How to fight the "War on Christmas" (regardless of real or perceived)

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: Woodcarver

You didn't answer my last questions so I'll ask again.

1) If a business makes changes to a product/service and consumers do not like the changes, should they be forced to continue to purchase said product/service? Or should they be free to seek the same product elsewhere?

sounds like you and your group were the ones forcing and threatening. You very well could have just gone to another mall instead of FORCING them to accomodate your small group. I'm sure you don't see it that way. Blinded by bias and all.

2) Is it better for the business in question (in this case, Simon Malls) that people let them know what it is they want so the business can (if they choose to) make adjustments accordingly.

it is fine to to tell a business what you would like to see in their stores, but that is not what you did. You forced them to change by way of threatening them with boycotts and a media flaming on social networks so that you could get them to add a tree to their decorations.

My two cents on point 2.... While I can't speak to what discussions were had behind the scenes or what went on in the boardrooms,

but you already did. You said earlier that they excluded the tree as to not "offend" people.

I suspect (take this with a grain of salt) that Simon Malls, while not thrilled about the last few days,

yea. I bet they were not thrilled at having to deal with you nutters THREATEN to boycott over some petty decorations.

would rather have heard about people's dislike of their actions rather than lose out on $_______. The fact that they said it was a mistake leads me to that conclusion.

so you justify your actions because they succumbed to your threats. OOOOOKKKKKK............

a reply to: eluryh22

Just so i have this story straight, they did have christmas decos up? (In november)

they did have a set put up for pictures with santa?

And your campaign for threats of boycott were over the lack of the tree?

a reply to: Woodcarver

sounds like you and your group were the ones forcing and threatening. You very well could have just gone to another mall instead of FORCING them to accomodate your small group. I'm sure you don't see it that way. Blinded by bias and all.

it is fine to to tell a business what you would like to see in their stores, but that is not what you did. You forced them to change by way of threatening them with boycotts and a media flaming on social networks so that you could get them to add a tree to their decorations.

From what I can tell, both of the above are saying basically the same thing...

Nobody outside of the government can "force" a private business to do anything. Telling a business what I would like to see is precisely what I did. I also did go as far as to say if they can not or would not offer it, I would be going elsewhere. If you want to take that as a "threat" feel free. (If the groups was that small and there were only a handful of people taking issue with their product, there would have been no reason to address the concerns as the loss would have been minimal).

=======

but you already did. You said earlier that they excluded the tree as to not "offend" people.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant to say that, after they started receiving complaints, I can't say what was discussed by way of addressing them, or whether to address them at all.

=======

yea. I bet they were not thrilled at having to deal with you nutters THREATEN to boycott over some petty decorations.

In my book, once the personal attacks such as this come out, credibility is lost.

a reply to: eluryh22

In my book, you lost this argument with your OP. Starting/joining in on a social network campaign to threaten stores to add a few more christmas decos or pay the price of a mass boycott, is the same as forcing them to bend to your personal religious ideals. That is just about as nutter as it gets. So no apologies from me.

You should also learn how to utilize the quote boxes here.

a reply to: eluryh22

You could have simply not been offended in the first place, but that wouldn't have helped you feel persecuted enough for you to enjoy the holiday. They had christmas decos set up. But that wasn't good enough. Where was the "war on christmas" you alluded to in the title?

Oh! They forgot the mistletoe. FLAME on!!!

a reply to: Woodcarver

I guess im done here. Another internet argument won. IIII

Your title inspired a plan for a sneak attack. Let's pick a random date in the middle of the year, and start giving gifts while telling everyone merry Christmas!

But it's not Christmas.

Yeah Christmas has gotten a bit to hectic for my taste lately. To much controversy, to much noise, to crowded. It all just distracts form the real Christmas spirit. I like to do my Christmas shopping without all the crowds anyway.

But I'm not a Christian.

That's OK. Nobody's perfect.

But you're not Christian either!



They'd never see it coming!

a reply to: eluryh22

Don't forget to boycott Starbucks for their "War on Christmas" cup designs...

The coffee chain’s seasonal designs are remixed each year, but this year’s tri-color tone of red, green and white has apparently angered some religious leaders for declaring a so-called “war on Christmas.”

“Starbucks REMOVED CHRISTMAS from their cups because they hate Jesus,” wrote former Arizona pastor Joshua Feuerstein in a viral Facebook post that had at least 8 million views Saturday night.

Student pastor Nate Weaver at the Crosspointe Christian Church in Sarasota, Fla., vowed to never visit Starbucks ever again.

“I’m officially banning Starbucks from my life,” Weaver wrote in a Facebook post Saturday. “With the CEO of the company telling those who support pro-life that they don't want their money and now the Red Holiday cups with nothing that might tie to Christmas on them because they want to be politically correct.”

