The NYT story only works because of the words protesting moms and boycott. Those words give credence to Dan McCauley’s claims we have a sense of entitlement. “He should let us in and let our kids do whatever they want” seems to be how the parents (mommies) are portrayed. Even your story calls it a boycott.

I am a father. We were treated rudely. We left. We vowed never to return. We shared our experience with our neighbors, which is word-of-mouth advertising. Many of our neighbors felt that, despite the fact the store treated most customers rudely, it was fine to shop there.

None of the above is protesting. No one I am aware of has asked the sign be removed. No one is calling the city, the alderman, or chamber of commerce demanding he change. There is no one carrying signs protesting outside. We are not preventing any of our friends from patronizing the store.

That [Jodi] Wilgoren took six weeks to write it and got it so wrong is amazing to me. The “cheerleaders” comment was clearly designed to inflame the debate and succeeded wildly, but would not have worked if she had not used the words protesting and boycott. Then we cannot be seen as having any sense of entitlement. Now here’s the question. Do I ever take my daughter back to a place owned by someone who would make the “cheerleaders” comment? Why would anyone else?

Name withheld