Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
lawsuits

Target Doesn’t Want Customers Thinking It Supports Gay Marriage

As part of Target’s lawsuit against Canvass For A Cause — which has been installing operatives outside Target stores to collect signatures and donations in favor of gay marriage — the retailer claims having solicitors standing around its entrances is scaring customers away. But not just because Target believes shoppers don’t want to be pestered by clipboard-holders, but because shoppers might be tricked into thinking Target supports the radical homosexual agenda.

Among the reasons Target wants Canvass blocked from soliciting in front of its stores: shoppers “assume Target promotes” same-sex marriage. Wonk Room has the court filing:

Which is just silly. As any informed Target shopper would know, the last thing the company supports are efforts to legalize same-sex marriage or anything remotely pro-gay. But this might explain why Target has honed in on Canvass, while ignoring other advocacy groups that stand outside Target stores. (Officially, Target will tell you it doesn’t support any “political agenda,” which is bullshit: it supports anti-tax political agendas.)

Meanwhile, Canvass’ executive director Tres Watson, who founded the group in 2009 after Prop 8 passed, insists his activists will respect any shopper’s wish to be left alone. And when put to the test, well, that’s what seems to be happening.

By:           Max Simon
On:           Mar 26, 2011
Tagged: , , ,
  • 71 Comments
    • Geez
      Geez

      Target is a company, not political organization.

      All companies look after their business interests.

      Nothing wrong with that.

      Gay activists and “activists” really should try to make better use of their time.

      Mar 26, 2011 at 8:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • McMike
      McMike

      @Geez: Get real. When a corporation makes donations to politicians who are anti-gay then gay activists have every right and obligation to make sure the LGBT community is aware of that corporation’s policies and political donations. If Target wants to get into with the LGBT community then let’s have at it. There’s a reason why corporations tend to shutter when they end up pissing off the gay community.

      Mar 26, 2011 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • matt
      matt

      Well daaa… what would anyone that has kept up with the Target politial agenda expect of this company? Anyone that supports the anti-gay agenda is going to claim they are offended by something open minded or that might imply equality. These are the same simple minded biggots that would glady keep whites and blacks in seperate schools, seperate busses and seperate resturants. Only this time these same biggots claim their dispair is per the quotes of the bible… but it is OK these bibbots ignore their bible and wear lipstick, perfume, jewelry, and molest their sons and daughters….. or screw their neighbors.

      Mar 26, 2011 at 10:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @McMike: But does it necessitate the gay community targeting Target because of their supposedly anti-gay donations? That is the question, and it’s difficult to answer.

      The gay community likes to make examples out of anti-gay businesses and that’s not always the best approach.

      Mar 26, 2011 at 10:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gene
      Gene

      I used to shop at Target (tar-jay) but since they proved to be homophobic I will continue to wait until hell freezes over before I ever step into a store or shop online.

      Mar 26, 2011 at 11:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @TheRealAdam: Good point. Is Target the worst offender? Does anything good they do outweigh the damage caused by misguided political contributions? Can we use those contributions as leveragfe, rather than to have something to bitch about. Perspective.

      Usually when a media outlet goes after a piblicly traded company like this, it’s because someone has shorted the stock. Maybe Queerty’s editors should disclose their stock holdings.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 12:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Gene: That works only if you make sure that the places where you do shop have a better record than Target: look at campaign donatïons (not all states track this like MN does), community involvement and corporate policies toward LGBT employees.
      Takes some research, but some stores are better, others are worse.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 12:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The sane Francis
      The sane Francis

      I think it is the best approach. Hold their feet to the fire and let them burn. Maybe I’m overreacting, but we can’t allow bullshit like this to continue. Target has been smiling in our faces and going out of their way to support anti-gay initiatives and legislators. They can no longer be supported by our community in any way whatsoever. The only way to send the message we aren’t going to be played as fools is by being showing these organizations/businesses etc. that we are serious and that their anti-gay actions are not acceptable and will be dealt with.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 12:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ZackFord
      ZackFord

      Thanks for featuring this! A lot of credit goes to Ken Williams at SDGLN for obtaining the court documents!

      Mar 27, 2011 at 12:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kwool
      kwool

      Can we be a little realistic here? Target doesn’t allow ANY group to stand in front of their stores, including Salvation Army (which is ANTI-GAY), Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts (also ANTI-GAY), or any other organization.

      Target has the right to control its property. End of story.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 7:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rf
      rf

      Most, if not all Targets do not own the property around their stores and from what I have heard, Target pays the Salvation Army to stay away and doesnt strictly enforce its no solicitation policies company wide already. So yes they are targeting this one group because they don’t like the ‘icky’ factor that their customers have to deal with. Target is truly anti-gay and the fact that they’ve spent years pretending that they cared about gay people is shameful.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 8:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike1987
      Mike1987

      @TheRealAdam: “…and that’s not always the best approach…”

      I very much disagree. The direct approach is always the best. Back room deals don’t cut it and seldom change opinion. It’s not just about Target.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 10:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zack
      Zack

      I really don’t want to be bother by any group when I leave a store to sign something or buy something. The exception is the Vets who sell those poppies.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 11:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      In CA stores that aren’t stand-alone businesses (ie: there are other stores in same mall/complex) are considered in the public arena. That means, Target, cannot restrict their right to canvas.

