> There are moral and immoral ways to seek business profits. Homo Depot has, if the reports above are anywhere close to accurate, been dabbling in the immoral side.
I think we run into real rocks and shoals when we try to define “morality” in money terms, or “money” in morality terms. Definitely there is a line that must never be crossed: when people do cross that line, then it is almost certain that a law has been broken.
A business spending $5,000-ish to sponsor a homosexual prance-fest isn’t breaking any laws. It can be argued that they are showing poor judgment, and that they risk alienating some of their clientele who disapprove of homosexual prance-fests. But surely that is a choice that they get to make in a free society?
And if Home Depot cater to children during the prance-fest, it’s probably better than having the children running around unsupervised, targets for any child molesterer that happens to be at the festivities.
I don’t approve of their prance-fest, and I definitely would not bring my kids to Home Depot on the day of their festivities. That would be about as far as I’d feel comfortable in showing my disapproval. What message are we trying to send to Home Depot? That homosexualists shouldn’t be allowed to by four-by-two’s? I can’t see any other practical messages being sent by “making Home Depot pay”.
> What happened to the old fashioned idea of advertising a decent product at a fair price and let it sell itself without dipping into the issue politics du jour?
Commerce and politics have long enjoyed(?) an inter-twined relationship, to the point where they are probably inseparable. I don’t see that as a particularly bad thing.
No rocks and shoals for those with a Pilot.