The neverending homophobia of the Salvation Army

[mister_nyx]

@stpauler

Wow, I didn’t realize it was an either/or situation and that we could only discuss one point or another.

We could discuss both, if you weren’t so intent on using the idea of any random person dropping a quarter into a Salvation Army kettle (who doesn’t know the Salvation Army’s record on fighting against gay rights) to justify the specific instance of someone who made it clear that they are more supportive of the organization because gay people have the nerve to get “offended” at being discriminated against.

I’m just asking for proof of your claim that Target matched donations. If you don’t have it, fine. I never remember seeing it happen, that doesn’t mean it didn’t of course. But don’t make a claim and then act all indignant when someone calls you on the carpet for proof.

That was my understanding, as I indicated before, from articles I read back when it was still news. You responded when I first said that by specifically citing the donation in question and saying it didn’t match. Is the matter settled or not? Do you doubt your own citation? I didn’t say I did. Do you think that that specific issue changes the whole picture of Target and their record on gay rights issues? Because, if so, feel free to respond to my earlier post in a substantive way. Until then, I don’t understand why you are being so argumentative.

[QUOTE=MBP in Salt Lake]
until reading this thread earlier this month, I had NEVER heard anything about the Salvation Army and homosexuals, and frankly, I am not necessarily convinced that they actually DO discriminate as a matter of course…
[/QUOTE]

So, upon getting links to read up on their political efforts against gay marriage, and their threats to close shelters in order to force cities not to adopt non-discrimination ordinances, and even multiple stories about their uncharitable attitudes towards providing services to queer people . . . you just decided that you’re sure it isn’t happening. The facts be damned. But just in case, you donated “partly” in order to stick it to the gay “offenderatti” who have the nerve to whine about being discriminated against.

Do I hate gay people?

It’s honestly never occurred to me to hate someone based upon their sexual (or racial) preference, and if you added up all the time I have spent in San Francisco, NYC, New Orleans, Amsterdam, Barcelona (all cities with significant gay populations) it would come out to well over 5 years total, and in all that time I have never once had any negative experiences with someone that I would have identified as gay, nor have I been accused of bigotry by anyone I have ever personally met.

So you’ve known lots of gay people, and nonetheless you are still more supportive of a charity now that you’ve learned that the charity has a long track record of discrimination against us. Great.

That said, no one is going to tell me who I can or can’t support with my $$$

How could we? All I’ve done is assume that, now that you have the facts, you are going to use your money to support causes you believe in. I wouldn’t fault anyone for donating to a group without knowing everything about that group. Now that you know more, you’ve decided to be more supportive of the Salvation Army. Res ipsa loquitur.

another non issue that gives a select vocal minority of perpetually pissed off people something to rail against while feeling forever victimized by, which is apparently appealing to them on some level.

You think my not having the right to marry who I want, and my not having the protection of law against discrimination in housing and employment (and the fact that the Salvation Army has repeatedly thrown its political clout around to ensure the status quo), is just “another non issue” that I enjoy “feeling forever victimized by”.

I think that says all that needs to be said about you and your opinions.

[AqualungBats5th]

@MPB_in_Salt_Lake

nothing that I have read in this thread has convinced me that someone who gives a few bucks to a SA bell ringer at Christmas time is a hate filled bigot.

please explain where in this thread anyone has suggested that this is the case.

[stpauler]

@mister_nyx

We could discuss both, if you weren’t so intent on using the idea of any random person dropping a quarter into a Salvation Army kettle (who doesn’t know the Salvation Army’s record on fighting against gay rights) to justify the specific instance of someone who made it clear that they are more supportive of the organization because gay people have the nerve to get “offended” at being discriminated against.

Yeah, and that’s not what **MBP in Salt Lake ** just said either.