      On NPR I heard that the signature gatherers where ‘harassing’ the shoppers (could be) but what I didn’t hear was that other signature groups had been overlooked by Target- which amounts to selective enforcement.

      Increasingly, it appears that Target is just nasty. That legal language above is baloney. So, the offended people go in the “No” category on signing… big deal.

      Where’s Super Nanny when you need her? She needs to send Target & these ‘offended’ shoppers to the Naughty-corner, asap!

      Mar 27, 2011 at 11:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      If they’re on public property such as a sidewalk, Canvass is law abiding and Target can be sued for filing frivolous lawsuits or legal harrassment.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 11:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MaxH
      MaxH

      @Kev C:

      But they aren’t. Target is suing them for political activism right outside their stores’ doors, and it has a long history of suing other groups, regardless of political affiliation or cause, for doing the same – if it irritates customers in a large enough number.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chuck
      Chuck

      They don’t have a problem allowing the Salvation Army to solicit donations, knowing that they have an anti-gay agenda!

      Mar 27, 2011 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      @MaxH: They should check local zoning ordinances about walkway rights. Even if they are soliciting, it’s a minor offense dealt with by a police complaint per basis. IMO this is a frivolous lawsuit and should be counter-persued as such.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      @MaxH, They were soliciting in a multiple-store area which in CA is considered a public square.

      The courts have already previously ruled that any group has the right to do what they are doing.

      Target, quite possibly, feels it’s more beneficial to be perceived as anti-gay than equality-minded.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • christopher brown
      christopher brown

      I guess I look at it this way….I have a choice in where I shop…I choose not to shop at Target because of the money they gave to the political candidate….I am a gay physician….If I gave money to people who supported anti gay, Jewish, Black, Muslim, Christian, or any other organization that promoted anything other than love and acceptance of all, I would understand that people wouldnt come to see me…

      Mar 27, 2011 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      Target is running a business…

      Mar 27, 2011 at 5:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SteveC
      SteveC

      Yes John, Target runs a business.

      Unfortunately Target runs a business that wants to remove your human and civil rights.

      No LGBT person should shop at Target until Target makes a clear statement that they will stop funding homophobic bigotry.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 6:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @SteveC: do you shop at Best Buy? Do you check every company’s political contributions before you buy their merchandise? Target might look a tad less evil if you did that.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 8:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @justiceontherocks: Did you note that many of the commenters here are people who seem new and who aren’t spreading their wisdom on other topics?

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Walmart or other big boxes are taking advantage of the situation…..BTW, thanks for info on BestBuy.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 11:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gill winker
      gill winker

      @TheRealAdam: What would you have us do? Kiss their ass like a bunch of pansies. It is time we stand up and take these assholes down.

      Mar 27, 2011 at 11:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      Ugh. I’m sick of people claiming Target is anti-gay.

      Is Target now also pro-life and in favor of Second Amendment rights? Because those are some of Tom Emmer’s positions too.

      A question for anyone still hating on Target: did you donate any money to Obama’s campaign? Because if you did, I guess that means you’re against marriage equality. Obama, after all, is unequivocal in his position that marriage is between one man and one woman.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 12:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      Target is anti-gay – period. Any look at their political contributions by their top executives reveals a pattern of personal political contributions – that was practiced at the corporate level given the very first opportunity – to some of the most rabidly anti-gay politicians to have ever been in office in America. This has been going on for years – and when not contribution to rabidly anti-gay candidates – they are hiring at the executive level some of the worst Republican political hacks out there.

      Anyone here who wants to argue otherwise – not because they know it to be true – or even care – but all in the pursuit of cheap tacky goods made in China – by all means – degrade and debase yourself in the pursuit of low, low prices. You and Target deserve each other.

      For the rest of us – we now know Target to be a liar – and anti-gay – and we will not be taking our business back there until the top executives of the corporation have been fired – for cause.

      I do not begrudge them to right to be anti-gay – but I do begrudge them the right to lie about it. And for those who want to cite KMart or Wal-Mart – or frankly any other entity – they have never pretended to be my friend in order to take my money.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 3:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Ricky: well, you might want to check out Walmart and KMart ‘s records too before you shop there. Amazon, also. You’ve researched those companies too, right?

      Mar 28, 2011 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @Jeffree: Don’t confuse Ricky with the factsM They get in the way of his agenda, which, as far as one can tell, is to feel persecuted as often as possible.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 4:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @justiceontherocks: and to jeffree too – are you kidding me – is your need to purchase cheap tacky useless goods so great that you can’t even demand that a company not lie to you about their support for equality and diversity?

      You and Target deserve each other – though how to you push those carts laden with tacky crap around while groveling on your knees?

      Mar 28, 2011 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @Ricky: one more time – show me one publicly traded company that didn’t make a donation to an “anti-gay” politician. Just show me one. And of course most of them don’t have policies for their employees anywhere near as good as Target.

      Bottom line I show us how Target is different or find something else to whine about.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @justiceontherocks: Seems like Ricky didn’t learn that activism isn’t just telling people what not to do, but helping them understand what *to do* and why.

      I’ve done my research on where I prefer to shop and not to, but that’s based on my own values. Others may use different criteria.

      “Cheaply made crap” is not something that is a moral argument to differentiate between most stores of any kind. Irrelevant, eh what?

