Posted on 04/07/2017 12:26:17 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yeah, Starbucks lost my family a few years ago. It took a while, but we found a suitable alternative coffee.
Shows you the level of intelligence and morality of their customers.
For a year now, weve been told by through the news media that the boycott was just a few fringe people and it was having absolutely no effect on Target’s business. That Target was setting a good example by taking a strong corporate stand.
Now suddenly the narrative changes. Target was never trying to take a stand that offended its customers. It all started with an innocuous blog post that wasn’t even approved in advance by the top management. This big bad boycott that is ruining the company is all a misunderstanding and an overreaction.
And we’ve always been at war with Eastasia... /sarc
I stopped going to any TArget when they stopped Bell ringers from the Salvation Army from doing such in front of their stores at Christmas time.
The company went to shit back then. Then pushed for freaks to be allowed in ladies rest rooms and I’m hoping they tank completely.
Hell with em.
“Everyone deserves to feel like they belong,” the post said. “And you’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.”
They made their choice. The net effect of their policy change was to advance the progressive agenda. That moved it from personal to a matter of corporate identity. In essence they told me that they wanted to accept my money but not my values.
It is not a matter of flaunting the policy change. The issue was that they even thought the change was a good thing and should be done.
I haven’t set foot in a Target since.
But Target management and the MSM assured us that their downturn in business WASN'T because of the boycott. This must be wrong. / sarc
Oh, I doubt that. Amazing that a major American CEO fails to understand the concept of Responsibility. Doesn't matter who actually made the post, or whether he reviewed it.
Target is still in business? They lost me, but I guess the $25 or so I used to spend there once or twice a year wasn’t as important to their bottom line as I had hoped.
I have read in more than a few places that Cornell is himself a ‘rump ranger’. If that is true there is no way that Cornell was ‘blind-sided’ by this policy decision.
With that in mind it is hard to view this article as nothing more that the first shot at trying to recover from a horribly bad policy decision. I expect more such articles that white-wash the decision and also announce incremental roll-backs to it.
I went through the same thought process you did.
I read your post- and immediately thought of the line from “Money for nothing” The little faggots a millionaire
I wouldn’t set foot in a planet fitness. I don’t care if my skinny arms attract unwanted attention in a regular gym, I would rather go there anyway instead of PF.
Chik-Fil-A boycotted by anti-Family values types. Sales went up.
Target boycotted b pro-Family values types. Sales went down.
JCPenney? Ackman tried to turn it into Abercrummy&Filth, sales went down. Ackman lost billions?
KMart replaced gun toting friendly woman spokesperson with anti-gun woman intentionally aggressive, ignorant and irrational. Sales down. Bankruptcy.
See a pattern? In a Democracy ... in a free society ... we vote every day with our feet and with our pocket book. Democracy is not just voting for politicians twice a year.
The left wants to limit democracy to the role of government, the institution with the power of coercion. We who value freedom must maximize the role of democracy in our power to vote daily and not just for politicians.
But this does not explain all corporate directions. Montgomery Ward, Sears and Tandy-Computer-City-Radio-Shack have completely different reasons for their problems. We live in a complex society.
Good post, but the American people seem to have a real affinity for all things “gay”.
If by "Darwinian," you mean "natural selection," then they have no advantage at all. While they might be able to have a financially successful career without the distractions of children, the fact that they don't have children means that their gene line is a dead end.
Natural selection refers only to success in reproduction. If you manage to birth and raise two or three children to adulthood and they are able to have children, you are successful. Nature cares about nothing except ensuring the next generation and the survival of the species. The only biological reason that anyone exists is to fulfil that imperative. And gays don't, so they are supremely unsuccessful in the only way that really matters.
“...the American people seem to have a real affinity for all things ‘gay’.”
And rarely seem to recognize a blatantly obvious brainwashing.
OMG, LMAO! That’s hilarious because you’re right!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.