# Target misses the mark with LGBT customer relations



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/target-homophobia-ceo-gre_n_660990.html


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Dumb move on their part.....well, I think the only way they will get out of this mess is by donating $150,000 to a charity that helps the LGBT populaton and holding a press conference that has the CEO apologizing over the matter.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

That's what some organisations are trying to get them to do through mass emails and petitions. I've signed a couple. They have hundreds of thousands of people speaking up. Target is bound to hear it and be required to take some action... besides Steinhafel's sorry excuse for an explanation. I, for one, am boycotting them until he at least apologises.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I, for one, am boycotting them until he at least apologises.


Me too! (Also, can you post links to these petitions?)


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Jovan said:


> I, for one, am boycotting them until he at least apologises.


To be honest with you I don't think boycotting like this has that much of an effect on companies as large as this. I remember the boycotting of Cracker Barrel and Dennys over the racial discrimination suits, yet you still have to wait in line for a table at either one. As unfortunate as it might be, many don't really care and others will go there because of their position on the issue.

Cruiser


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm boycotting them not just because I want them to feel the heat, but because I can't fathom my money going towards bigotry. The same reason I won't buy Rockstar energy drinks. Maybe I won't make a dent in either company, but I still do it on principle.

ZG:


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

^^^
Thanks.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

I can't think of anything I'd buy at Target in the first place. Isn't it just Wal-Mart with slightly hipper commercials? Still made in China junk.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I'm boycotting them not just because I want them to feel the heat, but because I can't fathom my money going towards bigotry.


Article~Target's Chief Executive Steinhafel said gay employees have been concerned about the money helping state Rep. Tom Emmer, who opposes gay marriage.

Are you angry with 60% of America who admires and loves their gay friends and family but does not beleive in marriage equity were no equity exists??

You rhetoric is the problem.

Not the solution.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> To be honest with you I don't think boycotting like this has that much of an effect on companies as large as this. I remember the boycotting of Cracker Barrel and Dennys over the racial discrimination suits, yet you still have to wait in line for a table at either one. As unfortunate as it might be, many don't really care and others will go there because of their position on the issue.
> 
> Cruiser


Then there was Elaine who boycotted Poppy's" over the abortion issue!!


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*Where are the designers on this?*

When are people like Michael Khors going to pull their lines or at least call Target on this?

I was at a Best Buy yesterday and looking at their electric bikes, now **** em. I'll get one somewhere else.

As long as I'm ranting, when are politicians (Republican & Democrat) going to learn that what consenting adults do with their own bodies is none of their business? :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

At 34 years old, should I be worried that I'm becoming an old out-of-touch fogey since I don't know what LGBT stands for? It wasn't until Post #9 by WouldaShoulda that I found my first contextual clue, when he mentioned Target's gay employees and I tentatively guessed that the first two initials stood for "lesbian" and "gay". I looked to the article, and there, too, the termn LGBT is bandied about like everybody is just supposed to know what it means, but it's not explained there, either.

So am I right about the L and the G, and what does the rest of it stand for?

(Honestly, I think this is poor reporting. If the writer of the article wants me to care about these people that are being discriminated against, he or she should at least tell me who they are.)


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

LGBT (Wikipedia)


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Fraser Tartan said:


> There's a great web site called Google. If you type in "LGBT", the first result contains the definition.


Oh, gee thanks. Google, you say? What's the address of that website? You'll have to tell me because clearly I'm a complete moron.

Or maybe reporters can do their $#@*ing jobs and not assume that everybody knows every stupid little abbreviation, KWIM? Don't make the reader have to do his or her own research to figure out what the story is about. Research is the reporter's job. If they want me to care, they need to make it clear why I should.

GGTHI. GTGSYLBB.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> Oh, gee thanks. Google, you say? What's the address of that website? You'll have to tell me because clearly I'm a complete moron.
> 
> Or maybe reporters can do their $#@*ing jobs and not assume that everybody knows every stupid little abbreviation, KWIM? Don't make the reader have to do his or her own research to figure out what the story is about. Research is the reporter's job. If they want me to care, they need to make it clear why I should.
> 
> GGTHI. GTGSYLBB.


In fairness, this was a report at the Huffington Post. Anybody perusing that website would undoubtedly know what the acronym means. Thoroughness is important, but more important is writing for your audience.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

harvey_birdman said:


> In fairness, this was a report at the Huffington Post. Anybody perusing that website would undoubtedly know what the acronym means. Thoroughness is important, but more important is writing for your audience.


Well, I suppose you do have a point there. I read a lot of computer-related magazines, and I certainly don't expect every article in them to explain what "GHz" or "CPU" stands for.

