I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention. First Chick-fil-A's CEO, now Amazon's. For someone who is socially lacking, could someone explain to me why these generate so much news?
I'm sure that the CEO also gives of his own money to the same and possibly more groups, but that is his money to do with as he pleases. It makes him look like a bigoted ass, but that's his choice.
Since it's a privately held company, I don't really see much difference.
Also Chick-Fil-A has been well known for decades, as a company that supports biblical principles. I live in Georgia where they're from, and I don't think they'd be nearly as large as they are today without the brand loyalty that support has built them.
Besides, it's not like people are saying the Chick-Fil-A president can't say what he said. The story here is that a lot of people are deeply unimpressed with his statement, and are effectively enacting a de facto boycott (not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance).
It's perfectly fine for this to be discussed, and besides you possibly not identifying with the complainants (as you point out in another comment here), I don't see why you object to it. (Note that I am mainly responding to the parent comment from another user: "I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention".)
No, Amazon is a publicly held company, not solely Bezos' property (I doubt his board would even let him do the same thing).
Chick-Fil-A is for all intents and purposes is the "personal money" of the owners, so I see no difference in what someone does with his money or his property.
I'm fine with the boycott. I don't support it, but I respect it.
What I'm not fine is this.
>not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance
If a local government denies building permits to a business because it disagrees with the owner's speech, that is a blatant first amendment violation. Far more knowledgeable people than myself have said the same thing. I really doubt the lawyers for whatever municipality plans on banning them will allow that to happen.
If the people of a local community don't want Chick-Fil-A there, they won't patronize it. Chik-Fil-A's market research will probably find that out and they won't build there.
As for rights, try to keep in mind the key issue here is a debate on a specific right as well. What people are debating is changing the law, changing your rights. If local governments feel a certain right or something they desire to be considered a right is being infringed on or threatened by a company, then it's no longer so black and white.
It's easy to rant about most people's priorities when it comes to the information they consumer (trivialities over real news) but the saddest thing to me is that the universally positive causes that public figures/companies etc. donate huge sums of money to (charities & the like) usually go unnoticed as a result.
It's funny/depressing to go at certain forums/imageboards and see people CONSTANTLY attacking the same thing, every day again and again. If someone defends them (or attacks their own side) they are obviously gonna get angry.
It's not as if they just spent it on cars and caviar.