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."

[Dave S]

Walmart is a private company. Who they chose to give benefits and what their corporate policies are is none of your business. If the stockholders dont give a shit why should you?

[Dave S]

Because I want them to be punished for caving to the gay lobby,

Who says they did? Could have been there own free will choice. You do believe that God gives us free will dont you?

[DAnconia55]

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

You are trying to FORCE gays to not have sex in their own homes.

Your evidently confused. Zealotry tends to do that. It makes you think that you can do things to other people that they cannot do to you.

You fail to understand the point that was being made, it seems. It isn't about 'forcing' anyone to be gay (although they do their fair share of 'recruiting' among the young), it's about forcing you and me and everyone else to 'celebrate' gayness with them, to accept homo sex as perfectly natural

No, your assbackwards knuckledragging reactionary bile is about trying to FORCE Gays to not be gay in their own houses. The point was evidently lost on both of you.

This is about a small group of people who want "equal" rights, not based on their being Americans (to which they already have those rights),

Incorrect. They did not have equal rights in Texas. Where local law failed to provide equal protection under the law for gays. Straight men were allowed to have anal/oral sex but gay men were not. That IS a violation of the 14th Amendment, and the Law WAS Unconstitution, regardless of why the Supreme Court ruled they way they did. (And yes, we DO have a right to privacy - see Amendments 9 and 10.)

This is about a group of people who wish to teach their behavior in public schools
Don't publik skool. I'm sure not. We should end publik skools anyway. Capitalism can provide better quality schools for less money. And we can pick what is taught. More choice.

But see the teaching thing is a 'non sequitur'. Extremist Gays were pushing their education agenda anyway. So they wouldn't have stopped if you HAD won the SC ruling. And just because they ARE pushing an Agenda is no moral right to deny them equal protection of the law.
But Hey, I understand. If you shout loudly enough while frothing at the mouth most people won't notice your illogic. I'm not one of them.

This is about a group of people whose activist efforts include an organization that supports, endorses and encourages the sexual abuse of children

Nonsense. No more than saying that all us straight men are child molestors because of a few Catholic priests. This is known as a 'red herring' - another logic flaw.

As my tagline says, if it is indeed just about what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, why aren't they content to keep it there

Because you try to arrest and jail them for it. And you're now up in arms because gay people are daring to work to support themselves.

[Dave S]

What type of civilization will we have when it is filled with moral anarchists

As opposed to moral busy-bodies?

[DAnconia55]

That somehow the store will be laid out differently?

OH yes! It will all be tastefully done in lovely matching pastels! Oh Goody!

[truenospinzone]

Oh good lord. Sorry I missed that one - would have enhanced my homepage quotes, I'm sure.

[DAnconia55]

I think far too many people here seem to overlook a very simple "do unto others" lesson.

That's because Fundies rewrite the religion at a whim, to suit their own needs and desires.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; unless you're in power, and can force them to do what you want.

They don't pay attention to half of what they think they believe. But they are REAL GOOD at the bits they can use to drum up hatred.

[DAnconia55]

Two people of the same gender going at it is hardly a moral right.

It is equally a right as two heterosexual people going at it.

Thats the point you're missing.

[breakem]

DA (Clint there's something special for you at the end) we have a diagreement on the arbitrariness of the restriction on children contractng or consenting.

I believe the limitations on children are rooted in religion,and/or nature. Either way I think over time it is a widely help principle that parents have responsibility and authority over children. My understanding of anthropology and religion is that this has been practically universal.

If you agree on this point then children could not give consent (and yes I too had sex before 18). Now I do believe that where you draw the age of consent is arbitrary. For instance, I think it's somewhat ironic, that the age of consent is higher than in the past when kids seem to grow up faster than before. It seems that sexual consent used to be tied more to puberty and now we have decided it's voting or some other magic at 18. Of course, you can't discuss lowering the age of consent on the ole FR because you are labelled as a pedophile or pushing the gaystapo agenda.

Also, wouldn't it be more arbitrary if each family decided on their own. As a wannabe Libertarian, I might like the exclusive parental authority, but I believe that would be chaotic and impractical (open to counterpoint on this one). I do believe government has a role to play drawing the line of the age of consent as part of a balance against total parental control which can be abusive to kids.

