Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 07/02/2003 10:08:52 PM PDT by 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."


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Business/Economy; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: 4th; agenda; boycott; gay; homonazi; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; wallfart; walmart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-291 next last
To: Recovering_Democrat
I am a strong conservative, but I do not agree with you. Of course if you think a boycott is justified, then go for it.

I've got co-workers who are gay. What do I do: refuse to talk with them? Associate? Some are better employees than some "straight-laced, religious" co-workers.

Well said.

I believe most conservatives support equal rights under the law for gays when it comes to housing and employment.

241 posted on 07/03/2003 1:01:11 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
How do you compare a woman wearing a cross to work to someone at Walmart potentially harrassing or purposefully hurting the career of a homo. Wearing a cross is not intrusive. If the woman was standing up on a chair preaching about the "the End is Near" or calling customers who came in "sinners" the judge would not have sided with her.
242 posted on 07/03/2003 2:21:32 PM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
I've made similar ponits as yours and people get real quiet.
243 posted on 07/03/2003 2:33:09 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
I've also made POINTS! LOL!
244 posted on 07/03/2003 2:33:32 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Jorge, I've been in many WalMarts in various states. Some of the ones in Southern California are dirty and not worth going into. I find the Target stores to be cleaner and more roomy. In the east and midwest I've seen some very clean WalMarts. Two weeks ago I went with a firend into the WalMart in Hood River OR. Diriest store of any kind I've been in for quite some time. Interesting in the mens room they posted the manager and some regional manager's phone numbers and said to call if the rest room was unsatisfactory. Hell, the whole store was bad.
245 posted on 07/03/2003 2:37:00 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
You made my point.
246 posted on 07/03/2003 2:38:39 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
How do you compare a woman wearing a cross to work to someone at Walmart potentially harrassing or purposefully hurting the career of a homo?

How do you equate the freedom to practice your religion to someone "going after" a homosexual?

The assertion is people are not allowed to practice their religion whereever and whenever they please. That is patently false, and I have demonstrated such.

A person's religion and the harassment of a person because of their sexual behavior are mutually exclusive.

Period.

247 posted on 07/03/2003 2:39:35 PM PDT by Houmatt (If it is about what goes on in the bedroom, why doesn't it stay there? And leave our kids alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Your second point in 207 is not in dispute. I have never said the states can't set the age of consent. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. The only thing I said about consent is that kids and animals can't legally give consent so you can't engage in consentual sex with them. You have created the rest of the argument unilaterally.

Your comment on the dog-doll question being a serious question is strange. Most people here that can put a sentence together can eexplain the difference. So you can call it serious all you want. I think it's pathetic.

248 posted on 07/03/2003 2:44:20 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
re 188. I somomized my car last weekend, looks good!
249 posted on 07/03/2003 2:47:27 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
If you haven't read posts 200-250 you missed the primer on dogs and leg humping. I'm applying for college credit for home study on this thread.
250 posted on 07/03/2003 2:48:44 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: All
boys and girls, just got back from Costco in beautiful, sprawling Temecula, CA. No sightings of any known homosexuals. I think Costco makes them work in the back room.
251 posted on 07/03/2003 2:53:17 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Is not that GMeastiality?
252 posted on 07/03/2003 2:54:04 PM PDT by Bluntpoint (Not there! Yes, there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: breakem
You know, I would LOVE to hear you rationalize the lowering of age of consent laws (I think they should be raised nationwide to 18) while not siding with those who wish only to sexually exploit and abuse children.

The thing is, I am asking you to do something impossible. While I said in my last post religion and the harassment of a person because of their sexual behavior are mutually exclusive, the want to lower age of consent laws and have sex with children are not.

And there is NO grey area. Not where children are concerned.

If you think there is, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

253 posted on 07/03/2003 2:54:13 PM PDT by Houmatt (If it is about what goes on in the bedroom, why doesn't it stay there? And leave our kids alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
And you probably wont. It will be indoctrinated and directed at the employees behind closed doors, and you wont see it between the isles of Chinese goods......

So Basically, WalMart is tricking you conservative types.
Everything looks normal, but in back they're having a huge all gay orgy, right?

254 posted on 07/03/2003 2:59:03 PM PDT by DAnconia55 (Taxation is a greater threat to the family than gay sex is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Incorrect. Only on public property, your own property or With the permission of the owner of whatever private property you are standing on.

You call yourself a libertarian and make an asinine statement like that? Here is a story that contradicts it.

Didn't happen to notice that was a PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, did you? Government jobs are covered by the Constitution. Private property is not.

The Constitution does NOT give you any rights on private property.

Back up your ridiculous assertion.

255 posted on 07/03/2003 3:00:54 PM PDT by DAnconia55 (Taxation is a greater threat to the family than gay sex is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
I'll tell you one of my personal favorite tactics of the people you're talking about. They'll rant for 10 straight posts about how, since sexual activity is not an inherent characteristic (like race), it deserves no attention at all when talking about discrimination.

Then, a few posts later, they'll start complaining about how someone is discriminating against them based on their religion.

I would strongly suggest you read the US Constitution. It specifically addresses freedom of religion. It does not address the freedom to bugger someone of your own gender in a public restroom.

256 posted on 07/03/2003 3:03:08 PM PDT by Houmatt (If it is about what goes on in the bedroom, why doesn't it stay there? And leave our kids alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Okay. Let's see if I have this right: Those who took exception to the Gay Rights Rally in Washington, DC in March of 1993 were trying to force themselves onto the homosexuals. Got it.
Nope. Take exception all you like. No problem with that. You just can't BAN private behavior you don't like.

Is it correct to make that assumption?
Nope. You'll get around to trying to boss us heteros around next. Only the Gays stand in your way over trying to rule over us too.

I never said that. If homosexuals wish to work, that's fine. But they don't have a right to work

They have no more and no less right to work than you do.

257 posted on 07/03/2003 3:04:41 PM PDT by DAnconia55 (Taxation is a greater threat to the family than gay sex is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Since you think there's something seriously wrong with me you may not want to read the answer. So far you've said I address this issue at my own peril, so why would I answer.

But here's what I think today. I don't have an opinion on raising or lowering the age of consent. I did say earlier that I thought kids were more mature now than a hundred years or so ago when they married much younger.

The age of reason should not be changed one way or another based upon people who want to have sex with teenagers. It should be based upon whatever makes sense for society and teenagers as a group. Hell, maybe you can justify it at 30. Give it a shot.

One problem I see is that a 17 year old girl and an 18 year old "man" can have sex and he can go to prison. For my money, most 17 year old girls are more mature than guys a year or two older.

Another thing that seems wrong is that some 19 year old Marine can't buy a beer but he can go to Iraq or wherever and get blown up.

Do we need another thread?

258 posted on 07/03/2003 3:07:02 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
Unfortunately, Hondamy in the first degree with a sedam under 16. With a suds and wax if you know what I mean.
259 posted on 07/03/2003 3:08:47 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Done.

Sorry about that, chief.

260 posted on 07/03/2003 3:31:30 PM PDT by Houmatt (If it is about what goes on in the bedroom, why doesn't it stay there? And leave our kids alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-291 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson