It's a no-win situation.
Via the Federalist:
Publix is a Florida-based grocer known throughout the southeast. They treat their employees well, maintain a wholesome image, and sell what are known to us native Floridians as the best sub sandwiches on the planet. In late May, though, they found themselves arbitrarily thrust into a national gun debate in which they had no stake and seemed to want nothing to do with. They hopefully learned that there is no winning in stupid battles.
One might wonder how a purveyor of foods and dry goods got wound into a gun debate. Publix sells no guns or ammunition. Its shelves will leave you with no impression of what how the newest Austrian duty pistol handles or what you should attach to your AR. It started when David Hogg noticed that the chain, who regularly donates to political candidates irrespective of party, had made donations to state Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam. The issue? Putnam was guilty of making non-particularized pro-National Rifle Association comments on Twitter, or something.
To call attention to Publix’s alleged three- or four- times removed support of the NRA, Hogg and his co-conspirators organized a “die-in” at the Florida supermarket. The idea was to lay down in the aisles of the store, inconveniencing and confusing customers, with the goal of ending Publix’s support of Putnam, and thus their apparent support of gun rights. Or something. It’s hard to pin down the purpose of the protest in light of the fact that Publix suspended all political contributions days before the protest.
Publix’s move was tactically sound. They knew a particularly rabid group of protestors had trained on them, poised to stage a PR disaster. Knowing their support of Putnam was at the core of the issue, Publix decided to temporarily suspend all political contributions and “re-evaluate” their giving process, and release a statement ahead of the protest.
It was a clever move, to noncommittally give the protesters what they were asking for in hopes they would be satisfied. The issue is, though, that the protesters didn’t actually care. Even though the decision was made ahead of the May 25 “die-in,” protesters weren’t aware of the decision until after their display, so they considered it a victory. Some reports incorrectly claimed the decision came after the protest, with protesters and journalists alike failing to do their research, further confusing the matter.
Read more here.