Clint, I will never answer your question about the legal differences between having sex with your blow-up doll and your pets. The question is idiotic. Either you already know the answer, which I suspect from the fact that you get in a real quality question now and then; or you are playing a psuedoSocratic-method game of string the other guy along with innane questions.

If and when you want to engage as adults, you might start by stating your complete position on the legality of homosexual sex. I suspect that once you put the dools, pets, and kids away, you don't want to put these people in jail afterall. I have totally lost your position in our ongoing bizarro dialogue.

[DAnconia55]

Wow. Nice page.

Personally, I would have left the posters name up there with the quote. I'm just that kind of rat bastard.

Here's the quotes for you.
1

2

Oh. Did I mention he wants to make vasectomies and tied tubes illegal, too?

I'm Still trying to find out who let the Fundies out of their pen.

[tdadams]

Some rail against radical behavior by some homosexuals and generalize that to all homosexuals and want to treat them all as the radical without giving recognition to individual rights and personal responsibility.

This is an example of taking the extreme and representing it as the norm. I wonder why these people don't condemn all heterosexuals due to the boasts of Wilt Chamberlin and Gene Simmons.

[breakem]

You made a leap of logic because you ascribed something to me I have not stated. You can wonder all you want. I'm not with the thought police. Hell, I'm tryinmg to police my own thoughts.

I am often on these threads as a proponent of individual freedom and responsibility. I believe adults have a right to engage in sex with each other without you or others codifying your morality. I believe companies can decide their own rules of employment. I am opposed to hate crime or attempts at thought policing. Hope you can sleep better now.

[breakem]

I worked in corrections and I've seen a lot of home made dolls. We called them fifi dolls. One guy even had a real catalogue model in his cell. It was then we established no right to have sex with dolls in prison. LOL!

[Dave S]

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

First ammendment puts restrictions on what government can do. It says nothing about corporations. One doesnt have a constitutional right to freedom of religion at your place of business unless you own the business.

[tdadams]

Normal behavior is not determined by statistics or a poll. It is biological function...even for Heterosexuals.

Someone needs to explain the concept of "biological function" to my dog. He seems to think human legs have an orifice. He's obviously not normal.

[DAnconia55]

Either way I think over time it is a widely help principle that parents have responsibility and authority over children

Of Course. The only other option is the government owns all the kids. That's a HUGE no-no.

But I kinda like my test idea, too.
Got bad parents? Well, if you can't pass the civics test, then you can engage in contracts and you can't vote until 18.
Smart cookie with good role models? You can pass at 16, then.

But you're wrong about something. I don't want to repost the chart here, it's too big.

Age OF Consent chart

The age of consent is NOT 18 in most states. It's 16.

Shhh... Don't tell the fundies. They'll be after the heteros next...

---

Be vewwwy vewwy quiet. I'm hunting Sodomites.

[truenospinzone]

To quote mhking: Just damn. The second one made the page; what a nice, succinct display of lunacy.

I considered linking the quotes to the appropriate FReepers, but they're all either banned for inevitably letting the underlying insanity of those quotes shine through in more obvious ways, or are simply the Usual Suspects, i.e. exactly the same five or six FReepers you'd expect to make those kind of statements and actually mean them.

[m18436572]

The only ones who populate Wal-Mart are sheep and illegals. Seen one lately?
I agree, but I don't expect much to change.

[breakem]

Good point. The anti-homo logic on these treads quickly evaporates when you apply it to heterosexuals. Also, why are so many willing to give the government power to control which adults they have sex with? What kind of conservatism is this? What's next, tell us what to have for breakfast? What to name our kids or when to go outside?

I think Luis Gonzales made a point on another thread that sodomy by heteros was legal in some states but not for homos and this was a clear violation of equal protection under the law. Of course in acknowledging this we are destroying the social fabric as we know it, teraing down marraige, and bringing on a plague of locusts. Don't know why those damn founding fathers brought up the whole freedom thing in the first place. It's their fault. They set us up for this.

[breakem]

If you're hunting sodomites, watch your back!

A test for parents, hummmmmmmm!

Going to COSTCO for fourth of July provisions. Gotta get there before someone finds out there's some homos working there and calls for a boycott.