Gold's Gym Franchises Splitting With Parent Company Over CEO's Donation To American Crossroads

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2010 2:04 AM GMT
    "Gold's Gym is facing a backlash from LGBT activists over its CEO's $2 million donation to American Crossroads, the conservative political group affiliated with former Bush adviser Karl Rove, and its four franchises in the San Francisco Bay Area are now leaving the brand over the controversy. ..."

    More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/golds-gym-franchise-american-crossroads_n_773693.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2010 2:46 AM GMT
    Well done, SF.
  • MarvelClimber

    Posts: 511

    Oct 26, 2010 4:49 AM GMT
    If the francise wants to do that, then that's on them. People are entitled to donate their private funds where they see fit. I think it's an extreme for a francise owner to break away because of that. But as the owner, he or she, too, is entitled to do what they feel is right. I'm sure many people would be surprised to learn the political affiliations of owners, stakeholders, CEO's, etc and the kinds of organizations they give money to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2010 4:59 AM GMT
    It's not clear to me if the company made a donation or the CEO, as an individual, did. If it's the latter, he's a donkey's ass....but that no way has a reflection on the individual Gold's Gyms....many of which are owned and operated as licensees...right? Or did the company itself make such a donation.

    [Added: Oh, now I see that it was the CEO making a donation as an individual. He's an idiot....his house should be picketed....but that is not a reflection on all the franchisees...]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2010 10:02 AM GMT
    HisAlterEgo saidIf the francise wants to do that, then that's on them. People are entitled to donate their private funds where they see fit. I think it's an extreme for a francise owner to break away because of that. But as the owner, he or she, too, is entitled to do what they feel is right. I'm sure many people would be surprised to learn the political affiliations of owners, stakeholders, CEO's, etc and the kinds of organizations they give money to.


    CEO have the duty to do what is best for their companies. This includes not taking any personal actions that would reflect poorly on their companies. I can assure you that any BOD will feel the same. This applies mainly to executives.

    I know it sounds fine and dandy "its his money he can do what he wants with it" but when your actions can fuck up other people's profit (stakeholders) you're not going to get away with it. They'll just find someone else who does not have the "its his money he can do what he wants with it" mentality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2010 10:10 AM GMT
    HisAlterEgo saidIf the francise wants to do that, then that's on them. People are entitled to donate their private funds where they see fit. I think it's an extreme for a francise owner to break away because of that. But as the owner, he or she, too, is entitled to do what they feel is right. I'm sure many people would be surprised to learn the political affiliations of owners, stakeholders, CEO's, etc and the kinds of organizations they give money to.


    So you're saying it's extreme to disaffiliate with a company that donates to another company which discriminates against a group of people for which you belong to? What if I donated to the KKK? Do you think that rejecting me for doing so is "extreme" then?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 26, 2010 10:19 AM GMT
    Leave it to SF to do it in Style icon_cool.gif

    But this is the exception more than the rule
    9 times out of 10 we don't know and will Never know where Karl Rove's smear campaign money came from
  • MarvelClimber

    Posts: 511

    Oct 28, 2010 10:45 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    HisAlterEgo saidIf the francise wants to do that, then that's on them. People are entitled to donate their private funds where they see fit. I think it's an extreme for a francise owner to break away because of that. But as the owner, he or she, too, is entitled to do what they feel is right. I'm sure many people would be surprised to learn the political affiliations of owners, stakeholders, CEO's, etc and the kinds of organizations they give money to.


    So you're saying it's extreme to disaffiliate with a company that donates to another company which discriminates against a group of people for which you belong to? What if I donated to the KKK? Do you think that rejecting me for doing so is "extreme" then?


    I said, "People [as in individuals] are entitled to donate their private funds [as in 'not company funds'] where they see fit." There certainly is a double-standard when it comes to these things. People feel like an executive represents the company he or she is in charge of all the time. That simply isn't fair. I'm sure many young professionals despise being judged by an employer based on their social media profiles. In order for us to enjoy freedom of expression we have to allow people to support their own beliefs independent of the company/companies the person is involved in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2010 10:51 AM GMT
    HisAlterEgo said
    JAKEBENSON said
    HisAlterEgo saidIf the francise wants to do that, then that's on them. People are entitled to donate their private funds where they see fit. I think it's an extreme for a francise owner to break away because of that. But as the owner, he or she, too, is entitled to do what they feel is right. I'm sure many people would be surprised to learn the political affiliations of owners, stakeholders, CEO's, etc and the kinds of organizations they give money to.