      Funny how this topic is the only one ricky seems to be commenting on….. Can you say “concern troll”?

      Mar 28, 2011 at 5:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @justiceontherocks: You show me the company that has used their so-called stance on equality and diversity as part of their marketing – who gladly take part in high-profile gay events – and trumpet their support for gays and lesbians – and then takes the very first opportunity afforded to them by the US Supreme court to give an $150K political contribution to a anti-gay candidate – and initially justified it by saying his support for business issues was all that mattered.

      You cannot claim support for equality and diversity – and then support a candidate who is about neither of those things – and justify it by saying it was simply his business position.

      You are welcome to let Target continue to lie to you – and pay them for the privileged – I have no personal experience – but I am sure there is some comfort to by found in the arms of a lying money-grubbing whore.

      I hope you two will be very happy together.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 5:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Jeffree: If you have a point there – or frankly in any other your ramblings in your defense of Target – I have yet to see it.

      You have yet to show even one other for-profit entity that has used their support for equality and diversity as a cornerstone to their marketing and image – while working politically against those very things.

      Your need to shop at Target is greater than any truth, any principle, any dignity, so by all means – continue to do so.

      Knowing that you and those like you will be at Target – is another good reason – not that I needed another one – for me not to go there.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @Ricky: You haven’t proved that their contribution was “anti-gay.” They gave to a republican pro-business candidate who had anti-equality positions. That does not prove they are anti-gay. If you are a vegan and support vegan causes but give money to a beef-eating candidate that does not make you anti-vegan.

      BTW – a lot of people on here would say that a contribution to Obama was anti-gay, based on his position on marriage equality.

      And on a final note – if you stuck a gun at my head and demanded to know the location of the nearest Target I couldn’t tell you. Haven’t been inside one in 8+ years.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @justiceontherocks: A politician who is opposed to gay marriage in a state that is likely to consider that very issue during his time in office – who has ties to a so-called Christian rock band that thinks Muslim countries are more “Christian” than the U.S. because they EXECUTE gays and lesbians – and who characterizes the members of the band as just a bunch of “good” guys – is not anti-gay? Yeah, right, got it — he is just a businessman – is there good money to be made in killing gays and lesbians – do we spend more money when we are dead?

      Obama is president of the United States – not governor of Minnesota – you cannot compare the two – I am sorry I have to tell you that.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @Ricky: No one has said Emmer is not anti-gay. But just because you support him doesn’t mean you are also anti-gay. Indeed, one can still support a politician while completely disagreeing with some of his positions, evidenced by your quick reversal when it comes to Obama.

      Please address my previous post. Is Target also anti-choice and pro-gun rights? And for that matter, anti-vegan too? Because those are all strong positions of Emmer.

      And what if Target had instead donated money to Mark Dayton? Would that make Target anti-war? Or anti-low taxes? Do you realize how stupid you sound by making these arguments?

      Mar 28, 2011 at 6:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: If Target were to give to a politician that was anti-Jewish – or anti-black – or better yet – anti-Christian – do you think they would try to justify their contribution by saying it was only about his business positions – yes, one of us here is stupid – can you guess which one?

      And exactly what makes you think Target is not anti-choice – is it their “conscience” pledge that allows pharmacists to not provide birth control based on their religious beliefs – or was it their stopping all contributions to Planned Parenthood back in what – 2000 – which one of those event convinced you or their pro-choice position – better yet, since you strike me as stupid – whatever gave you the idea they were pro-choice – a vision?

      As for anti-vegan – or pro-guns – so now fundamental gay rights – the right to live – to marry – to have fundamental protections – is the same as being able to eat what you want or buy a gun? Seriously, are you just that stupid.

      Target executives have supported some of the most rabidly anti-gay politicians for years – politicians who oppose gays right to marry, adopt, have protection in the workplace – all while claiming to support equality and diversity.

      You have not cited a single fact in support of Target – no wonder you want to shop there.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @Ricky: You keep getting confused. We all know Emmer is anti-equality. But just because someone donates money to him it does not mean they agree with every position he takes. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

      BTW – it will help you to have a happy successful life if you learn the difference between your enemies and people you disagree with. Personal insults against people who challenge your political opinions is a poor way to make your point.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @justiceontherocks: You might want to go back and read some of your responses to my post before you give a lecture on civility – or is characterizing my stated feelings regarding Target as “whining” a political argument? Stick with what you know – whatever the Hell that is.

      You have shown no evidence – yet again – that Target does not completely agree with Emmer’s anti-gay positions – period. It is just that simple – if you feel that you have proof that Target does not FULLY-SUPPORT all of Emmer’s positions – now would be the time to offer it. I submit that the argument that Target only supports his “business policies” – and please note – at no time have those policies ever been stated explicitly – just a vague pro-business stance – is a lie. Target fully-supports all of Emmer’s positions – period.

      Do you have any facts – any facts at all to show Target does not fully-agree with Emmer? Oh it is just a feeling you have?

      Why don’t you try dealing in facts in your love of Target – what has Target ever done for the gay community other than take our money?

      Mar 28, 2011 at 6:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      Are you just forgetful? Queerty itself has even reported on how Target offers benefits to same-sex partners of employees? How is that anti-gay?