@mister_nyx

That was my understanding, as I indicated before, from articles I read back when it was still news. You responded when I first said that by specifically citing the donation in question and saying it didn’t match. Is the matter settled or not? Do you doubt your own citation? I didn’t say I did. Do you think that that specific issue changes the whole picture of Target and their record on gay rights issues? Because, if so, feel free to respond to my earlier post in a substantive way. Until then, I don’t understand why you are being so argumentative.

My own citation differs greatly from your claim. Moreover, as was commented by Dangerosa, they still rank at 85. Based on that information and what they did not just to the GLBT community with their donated PAC money but also with working with the corporate personhood confines, my shopping dollars for those such items go to Kmart who actually get a 100 from HRC.

Does one bad thing that Target do throw the baby out with the bathwater? No? If that’s the case with Target, why is it not the case with the Salvation Army?

[MPB_in_Salt_Lake]

@stpauler

Yeah, and that’s not what **MBP in Salt Lake ** just said either.

stpauler, I have been reading your posts for a long time, and it’s clear that you are someone who is measured and reasonable, who is able to appreciate that not everything in this world is Black & White.

I don’t get that from some of the others in this thread who are so anxious to foster an “Us vs Them” mentality which ironically the right wingers have used against gay and lesbians for years and years in an attempt to marginalize them.

If people I have never met before think I am a homophobe, it honestly wont cost me any sleep, as it’s the people who I am friends with, who are in a position to judge my character that I am concerned about.

(and while I honestly hate this kind of self-promotion, back when I was still teaching high school, there was a gay kid, just 15 or 16 years old, who caught a lot of shit from some of the other students in the school, that spent as much time in my classroom as he could during lunches, free periods, assemblies, etc. because he knew I wasn’t about to allow anyone to bully him while he was around me. His opinion about whether or not I hate gay people means something to me, people on the SDMB, not so much…)

[mister_nyx]

@stpauler

Yeah, and that’s not what **MBP in Salt Lake ** just said either.

Oh, you missed the bit about how she said she decided to donate to the Salvation Army in order to stick it to the “offenderatti” who are upset at the Salvation Army’s long history of fighting against gay rights. That explains the confusion here. Read back through the thread.

My own citation differs greatly from your claim. Moreover, as was commented by Dangerosa, they still rank at 85. Based on that information and what they did not just to the GLBT community with their donated PAC money but also with working with the corporate personhood confines, my shopping dollars for those such items go to Kmart who actually get a 100 from HRC.

Your citation, as I pointed out in a post that you obviously are not capable of responding to substantively, not only presented the data in such a way that it’s impossible to determine exactly how bad Target’s actions were, but made it clear that they are better than any number of other big corporations that didn’t receive this same outrage. I’m saying that directing people to stop shopping at Target is liable to do more harm than good for queer rights. I still don’t know why you find that position so outrageous and I wish you’d just state why you feel such a need to be so argumentative since you seem to be motivated by a commitment to queer rights.

Does one bad thing that Target do throw the baby out with the bathwater? No? If that’s the case with Target, why is it not the case with the Salvation Army?

One bad thing? Shopping at stores whose PACs make contributions to PACs that contribute to distasteful politicians are inescapable if you are not going to live in the woods and eat roots. (KMart gives to Republican politicians too, incidentally.)

You, like someone else did earlier, are basically presenting the same false dichotomy: either I demand an unattainable level of perfection, or – at least by your implication – I’m somehow hypocritical for drawing any kind of distinction whatsoever. I consider an organization expending considerable money to directly fight against my rights vastly different from a business whose PAC gives to GOP candidates in order to seek a favorable corporate tax structure. I’m not thrilled about Target supporting Republican candidates (if you scrutinize campaign finance disclosures, most big corporations support both Republican and Democratic candidates at least to some extent) but that’s qualitatively different from what the Salvation Army has repeatedly done.

[mister_nyx]

@MPB_in_Salt_Lake

I don’t get that from some of the others in this thread who are so anxious to foster an “Us vs Them” mentality which ironically the right wingers have used against gay and lesbians for years and years in an attempt to marginalize them.

I would argue that the Salvation Army, by publicly fighting against my rights, has fostered an “us vs. them” mentality.

I guess given that you have said you think that’s a “non issue” you don’t understand why I’m not willing to decide I’m on their side.

I didn’t draw the boundaries here. Why would I side with the people who are working against my equality?

[MPB_in_Salt_Lake]

@mister_nyx

I would argue that the Salvation Army, by publicly fighting against my rights, has fostered an “us vs. them” mentality.

Well you can go argue it with someone who gives a fuck about your opinion then, because that sure as hell isn’t me…

[mister_nyx]

@MPB_in_Salt_Lake

Well you can go argue it with someone who gives a fuck about your opinion then, because that sure as hell isn’t me…

What a surprise. I wouldn’t expect anything else from someone like you.

[stpauler]

@mister_nyx

Oh, you missed the bit about how she said she decided to donate to the Salvation Army in order to stick it to the “offenderatti” who are upset at the Salvation Army’s long history of fighting against gay rights. That explains the confusion here. Read back through the thread.

And you missed the oft repeated version where the word "partly has been abridged. Please make sure to have the year’s updated books and syllabus or else you might get behind in class.

@mister_nyx

Your citation, as I pointed out in a post that you obviously are not capable of responding to substantively, not only presented the data in such a way that it’s impossible to determine exactly how bad Target’s actions were, but made it clear that they are better than any number of other big corporations that didn’t receive this same outrage.

1. It gave a range of what Target gave to TCPride, which would be about 20% of what it gave to the Emmer PAC.
2. We know exactly what Target gave to Emmer’s PAC
3. It didn’t compare to any other big corps. Here are the links again. 1 2

@mister_nyx

I’m saying that directing people to stop shopping at Target is liable to do more harm than good for queer rights. I still don’t know why you find that position so outrageous and I wish you’d just state why you feel such a need to be so argumentative since you seem to be motivated by a commitment to queer rights.

Who has directed people to stop shopping at Target in this thread?

@mister_nyx

One bad thing? Shopping at stores whose PACs make contributions to PACs that contribute to distasteful politicians are inescapable if you are not going to live in the woods and eat roots. (KMart gives to Republican politicians too, incidentally.)

Republican does not equal homophobe. Syllogism does not work here.

@mister_nyx

You, like someone else did earlier, are basically presenting the same false dichotomy: either I demand an unattainable level of perfection, or – at least by your implication – I’m somehow hypocritical for drawing any kind of distinction whatsoever. I consider an organization expending considerable money to directly fight against my rights vastly different from a business whose PAC gives to GOP candidates in order to seek a favorable corporate tax structure. I’m not thrilled about Target supporting Republican candidates (if you scrutinize campaign finance disclosures, most big corporations support both Republican and Democratic candidates at least to some extent) but that’s qualitatively different from what the Salvation Army has repeatedly done.

Do you feel better when Target does this then?

A San Diego superior court judge Tuesday denied a Target Corp. motion to keep a grassroots group campaigning for marriage equality from gathering petition signatures outside its stores throughout California.

So Target spent money on lawyers, just as the Salvation Army did, to protect their interests. Both lost. But Target is still a white knight whereas the SA is evil?

See, I completely disagree with the Salvation Army’s stance on homosexuality (as well as their stance on religion) and as such, I choose for my donations to go elsewhere. Target’s position on corporate personhood as well as giving $150K to a PAC that supports the reprehensible Emmer also loses my funds.

They are both welcome to gain my approval by making in roads to what I deem as societal plusses. But Target really has to make up ground and the Salvation Army really needs to change their policies.

[mister_nyx]

@stpauler

And you missed the oft repeated version where the word "partly has been abridged. Please make sure to have the year’s updated books and syllabus or else you might get behind in class.

Amazing how one word absolves her of all responsibility.

