The American Family Association:
Simply put, people are not shopping at J.C. Penney. AFA and OneMillionMoms are showing success in the effort to educate people to Penney's aggressive national campaign to promote "gay" marriage.The company is going downhill fast. Since February, the company stock has lost more than half its value, and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its credit rating on J.C. Penney Co. further into "junk" status.
First-year CEO Ron Johnson's decisions have led to disastrous results for the company. Rather than build on the faith-based traditions of founder James Cash Penney, Johnson has abandoned family values and taken the company into a financial tailspin by embracing social activism.
Families are the backbone of Penney's existence. As long as it pushes homosexual marriage, families will go elsewhere.
21 Comments
Its recovery summer baby!
Yet we will hear nothing from any of these companies about the mistake they made in supporting the destruction of a pillar of society; of conspiring behind closed doors, in the dead of night, too indoctrinate other people’s children on the appropriateness of using their reproductive organ in manner other than prescribed.
Whoa! A loss of 50% of shareholder value in 5 months! It sounds bad enough, but when you actually go look at a full size stock chart for JCP going back 12 months, it really puts it in perspective! You'll see JCP gradually increasing since September last year and then in February, tank time! What a nosedive since February, JCP! You had an overall upward trend from '09...until your swift move this year. Way to go for your shareholders! At the rate your going, by the end of this year "Penney stock" will be scoffed at by investors as just another "Penny stock"!
So sad. Just 6 months ago I was telling people about the cool styles I was getting there and now everyone is discovering just how uncool JCP has become.
Speaking of stocks, look at the 1 yr chart for Starbucks and notice the huge dump investors gave SBUX at the end of April. This came on much, much higher than average volume which does not bode well for your stock price either, Starbucks.
Btw, while we're at it, look at the 2 month chart for Gay Mills (GIS). Notice the dump on huge volume on June 27? That's the day after it was reported here that they were corporately endorsing ssm. That chart doesn't bode well for their near term stock price either.
When did JCPenny announce support for civil marriage equality?
I know they hired a nationally beloved lesbian TV host to be their spokesperson and included LGBT families in their Mothers' and Fathers' Day advertising. So can anyone at AFA or NOM direct towards a public statement in support of civil marriage equality from JCP? Or are you now misrepresenting any acceptance of LGBT people by corporations as "promotion of gay marriage"?
JC -
If a company advertises two lesbians with a child and label them two "moms," and you do the same thing with two guys, you don't think that would be reasonably understood to be a promotion of same-sex marriage? Or is it more likely just a mere demonstration of acceptance of homosexuals, given that the hot topic about homosexuals in all media is same-sex "marriage"?
Please. Penny's took a risk on a hotly-debated topic and probably relied on the faux polls that suggest that the public actually supports same-sex "marriage."
I doubt the AFA/OMMs have had much of an effect in driving all this. However, comparing how sales have changed by locality could shed some light on the question of what role the gay branding is playing in JC Penney's current troubles.
@over
Two lesbians raising children ARE moms! Two gay men raising children ARE dads!
Only a dyed in the wool bigot would see inclusiveness as promotion of a political goal. It used to be that NOMies only dishonestly characterized any and all attacks on LGBT people and their rights to be "expressing their sincere deeply help opinion on marriage", apparently now they are going to construe any and all inclusion of LGBT people and their families as support for civil marriage equality.
Clearly, this is an anti-gay hate group, desperately clinging to the last publicly acceptable form of anti-gay bigotry and trying in vain to make everything fit into that frame. I'd say for shame, but anyone paying attention knows NOMies have no shame.
JC -
Seriously? Every day the media bombards us with articles about same-sex marriage and the President of the United States makes a bold statement about it, and yet if one perceives an advertisement with two women with a kid and two men with a kid as being a statement about ss"m," that person can ONLY be construed as BIGOTED? You're nuts.
If ALL Penny's did was show Ellen DeGeneris, you might have a point; but they moved into the couples realm.
Nobody's talking about homosexual tolerance and acceptance; the hot topic is same-sex "marriage." Penny's know that and its marketing people knew exactly what they were promoting.
A child has one mom and one dad. All other caretakers are just that, caretakers. Call them what you want (even adoptive moms and dads), but they are not true moms and dads because they have no genetic connection to the child.
You leftists love to redefine words and strip them of their true meanings. If not "mom" and "dad," what word do we have for the relationship between a child and the two people who created him/her? Leftists would rather not have a term for that special relationship; they think parents are not important, probably because they all had lousy parents or none.
Words are our best tool for defining reality. Pretending that it's possible for a child to have more than one mom or dad is a distortion of reality. Teaching a child this distorted reality screws up their minds, and is a form of abuse.
