TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Large corporations donating money to MN group that supports homophobic candidates.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Large corporations donating money to MN group that supports homophobic candidates.

post #1 of 103
7/29/10 at 11:00pm
Thread Starter 
http://www.twincities.com/ci_1561399...nclick_check=1

The first paragraph:

Quote:
Under fire from gay rights groups for a political donation that benefitted Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, an opponent of same-sex marriage, Target Corp. CEO Gregg Steinhafel on Tuesday sent a letter to employees at its Minneapolis headquarters to defend the company's record on gay rights.
Best Buy donated to the same group.

The same Tom Emmer whose campaign gave money to the homophobic 501(c) not-for-profit "ministry", You Can Run But You Can't Hide. Their frontman has stated the group's views:

Quote:
“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America,†Dean said on YCR’s May 15 radio show on AM 1280 the Patriot. “This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.â€

“If America won’t enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that,†Dean continued. “That is what you are seeing in America.â€
http://minnesotaindependent.com/5933...to-you-can-run

Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachman is also a supporter. What the heck is going on with the politicians in Minnesota? Supporting a group that advocates the "punishment" of murder for homosexuality? What is wrong with the Target Corporation, and Best Buy for giving money to any group that supports either of these two politicians? Yep, they have the right to donate their money as they choose, but guess what? I have the right to take my business elsewhere, and that's exactly what I'm going to do. IMO, it's shameful.
Reply
post #2 of 103
7/30/10 at 4:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by clixpix View Post
Yep, they have the right to donate their money as they choose, but guess what? I have the right to take my business elsewhere, and that's exactly what I'm going to do. IMO, it's shameful.
I'm so very, very disappointed in Target and Best Buy - and I totally agree with you. Shameful and hateful. Spreading hate the way this group does is disgusting. (On edit: To be even more clear - spreading hate is disgusting....period.)
Reply
post #3 of 103
7/30/10 at 7:24am
Thats just ridiculous shameful and horrific that in this day and age people still feel the need to act like that. Add Target and Best Buy to my Places to Avoid shopping list!
Reply
post #4 of 103
7/30/10 at 7:43am
Wish I had known that earlier in the week. I'd have taken my recent purchase elsewhere.

I don't think it's any of my business what goes on in someone's bedroom anymore than I think it's someone's right to know what's going on in mine.
Reply
post #5 of 103
7/30/10 at 10:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3CatsN1Dog View Post
Thats just ridiculous shameful and horrific that in this day and age people still feel the need to act like that. Add Target and Best Buy to my Places to Avoid shopping list!
Quote:
Originally Posted by emrldsky View Post
Wish I had known that earlier in the week. I'd have taken my recent purchase elsewhere.

I don't think it's any of my business what goes on in someone's bedroom anymore than I think it's someone's right to know what's going on in mine.


Not that I shopped either of those stores very often, but now it appears I'll be avoiding them entirely.
Reply
post #6 of 103
7/30/10 at 11:44am
Maybe Target didn't know about that connection and was donating to someone they thought would help their business. That I don't like, but unfortunately I'm used to corporations running our country.

I shop at Target to avoid Walmart
Reply
post #7 of 103
7/31/10 at 12:03am
Just as a minor point (or maybe even a major one), opposing same-sex marriage does not make someone a homophobe. And believing that homosexuality is a sin does not make someone a bad person.

Just my two cents worth. It's too easy these days to say "homophobe" or "racist" with no evidence to support it.
Reply
post #8 of 103
7/31/10 at 3:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Just as a minor point (or maybe even a major one), opposing same-sex marriage does not make someone a homophobe. And believing that homosexuality is a sin does not make someone a bad person.

Just my two cents worth. It's too easy these days to say "homophobe" or "racist" with no evidence to support it.
Homophobia and racism are not actions or deeds, they are attitudes, intangible, like certain incorporeal beings many people place a great deal of faith in that "require no proof". It is very clear to those who are subjected to homophobia or racism, but to those who do not believe it is happening, it isn't clear at all.
Reply
post #9 of 103
7/31/10 at 7:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Just as a minor point (or maybe even a major one), opposing same-sex marriage does not make someone a homophobe. And believing that homosexuality is a sin does not make someone a bad person.

Just my two cents worth. It's too easy these days to say "homophobe" or "racist" with no evidence to support it.
I completely agree. It can fall into the "hate the sin, but love the sinner" category for many people. I'm not calling homosexuality a sin, but I understand that some do. I happen to have a gay cousin who is the son of a minister. He is loved by everyone in the family even though there are a couple of fundamentalists who believe he is living in sin.
Reply
post #10 of 103
7/31/10 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Just as a minor point (or maybe even a major one), opposing same-sex marriage does not make someone a homophobe. And believing that homosexuality is a sin does not make someone a bad person.

Just my two cents worth. It's too easy these days to say "homophobe" or "racist" with no evidence to support it.
Webster's definition of homophobic is a strong dislike or fear of homosexuals, especially to an unreasonable degree.