      I’m completely flabbergasted that you would outright say “Target fully-supports all of Emmer’s positions – period.” If you voted for Obama, I can just as validly say that you fully support all of Obama’s positions, period. Why then, Ricky, do you oppose the right of committed same-sex couples to marry?

      As for your prior post:
      “If Target were to give to a politician that was anti-Jewish – or anti-black – or better yet – anti-Christian – do you think they would try to justify their contribution by saying it was only about his business positions”
      Yes. Really, this isn’t that hard.

      “And exactly what makes you think Target is not anti-choice”
      Why would Target take any position on abortions? Unless they’re selling abortion clinic supplies, I don’t think it makes sense for the company to take an official position one way or another.

      “is it their “conscience” pledge that allows pharmacists to not provide birth control based on their religious beliefs”

      Uhh, you do know it would be illegal to do that in some states, yes?

      “whatever gave you the idea they were pro-choice”
      What? My point is that they don’t take a position on abortion. For obvious reasons.

      “As for anti-vegan – or pro-guns – so now fundamental gay rights – the right to live – to marry – to have fundamental protections – is the same as being able to eat what you want or buy a gun?”
      I’ll ignore the fact that I’d rather be free to eat what I want than be free to marry who I want and just stick with the obvious: gun rights are without a doubt a constitutional issue.

      “Target executives have supported some of the most rabidly anti-gay politicians for years – politicians who oppose gays right to marry, adopt, have protection in the workplace – all while claiming to support equality and diversity.”
      Yes. Just as they have supported anti-abortion and pro-gun rights politicians. You somehow remain oblivious to the real reason for that support, which is that the same politicians with those views also happen to be the ones with the kindest policies for businesses. I suppose you now want to argue that had Target donated to Mark Dayton it would be an anti-business business. Good lord.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @Ricky: I have no idea what Target thought about Emmer’s positions on social questions. Neither do you. Their contribution does not prove they support 100 per cent of his positions. Many people contribute to candidates even though they disagree about important issues. Why that is difficult for you to grasp is a mystery.

      You’re the one claiming Target lied. It’s up to you to prove it. You haven’t come close. The donations don’t prove what you claim they prove. Period.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      Target is homophobic,period.I know it is difficult to boycott major stores. I still go to Wal Mart at Christmas time because you know what? I am a broke college student who needs Christmas gifts for family and friends. We all have lives to lead. Activism is often a balancing act. But…with what we are seeing here, I think Target is best avoided. Haven’t been there since 2009 and I don’t miss it. I don’t think any LGBT person or ally should shop there, but I do understand if they feel they cannot avoid it. My next personal step is moving to an area that has Costco.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 7:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: So Mark Dayton is anti-business – based on what – besides Target’s propaganda – what makes Mark Dayton – or any politician – anti-business? Can you cite a single proposal – a single initiative? Can you in any way be specific? Or are you just parroting the party line for Target? All Republicans then are good and all Democrats are then – what – bad for business? So Target and all businesses are strictly Republican – good to know.

      How many of Targets top executives – the ones who actually make the decisions – are gay or lesbian? How many are Republican? How many of the people employed by Target to make their political decisions are former Republican party hacks?

      I do not work at Target – their benefits for their employees do not set state or federal policy – I should not have to wear a red shirt to enjoy equality in my workplace or my state. I suspect that Target’s workplace equality, however, has a very low glass ceiling for gays and lesbians – and that many who work for the company never stop wearing a red shirt the entire time they are there. That, I suspect, is their idea of diversity and equality.

      I have not shopped at Target since July – and based on their recent actions – will not be returning anytime soon. The good news is – my life – and my purchases are the better for it – there is much to be said for getting out of the big, ugly box store.

      PS – As for comparing Obama to Emmer – are you a member of the tea party – though, even by their standards, that is a ridiculous argument to make – Obama pulled-off nothing short of a miracle by being the first black man elected to the presidency – I did not need him to run on a gay marriage platform – I needed him to get elected. I doubt Obama could have been elected had he run supporting gay marriage – the same cannot be said of the governor of Minnesota – since the winner, Dayton, the anti-business Dayton – does support gay marriage.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 7:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @justiceontherocks: At least you are finally admitting that is was donations – and not simply the one donation – and since Target said on August 5 they were sorry the donation upset team members and they would be more careful in the future – and then gave another $30K to some of the most rabid homophobic candidates to ever run for office in the 2010 election cycle – we now know that Target lies – period.

      Your need to continue to crawl into Target and offer up your sad coins for their even sadder merchandise — knowing – if nothing else – they have in-fact lied about their political giving – is far greater than any argument or fact that I could ever hope to offer up to get you out of that crap emporium.

      Target lies – this is fact – and has been proven. You, however, have been unable to show where they actually have told the truth.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      @Ricky: junior, the only thing you proven is that you are a moron. Your whole argument is “they’re liars because I said so.” Your boycott is not working because no one buys your illogical arguments. Instead of going after the Chick-Fil-As and Exxon Mobil’s and Halliburtons who do real harm, you pick an irrational fight over some nonsense.

      Why I bother to write this I don’t know because you only read what you want to see anyway. So congratulations on being the single most immature AND thick-headed person ever to post on Queerty.

      Have a nice life.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @justiceontherocks: Uh, justice – are you an idiot? I mean no disrespect – but are you an idiot?

