Another good reason to boycott Target

[Mark 1911]

First the "no handguns", now this. I would have worn my handgun into Target until asked to leave despite their corporate policy, but now I will shop elsewhere. Why?

Target is joining the numbers of corporations losing their priorities, meddling in the politics marriage instead of running a business, supporting the creation of special rights for some and discrimination against others, not equal rights, based on sexual preference.


Who's Targeting Whom? | NOM Blog

 

[1775usmarine]

You will never have full equality. Someone will come up with something. I'm waiting for the polygamists to demand their marriages be recognized.

 

[PRasko]

Last time I was in target, I had about 600$ of crap in my cart when they, manager and security, asked me to put my firearm in my car. They made sure to tell me I could then return to finish my purchase.

I laughed at them and told them to cram it with walnuts.

I was concealed carrying, and some mall cop saw me printing through a t-shirt.

 

[Mark 1911]

You will never have full equality. Someone will come up with something. I'm waiting for the polygamists to demand their marriages be recognized.

Equality in some people's minds means anything goes. That is not equality, but anarchy. There has to be some standard, some reference point.

 

[Henry]

You will never have full equality. Someone will come up with something. I'm waiting for the polygamists to demand their marriages be recognized.

The process is already underway...

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

We would do well to have the state out of marriage altogether. Unfortunately, few are willing to live and let live. Instead, many want to use the power of the state to dictate terms and conditions. So, how's that working out for marriage? For most anything the state is involved with?

 

[88GT]

Equality in some people's minds means anything goes. That is not equality, but anarchy. There has to be some standard, some reference point.

There is a standard, and as it stands now, the current prohibition on state-recognized unions of a secular nature for anyone other than a man-woman make-up is discriminatory.

The process is already underway...

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

We would do well to have the state out of marriage altogether. Unfortunately, few are willing to live and let live. Instead, many want to use the power of the state to dictate terms and conditions. So, how's that working out for marriage? For most anything the state is involved with?

I am quite happy to have the state recognize my union contract with my spouse as it prevents and precludes anybody else from claiming the same rights of marriage that I enjoy. Without it, our union contract is practically indefensible in court, and there's nothing stopping Betty Lou from claiming to be Mr88GT's wife. At which point, I must engage in a long and costly court battle to prove not only my right to the spousal privileges of the union, but her lack of claim. No, thanks. The legal aspect of the marriage pretty much requires some state involvement. It'll be on the front end or the back end, and I'd much prefer the front end.

EDIT: forgot to mention my comment about the OP. Target is free to make whatever choices it wants. But I do find it ridiculous that it is pandering to a tiny majority of the population in a part of society and geographic locale it has no business--literally and figuratively--getting involved in. What exactly does Indiana marriage law have to do with Target's business model?

 

[MisterChester]

Would you still have made this post if they came out against gay marriage?

 

[88GT]

Would you still have made this post if they came out against gay marriage?

To which of the 5 people who posted prior to you are you directing this question?

 

[Mark 1911]

Would you still have made this post if they came out against gay marriage?

No, I posted this because I do not support gay marriage or believe in it. If Target were not pushing this policy there would be no reason to boycott them on this issue, although their anti-gun carry policy is another reason.

 

[MisterChester]

To which of the 5 people who posted prior to you are you directing this question?

Sorry, meant OP.

 

[ModernGunner]

I'd still respond whether Target came out against, or in favor of gay marriage. It matters not.

Target simply has no 'cause' and no 'standing' in deciding, as a company, what a 'marriage' should or should not be. The same holds true with every other company and business, as well, large OR small.

I respect the rights of others, right up until they choose to step on MY rights.

 

[Mark 1911]

Sorry, meant OP.

I responded to your question above. I would add that I think it is a fatal mistake to think that society can support gay marriage and that such a false ideology will not adversely affect freedom, including gun freedom. The trend toward gay marriage and the movement to revoke gun freedoms are neither isolated or exclusive of each other.

 

[MisterChester]

No, I posted this because I do not support gay marriage or believe in it. If Target were not pushing this policy there would be no reason to boycott them on this issue, although their anti-gun carry policy is another reason.

Target is already on the INGO s***list. I'm not giving them my money, and I'd bet you aren't either. But on this subject, who cares? Why do you care? If you don't like it, then don't go there.

 

[MisterChester]

I responded to your question above. I would add that I think it is a fatal mistake to think that society can support gay marriage and that such a false ideology will not adversely affect freedom, including gun freedom. The trend toward gay marriage and the movement to revoke gun freedoms are neither isolated or exclusive of each other.

Sure it's hypocritical, I agree. Just gives me another reason to not go there because their corporate talking-heads don't have a clue what they are doing. The only way they could really be in a position to be pro-freedom is if they welcomed the carrying of firearms and were for gay marriage. It's just as hypocritical to welcome firearm carry and be against gay marriage.

 

[ashby koss]

No, I posted this because I do not support gay marriage or believe in it. If Target were not pushing this policy there would be no reason to boycott them on this issue, although their anti-gun carry policy is another reason.

And you are free to believe and support what you want. BUT having a 2nd status that is backed by the state for ANY person based on their beliefs and or sexual preference is discrimination, and goes against equal right. The is NO valid, non-religious based argument against Same sex marriage.

 

[Mark 1911]

And you are free to believe and support what you want. BUT having a 2nd status that is backed by the state for ANY person based on their beliefs and or sexual preference is discrimination, and goes against equal right. The is NO valid, non-religious based argument against Same sex marriage.

I think you are wrong. I believe the reality is the exact opposite of your reasoning. I think time will show many logical arguments against same sex marriage, and that in reality there is no valid reason to overrule state bans on same sex marriage. To create special rights for a small minority will directly impact the rights of the vast majority, that is discrimination. As long as there is a movement to promote same sex marriage, there will be a movement to fight against it.

 

[Mark 1911]

It's just as hypocritical to welcome firearm carry and be against gay marriage.

I disagree. Your statement could only be true if both firearm carry and gay marriage were legitimate. But only one is. There is no freedom without truth. It is never hypocritical to fight for truth.

 

[MisterChester]

I think you are wrong. I believe the reality is the exact opposite of your reasoning. I think time will show many logical arguments against same sex marriage, and that in reality there is no valid reason to overrule state bans on same sex marriage. To create special rights for a small minority will directly impact the rights of the vast majority, that is discrimination. As long as there is a movement to promote same sex marriage, there will be a movement to fight against it.

As someone who is straight, gay marriage has done absolutely nothing to change or abridge the rights I currently have. Has gay marriage personally affect you in some way that forces you to do something you don't want to?

 

[ashby koss]

I think you are wrong. I believe the reality is the exact opposite of your reasoning. I think time will show many logical arguments against same sex marriage, and that in reality there is no valid reason to overrule state bans on same sex marriage. To create special rights for a small minority will directly impact the rights of the vast majority, that is discrimination. As long as there is a movement to promote same sex marriage, there will be a movement to fight against it.

I NEVER said that this would be "SPECIAL RIGHTS" for any small minority. The LGBT community is A) far large than I think you are giving them credit for and B) only asking that they have the SAME RIGHTS. As it stands now, there are only "special rights" that opposite sex marriages can enjoy. THAT'S DISCRIMINATION BASED ON A RELATIONSHIP STATUS.

I would be very open to hearing these "logical arguments against same sex marriage" of which you claim there are many.

 

[MisterChester]

I disagree. Your statement could only be true if both firearm carry and gay marriage were legitimate. But only one is. There is no freedom without truth. It is never hypocritical to fight for truth.

What "truth" are you talking about? That we can cherry-pick freedoms now apparently?