But in all fairness to me, if someone comes across an article from, say, PC World, they might be reasonably expected to understand that the article is about PCs, even if they've never heard of, or read, that magazine before. I've never heard of the Huffington Post, its name doesn't tell me anything, and I have no idea what they're about. Just for the record, though, not _all_ of my criticism was directed at that website or the article's author. Some of it was also directed at Jovan, for using the term here as if we would all know what it means, or would all understand since it comes from the Huffington Post, since that's obviously a big clue to everybody else but me. I mean, the author of the article wrote it, I'm assuming, to get his audience to care about the issue, but I'm also assuming that Jovan posted it here to get the audience here to care about it, too.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> As long as I'm ranting, when are politicians (Republican & Democrat) going to learn that what consenting adults do with their own bodies is none of their business? :icon_headagainstwal


Sodomy was decriminalized in most jurisdictions decades ago.

I supported my gay friends in that initiative.

I remember some of them saying "it isn't as if we are asking to get married you know!!"


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Sodomy was decriminalized in most jurisdictions decades ago.
> 
> I supported my gay friends in that initiative.
> 
> I remember some of them saying "it isn't as if we are asking to get married you know!!"


And your point is?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Reading through this thread, I find myself just a bit perplexed. I don't recall such outrage in the past when Target denied the Salvation Army bell ringers from setting up in front of their stores or, before that, when they discouraged our military members in uniform from wearing BDU's in their stores and in fact ejected a couple of Army recruiters from one of their stores. Seems Target's social conscience may be wanting, on many fronts and perhaps our outrage should include the other slights that have occurred! Just thinkin. :icon_scratch:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> And your point is?


Mearly that for most politicians (Republican & Democrat) they have learned that what consenting adults do with their own bodies is none of their business!!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Someone should explain to me how insisting on state recognition of gay "marriages" is doing people something with their own bodies. Because it sounds more like a scheme to force other people to recognize the "marriages."


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Someone should explain to me why others care so much about what gay people do or do not do. In the end this boils down to civil rights, or the lack thereof.

In most states, gay people cannot make medical decisions for their partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who are often estranged and totally clueless as to the wishes of their gay family member for treatment. If that hostile family wishes to exclude a gay partner from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. People that have been partners and best friends for 20, 30, 40 years - are still "strangers before the law." Is this fair?

If a homosexual person is arrested, their partner can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?

In most cases, even _carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney_ have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny a long time partner the right to visit a partner's grave.

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws over the years in many ways that exclude gays from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and consider their constitutional rights. This is why gay marriage is very much a civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony or whether an announcement is accepted for publication in the local paper. It is not a matter of "special rights" to ask for the _same_ rights that other couples enjoy by law, even by constitutional mandate.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

And how often do these things really happen. I'm 54 and have never seen this or heard of this happening to anyone. 

Obviously, it's not good if they do, but frequently, I'll bet that if the people in question respected the people they have to deal with instead of treating them as uncultured bumpkins, they probably would not run into the discrimination anyway.

I can think of real problems that need fixing that affect a lot more people than this probably does.

It's not cool for gay people to be discriminated against. it's also not cool for everything to be evaluated as to how it affects the gay agenda. (It's also not cool for everything to be evalauated as to how things affect right wing agendas like abortion either, to be fair and to be honest.)

We would be much stronger as a country if people tried to work things out instead of using the government to bitchslap people into following the beliefs of folks on the extremes depending who manages to get a 2 percent majority out of the most recent election.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> And how often do these things really happen. I'm 54 and have never seen this or heard of this happening to anyone.
> 
> Obviously, it's not good if they do, but frequently, I'll bet that if the people in question respected the people they have to deal with instead of treating them as uncultured bumpkins, they probably would not run into the discrimination anyway.
> 
> ...


Every major civil change that has occurred in this country has happened by force or threat of force. Thinking that somehow people are going to wake up in 2010 and all of a sudden voluntarily become fair and levelheaded is ludicrous.

Civil Rights are never a matter of "working things out" - nor does it matter if in injustice is done to 1 in a million Americans - it is still wrong and not what this country was founded on. If every single person in your town voted to have segregated schools, or not allow interracial marriages, it would make NO DIFFERENCE - as those are clearly illegal and unconstitutional rules - that would not be allowed to stand. Someday our children and our grandchildren will look back on this period in American history and the antiquated way we treated homosexual people - and shake their heads and wonder what we were thinking.

As for the difference between Gay Marriage and say, Civil Unions - I really dont care. If a state wants to vote to not allow it to be called "marriage" that would be fine with me - as long as homosexuals are afforded the same rights and privileges as other "couples" in this society.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Yes, it seems another CEO has been living a life of reduced contact with the workaday world and made a contribution that will haunt him for some time to come. This is a constant problem of people "at the top" as they get told what they want to hear instead of what's really going on. It will be fun to watch their PR department (and outside crisis firm) deal with all this.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> And how often do these things really happen. I'm 54 and have never seen this or heard of this happening to anyone.


I am glad you have been spared such ugly realities in America and elsewhere. I've witnessed the atrocious things Mr. Kleen mentions many times, continue to hear of it and was once called to testify in a trial involving a family trying to break the will of a dead gay son they'd not seen in 30 years (and had in fact kicked out and told never to return) but got all interested when they found out he'd left a pile of cash. I hope you never find yourself in any such situation as that and are spared the spectacle of such cruelties.



