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.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram