OK, why? I know pretty much nothing about them.
Ridiculous executive salaries, huge Vegas staff parties and lavish spending on employees, bullying of other veterans’ groups, hiring of fake veterans with fake injuries to be front men and poster boys, focused more on licensing fees and brand recognition than actually helping veterans… they’re everything that could be wrong with a charity. I am not aware of a single veteran who actually has anything nice to say about them. They might actually be the one organization hated by veterans more than the VA!
Habitat for Humanity is a really good org. One of the few that upholds consistently beneficial standards.
Except for what was mentioned at the end of post 48.
If I were Jebediah Belk and I wanted to open a department store, my first order of business would be coming up with a name that wasn’t dumb. Jebediah would be out, as would Belk. Other than rhyming with whelk, what does Belk have to offer?
ETA: I do not know that the founder’s name was Jebediah, but it seems a pretty safe guess.
Remember when the SA had to be sued (and they lost) to have them stop proselytizing while receiving public funds?
On a side note, although Target has stopped all bell-ringers at their stores, they still do give to the Salvation Army. Target’s headquarters is in Minneapolis. Not far from their corporation HQ is a Salvation Army where the basement is filled with returned Target merchandise, much with its Target price stickers still intact.
This article, from about 23 months ago, goes into some of the financial abuses.
I suspected as much about Wounded Warriors Project, based on their (constant) commercials. Just a bit too “good” to be true, and also the way they suddenly seemed to pop up out of nowhere and take over Veterans’ fundraising.
I had the same question about Shriners Hospital, the one that has the commercials with the agonizingly “cute” little boy who can’t quite pronounce his Rs. These really aggravate my fake charity radar. So I looked them up on Charity Navigator, and apparently they are a very highly rated charity, at 97 out of 100 for accountability and transparency.
Moral: you can’t tell by the commercials whether a charity is good or not.
Also, here is a report from about the same time from CBS News about the same issues.
Perhaps in the past. No longer. At least openly.
They have been moved, your data is out of date.
That was 17 years ago.
You know guys, before you slander a great org like the Salvation Aarmy, why not do some fact checking first?
And they are now wrong. See how outdated misinformation hurts?
Yep that happened. Twenty years ago. "One gay person well-known to the Salvos is out journalist Bil Browning, who writes for The Advocate and other publications. For more than a decade, Browning has issued annual reminders that, in his words, “the Salvation Army is a right-wing organization that discriminates against LGBT people.” In 2011, the annual appeal picked up steam and was picked up by mainstream media outlets, national TV networks, and columnists including Dan Savage.
They retold Browning’s tale of an experience 20 years ago that lit a fire within him:"
and the SA has apologized.
Your linked article is from The Advocate, but that alone is not enough to counter years of evidence. The entire article is what SA says about itself. The Advocate seems to accept that the SA has taken some steps, even while they seem to question their motives. There is no evidence beyond their own claims that the SA does not support anti-LGBTQ organizations or treat LGBTQ families differently from the way they treat other families.
For me, I am not in favor of giving money to any organization that describes itself as “an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church” especially one that wields the kind of clout that this one does. So this issue does not determine whether or not I would support them. However, their self-identification as evangelical and their apparent adherence to biblical positions on homosexuality, as well as their opposition to gay marriage (which disappeared when it became legal) lead me to suspect their motives for change as well. My suspicion is that their motive is mostly or solely to counter the increasing popularity of the “SA is anti-gay” theme that is so popular on social media. An apology for one incident that happened to a very vocal opponent, by itself, does not cut much ice with me either.
tl;dr version: the article doesn’t convince me that SA has done a 180, and there are still lots better organizations to donate to.
“Salvation Army is the only local facility to offer an exclusive space for female transgender clients, though it doesn’t have a facility for trans males.”
Note that* no other facility has any *exclusive spaces for any trans, while the SA at least has one for female transgender clients. They are to be commended, not condemned.
I suspect budgetary issues, since no one esle has exclsuive spaces at all.
Really? How about the boss of the Salvation Army in the UK Salvation defending the ban on gay members in 2016?
Here’s the thing.
When I buy a product or service, such as purchasing a record or getting my car fixed - I am exchanging my money for something that has value. In my eyes, once that transaction happens, my money is no longer my money and I have forfeited my interest in how it is used. Now, I can decide to support businesses because I really like the owners or to boycott the business because the owners are despicable- but in most cases I am neutral on the subject and I judge whether my money was well spent based on the quality of the product or service.
Now, if I GIVE you my hard-earned money - your reputation and intentions ARE the product you’re selling. And I equate giving to a charity that hold positions that I disagree with to buying a record that features music I hate or going to a crappy mechanic. It’s not happening.
And if I ran a department store, I would evaluate the SA and any charity that wants to work my store the same way I would evaluate a product that I was considering selling in my store. If it’s low quality I’m not selling it. If the styling does not reflect the ethos of my customer base, I’m not selling it. It isn’t even necessarily a moral judgement, it’s simply a business decision
Yeah, totally, and when the KKK comes out and states that they have left their racist ways behind them, I’ll give them money too. /s