BOYCOTT WAL-MART OVER GAY AGENDA FOR 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY FREEP KAREN BURKE 1-479-273-4314

FREE REPUBLIC ^ | July 2, 2003 | the eagle has landed

[TheEaglehasLanded]

Wal-Mart Announces New Gay Policy Wednesday, 2 July 2003

SEATTLE -- Wal-Mart Stores, the nation's largest private employer, has broadened its corporate anti-bias policy to include gay and lesbian workers, the company announced Tuesday.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams said that the company implemented the changes because "It's the right thing to do for our employees. We want all of our associates to feel they are valued and treated with respect — no exceptions."

The decision was disclosed by a Seattle gay rights foundation that had invested in Wal-Mart and then lobbied the company for two years to make its discrimination policies more inclusive.

A spokeswoman told The New York Times on Tuesday that Wal-Mart had already sent out letters Tuesday to its 3,500 stores, after which store managers would explain the change to its 1.5 million employees.

Along with prodding from groups, such as the Pride Foundation, the spokeswoman said several gay employees wrote senior management about six weeks ago to say they would "continue to feel excluded" unless Wal-Mart changed its policies.

With the change announced by Wal-Mart this week, 9 of the 10 largest Fortune 500 companies now have rules barring discrimination against gay employees, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Activists will now press for DP health benefits.

The exception is the Exxon Mobil Corporation, which was created in 1999 after Exxon acquired Mobil, and then revoked a Mobil policy that provided medical benefits to partners of gay employees, as well as a policy that included sexual orientation as a category of prohibited discrimination.

Wal-Mart said it currently had no plans to extend medical benefits to domestic partners.

Though no one directly linked the company decision to the Thursday's Supreme Court ruling against the country's sodomy laws, it certainly didn't hurt.

"A major argument against equal benefits, against fair treatment of employees, has been taken away," said Kevin Cathcart of Lambda Legal. "And so even within corporations it's a very different dialogue today, a very different dialogue."

There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, but 13 states, the District of Columbia and several hundred towns, cities and counties have such legal protections in place for public and private employees.

Wal-Mart's new policy reads in part: "We affirm our commitment and pledge our support to equal opportunity employment for all qualified persons, regardless of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability or status as a veteran or sexual orientation."

[DAnconia55]

Actually - sodomy refers to either oral or anal sex.

Here's some stats for you. Maybe you'll begin to understand that you are in the minority, and won't change anything.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their 1977 Redbook Report on Female Sexuality, C. Tavris and S. Sadd found that 93% of wives responding reported having engaged in cunnilingus and 91% had engaged in fellatio. They concluded from this response that, "Today it is clear that if the sexual revolution has occurred anywhere, it is in the practice and acceptance of oral sex. Among people under age twenty-five, it is virtually a universal part of the sexual relationship." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. Blumsteln and P. Schwartz have reported similar statistics—93% of heterosexual couples had engaged in cunnilingus and 90% had engaged in fellatio. See also W. Masters, V. Johnson, and R. Kolodny, Human Sexualily 393 (1985). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NS: What kind of figures do we have on the prevalence of anal sex among heterosexuals? Daniel, you've just published on this, right? DH: There's not a tremendous amount of data but we do have a fair amount. It varies, of course, from country to country and population to population. In this country, probably the best data we have is from the study by Laumann and his colleagues at the University of Chicago. That was the large Sex in America study conducted a few years back on a sample of over three thousand men and women representative of the general U.S. population. What they found was that approximately 25% of the sexually active adult population reported having experimented with anal sex (defined for this discussion as penile-anal penetration) at one point in their lives. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In various surveys, nearly 20% of heterosexual men and 40% of women have reported engaging in anal sex during their lives (5). Surveys of teenage women have found that more than one in five report having had anal sex.

[oceanperch]

I keep getting an image in my head of someone passing away only to have others going through their possesions and having this lifelike adult doll (I saw a tv show about real life like sex dolls) tossed in the back of the walk in closet.

LMAO imagine the looks on that poor persons face who has the chore of cleaning out Uncle Harry's house.

[I got the rope]

God gave us liberty and free-will so that a small group of loud busybodies could usurp it and make everybody obey them.

Usurp what. What freedom do you not have that you want? The freedom to engage in sodomy in your own home? Are you not doing that? Did the supreme court free you the other day?

You can wrap this up in the flag of freedom all you want, but you sir are a liar. The fundies built this country on logic and reason...and yes...faith.

The fundies believe in something greater than themselves. You can't see any further than the end of your self-gratification.

[kuma]

You know that was not the majority opinion. That was one justices opinion that refused to join the majority opinion. That is not what this overturn means at all. It was based on a mythical "right to privacy". All that specific passage states is search & seizure laws and due process.

If you were correct and it was based solely on the fact that in the Texas case it was unequal on sodomy laws that would be an entirely different matter. The Texas legislators could have decided whether or not they wanted to enact a different more equally binding law.

