An overreaction?

[Gaylord]

A supermarket in Arkansas has reversed it’s decision to place a ‘family shield’ over the cover of the current issue of US weekly which features Elton John and David Furnish with their new baby Zachary.

The move to censor the cover with a ‘family shield' - which is traditionally used to cover pornography - sparked outrage amongst civil rights groups, with representatives from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) investigating the issue.

A spokesperson for Harps Grocery Stores initially defended the shield, saying Harps bosses reacted in response to 'several' customer complaints at that particular store.

He insisted that the move was "in no way our opinion on this issue," adding "we do not have an opinion on this issue."

The story hit the Internet after a customer, Jennifer Huddleston, took a photo of the shield and posted it on Plixi. "This was taken at my local grocery store," she wrote. "I was shocked and horrified."

"They are saying they need to keep children from seeing it, because it is a gay family."

Within hours of the photo hitting the Internet, Harps received a raft of complaints and removed the shield.

What do you think? an over reaction by Harps or merely reacting to their customers needs?
GL

[Doozer]

A supermarket in Arkansas has reversed it’s decision to place a ‘family shield’ over the cover of the current issue of US weekly which features Elton John and David Furnish with their new baby Zachary.

The move to censor the cover with a ‘family shield' - which is traditionally used to cover pornography - sparked outrage amongst civil rights groups, with representatives from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) investigating the issue.

A spokesperson for Harps Grocery Stores initially defended the shield, saying Harps bosses reacted in response to 'several' customer complaints at that particular store.

He insisted that the move was "in no way our opinion on this issue," adding "we do not have an opinion on this issue."

The story hit the Internet after a customer, Jennifer Huddleston, took a photo of the shield and posted it on Plixi. "This was taken at my local grocery store," she wrote. "I was shocked and horrified."

"They are saying they need to keep children from seeing it, because it is a gay family."

Within hours of the photo hitting the Internet, Harps received a raft of complaints and removed the shield.

What do you think? an over reaction by Harps or merely reacting to their customers needs?

GL

I would say that its a grocery store which relies heavely on its customers to survive
If customers refuse to shop there because of this (No matter how insensitive it is) the owner has a right to do what he did.
You just cant keep everyone happy

[scotus]

I would say that its a grocery store which relies heavely on its customers to survive
If customers refuse to shop there because of this (No matter how insensitive it is) the owner has a right to do what he did.
You just cant keep everyone happy

Some customers may refuse to shop there because of what he did, so there is not necessarily a commercial advantage.

As to his rights to do as he did - hmmmmm, tricky one that. It could be argued that he acted against a minority, or worse.

[Doozer]

True but the minority were the ones voicing their complaint at the time so he would have to try and appease them

[scotus]

True but the minority were the ones voicing their complaint at the time so he would have to try and appease them

The squeakiest wheel gets the grease?

In my opinion, this makes it worse.

We have no reason to believe the majority of people has an issue with the magazine being on display. If the guy had some fundamental belief that displaying this image was wrong, I would have some respect for his position.

[Doozer]

The squeakiest wheel gets the grease?

In my opinion, this makes it worse.

We have no reason to believe the majority of people has an issue with the magazine being on display. If the guy had some fundamental belief that displaying this image was wrong, I would have some respect for his position.

Yeah I know what you are saying. Im sure like most people he couldnt care less but some homophobic fundemental christians had a go at him ad to keep the peace and keep them consuming in his store he gave in. Way of teh world in these harsh times

[scotus]

So long as they are consistent.

I mean, i imagine a lot of people would be offended by a picture of George Bush on the cover of a magazine, so I presume they would cover that as well.