1. It gave a range of what Target gave to TCPride, which would be about 20% of what it gave to the Emmer PAC.
2. We know exactly what Target gave to Emmer’s PAC
3. It didn’t compare to any other big corps. Here are the links again. 1 2

And I’m telling you, again, since you seem to be very confused about corporate funding of political campaigns, that many, many other corporations are also donating, at least indirectly, to GOP candidates, many of whom are as bad or worse, and often in much larger numbers.

I’m not denying what Target did, I’m trying to offer you the context which you so badly need. As it is, Target has a good gay rights record, one of the better ones in the retail sector. That was my original statement, and I still don’t know why you threw such a fit about it, but I’ve already read a lot about this issue and I’m aware of how badly it was blown out of proportion.

Who has directed people to stop shopping at Target in this thread?

No one. It’s just that your statement that I should consider them to be in the same category as the Salvation Army is totally incoherent unless you think I should apply the same standards to Target and the Salvation Army.

Republican does not equal homophobe. Syllogism does not work here.

In my state, and that’s where I have in-depth knowledge of campaign contributions, it absolutely does. Multiple votes in which the Republican legislators were unanimous establish that beyond doubt. Many, many other big corporations have given a lot of money to homophobe candidates in my state. So, again, with some context, it’s hard to consider Target unusual.

Do you feel better when Target does this then?

So Target spent money on lawyers, just as the Salvation Army did, to protect their interests. Both lost. But Target is still a white knight whereas the SA is evil?

You’re comparing the Salvation Army’s record of actively opposing anti-discrimination ordinances with Target not permitting political groups to gather signatures at its stores? I have no problem with a business attempting to stop solicitations on its property. I’d rather they all did.

You are grasping at straws when you try to treat those as comparable. I think that’s all I need to know to understand your position on Target. I don’t know why you are so obsessed with them but I am absolutely done with this hijack. You have had plenty of time to try to make a case and if you’re resorting to this it’s fair to say you can’t.

[Dangerosa]

[QUOTE=stpauler;14561644[Do you feel better when Target does this then?]
(http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/09/Target_Fails_to_Boot_Gay_Group/)

So Target spent money on lawyers, just as the Salvation Army did, to protect their interests. Both lost. But Target is still a white knight whereas the SA is evil?

[/QUOTE]

Oh good. Because they now have to allow any yahoos to collect signatures on their doorstep, whether I agree with the political agenda or not. I support marriage equality, but I don’t really want to be accosted with petitions entering Target. And I really don’t want to be accosted with petitions for pro-life bills, PETA causes, impeach Obama efforts, dismantle the EPA or defund the United Nations.

Target should defend their space - this wasn’t about marriage equality, this was about protecting their customers from getting accosted at their doors.

[stpauler]

@mister_nyx

Amazing how one word absolves her of all responsibility.

Really? Is that what I said or are you make shit out of whole cloth? Again?

@mister_nyx

As it is, Target has a good gay rights record, one of the better ones in the retail sector. That was my original statement, and I still don’t know why you threw such a fit about it, but I’ve already read a lot about this issue and I’m aware of how badly it was blown out of proportion.

No one. It’s just that your statement that I should consider them to be in the same category as the Salvation Army is totally incoherent unless you think I should apply the same standards to Target and the Salvation Army.

No, that was not your “original statement as I see you’ve downgraded Target from"great” to now “good” gay rights record. No matter how good Target gets, if they came out and gave $50M to overturn Prop 8, or $20B to overturn DOMA, it will never make them a sacred cow in my mind. Of course, no business or person should be a sacred cow that is above criticism. So settle down.

@mister_nyx

In my state, and that’s where I have in-depth knowledge of campaign contributions, it absolutely does. Multiple votes in which the Republican legislators were unanimous establish that beyond doubt. Many, many other big corporations have given a lot of money to homophobe candidates in my state. So, again, with some context, it’s hard to consider Target unusual.