      Target gave $150K to MN Forward – initially defended that contribution – then apologized for it – assuring their “team members” on their public website they had heard from them and would be more careful and cautious in any future political giving – AND THEN GAVE ANOTHER $30K in that election cycle to some of the more rabidly anti-gay politicians ever – the worst of the worst – this is fact – do you know what a fact is – do you know the meaning of fact? And these facts are not in dispute.

      Target lies – they lied when they apologized to team members and then gave another $30K to some politicians who make Emmer look moderate – Target lies – not because I say so – BUT BECAUSE TARGET LIES.

      And with customer like you – I am beginning to see why the lies are so lazy.

      Mar 28, 2011 at 8:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @Ricky:
      “So Mark Dayton is anti-business – based on what – besides Target’s propaganda – what makes Mark Dayton – or any politician – anti-business? Can you cite a single proposal – a single initiative? Can you in any way be specific? Or are you just parroting the party line for Target?”
      Wow you’re bad at picking up on choice words. No, Dayton doesn’t hate businesses. But it’s plain as day that Emmer’s proposed policies would have led to fewer taxes Target needs to pay (http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2010/09/07/21187/gops_tom_emmer_releases_jobs_plan_–_and_a_vision_for_a_new_kind_of_state_budget).

      “How many of Targets top executives – the ones who actually make the decisions – are gay or lesbian?”
      How many are Native American? What, none? Well I guess Target hates Native Americans too.

      “How many are Republican? How many of the people employed by Target to make their political decisions are former Republican party hacks?”
      Probably proportionally the same as the number of Republican business executives around the country. Still an irrelevant point to whether Target is anti-gay.

      “I do not work at Target – their benefits for their employees do not set state or federal policy – I should not have to wear a red shirt to enjoy equality in my workplace or my state. I suspect that Target’s workplace equality, however, has a very low glass ceiling for gays and lesbians – and that many who work for the company never stop wearing a red shirt the entire time they are there. That, I suspect, is their idea of diversity and equality.”
      So you’re brushing aside a specific example of Target being pro-LGBT after asking for a specific example of Target being pro-LGBT? Got it.

      “PS – As for comparing Obama to Emmer – are you a member of the tea party – though, even by their standards, that is a ridiculous argument to make – Obama pulled-off nothing short of a miracle by being the first black man elected to the presidency – I did not need him to run on a gay marriage platform – I needed him to get elected. ”
      You conveniently keep dodging the bullet. Why is it okay to say that you support Obama but don’t agree with every single one of his political positions while at the same time saying that Target must agree with every single one of the political positions of a politician it supports?

      Mar 28, 2011 at 10:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: Let me address your last point first – the governor of Minnesota can be elected regardless of whether he supports gay marriage or not – to suggest that I can only support a presidential candidate in 2008 who supports gay marriage is to say I cannot vote for the winning candidate – likely for a number of election cycles – your example remains – like many of your so-called arguments – ridiculous. You cannot compare Target’s support for a governor in Minnesota to my support for the president of the United States.

      Regarding your other arguments – what makes Target pro-GLBT — because they offer same-sex benefits – do they offer the same chance for advancement – are gays and lesbians in real positions of power at the company – or are they relegated to the rank and file worker only – never making the real decisions – never really being promoted or hired at the higher levels. TARGET IS NOT PRO-GLBT — THAT IS A MYTH.

      As for Mark Dayton – simply taxing corporations appropriately means that the taxpayers – the people who actually shop at Target — will get to keep more of their money – and perhaps have more to spend. Having a corporation pay their fair share of taxes is not anti-business.

      Mar 29, 2011 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AxelDC
      AxelDC

      @Geez: Then they shouldn’t be donating to antigay politicians.

      Mar 29, 2011 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @Ricky: “Let me address your last point first – the governor of Minnesota can be elected regardless of whether he supports gay marriage or not – to suggest that I can only support a presidential candidate in 2008 who supports gay marriage is to say I cannot vote for the winning candidate – likely for a number of election cycles – your example remains – like many of your so-called arguments – ridiculous. You cannot compare Target’s support for a governor in Minnesota to my support for the president of the United States.”
      You’re running yourself in circles and looking ridiculous to boot. You’re still dodging the entire question that makes you a hypocrite.

      With that said, I’m amazed you think it is impossible for a person who supports same-sex marriage to win the presidency. Even if it were the case, does that mean you agree with 100% of Obama’s other positions? Hardly. The fact of the matter is you routinely vote for politicians despite not agreeing with them on *everything*. Rather, you agree with them more than you agree with the other candidates. Target has done nothing different.

      “Regarding your other arguments – what makes Target pro-GLBT”

      I haven’t even been arguing that Target is pro-anything. I’m implying saying that donating money to a Republican does not mean you agree with every single one of that Republican’s positions. Yet you find that impossible to grasp.

      “do they offer the same chance for advancement”
      Yes. Sexual orientation is even in the company’s nondiscrimination policy.

      “are gays and lesbians in real positions of power at the company – or are they relegated to the rank and file worker only – never making the real decisions – never really being promoted or hired at the higher levels.”
      I have no idea, nor is it relevant. Again I ask: are there any Native American executives at Target? If not, you must be arguing that Target hates Native Americans.

