“Nike made a business call which they had a right to do”
They could have simply canceled his contract without commenting on the merits of his position. They officially share the homosexual activist position. Anyone who thinks homosexual acts are wrong are “abhorrent” to Nike. They think it is okay to call my view abhorrent, but calling deviant sex abhorrent is supposedly wrong.
This is Nike’s statement:
“We find Manny Pacquiao’s comments abhorrent. Nike strongly opposes discrimination of any kind and has a long history of supporting and standing up for the rights of the LGBT community.”
They are openly opposed to social conservatism and traditional beliefs. They claim to oppose discrimination of “any” kind, but they discriminate against conservatives and Christians. They don’t add how Nike has a long history of supporting conservatives and people of traditional faith. (Hint. It’s because they haven’t and they don’t.) They do not want me as a customer.
And you may think it is about the bottom line. It isn’t. Chick-fil-A proves that. The homosexuals attacked Chick-fil-A just because the owner donated to a pro-family group out of his personal fortune. But their boycott backfired because more people agree with the traditional family view. Nike’s decision represents either the personal beliefs of the executives or their realization that they will personally benefit by playing along with the nondiscrimination charade.
They can do what they want. They issued a statement after their spokesman insulted some of their customers. Boycott if you want but it was their business decision