Replies

As someone who evidently lives in one of the blue states, let me say that it is obvious where your sympathies lie. Target chose the easy road, the one that the MSM would give them little or no heat about.

In my opinion, you are taking the easy road as well. It's easy to sit here and type, saying Good=good and Bad=bad, and Target=Bad. It takes a little more intellectual exercise to actually sit back and ponder the choices that Target was forced into, and decide what the alternatives would be.

I happen to respect Target. I'll admit that respect has grown since I met my wife (who was already working at Target) and was given insight into the charities that Target works with, as well as the other good that they do.

I've been contracting with them for the past couple of years as one of my primary contracts. Some of the rose-color has been stripped from my glasses as I've learned that they are a corporation like any other that I've worked with. They've got the same back-stabbers, the same beauracratic mentality that I've found anywhere else. They treat contractors less well than some places I've been at, but better than a few.

Target has good policies, and they have some stupid ones. My sympathies lie with the idea that this corporation, any corporation would be put into a position of being damned if they do, and damned if they don't. And, once damned, they're vilified by both sides.

Someone on the Minnesota thread, I can't remember the name offhand, made an excellent observation: Corporations should not be in the charity business. They shouldn't give, as a company, at all.

I tend to agree.

If it were my private company, I'd be inclined to fight the impending lawsuits. It's not my private company, though, and given the stockholders and employees that the company is beholden to, I think they made the best of three lousy choices.