      “As for Mark Dayton – simply taxing corporations appropriately means that the taxpayers – the people who actually shop at Target — will get to keep more of their money – and perhaps have more to spend. Having a corporation pay their fair share of taxes is not anti-business.”
      So you honestly believe that Target thought it would end up with more money at the end of the day with Dayton, but decided against him just so it could advance its social agenda? Man, I wish I could make this stuff up.

      Mar 29, 2011 at 4:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nigel Puerasch
      Nigel Puerasch

      It’s HOME in on, not HONE in on. As in HOMING pigeon. To HONE means to sharpen a cutting edge on a tool.

      Mar 29, 2011 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: Uh, you are aware that Target is not an actual individual — regardless of the Supreme Court ruling to the contrary – Target is a corporation – your infantile and intellectually dishonest comparison of my support for a candidate through my vote as the same as Target’s support through their corporate dollars is ridiculous. My voting for the candidate who I think is the best is not the same thing as a corporation giving money to a candidate to fund a campaign.

      Again, since you seem dimwitted – if Emmer were anti-Christian or anti-black do you think Target would support him – and say it was simply based on his business policies? WOULD SUPPORTING A WHITE SUPREMACIST WITH A STRONG BUSINESS PLATFORM BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?

      And yes, yes, yes, yes – thank you — finally – you get it – I think that Target Corporation is pursing the personal agenda of its corporate executives – which is HOMOPHOBIC – and not pursing a business agenda at all — SAYING OTHERWISE IS JUST ANOTHER LIE.

      I say that Target’s support for Emmer has NOTHING to do with his so-called business policies – AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS STANCE ON SOCIAL ISSUES – Target lies – that is a proven fact – Target lies – and they are sure as hell lying about this.

      Mar 29, 2011 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @NigelPuerasch: A man after my own heart! Pres. Bush (1980) used “home in on” in a speech & we’ve been stuck with it ever since….

      @Justiceontherocks: Just for you, I’m dragging out a favorite simile: arguing with Ricky is like trying to teach calculus to a cat! As usual, lesser minds can’t keep up with ya !

      Mar 29, 2011 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @Ricky:
      “Uh, you are aware that Target is not an actual individual — regardless of the Supreme Court ruling to the contrary – Target is a corporation – your infantile and intellectually dishonest comparison of my support for a candidate through my vote as the same as Target’s support through their corporate dollars is ridiculous. My voting for the candidate who I think is the best is not the same thing as a corporation giving money to a candidate to fund a campaign.”
      Oh, excuse me. So let’s look at an arbitrary Obama campaign contributer since you apparently don’t share your money with politicians you support. You really think every Obama contributer agrees with every single one of Obama’s policies? I hate to break it to you, but this blog is full of dozens of people that don’t fit that profile.

      “Again, since you seem dimwitted – if Emmer were anti-Christian or anti-black do you think Target would support him – and say it was simply based on his business policies?”
      If he was still a viable candidate, yes. How is being gay any different than being Christian or black?

      “WOULD SUPPORTING A WHITE SUPREMACIST WITH A STRONG BUSINESS PLATFORM BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? ”
      For a business, yes. I would certainly expect a business to support whatever platform is best for its business.

      “I think that Target Corporation is pursing the personal agenda of its corporate executives – which is HOMOPHOBIC – and not pursing a business agenda at all”
      “I say that Target’s support for Emmer has NOTHING to do with his so-called business policies – AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS STANCE ON SOCIAL ISSUES”
      So let me get this straight. If Emmer was as pro-gay as they come, Target wouldn’t have dreamed of donating money to him? I swear you’re like comedic gold here.

      Mar 29, 2011 at 10:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: Ummmmm – you seem a little – well, stupid – so I am sure you find much in your day to giggle about – so by all means – laugh away.

      Target did not, I repeat, not, and once more since you seem – s-l-o-w – did not have to give to any candidate in the 2010 Minnesota race — many corporations in Minnesota managed to stay completely out of it — surely with the estimated millions of dollars in lost revenue due to the continuing bad publicity – even someone as factually challenged as you can see HOW THAT DOES NOT MAKE BUSINESS SENSE.

      And your assertion that Target – or any corporation — would give to an blatantly anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-black candidate is perhaps the laziest lie you have thus far told – it is a ridiculous assumption based on nothing more than your stunning intellectual laziness. BY ALL MEANS PROVIDE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF A MAJOR CORPORATION SUPPORTING A WHITE SUPREMACIST IN ANY ELECTION – I DARE YOU.

      And yes, if Emmer was pro-gay I SAY THAT TARGET WOULD HAVE NEVER CONTRIBUTED ONE DIME TO HIS CAMPAIGN – SHOW ME EVEN ONE CANDIDATE WHO IS PRO-GAY THAT HAS RECEIVED MONEY FROM TARGET OR TARGET EXECUTIVES.

      We are done.

      Mar 30, 2011 at 1:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nigel Puerasch
      Nigel Puerasch

      @Jeffree:

      LOL. I’m a pedant — alas. Do you remember that wonderful scene early on in Mary Renault’s The Charioteer , where Laurie (“Spud”) is working on his homework in his room, and looks up in the dictionary, “pedant, from Italian pedante (schoolmaster)”, originally from ancient Greek pais/paidos (child or boy)

      I wonder if the Target “executives” even know what “pedant” means, never mind that there was such a place as Ancient Greece, where gay wasn’t an abomination, where even the Gods had male lovers.

