AH HA! Ron O. raises several points - By MOST accounts, his first point seems to be accurate. FA booked the conference after the boycott was initially lifted, no? If there's no boycott, one would presume that there's no conflict.

However, if, like me, you are living in an area where most conference organizers have never HEARD of this particular chain, would it stand to reason that their package presented all nice and neat would include a disclaimer along the lines of "Oh, by the way, the little disagreement we had with the NAACP has been sorted out."?

How much research would you do if your instructions included "Find a reasonably priced place in one of these towns" and VOILA! Here's a place that looks pretty good! Would you even look twice? Of course, GUEST (the initial poster) would because that is the way it is when you're perfect.

Did FA make a mistake? Certainly. Is the much debated press release indicative of blind insolence? Not precisely, no - it is probably the result of "damage control" meetings over the weekend.

Were the PRECISE conditions and reasons for the revival of the boycott made to FA? Were the precise procedural issues from the court case made known to FA? I don't know, nor do I believe does anyone else in this forum KNOW. You may believe that the press and media publicized it - I don't remember hearing it this past weekend, however.

I do know that the organization I am with was sued for racial discrimination a few years ago. The basis was because three employees were dismissed with cause. They filed suit for wrongfull termination, which was thrown out when they lost the criminal case brought against them. THEN they brought in a group of CR lawyers and called a bunch of press conferences to publicize their complaint. The lawyers went away after seeing video tape of the evidence against them, and seeing massive amounts of evidence and testimony refuting the charges. Of course, those opposed to the suit were either Uncle Toms or racist/KKK/Neo-Nazis who controlled the media. Every once in a while these old charges resurface and it starts over again.

And THAT is why I am slow to jump on the discrimination band wagon - I nearly got run over by it. Let me see the evidence and documentation, and let me make up my own mind. Don't call me racist or imply that my legal concerns over a reaction over rule my support of civil rights. I may be slow to act, but then I am unstoppable.

Ask the kids a few years ago who accused me of being racist for not being offended by my ancestors owning slaves. I looked at them and said "My ancestors were too busy starving in Ireland to care what happened to your ancestors. Others were serving in Scottish regiments, doing their duty, INCLUDING searching for illegal slave trading. One great uncle lies buried near a small town in Pennsylvania where he fell serving in the 24th Michigan. Now, WHY should I feel bad about my ancestors owning slaves?"