Look, Sodom didn't get its reputation because of hetero Rear Admirals trying something different with their wives or partners.
It's amazing that you even have to point this out. For some, the obvious is obscure.
Posted on 07/07/2003 7:37:43 AM PDT by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - One of the country's largest pro-family ministries is taking the nation's largest retailer to task for equating homosexuality with immutable characteristics such as race and gender. Focus on the Family said Wednesday that it is "profoundly disappointed" that Wal-Mart will also force its more than one million employees to undergo so-called "sensitivity training."
Wal-Mart spokesman Tom Williams told CNSNews.com Thursday that the company has, in fact, added "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes in its equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination policies.
"We felt it was the right thing to do at this time for our employees," he said. "We want everyone who works for Wal-Mart in the states - that's 1.1 million people - to feel that they are valued and that they are treated with respect, no exceptions at all."
Williams said the move also "makes a lot of sense" from a business standpoint.
"Our continued growth requires us to be one of the more desirable employers around," he said. "We think that clearly stating our policy of respect and protection for everyone regardless of 'sexual orientation' will help us compete for talented employees who otherwise might not feel comfortable coming with us."
Focus on the Family says Wal-Mart's action 'is a profound betrayal'
Dr. Bill Maier, vice president and psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family, said the "right thing to do" would have been for Wal-Mart to consider the values of the overwhelming majority of its shoppers and employees.
"Singling people out for their differences is a profound betrayal of Dr. Martin Luther King's dream, and that is exactly what Wal-Mart's policy does," Maier said in a press release.
"Focus on the Family shares Wal-Mart's commitment to treating all people with dignity and respect, but this sensitivity training offends the values of the vast majority of Wal-Mart's associates and customers," he said.
While Wal-Mart said its decision was based on fairness and good business, homosexual activists are claiming credit for pressuring the company to make the change.
"Wal-Mart's decision is in response to nearly two years of discussion between the company and the Equality Project partners," said a press release from the Pride Foundation, one of the partners in the effort.
The "Equality Project" is a coalition of pro-homosexual investment groups that use their claimed $100 billion in capital to influence companies to give special employment status based on a worker's claimed homosexuality, just as federal law requires employers to do for immutable characteristics such as race, gender, age and disability.
"This change helps ensure that Wal-Mart's gay and lesbian employees will be judged on their merits, not on their sexual orientation," claimed Zack Wright, a spokesman for the Pride Foundation.
"The inclusion of sexual orientation in Wal-Mart's nondiscrimination policy is the only example of fair treatment for gays and lesbians that some people will ever see, particularly in rural, more conservative areas," Wright continued, taking a swipe at the largest segment of Wal-Mart's customer base.
Groups already pushing for even greater concessions
But even as the activist groups were praising the company for agreeing to their demands, they were hinting at expectations of further concessions.
"Wal-Mart's recognition of sexual orientation is an important first step toward equality," said Marsha Botzer, a member of the Pride Foundation board. "I look forward to continuing our discussion and eagerly anticipate the day when they will also include gender identity in their non-discrimination policies."
"Gender identity" is the umbrella phrase used by liberal activists to refer to individuals choosing to identify themselves as members of the opposite sex. Individuals who dress or have surgery to change the appearance of their bodies to that of the opposite sex are said to be "expressing their gender identity."
Stephen Crampton of the American Family Association (AFA) warned that Wal-Mart can expect more demands from homosexual activists in the future, now that they have proven unwilling to stand up for traditional morality.
"Just as Neville Chamberlain gave in to Nazi Germany's outrageous demands, so Wal-Mart has capitulated to the radical homosexual agenda," Crampton said.
The AFA believes the next step for homosexual activists will be pressuring Wal-Mart to extend health benefits to same-sex partners of employees, followed by corporate recognition and support of homosexual clubs and public events like "gay pride" parades.
Wal-Mart officials acknowledged that a computer-based non-discrimination training program for all employees would include discussion of "sexual orientation." The change to the policy will have no effect on employee's eligibility for benefits.