So according to this definition if you only dislike what they do, and not them, you are not homophobic.
Reply
post #11 of 103
7/31/10 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
Webster's definition of homophobic is a strong dislike or fear of homosexuals, especially to an unreasonable degree.
True. Sometimes it's good to stop and check real definitions, not connotations.

I was raised in a church that disapproved of homosexuality, but did not mistreat those who we knew were gay. Some people have a very hard time separating the definitions, there.
Reply
post #12 of 103
7/31/10 at 2:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
Webster's definition of homophobic is a strong dislike or fear of homosexuals, especially to an unreasonable degree.

So according to this definition if you only dislike what they do, and not them, you are not homophobic.
Ah, so then people can go through all the motions of homophobia, ostracize them, bear false witness against them in the form of political propaganda, actively raise money to oppress their lifestyle, and make donations to bands that advocate the execution of gays...as long as you say "but I don't hate YOU, just everything you do"; that makes it "ok".

So, if a person isn't homophobic, why bother oppressing their lifestyle? If it's such an honorable thing to oppress homosexuals, why so much effort avoiding the title?
Reply
post #13 of 103
7/31/10 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Ah, so then people can go through all the motions of homophobia, ostracize them, bear false witness against them in the form of political propaganda, actively raise money to oppress their lifestyle, and make donations to bands that advocate the execution of gays...as long as you say "but I don't hate YOU, just everything you do"; that makes it "ok".

So, if a person isn't homophobic, why bother oppressing their lifestyle? If it's such an honorable thing to oppress homosexuals, why so much effort avoiding the title?
They have the right to make their choices and others have the right to disagree. I don't think gay people should be mistreated by anyone. I don't agree with false witness against anyone or any of the things you mentioned. I don't hate anything. I just don't agree with the lifestyle. I certainly don't agree with the practice of murder for homosexuals in America or anywhere else. That is an abomination.
Reply
post #14 of 103
7/31/10 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
They have the right to make their choices and others have the right to disagree. I don't think gay people should be mistreated by anyone. I don't agree with false witness against anyone or any of the things you mentioned. I don't hate anything. I just don't agree with the lifestyle. I certainly don't agree with the practice of murder for homosexuals in America or anywhere else. That is an abomination.
Yet the politician who is the subject of this thread financially supports a band that thinks Muslims are more moral than Christians because they execute homosexuals in Muslim countries.

So as long as he pays someone else to say that for him, and doesn't say it himself, he's not homophobic? What other reason would he have for denouncing the lifestyle?
Reply
post #15 of 103
7/31/10 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Yet the politician who is the subject of this thread financially supports a band that thinks Muslims are more moral than Christians because they execute homosexuals in Muslim countries.

So as long as he pays someone else to say that for him, and doesn't say it himself, he's not homophobic? What other reason would he have for denouncing the lifestyle?
Anyone who agrees with Muslims executing homosexuals falls under Webster's definition of disliking homosexuals, especially to an unreasonable degree.
Reply
post #16 of 103
7/31/10 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
Anyone who agrees with Muslims executing homosexuals falls under Webster's definition of disliking homosexuals, especially to an unreasonable degree.
I completely agree. That's why I was confused when it was suggested that the politician probably shouldn't be referred to as homophobic, even though he is making donations to such a group.

Fox News is taking great pains to ensure that that band's very existence isn't mentioned at all in any of their articles on the subject.
Reply
post #17 of 103
7/31/10 at 3:23pm
I don't shop at Target or Best Buy but I would withdraw my support now if I was a constant shopper there.
Reply
post #18 of 103
7/31/10 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
I don't shop at Target or Best Buy but I would withdraw my support now if I was a constant shopper there.
Personally, I kind of on the fence in that aspect. Target and Best Buy have amazingly tolerant track records, and this particular politician does seem to have some good ideas on job creation, etc.

I think their money handlers may have simply failed to read between the lines.
Reply
post #19 of 103
7/31/10 at 3:48pm
I think so too. As I said, we don't even have a Best Buy nearby. We do have Target, but I rarely go there. So it is not really a decision I have to make. I like to pop in there sometime for some Starbucks coffee.
Reply
post #20 of 103
7/31/10 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Personally, I kind of on the fence in that aspect. Target and Best Buy have amazingly tolerant track records, and this particular politician does seem to have some good ideas on job creation, etc.

I think their money handlers may have simply failed to read between the lines.
Or maybe they are trying to get away from single-issue candidates and voters.

So, Target does everything right for the gay community, knowing that hurts them with a certain part of the rest of the community, then donates to a candidate they think is pro-business, and the gay community immediately attacks them. To me, that's asking for Target to question their GLT stance; those groups don't run the company, and they don't get to make the decisions on how the company spends its money.

As to the politician in question, he's in the same position Target is. Has he said he wants to execute gays? Or did he just donate to a group that he wasn't completely acquainted with?

The discussion of Christian tolerance was interesting; maybe we need a discussion of liberal tolerance?