> Obviously, it's not good if they do, but frequently, I'll bet that if the people in question respected the people they have to deal with instead of treating them as uncultured bumpkins, they probably would not run into the discrimination anyway.


This is bunk along the lines of "but officer, she was askin' fer it!" Blaming the victim (and we're talking about victims here as per the previous post, not everyday situations) is never a good idea because at the very best it perverts the truth. To be sure, if everyone would be more cordial to each other the world would be a better place. But when you are dealing with entrenched attitudes that declare some people to be less than others, you're going to find a lot of people can't maintain such dignity all the time when looking at someone else who declares them to be sub-something. Giving the victims a little more compassionate leeway and understanding is a form of respect that we also need more of in our increasingly crowded world.



> I can think of real problems that need fixing that affect a lot more people than this probably does.


Oh, the language you use and how it betrays your thoughts! Delicious, in an over-ripe cheese kind of way. "Real" problems? So the problems in question aren't quite as "real" somehow as others? Or not real at all? And should all problems be prioritized by the raw numbers of people they affect? Isn't the severity or how long a problem has been going on to be taken into account? What's being talked about in this thread is a particular problem, definitely real, and of great concern to many people, especially those who value "liberty and justice for all" if you really mean "all" and not "all*." (*except for those people who society has traditionally found offensive in some way, subject to grudging modification under law as time goes on.)



> It's not cool for gay people to be discriminated against. it's also not cool for everything to be evaluated as to how it affects the gay agenda. (It's also not cool for everything to be evalauated as to how things affect right wing agendas like abortion either, to be fair and to be honest.)


Ah, that language thing again! Note, folks, there is only one "gay agenda" but many "agendas" on the right. "The gay agenda"? I'd no ideas gays were so singularly minded and unified in one agenda! Sounds almost conspiratorial! For someone who has never heard of some of these things being talked about, I am impressed you know enough to pronounce a singular agenda at work.



> We would be much stronger as a country if people tried to work things out instead of using the government to bitchslap people into following the beliefs of folks on the extremes depending who manages to get a 2 percent majority out of the most recent election.


That's called federal democracy in an age of apparently declining manners. 

But seriously, every tradition of man, be it humanist, religious or spiritual, calls upon everyone to consider their fellows as no different from themselves and act accordingly. There will always be different kinds of people with different behaviors that irritate a person more than others, but consider them not as obstacles but rather as blessings because they allow a man to become a better human being and conquer that which would restrict his nature to the pleasant and familiar while keeping him from so many other valuable experiences in life.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> And how often do these things really happen. I'm 54 and have never seen this or heard of this happening to anyone..


This kind of crap happens all the time. My late mother was a volunteer at a hospis and she talked about such incidents all the time.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> That's what some organisations are trying to get them to do through mass emails and petitions. I've signed a couple. They have hundreds of thousands of people speaking up. Target is bound to hear it and be required to take some action... besides Steinhafel's sorry excuse for an explanation. I, for one, am boycotting them until he at least apologises.


President Obama ran for office for two years.

He has been the President for 18+ months.

He has stated he personally beleives marriage is a one man one woman proposal.

No one has boycotted or publically witheld campaign contributions. No one has given him an ounce of greif over it exept an outburst or two over DADT!!

No one calls him a bigot or zealot.

I expect the same consideration.

It appears you do have friends in high places however...

https://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100804/US.Gay.Marriage.Trial/

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8 Wednesday, declaring that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves no legitimate purpose and is an "artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices."
*"Rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same,"* Walker wrote in an unequivocal and strongly worded 136-page ruling. "The evidence shows conclusively that *moral and religious views form the only basis* for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

As you can see, justice is blind, deaf and stupid!!

It's always best to ignore biological facts and to impose one's personal agenda upon a populace while insulting them.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> This kind of crap happens all the time. My late mother was a volunteer at a hospis and she talked about such incidents all the time.


That is a horrible situation which has been remedied effectively in many jurisdictions outside of marriage equity. I have always supported such measures.

Single persons, regardless of sexual orientation, should have someone designated to comfort them at a time of need.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I still have very mixed feelings when it comes to the whole issue of gay marriage...I used to be strongly opposed to it, until a very close friend of mine revealed that she was a lesbian...I found that my feelings towards her did not change at all...so I dunno, I suppose that if two people really enjoy each other's company, and want to officially recognize their union, why shouldnt they be allowed to?

The problem is, I still dont believe that they should be able to adopt and raise children, so this puts me squarely on the fence...how can it be fair to say that two people can get married, but not allow them to have kids??? At the same time, being a child of a single parent, I do feel like alot of the mistakes I've made in life could have been avoided if I had the presence of a father around...and I'd imagine that things would only become exponentially more confusing for a kid with two mommies/daddies...but who knows? I mean, I know plenty of messed up people whose parents have been married for years and years...I can go round and round like this for hours, but that's neither here nor there...

as far as the issue at hand...two things; one, I have no idea why a person in charge of such a big company as Target would make such a controversial move...and two, I dont believe that boycotting them will hurt their business in any way, but to those of you who do choose to boycott, I say "right on"...It's not about hurting their business per se, so much as it's about choosing to not continue to spend your heard earned money in a place that's run by people whom you dont agree with...It's good to see people taking a stand for something...