The company does not offer insurance or other benefits to sex partners of unmarried employees, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
'Sensitivity' or 'diversity training' used to further homosexual agenda
As CNSNews.com previously reported, groups that monitor anti-discrimination policies believe homosexual activists are using mandatory workshops and diversity training programs to advance their agenda throughout corporate America.
"Diversity training is becoming mandatory catechism class for the church of the politically correct," said Jordan Lorence, an attorney and senior vice president for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative public policy group based in Arizona.
Lorence said that, until recently, homosexual activists have been willing to tolerate others who disagree with but do not publicly protest their sexual behavior choices.
"But what is happening now is that we're seeing a subtle but radical transformation of that traditional norm, and the vehicle in which this change is coming is diversity training by employers, either public or private," he said.
"I don't want to minimize racial tensions or sexual harassment," he added. "Those can be handled by seminars or training to be respectful of people's differences, but not compelling a uniformity of thought."
See Earlier Story:
Wal-Mart Includes Homosexuals in Anti-Discrimination Policy (July 2, 2003)
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Hey, if you piss @ the local port-a-potty, and pay for the privilege, then, yes, it is your business what public policies the port-a-potty's owner supports.
The irony of your wording: A stock-holder may never buy the "damn" product; yet it's the customer who does business w/Wal-Mart. Try choosing a word which really marginalizes someone instead of highlighting the weakness of your argument.
Anybody who buys products is ultimately investing in that service provider. That's what marketing is all about. Most advertising is not aimed @ the stockholder; but rather the customer or potential customer. Time for some remedial re-education for ya on business basics.
So what if a company has dress codes? Some of these are the same types of companies which prohibit you from displaying a Bible on your desk (or cross) for fear of offending the non-religious, yet they don't care that a pink triangle at a cubicle might be offensive to some religious folk.
Bottom line, corporations are wishy-washy in its trendy human-resources catering to the "special treatment" sexual minorities...you really think that if it's Okay for companies allowing a transgendered person to use the opposite-sex bathroom they're going to give a rip about what that person wears?
This reminds me of Portland, reputed to have the largest lesbian population in USA, where the (former?) police chief apparently had a lesbian daughter and was issuing cards to cross-dressers to allow them to legally use the opposite-sex bathroom.
Once you cater to these bents under the guise of respecting one's full identity (and at the expense of others), there's no stopping companies' rainbow zealousness.
Guess you failed to read post #7: Everyone has a sexual orientation (some have more than one). So, since it's left undefined, in one sense it means nothing because it applies to everyone. But the gay community has co-opted this term as a code phrase for their bandwagon.
What a silly argument, practically speaking, to suggest that "sexual orientation" protects straights. Right. And you believe that just because everybody has a race, and that no companies are supposed to discriminate on the basis of race, that white lily folks are fully protected on this basis as well. And since you personally know the Easter Bunny, what's his name?
P.S. Say hi to Santa for me.
Then don't work there. This is really difficult for you to understand isn't it?
If you don't own the company, then you don't have ANY say.
No it isn't.
Don't like it, then don't piss (or shop) there.
If you don't OWN the company, then you have absolutely no say.
A stock-holder may never buy the "damn" product; yet it's the customer who does business w/Wal-Mart
A stockholder has a legitmate 'say', as he is part owner of the company.
You, as a consumer, have NO say.
You know this HOW? You don't. You're guessing.
And guess what, that's STILL NOT FORCE.
No one is FORCING YOU to buy health insurance. Don't like the terms of the agreement, then don't buy.
But you DO NOT have the right to force an insurance company to do business as YOU like, unless YOU own it.
Don't forget about the homo agenda in the public schools. Kids are FORCED to endure it.
Actually, no - You can private school. But I want to end all public education anyway, so...
Then there is the sensitivity training so many employers are forcing on employees
Don't work there. You have no right to dictate terms to your boss.
Yes, they were to some degree, but I was making two separate arguments:
Argument No. 1: Don't assume pedophilic sexual orientation is automatically a "crime" if we're not talking about the act of pedophilia.
Argument No. 2: If we are talking about the act--then even if you compare physical acts (the crime of a pedophile vs. a homosexual act), then you couldn't in some states automatically conclude that the homosexual act was crime free...at least you couldn't conclude that pre-SCOTUS' ruling.