    So you're saying it's extreme to disaffiliate with a company that donates to another company which discriminates against a group of people for which you belong to? What if I donated to the KKK? Do you think that rejecting me for doing so is "extreme" then?


    I said, "People [as in individuals] are entitled to donate their private funds [as in 'not company funds'] where they see fit." There certainly is a double-standard when it comes to these things. People feel like an executive represents the company he or she is in charge of all the time. That simply isn't fair. I'm sure many young professionals despise being judged by an employer based on their social media profiles. In order for us to enjoy freedom of expression we have to allow people to support their own beliefs independent of the company/companies the person is involved in.


    So accordingly, if Obama decided to personally fund an organization that's anti-gay, it wouldn't affect his popularity as president? Because this is what he's doing in his personal time. Oh I see. What you mean is you think it's fair for an executive to practice something that's the counter to what the company aims for. It's okay to be a hypocrite as long as you are one on your time off. This reminds me Andre Shirvell. He harasses and attacks a gay Republican student via the internet, BUT because he does this in his "time off," it does not represent where he works and his boss is looking the other way. No seriously, you better watch this video right now:



    Just so you know, and you better know this now: actions and words are NOT superfluous to one's responsibility as an executive or a public figure if those actions and words counter the intent of their job. If someone does something counter to a group of which they belong, then that group and anyone who is affiliated with that group has every right to gainsay.
  • MarvelClimber

    Posts: 511

    Oct 30, 2010 6:14 PM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    HisAlterEgo said
    JAKEBENSON said
    HisAlterEgo saidIf the francise wants to do that, then that's on them. People are entitled to donate their private funds where they see fit. I think it's an extreme for a francise owner to break away because of that. But as the owner, he or she, too, is entitled to do what they feel is right. I'm sure many people would be surprised to learn the political affiliations of owners, stakeholders, CEO's, etc and the kinds of organizations they give money to.


    So you're saying it's extreme to disaffiliate with a company that donates to another company which discriminates against a group of people for which you belong to? What if I donated to the KKK? Do you think that rejecting me for doing so is "extreme" then?


    I said, "People [as in individuals] are entitled to donate their private funds [as in 'not company funds'] where they see fit." There certainly is a double-standard when it comes to these things. People feel like an executive represents the company he or she is in charge of all the time. That simply isn't fair. I'm sure many young professionals despise being judged by an employer based on their social media profiles. In order for us to enjoy freedom of expression we have to allow people to support their own beliefs independent of the company/companies the person is involved in.


    So accordingly, if Obama decided to personally fund an organization that's anti-gay, it wouldn't affect his popularity as president? Because this is what he's doing in his personal time. Oh I see. What you mean is you think it's fair for an executive to practice something that's the counter to what the company aims for. It's okay to be a hypocrite as long as you are one on your time off. This reminds me Andre Shirvell. He harasses and attacks a gay Republican student via the internet, BUT because he does this in his "time off," it does not represent where he works and his boss is looking the other way. No seriously, you better watch this video right now:



    Just so you know, and you better know this now: actions and words are NOT superfluous to one's responsibility as an executive or a public figure if those actions and words counter the intent of their job. If someone does something counter to a group of which they belong, then that group and anyone who is affiliated with that group has every right to gainsay.