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> As you can see, justice is blind, deaf and stupid!!
> 
> It's always best to ignore biological facts and to impose one's personal agenda upon a populace while insulting them.


That is the whole point here. Ignorant citizens, when left to their own devices will often vote for their best interest as opposed to what is right and legal under the constitution. Suffrage, the end of segregated schools and lunch counters, many of the disabilities acts, hell even the abolition of slavery would have never happened if it were put to popular vote.

When it comes to issues of civil and human rights - the "populace" doesnt get a vote. The so called ban on civil unions and equal rights for homosexuals in this country wont last much longer....and history will judge it as a misguided, bigoted, black mark on our country's past.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> The problem is, I still dont believe that they [ gays] should be able to adopt and raise children.


You understand of course that when a child is put up for adoption it means that your hallowed straight couple has essentially said to hell with it, _it_ being the child, left it on the doorstep of society, then run away. But you cannot fathom a same sex couple taking it in. Pity you.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> You understand of course that when a child is put up for adoption it means that your hallowed straight couple has essentially said to hell with it, _it_ being the child, left it on the doorstep of society, then run away. But you cannot fathom a same sex couple taking it in. Pity you.


Cute...but honestly, if you MUST know, I feel that the majority of people with kids should not have had them. Yeah yeah, I'm sure you'll twist my words around on that one, but lets face facts, there's alot of messed up kids running around, and yes, many of them are the product of straight 2 parent families (I also dont believe that straight people should be so quick to jump into marriage, and I think the divorce rate in this country would agree with me), that's not the point...my point being that kids are confused and angry enough as it is, especially when they are in some way different (As one of literally maybe 10 brown kids at a predominantly white school, I can attest to that first hand), and I dont feel it's fair to a child to have to deal with such a different and confusing situation. I'm sure you'll try to throw one of you little "AAAAH HAAAAAAAA" curve balls at me (single parents, messed up parents, whatever), but it's just one of those things...I certainly dont expect you to see eye to eye with me on this if you already dont, but it would be neat if you didnt put words in my mouth...("hallowed straight couple"??? WTF??? really???) just because somebody can admit that they havent formed a concrete opinion on the subject, and doesnt march in lock step with whatever they're told to doesnt mean that they're some kind of bible thumping hick...

sorry if I wont go round and round with you about what the church says and this and that BS...but the fact of the matter is...I'm not religious at all...I will however commend your effort at being an instigator...If you would have caught me in my more conservative days, I may have taken the bait...but suffice to say, I've loosened my necktie over the years...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Whatever.

I'm hardly the worst of your enemies. I even said in my post those things should not happen.

This ranting is just as idiotic as the anti-abortion people who won't allow stem cell testing.

You're the same people. You just have different agendas and want to force people to do what you decree instead of educating them.

Our society has come a long way toward eliminating discrimination. However, you create animosity toward your cause instead of getting people to understand why they should not discriminate against gays.

Go ahead and rant. You'll send your cause backward instead of helping it.

I'm for civil unions and I said in my post that the refusal to allow people to visit others in the hospital shouldn't happen.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> You understand of course that when a child is put up for adoption it means that your hallowed straight couple has essentially said to hell with it, _it_ being the child, left it on the doorstep of society, then run away. But you cannot fathom a same sex couple taking it in. Pity you.





The Gabba Goul said:


> Cute...but honestly, if you MUST know, I feel that the majority of people with kids should not have had them. Yeah yeah, I'm sure you'll twist my words around on that one, but lets face facts, there's alot of messed up kids running around, and yes, many of them are the product of straight 2 parent families (I also dont believe that straight people should be so quick to jump into marriage, and I think the divorce rate in this country would agree with me), that's not the point...my point being that kids are confused and angry enough as it is, especially when they are in some way different (As one of literally maybe 10 brown kids at a predominantly white school, I can attest to that first hand), and I dont feel it's fair to a child to have to deal with such a different and confusing situation. I'm sure you'll try to throw one of you little "AAAAH HAAAAAAAA" curve balls at me (single parents, messed up parents, whatever), but it's just one of those things...I certainly dont expect you to see eye to eye with me on this if you already dont, but it would be neat if you didnt put words in my mouth...("hallowed straight couple"??? WTF??? really???) just because somebody can admit that they havent formed a concrete opinion on the subject, and doesnt march in lock step with whatever they're told to doesnt mean that they're some kind of bible thumping hick...
> 
> sorry if I wont go round and round with you about what the church says and this and that BS...but the fact of the matter is...I'm not religious at all...I will however commend your effort at being an instigator...If you would have caught me in my more conservative days, I may have taken the bait...but suffice to say, I've loosened my necktie over the years...