Point No. 1 shows that the knee-jerk reaction that automatically labels pedophilia as a "crime" displays folks' passion to dismiss it as a "sexual orientation" worthy of the same bandwagon rights gays have pursued.
Point No. 2 shows that companies don't care if something is on the books as a "crime." Homosexuality has been in vogue with Corporate America for well over a decade and it's just a matter of time before pedophilia chic rides the same wave.
Therefore, the real inconsistency is on the part of folks who don't like the finger pointed at them knowing they are contributing to elevating the "rights" of pedophiles in the workplace--particularly if that workplace works directly with children.
They are the ones who are like roller derby queens wanting to call off the jam after they got their team's skaters by...but now that other "sexual minorities" are starting to scoot by those the gays have been elbowing...they don't like taking responsibility for having teamed up with pedophiles.
Yet's who's more likely to be discrimated against in the workplace: Someone who says they have a same-sex attraction; or someone who says they have an attraction to children? Obviously, the latter.
If the gays' motivation was truly pure, you would see them out front & center crying & whining, "These poor pedophilic-attracted folks are being discriminated against in the workplace & we want to change that." But what do we see instead. We see a self-centered worldview that thinks only gays, lesbians, and transgendered folks are the only sexual minorities on earth.
Every right won by gays in this manner really is a victory for pedophiles, bigamists, polygamists, nudists (they really were born that way!), bestiality folks, pornographers & those w/a porn orientation, multiple-partner sexual orientation, "professional sex workers..." etc.
Need I state the obvious?
Obviously, the straight porn industry practices it as well.
Beyond that, nope...straights never practice that.
Look, Sodom didn't get its reputation because of hetero Rear Admirals trying something different with their wives or partners.
I didn't read the SCOTUS' reasons for ruling on the Texas case the way it did, but are you trying to tell me that our Supreme Court justices did a detailed, carefully reviewed study of how heteros conduct sodomy and thereby concluded that "Yup, they do it too. Therefore, we gotta be consistent and say, 'If straights do it, then 'tis OK for everybody else'? " Is that the point you're trying to make? (And if the justices did not make that point--I frankly don't know if they did or didn't--why are you making it?)
I've talked about pedophilia on two fronts: One, its entrance toward mainstream acceptance...and your comment above is fair if you are addressing simply this; secondly, its role in the workplace in being deemed a "sexual orientation" on par with homosexuality or any other "sexual orientation." From this second level, who cares if any employer sees it as "unacceptable form of sexual expression"?
A pedophile could say to Employer, "Look, you've got this in your policy. That's my sexual orientation. If you don't hire me or if you fire me once hired minus due cause, your policy--which doesn't define 'sexual orientation'--is not being adhered to. I don't care if you consider it as 'unacceptable' morally; the issue is what you are obligated to legally now that you've accepted my internal orientation (not external acts) as worthy of protection."
The average lifespan of a male homosexual is in the low 40s, about half that of a normal heterosexual. If you think that doesn't affect the cost of health care, your MBD has maxed.
No one is FORCING YOU to buy health insurance.
IOW, let the gay culture of death and disease dictate how I care for my family? No thanks. Gays should rightly pay for their own perversion-related health problems.
Don't work there. You have no right to dictate terms to your boss.
Actually not only have the right, but I do dictate all terms to my boss and he complies 100% of the time. Nonetheless, your reasoning is predictibly flawed. Do I have the right to dictate political opinions to my employees? That is exactly what the sensitivity training is about.
That's just sick.
It's amazing that you even have to point this out. For some, the obvious is obscure.
And if they don't? Then what?
Why? First of all, the age of consent is arguably an artificial standard... We charge 13-year-old murderers as adults, so why can't we recognize their ability to consent to other things? Secondly, why is "consent" such a big deal? Just because you think it's important now doesn't mean that people will fifty years from now. Folks weren't too concerned about the "consent" of slaves in the antebellum era. If you think that acceptance of homosexuality is not a step on the path to acceptance of pedophilia, you're simply deceiving yourself.
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.