Yeah, that actually happened! And people still wonder if this "War on Christmas" is manufactured by the evangelical right as a political talking point! LOL!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

This OP is solid evidence of a contrived effort to manufacture an air of outrage.

And josh feuerstein is more evidence of the same.

I'm glad that you and your group won! Christmas trees are beautiful and magical to the little ones and those who are a kid at heart.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: eluryh22

Don't forget to boycott Starbucks for their "War on Christmas" cup designs...

The coffee chain’s seasonal designs are remixed each year, but this year’s tri-color tone of red, green and white has apparently angered some religious leaders for declaring a so-called “war on Christmas.”

“Starbucks REMOVED CHRISTMAS from their cups because they hate Jesus,” wrote former Arizona pastor Joshua Feuerstein in a viral Facebook post that had at least 8 million views Saturday night.

Student pastor Nate Weaver at the Crosspointe Christian Church in Sarasota, Fla., vowed to never visit Starbucks ever again.

“I’m officially banning Starbucks from my life,” Weaver wrote in a Facebook post Saturday. “With the CEO of the company telling those who support pro-life that they don't want their money and now the Red Holiday cups with nothing that might tie to Christmas on them because they want to be politically correct.”

Yeah, that actually happened! And people still wonder if this "War on Christmas" is manufactured by the evangelical right as a political talking point! LOL!

Just another extremist looking for a chance to get his 15 minutes of fame. In another article I read that he walked into Starbucks in a shirt with a picture of Jesus on it, AND packing a piece because his state had open carry. He also gave his name as "Merry Christmas" so Starbucks had to put Merry Christmas on one of their cups. You just can't make this stuff up, you really can't.

I honestly feel bad for a business like Starbucks. No matter what, it's damned if you, damned if you don't. They chose not to decorate their cups with seasonal symbols, probably thinking that they won't offend anyone, and what happens? They offend someone, and a very vocal someone at that.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So if I take issue or action on one fill-in-the-blank-themed-issue.... that means that by default I must subscribe in lock step to all issues that may be perceived as under that general umbrella? How open minded of you.

As for Starbucks in general.... all I know about them is I don't care for their coffee but (and perhaps this is by coincidence) the times that I find myself dragged into one, I usually find the music playing to be fantastic.

That and I remember some brouhaha about management encouraging their baristas to engage the customers in "race relations" or something like that. If I recall correctly that didn't work out so well.

a reply to: VP740

Count me in.... I'm always down for a random act of kindness (even if it includes a few wise-cracks).

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Woodcarver

I guess im done here. Another internet argument won. IIII

My general rule (in the real world and on the interwebz) is to disengage when people start with the name calling.

I'll make an exception here simply to say....

You can grant yourself all the imaginary, perceived "wins" on the internet you would like. I'll take a real world victory any day of the week.

Be well.

a reply to: eluryh22
Well done.
I'm no Christian but I'm so tired of all this whining by people who are just bah-humbug nutters about Christmas decorations, whether it's a nativity scene, a tree or a star.
Get this people: CHRISTMAS IS PART OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE! Nobody is making you take part in anything by hanging some decorations or setting up a tree. If some people take the time and effort to make the world a little brighter how are you harmed? If that is the only problem you have in the world, you should be very happy indeed.
Just another way to divide the population---as can plainly be seen by the fake outrage you've endured here.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: eluryh22
Well done.
I'm no Christian but I'm so tired of all this whining by people who are just bah-humbug nutters about Christmas decorations, whether it's a nativity scene, a tree or a star.
Get this people: CHRISTMAS IS PART OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE! Nobody is making you take part in anything by hanging some decorations or setting up a tree. If some people take the time and effort to make the world a little brighter how are you harmed? If that is the only problem you have in the world, you should be very happy indeed.
Just another way to divide the population---as can plainly be seen by the fake outrage you've endured here.

You didn't read the OP. Nobody was complaining about the decorations except the christians. He and his group took part in a campaign to force a business to hang more decorations. They threatened the business with a mass boycott if their religious symbols were not set up.

I actually love christmas, including the decos and the trees. What i am argueing against is the OPs campaign to force a business who already had decos and a santa to also put up a tree. Because he was offended at the lack of one.

So... By his logic, if enough jewish people are offended by the lack of mennorahs, the business should put them up. If muslims are offended by the lack of their religious symbology, the business should put them up. If the satanists are offended by the lack of whatever satanists like, the business should succumb to their desires.

Be careful what you force businesses to do, because you are setting a precidence. And someone else might force them to do something you don't like.

What if a mall owned by muslims was threatened with a boycott if they didn't want to put up christmas decos. What if a mall owned by christians was threatened with boycotts if they didn't put up satanic symbols.

Christians shouldn't use their weight to get what they want. They would be up in arms if any other religion tried it. That is called oppression.