Are you sure all of that is supposed to be addressed to me? You write as if we'd tussled many times before. I don't even know who you are. And now don't really care to.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Yeah yeah, I'm sure you'll twist my words around on that one...


His charm will grow on you.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Are you sure all of that is supposed to be addressed to me? You write as if we'd tussled many times before. I don't even know who you are. And now don't really care to.


your reputation precedes you...:icon_smile_wink:

but it's all good...everybody's entitled to their own opinion...I just felt like you were trying to put words in my mouth or something...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Suffrage, the end of segregated schools and lunch counters, many of the disabilities acts, hell even the abolition of slavery would have never happened if it were put to popular vote.


Women's sufferage was solved via popular sentimate thru an ammendement to the Constitution, not the judiciary.

Jim Crow was never universal and it's overturn supported by a majority overall if not the actual jurisdiction wherein it was imposed. Brown vs. Board was not unpopular throughout most of America.

The Americans with Disabilites Act was an act of Congress, not a judiciary.

Slavery was ended by proclamation during the Civil War. I'll construe that as a "majority." Not by the judiciary.

Prop 8 was overuled by a "Justice" that ignored the prima facie evedince of inequity and declared anyone that opposes his opinion a religious zealot or bigot.

Remarkable!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Women's sufferage was solved via popular vote and an ammendement.
> 
> Jim Crow was not universal and it's overturn supported by a majority overall if not the actual jurisdiction wherein it was opposed.
> 
> ...


Whats remarkable is that a person can possibly stand up in 2010 and still try and assert that public opinion trumps the constitution. We have a clause in the 14th Ammendment called the "Equal Protection Clause" - perhaps you have heard of it.

_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_

That is what this case was about, Equal Protection. Very simple. Not whether the majority agrees with giving Gay and Lesbians equal rights...human rights are not things that are up for a vote. They are inherently given to us as Americans, they are the VERY BASIS of our entire society.

In this case the lawyers fighting against Prop 8 set out to establish 3 points:

1) That Marriage is a fundamental right 
2) Depriving homosexual citizens the right to receive the protections of marriage, harm them and their children
3) And depriving homosexuals of the right to marry, could not help heterosexual marriage in anyway

Yesterdays ruling substantiated all 3 of these concepts and is about as tight as a ruling on the matter can be. In fact, one of the things that Judge Walker did so well in this ruling was to use quotes taken directly from Justice Anthony Kennedy in previous cases related to homosexual rights. He eloquently showed why Justice Kennedy has been right in the past - in effect pushing the swing vote in the SCOTUS towards the side of equal rights and against restrictive and unconstitutional laws like Prop 8.

Very shortly the gay marriage ban will be a thing of the past.

Gays and lesbians are our brothers and our sisters - and they are entitled to an equal place in our society. Period.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Whats remarkable is that a person can possibly stand up in 2010 and still try and assert that public opinion trumps the constitution.
> 
> Very shortly the gay marriage ban will be a thing of the past.


1) Fortunately I didn't say that. I mearly pointed out that your assertion and the examples you gave were incongruous.

2) On that point however, you may still be proved correct!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Fortunately I didn't say that.


I am confused then, because I could have sworn you said earlier that since "60%" of the people are against gay marriage - that their opinion matters. Oh wait



WouldaShoulda said:


> Are you angry with 60% of America who admires and loves their gay friends and family but does not beleive in marriage equity were no equity exists??


Doesnt matter if 99% of the population thinks something. That that thing they believe is unconstitutional - it should not be allowed to stand.

You disagree?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...Prop 8 was overuled by a "Justice" that ignored the prima facie evedince of inequity and declared anyone that opposes his opinion a religious zealot or bigot.


Well! And just who is this sitting justice you have gotten cute with quotation marks? How'd such a dolt get on the bench?

Here's the history, all public record:Judge Vaughn Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan's term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December.​There's more:Coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination.

In other words, this "liberal San Francisco judge" was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups.​And that is today's contribution to irony. :icon_smile:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> I am confused then, because I could have sworn you said earlier that since "60%" of the people are against gay marriage - that their opinion matters. Oh wait
> 
> Doesnt matter if 99% of the population thinks something. That that thing they believe is unconstitutional - it should not be allowed to stand.
> 
> You disagree?


1) You are confused because you took my statement in post #9 out of context and applied it to an unrelated statement. Anyone would be confused.

2) Of course

3) NO!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Quay said:


> Well! And just who is this sitting justice you have gotten cute with quotation marks? How'd such a dolt get on the bench?


A similar path as "Justice" Stevens I see... 

There are plenty of smart doctors that take out the wrong kidney too!!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ That's former Justice Stevens, you quotation-mark-happy poster!