Edit: I see some political analysts think the whole thing has something more to do with one of the Democrats running for governor, whose family founded Target originally (although he's not associated with them, now). Seems like a stretch, to me.
Reply
post #21 of 103
7/31/10 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Or maybe they are trying to get away from single-issue candidates and voters.

So, Target does everything right for the gay community, knowing that hurts them with a certain part of the rest of the community, then donates to a candidate they think is pro-business, and the gay community immediately attacks them. To me, that's asking for Target to question their GLT stance; those groups don't run the company, and they don't get to make the decisions on how the company spends its money.

As to the politician in question, he's in the same position Target is. Has he said he wants to execute gays? Or did he just donate to a group that he wasn't completely acquainted with?
He's hardly in the same positon. His hatred of everything gay is well documented. And he doesn't have to say he wants to execute gays...he's paying someone to say that for him.

Quote:
The discussion of Christian tolerance was interesting; maybe we need a discussion of liberal tolerance?
Or maybe we need to re-visit that one. How is it so many were decrying "lumping Christians together", yet is alright to claim "the gay community" is attacking someone?
Reply
post #22 of 103
7/31/10 at 4:59pm
Guess we won't ever know since we can't ask them
Reply
post #23 of 103
8/1/10 at 3:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
The discussion of Christian tolerance was interesting; maybe we need a discussion of liberal tolerance.
Yes, I thought about this too. There does seem to be some intolerance of liberals and christians. Is there a name for either of those.
Reply
post #24 of 103
8/1/10 at 6:32am
Christophobe?

Conservaphobe?
Reply
post #25 of 103
8/1/10 at 6:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Christophobe?

Conservaphobe?
"Conservaphobe" doesn't apply. There are, in fact, several non-Christian conservatives just on this forum alone. "Christian" is simply a Hyponym to the Superordinate "Conservative"; though not exclusively, because not every Christian is a conservative.
Reply
post #26 of 103
8/1/10 at 8:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_PH View Post
Maybe Target didn't know about that connection and was donating to someone they thought would help their business. That I don't like, but unfortunately I'm used to corporations running our country.

I shop at Target to avoid Walmart
I heard a snippet on the radio that Target does know this person's stance on homosexuality. They said they were committed to continuing to support their gay/lesbian policies, but they believe his economic policies are more important to them.
Reply
post #27 of 103
8/1/10 at 9:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
I heard a snippet on the radio that Target does know this person's stance on homosexuality. They said they were committed to continuing to support their gay/lesbian policies, but they believe his economic policies are more important to them.
See my note on "one issue politics."

It leads to some really strange bedfellows, such as the support of NOW for Bill Clinton, who has an admittedly bad reputation when it comes to treatment of women. NOW said they felt his stance on abortion was more important than his personal treatment of women. Strange, huh?

And there was Robert Byrd, who said he felt Clinton committed an impeachable offense, but he would not vote for conviction, since Clinton was the head of his own party.

And there ARE the Log Cabin Republicans, you know.
Reply
post #28 of 103
8/1/10 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Just as a minor point (or maybe even a major one), opposing same-sex marriage does not make someone a homophobe. And believing that homosexuality is a sin does not make someone a bad person.

Just my two cents worth. It's too easy these days to say "homophobe" or "racist" with no evidence to support it.
If they are not homophobic, why would they care who gets married? If its an abomination in the bible, just don't do it yourself. Isn't it also in the bible to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, stuff like that?
Reply
post #29 of 103
8/1/10 at 4:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
If they are not homophobic, why would they care who gets married? If its an abomination in the bible, just don't do it yourself. Isn't it also in the bible to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, stuff like that?
To some extent, I agree that mixing religion (which everyone has a right to) and law is usually a bad idea.

But it's not a new idea, and it's not going away. The vast majority of our laws basically agree with the 10 Commandments. Many places even have or have had Sunday Blue Laws, which are as religious as you can get. No other good reason not to sell stuff on Sunday, that I can see. And most locales still have vestiges of those laws.

The same with obscenity and nudity laws.

Many Christians feel that homosexual marriage harms marriage. I think that attitude is dying, but I expect to see it as a talking point for decades to come.

Most Christians feel that abortion is wrong. They give various reasons for the feeling, but they didn't invent the prohibition. Remember, the Hippocratic Oath has traditionally prohibited abortion, and that's from Greek times.

It would be great if everyone would just be moral without a moral compass, or government compulsion, or whatever. Let me know if that ever happens. Go check out how well it worked in Russia or China.

So, it would be great if we only had laws that had some rational, provable basis. It's not hard to prove that children are better off if they are raised by two parents, one of each sex, in a stable environment. Want to propose a law that might do that?
Reply
post #30 of 103
8/1/10 at 5:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
It's not hard to prove that children are better off if they are raised by two parents, one of each sex, in a stable environment.
IMO a stable environment is key, regardless of how many parents or the gender of the parents. A new study argues that children of same-sex couples do just fine:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20100729...vingresearcher
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Large corporations donating money to MN group that supports homophobic candidates.