Instead they have been told they cannot effectively legislate anything that is done in privacy by a consenting adult. This can lead to many more things than sex as well. Tell me can Texas voters decide anything for themselves or must they always bend to the will of Judicial Activists.

Simply put you do not think We The People are fit to decide anything. Only those 9 justices can rule the land. Of course especially since it suits your agenda.

[TheAngryClam]

I had a friend whose job was exactly that- cleaning out homes that had been repo'ed.

He had a box of the weird stuff he found and kept while doing that.

The things he found... let's just say that it is indeed true that there is a sexual fetish for everything, and leave it at that.

[oceanperch]

I think we already had the pickers ranting back when Chevez was hollering.

[novacation]

Exxon got rid of Mobil's queer policies. Hurray for the worlds largest corporation (if it still is)!

[JZoback]

This all about protecting themselves against law suits by gay activist groups.

Wal-Mart will continue to be Wal-Mart...............The 500 lb gorilla

[DAnconia55]

Usurp what. What freedom do you not have that you want?

Got a few hours? That may take awhile. This will be rambling as it's off the top of my head no order except #1 :)

(Anything you don't know about ask).

Note I want freedom. And not necessarily for me. Make crack legal - I ain't smokin' any. I desire freedom for its own sake.

---

Restoration of original taxation of US - no income tax.
Removal of all drug laws.
Removal of all gambling laws.
Removal of all other consentual vice laws (prostitution,etc)
Disbandment of all federal agencies not explicitly authorized by the Constitution or vision of the Founders.
End Patriot Act.
End OSHA.
End of laws mandating reporting of our banking and business transactions to the Federal Gov't.
Removal of all speech codes.
Removal of all hate crimes laws.
Removal of trade restrictions upon citizens.
Removal of all three strikes laws.
Removal of all capital federal crimes but those listed in the Constitution.
Restoration of property rights.
End of environmental restrictions on personal property.

Ah heck, that's good for now. There's more but it's early, and I'm still half asleep.

[I got the rope]

Ok...now make up a reason for doing this...besides self-gratification. You can't. By the way sodomy is not sex.

[kuma]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that Freedom of Religion or a company taking away the Freedom of Religion is lawful??? Seems to be an awful lot of court cases protecting religious expression in the workplace.

Once again you are so concerned about the protection of one citizen and not the other. You must be one of those special rights folks.

[I got the rope]

See post:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/939655/posts?page=110#110

[DAnconia55]

You know that was not the majority opinion. That was one justices opinion that refused to join the majority opinion. That is not what this overturn means at all. It was based on a mythical "right to privacy".

Stopped clocks and all. I told you what was Constitutional and correct for the court to do. Doesn't matter that they accidently did right.

And there IS A right to privacy. See Amendments 9 and 10.

[TheAngryClam]

Now, what is exactly wrong with gratification?

Or are you one of those "the only sex should be to produce children, and nothing more," types?

[DAnconia55]

Of course especially since it suits your agenda.

Yeah! Yeah! You sure told me. Now hang on whilst I run out and bugger some hairy dude. LOL.

[TheAngryClam]

"State Action Doctrine," my friend.

Additionally, there's the plain meaning of the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law..." The First Amendment does NOT say "A company shall make no policy..."

[DAnconia55]

Ok...now make up a reason for doing this

For doing what?

Some of us believe in freedom.
Just because.

Want to jump off a cliff with a parachute? Ok. Go ahead.
Shoot up heroin? Ok.
Have sex with a crackwhore. Hey, it's your pecker, not mine.

We believe in freedom for its own sake. I want many many many things free again, like they used to be, but that doesn't mean I want to do them all.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I'd benefit from would be the tax code changes, banking privacy, and property rights.

Oh oops.. I left out ending gun control in my list. That too. Restoration of all Infantry weapons to the civilian populace.

[DAnconia55]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that Freedom of Religion or a company taking away the Freedom of Religion is lawful???

Yep.

Morally, and under the intent of the Founders - I don't have to hire Catholics (actually the people I weed out are leftists... but I'm using another example).

And yes, on my property, in my house, in my car, or in my business I can tell you to shut up, and you don't have any choice but to do it or leave/quit/walk.

[kuma]

In Due Process of the law the government can enter your home if they have sufficient reason to believe you are violating a law. This is regardless if you believe that law should exist or not. If you don't like it. Go through the normal procedures.

No they did not accidentially get it right. Voters and their Representatives are no longer allowed to make laws on what is not enumerated in the Constitution about what may or may not be going on illegally in the private world of consenting adults. This is specifically against the rights of the states under said Constitution. Why that's so conservative of you.

Once again I reiterate. You favor UN "human rights" more than US Constitutional rights.

[DAnconia55]

In Due Process of the law the government can enter your home if they have sufficient reason to believe you are violating a law. This is regardless if you believe that law should exist or not. If you don't like it. Go through the normal procedures.

Under the government structure of the United State, the Supreme Court can rule a law Unconstitutional. This is regardless if you believe that law should exist or not. If you don't like it. Go through the normal procedures.