But nevermind that -- say this slowly, with or without quotation marks:

Justice Kagan.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

To Messrs Kleen and Quay,

Please. Today is Woulda Shoulda's 1st Anniversary here. You may have noted this in the self-started congratulatory thread currently running, one in which, I now regret, I participated (tho not without the caveat of a mention of his remarks in the Gays In The Military thread). Your reasoning and writing here is superb. It should not be wasted on the entrenched. Let them flay and flounder just to each other.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

I'm putting on my Hunter wellington hip boots to get into this one...

Not only was the judge in California who overturned the gay marriage ban an appointee of Reagan, but the lawyers arguing for overturn of the ban included the counsel from both sides of Bush v. Gore.

Living in Atlanta, which has a substantial gay population, I've seen gay couples who have been together for decades, and know two heterosexual women who aren't yet forty and have already divorced their fourth husbands. 

The Georgia Supreme Court tossed out a case regarding gay marriage because the plaintiffs (a religious organization) failed to show how they themselves were harmed by allowing gay people to marry. Bottom line, it really isn't any of our business. Why can Britney Spears get married and divorced within a few days, but Elton John can't?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> At 34 years old, should I be worried that I'm becoming an old out-of-touch fogey since I don't know what LGBT stands for?
> 
> ...
> 
> (Honestly, I think this is poor reporting. If the writer of the article wants me to care about these people that are being discriminated against, he or she should at least tell me who they are.)


Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered.

When I was a junior in college, a friend from high school came out and became a political activist. We both lived in Atlanta, conveniently located only a half hour from the Cracker Barrel in Lithonia, Georgia, where a kitchen worker was fired for _looking_ lesbian, and a gay co-worker who came to her defense was fired as well.

At the time, he and his boyfriend expressed their annoyance at the addition of bisexuals to the "gay rights movement." As gay men, they were of the opinion that most "bisexual" men were simply gay men who were either in denial or wanted to somehow appear tolerable to people who didn't like gays.

Transgender people include transsexuals (someone affecting medical procedures to physiologically transform from one gender to the other) and anyone who self-identifies as another gender, or no gender at all. A man who believes he should be a woman but thinks that it's God's divine providence that he was born as a man would consider himself transgendered.

There's a new letter added, now, too - Q, for Questioning. Someone who thinks they might be L,G,B, or T that's being harrassed or treated poorly because they're still trying to figure it out come under the umbella now too.

I'm all for adopting the worldview that I don't care who you have sex with as long as the other party is consenting.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> To Messrs Kleen and Quay,
> 
> Please. Today is Woulda Shoulda's 1st Anniversary here. You may have noted this in the self-started congratulatory thread currently running, one in which, I now regret, I participated (tho not without the caveat of a mention of his remarks in the Gays In The Military thread). Your reasoning and writing here is superb. It should not be wasted on the entrenched. Let them flay and flounder just to each other.


I appreciate the advice to make much of time, since it's a' flying. But if you enjoyed the posts then they were worth the writing even if they flew over the unshakable. Besides, it's fun. As Mark Twain, he of blessed memory, wrote in _Pudd'nhead Wilson, "_Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Quay said:


> I appreciate the advice to make much of time, since it's a' flying. But if you enjoyed the posts then they were worth the writing even if they flew over the unshakable. Besides, it's fun. As Mark Twain, he of blessed memory, wrote in _Pudd'nhead Wilson, "_Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example."


SOME PEOPLE just can't have a mature, reasonable discussion about sensative topics!!



Quay said:


> ^ That's former Justice Stevens, you quotation-mark-happy poster!
> 
> But nevermind that -- say this slowly, with or without quotation marks:
> 
> Justice Kagan.


No problem. We know who Justice Kagan is from the get go. It's not as if she is going to go rogue on anyone!!


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

*There is something more ominous:*

Relating this so the Supreme Court decision that said there could not be limits on campaign spending, the CEO said:

"As CEO, I consider it my responsibility to create conditions in which Target can thrive, and I promise to do so with the best interests of our guests, team, shareholders..."

I am probably paranoid but when I see a CEO with for a company with huge assets say it is his duty to CREATE conditions for his company, this means to me that they could feel it is important to influence voters to vote for the candidate of the company's choice. In potentially a lot of cases, the financial resources of a large company like Target, Exxon, etc could end up controlling who wins an election (as in many cases the one who spends the most money wins). In the worst case, this could essentially put too much control of our government in the hands of large corporations instead of voters.

(I am not a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I'm not worried about world government, socialism, Exxon being in charge o f the world, or any other paranoid fantasies. I don't own a tin foil hat to protect me from big government thought control devices in outer space. Fluoride in our water is not a communist conspiracy to pollute our bodily fluids.)


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> I am probably paranoid but when I see a CEO with for a company with huge assets say it is his duty to CREATE conditions for his company, this means to me that they could feel it is important to influence voters to vote for the candidate of the company's choice. In potentially a lot of cases, the financial resources of a large company like Target, Exxon, etc could end up controlling who wins an election (as in many cases the one who spends the most money wins). In the worst case, this could essentially put too much control of our government in the hands of large corporations instead of voters.


...and Unions??

