Who ever mentioned "litigation"??? Even Target didn't come up with that one. What are the claimants going to sue for? A private business chose to let a religious organization, one that has secularized to the point it received federal grants BEFORE the "faith-based initiative", solicit funds on its premises. There is no cause of action there. Would one claim assault due to the infliction of bell-ringing harassment? Your post is tangential and irrelevant.
Do some research before you spout off. You know nothing of the issue you are talking about. Malls and stores have been sued because because they allowed access to some groups for solicitation and not others. Courts have (wrongly) ruled that such spaces are quasi public spaces, and that stores and malls must allow equal access for groups - or none at all.
That is what I'm talking about. If you've followed any of these target threads (about 50 so far) or done any research AT ALL into the subject, you'd know that litigation on the part of parties who didn't get the exception from the target 'no solicitation' ban is a BIG issue.
To say that it lawsuits are 'tangential and irrelevant' is idiotic. It is the main reason target is no longer allowing the SA at their stores!!!!!!!
Maybe santa can get you a freaking clue for christmas and then you won't make such a fool of yourself.