Ummm and *why * would Disney do that?? Was the boycott effective? At all??
As a southern baptist, I have to wonder… How will this affect my Disney stock??
I bet that wasn’t the point. Dang it! I’m such a lousy baptist!
I think they decided their fearsome boycott powers would be more effectively directed against a company making a product that nobody wants anyway.
“You’ve called off the boycott, reverend. What are you going to do now?”
Well, duh…he’s going to go to Heritage, USA!
Yeah, I heard they’re going to boycott UPN…
Of course it was!
I assume that Mr. Gray’s word is good enough for all you skeptics out there. Anyone demanding to see factual evidence like Disney’s attendance figures or annual financial statements is simply an unsaveable heathen.
I also like this part of the article:
And how does this have to do with anything? Were they boycotting Disney because they didn’t like Eisner? No, they were boycotting because Disney gave medical benefits to gay partners–which they still do!
This article should have been titled “Southern Baptists sick of having to explain to their kids why they can’t go to Disneyworld for vacation; end pointless boycott.”
Sounds like an Onion headline.
Yeah, I heard that the collection of nosy assholes otherwise known as the American Family Association decided to end their boycott of Disney, stating that their point had been proven.
Of course the point was proven, the point being that Disney kept on making money, and doesn’t give a rat’s patootie what you haters think.
Does this mean I’m going to have to start carrying Baptist repellant with me when I go to DLand from now on?
You always did. The boycott was not the most effective thing in the world. Not only did Disney not notice, many Southern Baptist chose to not notice.