able to pick and choose candidates or ear mark money through Super PACs for specific candidates. The board of directors and executive management of a company may have very differing views than the people that make the day to day functions of a company operates, and those decision makers are no more entitled to their opinion than the lowly person who is the least paid in the company. When people wrap their minds around that principal, this whole topic will shift.
Score
0
December 15, 2011 1:26:57 AM

Please dont introduce race into this discussion
Score
0
December 15, 2011 1:30:20 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Please dont introduce race into this discussion


Please bring substance to the discussion rather than asking to leave out items just because you disagree with them.
Score
0
December 15, 2011 1:35:54 AM

No, once again, please dont bring in and introduce race inot this discussion
Score
0
December 15, 2011 1:49:01 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
No, once again, please dont bring in and introduce race inot this discussion

Once again, I'd like more substance, but we can't always get what we want.

Have I done something wrong?

(And I find that comment kind of funny considering that this issue goes beyond religious prejudice...)
Score
0
December 15, 2011 1:51:13 AM

Other than making potentially harmful perceptions, and derailing the thread?
No
Score
0
December 15, 2011 2:04:52 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Other than making potentially harmful perceptions, and derailing the thread?
No

Perceptions. Not to mention you completely skipped over my larger response to the thread, then completely derailing the thread yourself to call attention to something quite benign.

:ange: 
Score
0
December 15, 2011 5:21:16 AM

l0ckd0wn said:

So he, as an American minority being Asian, isn't qualified to voice his opinion?


You brought race into the thread, supposedly as a defense to some imagined racist attack. Last warning.
Score
0
December 15, 2011 5:59:38 AM

l0ckd0wn said:
A comparison was made to Chic Filet in one of the comments (on the KPCC link), and because of the very prejudice views that Chic Filet publicly maintains as a company, I choose not to spend my money there. I could go one step further and try to bring more focus on the company for their values, educating people who may not know that they are openly anti-gay. But that is my right as an individual to boycott and/or raise further awareness about their practices. I believe the same thing extends to this very topic.

ChicFil-A is a really bad example to use, because it is a privately held company, pretty much subject only to the marketplace and federal antidiscrimination laws. And anyone with any social awareness at all knows that the owner, S. Truet Cathy, adheres to strong conservative values. It's obvious. He doesn't try to hide it. I find that lack of hypocrisy refreshing as opposed to many of the prominent liberals.
Score
0
December 15, 2011 7:39:57 AM

I see both sides of the arguement but essentially an advertiser can chose where to spend their money ... its their call.

Even though I believe in the separation of church and state in terms of what I perceive are some issues, I do think we need to be sensitive to the fact that most western countries are largely Christian ... but certainly not representatative of the kind of bejaviour the FFA are demonstrating.

I think most Christians would be appalled at the FFA but as I have not watched the show I can't comment on whether their assertions are correct.

Likely they are not ... but I can't make that call.

I am not quite sure what to make of the Senator's position ... I'll need to read some more.

It is an interesting case ... hopefully we can learn something from it.

Please heed Proximon's warning regarding the topic.

Score
0
December 15, 2011 11:46:50 AM

Just to clarify, Chik-fil-a is not anti-gay. They are anti gay marriage. Their view is the term 'marriage' has a very specific definition. It is a contract between a man, a woman, and God. When a gay couple call themselves "married" they are spitting on the word and its meaning as defined by the Old Testament.

Just sayin'. Sorry to derail.
Score
0
December 15, 2011 12:25:52 PM

Ummm......... I don't think gay people "spit" on the word marriage any more than Newt Gingrich.

Spit was a rather crass choice oldman.
Score
0
December 15, 2011 12:43:55 PM

I think a certain percentage of gay people get some pleasure at throwing the term marriage in the face of religious people that believe differently. I'm not saying I agree with the view of religious people, i'm only explaining their point of view as its been explained to me. They see it as offensive for a gay couple to call themselves married. So, in their view they are spitting on the bible and their beliefs when they use that term.

Like I said I don't agree or disagree either way, just explaining why it's offensive to the majority of believers and to owners of Chik-fil-A.
Score
0
December 15, 2011 12:47:43 PM

And before we move on to left handed disabled nazis or the sport of dwarftossing or why we should put all of the purple people on one island to rot ... or equally something else that just crosses the line, I'll close this one and leave it for future generations of youth to ponder just how messed up we were back then at the dawn of the internet.

It is apparent we still didn't get Equal Opportunity ... well ... most of us.
Score
0
!