Now is the time for a coalition of pro-marriage folks to buy a controlling share of JCPenney stock and, at a minimum, make it neutral on this issue.
@over,
What is it with NOMies and denigrating adoption?
My little brother is adopted, but my parents are just as much his parents as they are mine. He is just as much my sibling as my biological sister. I find your anti-adoption bigotry to be extremely offensive.
JC -
I'm not denigrating adoption; I'm expressing my belief that there should be terms for the woman and man who created a child that are distinguishable from the terms for a woman or man who raise a child but are not genetically related to the child. Those terms have always been "parents," "mother," and "father." Geneticists use these terms properly all the time. Things that are different should have different names, that's all.
Those of you who want a full understanding of what's going on with the stock price should google: jc penney pricing strategy.
@Over,
Last I checked the terms mother, father and parents denoted the primary care-givers of a child and their sex. Are you seriously arguing that an adopted child doesn't have parents or a mom and dad? What ugly bigotry!
So tell me, just what is the correct terminology for the relationship between my parents and my brother?
Overcame, think very carefully on this subject of adopted parents not being 'real' because they aren't biological.
Not just you, every one on this site who thinks mum and dad and bio kids make a family an everyone else has to shift for themselves.
Just one example; An ex of mine was adopted and admitted freely if he hadn't been he would have been dead as the abuse he went through was so severe.
He called (and thought of his adopted parents as) mum and dad, because they were better parents than the alcoholic druggie woman who was his bio mum.
Almost fifty years after he'd been rescued from his home he used to have flashbacks to the hell he went through before being saved by social services.
I ask you: His adopted mum and dad were unable to have kids naturally. Are you saying they had no right to rescue this little boy? Would you have forced him to stay with his biological mum?
JC -
An adopted child has a mom and a dad; those are the people that conceived and gave birth to him/her. Everyone has one mom and dad. If the child has lost both parents and is adopted, then the child is brought up by his/her adoptive "parents." They're not really the child's parents, they are substitutes. That's not bigotry; that's fact.
We only changed the terms around when emotional liberals sought to make everybody feel better by calling anyone who lives together a "family," and calling anyone who brings up a child a "parent." It makes people feel good, but it really confuses things as a practical matter.
Since I believe the terms "mom" and "dad" are for genetic relatives, then the relationship between your parents and your adopted brother should have a different name because their "relationship" is different.
"Adoptive parents", "adopted son" work for me, although I personally believe that the terms mom, dad, and parent are not words that have anything to do with upbringing; they're words of genetic connection, as are words like cousin and grand parents. You know, family tree stuff.
Overcame, I built my family by fostering and adoption, and I'd have to disagree with your terminology choices. It is a substitute situation because it has to be and no one would wish that on a child in the place of a healthy, intact biological bond, but the relationship is real nonetheless. When children are adopted, they are legally yours, as if they had been born to you. I think mom and dad are completely appropriate names for the position of parents. If you aren't able to provide a child a mom and a dad, that is less than desirable, but sometimes the best that can be had through death or divorce. Life happens.
TC Mathews, I think Overcame is legally speaking... Legally speaking, JC's parents is legally his adopted parents. What he calls them during his interaction with his adopted family is irrelevant to how the relationship structure came about. But it is important that he understands his biologcal parents is not his real mother and father, but two adults who have agreed to be the adsent mother and father role in his life.
He also needs to understand that gay relationships are not equal to man/woman heterosexual relationships. In fact, SSM did not come into existense until 2006.
Thanks, leo. Also, what happens is when we use terms familiarly and fail to call attention to the legal terms, the familiar terms find their way to creep into important legal decisions.
Ultimately, we may find ourselves in a society in which children are taken away from their true parents of modest means because they aren't able to provide as privileged an upbringing as a wealthy couple looking for a child. If genetics don't matter, what argument do the true parents have if the wealthy couple claims that they are able to provide a better life for the child? After all, parents are parents, regardless of genetics, right?
@Over,
We may not share any DNA or even be of the same race, but little brother is just that my BROTHER, my REAL BROTHER. My parents are parents are his REAL parents, they are his REAL MOM and his REAL DAD!
You still have not responded to my question. If you object to my little brother using the terms mom, dad, and parents to refer to the two people, who cared for a raised him from infancy, just what are the appropriate ways for him to refer to his family?
@leo,
Learn to read, I'm not adopted, my little brother is. And thanks for your concern, but he's pretty much always known he was adopted. We don't lie to each other in my family, pity it apparently isn't the same way in yours.
Sorry!! from my lst post, I meant to say:
...But it is important that he understands his biologcal parents are not the two adults who have agreed to be the adsent mother and father role in his life.