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