Both corporations and unions are comprised of voters. I wouldn't care to see either excluded from the process.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Target's stock plummets:
https://www.twincities.com/business/ci_15671164?id=22356-8709582-yJXhVlx

Yesterday, Steinhafel got the message and apologised:


----------



## Kravata (Mar 28, 2010)

God forbid somebody should do or say anything against the big fat gay lobby :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The gay lobby isn't nearly as big as it looks from Croatia.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> President Obama ran for office for two years.
> 
> He has been the President for 18+ months.
> 
> ...


You are dead on here. Liberals hold other liberals to different standards. Can you imagine the grief that Bush would have gotten from liberals if he had sex with an intern?
I think all politicians should be held to the same standards. The gay community tends to vote Democratically automatically and as such their votes are taken for granted. 
If both the Democrat and Republican are unpalatable then maybe people should consider the Libertarian candidate. Sure he's not going to win, but at least it sends a message.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Hey, be nice to liberals. They have it rough. It's harder to be a liberal than a conservative because it's harder to give someone a helping hand than the finger.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Target & Mr. Obama have my 100% support, brave move and no apology was needed, I wish other retailers follow. We live in a free country don't we?! I never shopped at Target before, it's about time they got some of my business :icon_smile_big:.


----------



## Beefeater (Jun 2, 2007)

Quay said:


> Hey, be nice to liberals. They have it rough. It's harder to be a liberal than a conservative because it's harder to give someone a helping hand than the finger.


Damn right. Try being a liberal in Dallas, TX. I have to give a helping hand and use the other one to defend myself. And this is at Communion. . .


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Quay said:


> Hey, be nice to liberals. They have it rough. It's harder to be a liberal than a conservative because it's harder to give someone a helping hand than the finger.


I don't have anything against liberals in general, it's just that many of their hands up programs, like The Great Society & The War On Poverty and the welfare programs for unwed mothers seem to have done more harm than good. The NY Times did a piece on 4 generations at the Robert Taylor Housing Project. It was about a great grandmother-a grandmother-a mother & a pregnant daughter none of which had ever ventured 2 miles away from that Federal Hellhole. If they had been left alone, somewhere along the line, one of them would have done something to break the cycle.
I don't doubt their good intentions, I merely call attention to the results.

Getting back to the LBGT thing, it is within the liberals power today to make any kind of sexual preference illegal in employment-marriage-whatever tomorrow (Monday 8-16-2010). Yes it would be tough and some of the politicians would have to fall on their swords, but it would be the right thing.
I shall be glued to CSPAN tomorrow awaiting the results.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Do you object to all of The Great Society or only the example cited?


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Did any of it work and if so at what cost?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Some would say the two Voting Rights Acts were a good thing and worked, as did The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Medicare, Medicaid, both national endowments for the arts and humanities, the clean air and water act, auto safety...things like that.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Oh you mean things like the $30,000 NEA grant to Robert Mapplethorpe. The Nation couldn't have lived without that.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

An interesting picayune dodge. But no, I mean things like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Given that the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act were given a 25 year extension by George Bush, I suppose they are OK. As these acts led to the EEOC, I've got to wonder how LBGT is not included under the umbrella of protection.
As to Medicaid, I'm not to crazy about a system that gives low income people better coverage than had working middle class people. 
As to Medicare, older people seem to like it and they've paid for it so why not.
As to PBS and such, if they can't compete with other stations-we don't need them. BTW, has the NEA produced a single great work of art?
RE the Clean Air and Water act and auto safety, the market has a way of sorting these things out. The government tends to overextend itself on such matters, making every mud puddle a wetland.
RE auto safety, I don't need the feds, going over every aspect of my ride. If I want seat belts or whatever, I'll get them.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

beherethen said:


> As to Medicaid, I'm not to crazy about a system that gives low income people better coverage than had working middle class people.


So instead of improving the accessibility and lowering the cost to everyone - lets just make sure public health care is as expensive and piss poor as private health care. Brilliant thinking that. Kind of like saying, if we dont have the money to pave every road in town - lets turn them all back into dirt roads, so everyone can suffer equally



beherethen said:


> As to Medicare, older people seem to like it and they've paid for it so why not.


So socialized medicine is OK, as long as it is being provided to old people - most likely many of whom are member of your own family. This is another prefect example of Tea Party hypocrisy. I want that Socialist Obama and his big government cronies to STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS - except when it comes to Medicare and Social Security, which they better not touch OR ELSE. More top quality logic on display.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> So instead of improving the accessibility and lowering the cost to everyone - lets just make sure public health care is as expensive and piss poor as private health care. Brilliant thinking that. Kind of like saying, if we dont have the money to pave every road in town - lets turn them all back into dirt roads, so everyone can suffer equally
> 
> So socialized medicine is OK, as long as it is being provided to old people - most likely many of whom are member of your own family. This is another prefect example of Tea Party hypocrisy. I want that Socialist Obama and his big government cronies to STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS - except when it comes to Medicare and Social Security, which they better not touch OR ELSE. More top quality logic on display.


