Sounds more like backpedaling from an angry conservative base to me. "No, no! We NEVER said THAT!..."
Except that in this case, they actually did never say that. Unless you're arguing that there's some on paper agreement by CFA stating that as a term of condition for opening new stores in the Chicago area, they have agreed to cease donating to any organizations on some list the Alderman has, and have required that none of their executives donate to those organizations either?
Because that was what created the whole mess in the first place. So unless said Alderman got an agreement from CFA to not do the exact things that they were doing which caused them to threaten to not allow them to operate in Chicago, then it's absolutely ridiculous for said Alderman to claim he got such an agreement.
Did he? I haven't seen it. Have you? Has anyone? All I've seen is some vaguely worded statements from the Alderman suggesting this. Look at the actual quotes from him, not the statements surrounding it in the article(s). It's pure spin and cover. And I can only assume he hoped that no one (except his liberal supporters) would notice or care. But those same liberals couldn't keep their mouths shut, and went around jumping up and down declaring some kind of victory, and CFA went "Huh? We didn't promise anything like that".
So now we're back to square one. Said Alderman's stupid lie has blown up in his face and he's working double time to spin it even more. At the end of the day though, unless there's something on paper supporting his claim, then he was the one making stuff up. Given that such an agreement would be a potential violation of the first amendment, it seems particularly absurd that it actually exists anywhere but in the Alderman's crazed imagination.