    Sure man, whatever. A company aims to make profits. All the social stuff in really anxillary to BIG BUSINESS. When it comes to being socially responsible or bankrupcy...where do companies lean? We pedistal people in the US. The higher someone's income and status, the more social responsibility they must bear. Why is this, when the wealthy make up such a small percentage of the population? If more people spoke up and did the right things we would have the changes we expect 'higher ups' to make for us. I don't think that I, as an employee for a company, should have to conform to the company's social belief system in my personal life. A CEO is no different. Your analogy of the President isn't fitting because the President (and other political heads) are figureheads. They are the gatekeepers of socioeconomic ideals for people's LIVES. A CEO is a gatekeeper for a company's MONEY.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 7:26 PM GMT

    I wonder what Arnold would have to say about this???
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2010 7:27 PM GMT
    GQjock saidLeave it to SF to do it in Style icon_cool.gif

    But this is the exception more than the rule
    9 times out of 10 we don't know and will Never know where Karl Rove's smear campaign money came from


    Yes, it is the exception. It easy to boycott Target, BestBuy, or Golds. We just don't go to their place of business. Golds is probably in more danger from a boycott since they probably have a bigger percentage of gay clientele. I guess it is kind of unfortunate for these companies that they have to have such a public face. Probably every one of us reading this thread have a product in our home where a component came from ADM, Monsato, and Dow Chemical. Every single one of these companies have had image problems at some time and I am sure they have all gave contributions to politicians we do not like. Fortunately for them, their names are not on any of the products in our homes. How do you boycott a company when you don't know if you are using their product?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2010 1:15 PM GMT
    HisAlterEgo said
    JAKEBENSON said
    HisAlterEgo said
    JAKEBENSON said
    HisAlterEgo saidIf the francise wants to do that, then that's on them. People are entitled to donate their private funds where they see fit. I think it's an extreme for a francise owner to break away because of that. But as the owner, he or she, too, is entitled to do what they feel is right. I'm sure many people would be surprised to learn the political affiliations of owners, stakeholders, CEO's, etc and the kinds of organizations they give money to.


    So you're saying it's extreme to disaffiliate with a company that donates to another company which discriminates against a group of people for which you belong to? What if I donated to the KKK? Do you think that rejecting me for doing so is "extreme" then?


    I said, "People [as in individuals] are entitled to donate their private funds [as in 'not company funds'] where they see fit." There certainly is a double-standard when it comes to these things. People feel like an executive represents the company he or she is in charge of all the time. That simply isn't fair. I'm sure many young professionals despise being judged by an employer based on their social media profiles. In order for us to enjoy freedom of expression we have to allow people to support their own beliefs independent of the company/companies the person is involved in.


    So accordingly, if Obama decided to personally fund an organization that's anti-gay, it wouldn't affect his popularity as president? Because this is what he's doing in his personal time. Oh I see. What you mean is you think it's fair for an executive to practice something that's the counter to what the company aims for. It's okay to be a hypocrite as long as you are one on your time off. This reminds me Andre Shirvell. He harasses and attacks a gay Republican student via the internet, BUT because he does this in his "time off," it does not represent where he works and his boss is looking the other way. No seriously, you better watch this video right now:



    Just so you know, and you better know this now: actions and words are NOT superfluous to one's responsibility as an executive or a public figure if those actions and words counter the intent of their job. If someone does something counter to a group of which they belong, then that group and anyone who is affiliated with that group has every right to gainsay.


    Sure man, whatever. A company aims to make profits. All the social stuff in really anxillary to BIG BUSINESS. When it comes to being socially responsible or bankrupcy...where do companies lean? We pedistal people in the US. The higher someone's income and status, the more social responsibility they must bear. Why is this, when the wealthy make up such a small percentage of the population? If more people spoke up and did the right things we would have the changes we expect 'higher ups' to make for us. I don't think that I, as an employee for a company, should have to conform to the company's social belief system in my personal life. A CEO is no different. Your analogy of the President isn't fitting because the President (and other political heads) are figureheads. They are the gatekeepers of socioeconomic ideals for people's LIVES. A CEO is a gatekeeper for a company's MONEY.


    My comparison to a president is well suited, but I'll give you partial credit, as the personal responsibilities of a CEO is less intricately woven in their profession than is the presidents'. But my analogy with the video above still seems to hold merit. And yes, if you're a public figure in any culture, what you do in your private life can and should be scrutinized if it contrasts a generally accepted convention of that society. This may or may not be a good thing. But I think in many cases it is.