      Mar 30, 2011 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Nigel: I’d forgotten that line about being a “pedant” until you brought it up!
      “Supposably, I bring up too many mute points, but I try to nip those conversations in the butt….”

      p.s. I’m a decent person but a bad typist. Bush Sr., of course, said “hone in” on.

      @Ricky: I hope that Target is aware of your boycott. The companies I boycott get annual letters from me containing copies of receipts from my ventures to their competitors. Otherwise, they won’t know what they’re missing.

      Mar 30, 2011 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @Ricky:
      “surely with the estimated millions of dollars in lost revenue due to the continuing bad publicity – even someone as factually challenged as you can see HOW THAT DOES NOT MAKE BUSINESS SENSE. ”
      If Emmer had won, Target would have had more money at the end of the day. The millions they would save in taxes would have more than made up for the money they lost from boycotters. I’d say that’s the only thing that makes business sense.

      “And your assertion that Target – or any corporation — would give to an blatantly anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-black candidate is perhaps the laziest lie you have thus far told – it is a ridiculous assumption based on nothing more than your stunning intellectual laziness.”
      The fuck? You asked me for my *opinion* on whether a business would support such a candidate. How on earth could that be a lie when I honestly believe that a business wants to do what makes it the most money in the end?

      “BY ALL MEANS PROVIDE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF A MAJOR CORPORATION SUPPORTING A WHITE SUPREMACIST IN ANY ELECTION – I DARE YOU. ”
      I’m not aware of any white supremacists who have run for office in any elections in the past few decades. If you go back however far you need to to find one, I’m sure you will find that he received plenty of financial support. Or have politicians always run for office without any funding?

      “And yes, if Emmer was pro-gay I SAY THAT TARGET WOULD HAVE NEVER CONTRIBUTED ONE DIME TO HIS CAMPAIGN”
      You’ve honestly made my day. :)

      Mar 30, 2011 at 5:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Jeffree: I have only written to Target, 3M, and Best Buy once to state my intention to not shop at their stores – or in the case of 3M – not to buy their products – due to their support of MN Forward. All three are large enough that they can weather most any boycott – that, however, does not change the loss in revenue.

      Target has reported sales at or below expectations every month since July. More importantly, here in Los Angeles, Target’s proposed second store in Hollywood was delayed by a year – when the city demanded a environmental impact statement after the donation to MN Forward was revealed – something that was not demanded of their first store. Target enjoyed a reputation that they may have never deserved – and their actions now are costing them in more than just sales – if Target wants to be just another retailer — then by all means – let them pay for it.

      Regardless of whether they can do without my business – I have found it amazingly easy – and much more rewarding as a consumer – to take my business elsewhere.

      Mar 30, 2011 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: Uh, can you cite the specifics of the proposal by Emmer that would save Target millions of dollars in the state of Minnesota? Target was unable to cite a specific example of why Emmer would be better for business – perhaps you can do better.

      And if it were really just that simple – then one has to ask – why only $150K — or would contributing more to get millions of dollars from the state be a little too on point? A little too obvious?

      I do not think much of your reasoning – but I do not for a moment think you honestly believe that a major corporation would risk their business to support a candidate for governor who is anti-Semitic, racist, or sexist — I think you suggesting otherwise is dishonest and intellectually lazy.

      Thank you for not bothering to list any pro-gay candidates that Target does support – and instead invoked the sad image that my assertion that they would not support Emmer or any other candidate who was pro-gay – regardless of their business platform – made your day.

      Since you are really bringing nothing more to the game – perhaps now is the time to leave the field.

      Mar 30, 2011 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Ricky: Classic rookie mistake, there.Unless they know why you’re boycotting them and get reminded of it AND know what they’re missing out on, you’re being too passive.

      Studying successful boycotts would be helpful to you. But also study the failed ones too.

      Mar 30, 2011 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @Ricky:
      “Uh, can you cite the specifics of the proposal by Emmer that would save Target millions of dollars in the state of Minnesota? Target was unable to cite a specific example of why Emmer would be better for business – perhaps you can do better.”
      Sigh. You’re not even trying at this point. One of my earlier comments (number 48 on this page) linked to an article that discussed Emmer’s plan. You can read details of it yourself here: http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/news/2010/09/emmer-budget-plan-part-1-jobs-creation-agenda-to-put-minnesotans-back-to-work.html Emmer wanted to reduce the business tax from it’s current rate of 9.8% to 3% by 2015 and eventually get it down to 0%. Sounds like plenty of extra money for Target, no?

      “And if it were really just that simple – then one has to ask – why only $150K — or would contributing more to get millions of dollars from the state be a little too on point? A little too obvious?”
      I’m not Target; I don’t know as well as Target does what amount of money is best. But if Target really hates the gays, why only $150,000? Or would contributing more to advance their anti-gay agenda be a little too on point? A little too obvious?

      “but I do not for a moment think you honestly believe that a major corporation would risk their business to support a candidate for governor who is anti-Semitic, racist, or sexist ”
      If the business honestly believed it would come out ahead given all that, of course I think they would do it. How can you watch me suggest this is exactly what Target did with Emmer and not believe me? Either you think I’m also lying about Target or you think there’s something fundamentally more important about race or religion compared to sexual orientation.