RE Medicaid, I'd drop it completely. If this results in sickness and death among poor people too bad. It's not like we have a shortage of them.

RE Medicare-I'd drop that too but the seniors have already paid into it & a deal is a deal.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

beherethen said:


> RE Medicaid, I'd drop it completely. If this results in sickness and death among poor people too bad. It's not like we have a shortage of them....


Wow. If you're not a troll, you're one heartless ass.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

*LIBERAL THUGGERY*

Target gave $150,000 to MN Forward. MN Forward spent the money on various candidates, some Democrat, some Republican. One of the Republican candidates, Tom Emmer, doesn't support gay marriage and wants stricter enforcement of immigration laws.



> *Issues*
> 
> MN Forward is focused on issues related to creating jobs and economic opportunity. That includes tax reform, spending reform, and ensuring our children receive a world-class education.
> 
> ...


I dont' see anything anti-gay in their agenda. Do you? If you have a beef, it's with the candidate certainly, and the issue committee probably. Not so much with the contributors, unless of course, you want to embarass them and try and extort donations to your liberal causes.

Outstanding. Truly.

Before you flame me, I support gay marriage and I have over the years publicly stated my support for gay marriage. This isn't about homophobia, it's about liberal thuggery. I would have expected AAAC members to be more thoughtful in their criticisms, not unthinking, lockstep idealogues.

Disappointing.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

El_Abogado said:


> I would have expected AAAC members to be more thoughtful in their criticisms, not unthinking, lockstep idealogues.


Most of us are just better dressed unthinking, lockstep idealogues. 

Refreshing artcle.

BTW~Would it be "wrong" to build a Target two blocks from Ground Zero??


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Quay said:


> Hey, be nice to liberals. They have it rough. It's harder to be a liberal than a conservative because it's harder to give someone a helping hand than the finger.


Oh, but I SO enjoy a well-placed middle-finger-salute! :icon_smile_big: Target can do whatever it wants. I don't care. On the surface, it sounds as though it wasn't a very well thought-out donation. But then again, I imagine Target might have thought the risk was worth it. I predict the long-term damage to their reputation will be negligible. American consumers have pathetically short memories...especially when they've run out of toilet paper and it's 9 p.m. on a Sunday!


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but having practiced medicine in the south for 35 years I have never once heard of anyone being denied visitation because of their orientation. And anyone can execute a "Durable Health-Care Power of Attorney" naming anyone they wish to make decisions for them. What I do see all too often is family fights over which family member is in charge. Anyone with "standing" can file a lawsuit challenging the POA designation, but that takes time and a POA is only valid if the patient is incompetent anyway. The patient has a perfect right to include or exclude any certain visitors. This line of argument is largely a straw-man.

I'll stay out of your bedroom and keep my hands off women's reproductive rights if others will just agree to keep their hands out of my wallet.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

It just occurred to me to mention something else I know about Target. The following story is something that happened to a friend of mine, and for her protection, I will not be revealing her name or how I know that person. For what it's worth, I absolutely trust that this person isn't making up this story.

She works in the photo lab at a local Target. When making prints, it is inevitable that the worker will see some of the photos. I'm not sure if they're supposed to look at all of them as they're processed to see if they need to be "corrected", or if the computer involved will flag some as potentially having problems (for the purpose of fixing gross errors, such as exposure, color cast, etc.), but as I said, it's inevitable that the worker will see at least some of the images. One day, in the normal course of her duties, this person I know happened to notice some inappropriate photos of minors, the "inappropriateness" being of a sexual variety, and the subjects quite clearly being minors. She did not elaborate on the exact nature of these photographs, so I can't be more specific as to what they showed, other than she did say they clearly were not simple "mother taking a picture of her baby boy in the bathtub"-type photos.

Anyway, she brought these photos to the attention of her supervisor, and the issue went to store management. All along the way, the position of the leadership of this particular Target store was that they did not care, it is not their job to get involved with what photographs their paying customers are making, or to call the authorities, etc. In a nutshell, they basically said that as long as people are paying for their photos to be developed or printed, Target is not going to do anything to stop that money from coming in, regardless of what's happening in the photos.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

cdavant said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight...


And is that because no one has paid you to join in, or am I misinterpreting this:



> I'll stay out of your bedroom and keep my hands off women's reproductive rights if others will just agree to keep their hands out of my wallet.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> ...the position of the leadership of this particular Target store was that they did not care, it is not their job to get involved with what photographs their paying customers are making, or to call the authorities, etc. *In a nutshell, they basically said that as long as people are paying for their photos to be developed or printed, Target is not going to do anything to stop that money from coming in, regardless of what's happening in the photos*.


The_ in a nutshell part _is your spin on it. I would like to think that what Target said was what they meant: it's none of their business. I've always thought it creepy that photo developers look at the pictures and either get off on them or get off on telling about them. Equally as creepy, as well as stupid, is the individual who would take compromising photos to a store for printing. Creepy vs. creepy. It's a wash.


----------

