General Mills has announced that they oppose the constitutional amendment seeking to limit the freedom to marry

  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Jun 26, 2012 11:35 PM GMT
    Fortune 500 Company General Mills has just announced that the Golden Valley, MN corporation opposes the constitutional amendment seeking to limit the freedom to marry


    http://action.mnunited.org/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=6793
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:09 AM GMT
    Mitt Romney is no doubt furious about this development.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:13 AM GMT
    Thanks for sharing this...

    I hope many RJers sign, so that the company can see an international response to their initiative
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:14 AM GMT
    This is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:20 AM GMT
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.


    True but I don't mind since so many religious organizations have no problem sticking their noses into it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:26 AM GMT
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.

    Large corporations like GM and Starbucks can afford to stand up for their beliefs, and turning pro gay is the hip corporate "we are a company that stands up for what's right" gambit of the now (sounds superficial and banal, but the truth is it is. And more and more every single day). A lot of equality supporters will buy their products just because of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:26 AM GMT
    mdstudio said
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.


    True but I don't mind since so many religious organizations have no problem sticking their noses into it.


    Everyone should get involved. I agree since religious organizations seems to always have their hands in everyone's business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:31 AM GMT
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.


    Because there is now little if any limits on what they can give to politicians.

    Target caught some grief in 2010 when they proudly supported the Republicans in the election and that was with lower donation limits. Can't wait to see what they do this time around.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:33 AM GMT
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.
    Cause the Supreme Court said they could!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:44 AM GMT
    mdstudio said
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.


    True but I don't mind since so many religious organizations have no problem sticking their noses into it.


    I also agree with that point. Religious organizations and corporations are not part of the electorate. If certain members of either group want to come out for or against a law or movement, that's fine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:46 AM GMT
    mplsmike said
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.


    Because there is now little if any limits on what they can give to politicians.

    Target caught some grief in 2010 when they proudly supported the Republicans in the election and that was with lower donation limits. Can't wait to see what they do this time around.


    I know, but I'm speaking from an ethical perspective rather than illogical crap the Supreme Court spewed out a few years ago.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 12:52 AM GMT
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.


    I think why shouldn't they. As an a corporate entity they have their beliefs and if they voice it why is that wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 1:09 AM GMT
    redsoxfan791 said
    mplsmike said
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.


    Because there is now little if any limits on what they can give to politicians.

    Target caught some grief in 2010 when they proudly supported the Republicans in the election and that was with lower donation limits. Can't wait to see what they do this time around.


    I know, but I'm speaking from an ethical perspective rather than illogical crap the Supreme Court spewed out a few years ago.


    Big corporations usually get involved if there is something that they can gain from or that they think will hurt them. It's usually all about the bottom line and they don't care who they hurt in the process. I used to work for a major corporation in headquarters, so I unfortunately know how they think.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 1:17 AM GMT
    If anyone has more of a right to contribute to politics I would rather have a corporation sticking their business than religion. when you compare PURELY those two items.


    Now if you want to get into all the minute details it's a lot bigger issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 1:27 AM GMT
    asnextdoor said
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.


    I think why shouldn't they. As an a corporate entity they have their beliefs and if they voice it why is that wrong.


    From a logical and rational standpoint, the company's beliefs don't actually exist. The beliefs of certain members of leadership are the ones we hear about. Those are the people we should be championing and/or holding accountable--not the corporation. Far too often do we boycott companies for the beliefs of their leadership without realizing that the widespread effect has on the remainder of the people working for said corporation. It's possible that the vast majority of the rank and file employees working for the corporation differ from their vocal members of company leadership.

    Boycotting and/or supporting a company based on their actions as an actual corporate entity is far more rational. We should be concerned with the manner they treat their employees, the quality of the product, their levels of customer service, etc. when deciding to purchase goods, use their service, etc. Boycotting or supporting a company based on the political beliefs of a few corporate executives is irrational and misdirected. It does little to actually hurt those of whom we're trying to send a message. They're going to keep their jobs, earn their high salary, and gain their high bonuses. It's the people at the operational level that get hurt.

    All of that said, independently owned small businesses are completely different, and should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 1:29 AM GMT
    mplsmike said
    redsoxfan791 said
    mplsmike said
    redsoxfan791 saidThis is great, but I don't understand why corporations are getting involved in political issues.


    Because there is now little if any limits on what they can give to politicians.

    Target caught some grief in 2010 when they proudly supported the Republicans in the election and that was with lower donation limits. Can't wait to see what they do this time around.


    I know, but I'm speaking from an ethical perspective rather than illogical crap the Supreme Court spewed out a few years ago.


    Big corporations usually get involved if there is something that they can gain from or that they think will hurt them. It's usually all about the bottom line and they don't care who they hurt in the process. I used to work for a major corporation in headquarters, so I unfortunately know how they think.


    To be fair, corporations do not exist for the good of the public. They're not meant to be altruistic. Their primary purposes are to: (1) make quality goods, (2) make a profit, and (3) protect the interest of their shareholders.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 2:04 AM GMT
    Signed. Thanks for sharing
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 27, 2012 2:08 AM GMT
    I'm not surprised. Probably because it's located in Golden Valley.

    EDIT: Okay I reread that and feel like an ass. I didn't mean to. Thanks for the share though.
  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Jun 28, 2012 5:56 PM GMT
    Betty Crocker faces boycott for endorsing gay marriage

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/betty-crocker-faces-boycott-for-endorsing-gay-marriage/article/2500687

    Betty Crocker
    Good Earth
    Muir Glen
    Big G Cereals
    Green Giant
    Nature Valley
    Bisquick
    Haagen-Dazs
    Old El Paso
    Bugles
    Hamburger Helper
    Pillsbury
    Cascadian Farm
    Jus-Rol
    Pillsbury Atta
    Cheerios
    Kix
    Progresso
    Chex
    Knack & Back
    Total
    Cinnamon Toast Crunch
    La Saltena
    Totino's/Jeno's
    Diablitos Underwood
    Larabar
    Trix
    Fiber One
    Latina
    V. Pearl
    Food Should Taste Good
    Liberte
    Wanchai Ferry
    Frescarini
    Lucky Charms
    Wheaties
    Fruit Snacks
    Macaroni Grill
    Yoplait
    Gardetto's
    Monsters
    Yoplait France
    Gold Medal
    Mountain High
  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Jun 28, 2012 5:59 PM GMT



    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/06/tens-swarm-general-mill-protest.html
  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Jun 28, 2012 6:01 PM GMT
  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Jul 11, 2012 7:45 PM GMT
    NOM’s General Mills Boycott Is Even Less Successful Than Its Starbucks Protest

    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201207110001
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 8:08 PM GMT
    redsoxfan791 saidTo be fair, corporations do not exist for the good of the public. They're not meant to be altruistic. Their primary purposes are to: (1) make quality goods, (2) make a profit, and (3) protect the interest of their shareholders.


    Right, they only exist because of the good of the public. They've no obligation towards altruism? Hopefully the consumer who dies in battle, fighting for freedom, for capitalism, will keep that in mind as he bleeds, altruistically, to death.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 8:15 PM GMT
    awesome

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

    Jul 11, 2012 8:17 PM GMT
    YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS THEY ARE FLAWLESS!!!

    brb, buying stock in general mills rn..