      “Thank you for not bothering to list any pro-gay candidates that Target does support – and instead invoked the sad image that my assertion that they would not support Emmer or any other candidate who was pro-gay – regardless of their business platform – made your day. ”
      I would expect the candidates Target supports to be virtually all Republicans. The fact of the matter is, there are extremely few pro-gay Republicans. It’s like asking me to find a candidate Target supports that favors gun control. The *absence* of such a candidate doesn’t prove Target supports the right to bear arms.

      Mar 30, 2011 at 5:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: The website is specific regarding Emmer’s campaign promises — a little less specific on how the state was going to manage to cut up to 9 percent of taxes for business – yet still continue to provide all the necessary services – or was that money just extra cash sitting around. Or did Emmer – and Target – imagine the money would be made up by the actual taxpayers — if a customer has less money to shop due to higher taxes – does Target end up paying less taxes on less revenue?

      Emmer can say anything – like he will not drink and drive a vehicle – but, as evidenced by his two arrests for drunk driving – saying something and doing it are not always the same thing.

      I think Target’s senior executives are homophobic – and regardless of what Emmer could or could not deliver on campaign promises regarding taxes – he was sure to continue to oppose gay marriage and any equality for gays in Minnesota – that is what Target wanted and that is what they paid for.

      No, if a business honestly believed a candidate who was pro-business but anti-Semitic, or racist, or sexist – THEY WOULD NEVER SUPPORT HIM. You do understand that no pro-business policy will make up for people not actually shopping there – you do understand that don’t you?

      Target’s so-called positive “buzz” as measured by industry analysts is off by more than 30 percent – they are not simply losing actually dollars in revenue due to purchases – but that positive buzz has value to as in who will partner with with you – who will gladly stand by your brand. Target is fast becoming what the tried – and spent millions – for years not to be — just another crappy retailer.

      That 150K political donation – plus the 30K they gave after that even though they lied and said they wouldn’t — are the gift that keeps on giving.

      Fund Homophobic candidates in 2010 election cycle – $180K
      Being exposed as a company with Homophobic Senior Executives — priceless.

      Mar 30, 2011 at 6:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @Ricky: Boy you’re hard to please. You asked for a specific proposal by Emmer that would have saved Target millions. I gave you one. You then discredited it by saying it wouldn’t happen.

      It’s almost as if you aren’t even paying attention to anything anyone else says!

      Mar 31, 2011 at 12:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: First, thank you for at least being specific – something Target has consistently failed to do – second, my rebuttal remains – simply saying you are going to do something – like cut taxes for business – without showing where that money is coming from – is not cutting taxes for business.

      You can’t simply cut the revenue of the state – surely the taxpayers – the voters – might actually have a problem with that. What you can do, without any doubt – as governor — is oppose gay marriage and refuse to sign any bill that includes gay marriage – or any gay rights – that is what Emmer really promised – and that is one promise he could easily deliver – and that is WHAT TARGET WAS REALLY PAYING FOR.

      Mar 31, 2011 at 2:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      @Ricky: Since when can’t a state spend itself into a hole? Minnesota already has one of the worst deficits of any state (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/02/minnesotas_2010_budget_deficit.php). People may not end up pleased to see reduced taxes increasing that deficit, but the governor and legislature certainly have the ability to do it. There’s absolutely no requirement to max up for that money elsewhere.

      Mar 31, 2011 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: At some point a state must pay its bills – a state can take on debt – but sooner or later that affects the state’s credit rating – and that affects the ability to borrow and spend into the hole. No candidate running for governor has the ability to guarantee tax cuts – anymore than then President Bush Sr. could guarantee no new taxes.

      What a candidate can guarantee – without any reservation – and deliver on – is a promise to oppose gay marriage and all gay rights that are put before him.

      What if Target was hoping for a better tax rate – but knew that Emmer could deliver on the promise of no gay marriage and no gay rights in Minnesota?

      Now that we know Target’s top executives and their families have given to some of the most homophobic candidates ever to exist – and have done so for years – now that we know that support of political homophobia is nothing new for the company.

      What if – in supporting Emmer – Target as a major corporation who knows exactly what they want — was getting exactly what they wanted in a candidate – a conservative, homophobic, Republican?

      Mar 31, 2011 at 5:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve
      Schteve

      Then you would have imagined quite the implausible scenario!

      Mar 31, 2011 at 8:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      @Schteve: Really, implausible — based on the executives and their families history of giving to rabidly homophobic candidates for years – based on the almost non-existent — though always high-profile donations to gay charities when compared to their other charities – based on the fact they are now suing a California Canvas for a Cause claiming – with a blatant lie they are unable to provide testimony for — that they were harassing shoppers about gay marriage – though providing written testimony that they do not want to be associated with supporting gay marriage – based on the fact that they cite not allowing the Salvation Army to solicit – as evidence they practice this regardless of the issue — neglecting to mention the fact that they give the Salvation Army more than a million dollars a year – something no gay charity will find anytime soon — is that what makes it so implausible?

      You and Target deserve one another – happy shopping.

      Mar 31, 2011 at 9:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alicia
      alicia

      @The sane Francis: I just want to say that becauce they don’t support gay rights is why I shop with them. There are not enough gay people in the grand scheme of things to hurt their business.

      Jun 3, 2012 at 7:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.