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."

[kuma]

You were not following the conversation. Or from previous posts concerning your logic you were. The other was in favor of tossing away Freedom of Association as a basis of whether or not an employee could keep his job.

It seems though that you are still extremely happy that others should not be able to decide whether or not they want to willfully associate with your favored group.

[I got the rope]

I agree with most of your list, with exception to those that could be regulated by the states...(i.e...prostitution.) We really need to bring back our Constitutional Republic and rid ourselves of activist judges. If we did this then we wouldn't have laws that jailed people for crimes against themselves like drugs, sodomy, and sex with critters. These people would get treatment and charitable groups would aid these people. I truly believe if the government would take less of our money we could helpo many more people in just volunteer charitable donations.

The only problem I have with you freedom arguement is that it totally ignores biological function. When you take sodomy to it's logical conclusion you cannot justify it because it "feels good."

by the way...sorry I called you a liar...I'll play nice:>)

[DAnconia55]

It seems though that you are still extremely happy that others should not be able to decide whether or not they want to willfully associate with your favored group

I really can't help it if assumptions are all you have to work with.

My reasons are clearly stated above.

BTW: You have no right (Regardless if there WAS a Constitutional amendment) to ban gay men from doing whatever they want with their body parts in private.

That is to say - a moral right trumps the Constitution.

But we have a very large disagreement over what that means. To me, it doesn't mean that you have the right to control others who are doing things you don't like.

[kuma]

We did you didn't. There is nothing UN Constitutional about entering a home with a search warrant that was issued through due process. You are deeply in denial about what the majority opinion, the binding opinion, was that threw away the Texas legislators responsibilities as enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremes violated the Constitution.

You know as well as I that there is no court to appeal to. However, you are correct. The next logical course is to follow the Constitutional process of an Amendment. I'm sure you don't object. Oops wait of course you did on other threads. How dare Legislators follow Constitutional procedures to add an Amendment.

[DAnconia55]

If we did this then we wouldn't have laws that jailed people for crimes against themselves like drugs, sodomy, and (snip).

Except for one small problem. Courts didn't create those laws.

Congress (And state legislatures) did.

(Demonkrats, I might add - did most of it.)

[DAnconia55]

We did you didn't. There is nothing UN Constitutional about entering a home with a search warrant that was issued through due process

Indeed there is. An Unconstitutional law may not be enforced with any legal (or moral) validity.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Regardless of what the SC found - a law banning sodomy for just gays is Unconstitutional.

You do realize there were gay people having sex before this ruling? And no 'new' gays will have sex because of it?

You're not going to stop gay men from having sex.
You're not going to stop gay men from having sex.
You're not going to stop gay men from having sex.

They say that key to learning is repetition. Figured it couldn't hurt.

[DAnconia55]

I really don't get the whole Fundie sex obsession.

If two gays were on my property having sex, I'd make 'em leave, maybe even call the cops for trespassing.

But I certainly don't think I have the right to go into their houses and stop them from having sex.

The arrogance of Fundies is without limit.

[kuma]

An Amendment is the Will of the People. That is what is Constitutional. Of course you were trying to bypass We the People with Judicial Activism.

That little We the People, For the People and By the People in a Representative Government really irks you doesn't it. You would rather have just 9 folks running the country as long as they always agree with you. Isn't that something like what Iran has with all their mullah's enacting law with no accountability? Ah yes. It's called tyranny. Why that's so conservative of you.

[kuma]

Okay since you think that works.

That was not the majority legally binding opinion.
That was not the majority legally binding opinion.
That was not the majority legally binding opinion.
That was not the majority legally binding opinion.

All that matters is the majority legally binding opinion.
All that matters is the majority legally binding opinion.
All that matters is the majority legally binding opinion.
All that matters is the majority legally binding opinion.

It sets precedent and can influence future cases on different subjects.
It sets precedent and can influence future cases on different subjects.
It sets precedent and can influence future cases on different subjects.
It sets precedent and can influence future cases on different subjects.

Somehow I don't think it will be able to get past the agenda so well programmed in your head.

[garbanzo]

That is for GOD to do.

But God just doesn't know the facts of the matter...

(Punchline to old joke: What is the definition of a fanatic? Someone who does what God would do, if only he knew the facts of the matter.)

[I got the rope]

I was just kidding about the Mexican thing...although they may be a force to be recognized in the future... especially if they don't assimilate out of their socialist mindset.

I'm hoping that in the next ten years we will find a cure for homos and we won't have another homo thread on FR ever again.

Then the only deviates we will have to worry about are baby boomer medicare prescribtion drug welfare receipients.

[HennepinPrisoner]

Wal-Mart pharmacies also make the RU-486 ("morning after") available. I don't remember people on here calling for a boycott of Wal-Mart or any other pharmacy.

Kind of strange that the homosexual issue causes more distress among Freepers than murdering babies.

[I got the rope]

I believe the courts are to blame because they should be slapping down laws that are against the constitution. Everytime some pin-head legislature passes a law violating my 2nd amendment rights (1938 law, AWB)or 4th amendment right (RICO laws...signed by R.Reagan) then the courts should hear the cases and slam them in the trash. Many times they won't even hear the case. Especially gun laws.

[DAnconia55]

That was not the majority legally binding opinion.

I am aware of this.

All that matters is the majority legally binding opinion.

Any opinion that allows courts to overturn laws that prevent freedom is a good one.

It sets precedent and can influence future cases on different subjects.

Good I hope so. People shouldn't be arrested for engaging in threesomes, or smoking pot in their bedrooms either.

[DAnconia55]

It's called tyranny

Oh yes, the Tyranny of Liberty! Lol...

You guys crack me up.
A court rules that it's ok for gays to have sex, thus increasing the general overall level of freedom, and you call it Tyranny.

Stalin would have loved that.

[I got the rope]

Kind of strange that the homosexual issue causes more distress among Freepers than murdering babies.

They are both big topics, but my guess is that most people (even RINOs and libs) find abortion abhorrent.

[DAnconia55]

I believe the courts are to blame because they should be slapping down laws that are against the constitution

They just did. And the Fundies came out of the woodwork.

Like someone let them out of their pens.

But yep, you're right.
RICO, that's another one I forgot.

[I got the rope]

We are little off topic, but I don't think the court decided anything on a constitutional basis. My understanding was that they made up a law again.

[HennepinPrisoner]

They are both big topics, but my guess is that most people (even RINOs and libs) find abortion abhorrent.

I'm sure they do.

But I don't remember anyone on FR starting a thread and calling for a boycott of Wal-Mart pharmacies, though, when they started dispensing RU-486..

I could be wrong, though.

But I doubt it.

[RonF]

What exactly do you object to regarding Wal-Mart's anti-discrimination policy? Do you even know what it is? I don't see it stated here. Do you think that a policy of forbiding consideration of an employee's sexual orientation when evaluating performance, handing our raises, considering them for promotion, etc., is a bad thing?