Yeah, I just might not have to take your word for it since you couldn’t back up your claim that " they made up for it by donating just as much directly to a gay cause." And I know plenty of Republicans in person, and a couple elected ones, who are not just gay friendly but gay positive. Of course, that doesn’t help with those who like to broadbrush in an “us v them” culture war.

@mister_nyx

You’re comparing the Salvation Army’s record of actively opposing anti-discrimination ordinances with Target not permitting political groups to gather signatures at its stores? I have no problem with a business attempting to stop solicitations on its property. I’d rather they all did.

Yeah, I hate girl scouts selling cookies, or fundraisers for community centers, or information getting near me. Having to think or support charities is scary and complex.

@mister_nyx

You are grasping at straws when you try to treat those as comparable. I think that’s all I need to know to understand your position on Target. I don’t know why you are so obsessed with them but I am absolutely done with this hijack. You have had plenty of time to try to make a case and if you’re resorting to this it’s fair to say you can’t.

Yeah, working with citations and proof is sure not fair to you. Sorry. Please carry on with the Chicken Little paranoia that I’m obsessed with them. It seems more that you don’t like them to be criticized at all, even if you do downgrade them from “great” to just “good”.

[mister_nyx]

@stpauler

Really? Is that what I said or are you make shit out of whole cloth? Again?

Which is it? First you bitch at me for characterizing her attitude (of wanting to spite the “offenderati” who are offended by being discriminated against) as being rooted in “homophobia”, then you acknowledged that her attitude was “homophobic” (drawing a distinction discernible only to herself), then you defended her by repeatedly harping on her use of the word “partly” (as though that does anything to make it okay that she clearly feels gay people are wrong to speak up about being the targets of discrimination), now you’re saying that her shitty homophobic attitude isn’t okay?

Whatever, dude. You’re incoherent. I can’t help you if you can’t take an actual position and argue it.

No, that was not your “original statement as I see you’ve downgraded Target from"great” to now “good” gay rights record. No matter how good Target gets, if they came out and gave $50M to overturn Prop 8, or $20B to overturn DOMA, it will never make them a sacred cow in my mind. Of course, no business or person should be a sacred cow that is above criticism. So settle down.
Yeah, I just might not have to take your word for it since you couldn’t back up your claim that " they made up for it by donating just as much directly to a gay cause." And I know plenty of Republicans in person, and a couple elected ones, who are not just gay friendly but gay positive. Of course, that doesn’t help with those who like to broadbrush in an “us v them” culture war.
Yeah, I hate girl scouts selling cookies, or fundraisers for community centers, or information getting near me. Having to think or support charities is scary and complex.

Yeah, working with citations and proof is sure not fair to you. Sorry. Please carry on with the Chicken Little paranoia that I’m obsessed with them. It seems more that you don’t like them to be criticized at all, even if you do downgrade them from “great” to just “good”.

I already told you. Your stupid hijack about Target is irrelevant and you’ve all but admitted it by trying to prove it based on them not wanting solicitation (like, for instance, the Salvation Army!) at their doors. An argument that shit just means that you have no real argument to make. I made a throwaway reply to someone else’s mention of Target, and you won’t let it go, even after you show that you have no argument to make.

And by the way, I don’t really care about your hair-splitting about word choices. “Great” or “good”, and my use of the word “homophobia” is bad but your use of “homophobic” is okay but don’t call her a “homophobe” or whatever, and it makes some sort of enormous difference that she’s only “partly” motivated by a desire to punish gay people for being ‘offenderatti’.

You’re embarrassing yourself at this point. You don’t have a valid point and this last post is nothing but incoherent raving.

[stpauler]

@mister_nyx

incoherent raving.

I just quoted the only part I saw relevant of your post. When come back bring proof and pie. BYE!

[mister_nyx]

@stpauler

I just quoted the only part I saw relevant of your post. When come back bring proof and pie. BYE!

Okay, so even you can’t explain why the hell you felt the need to launch this ever-changing string of complaints at me, or why you decided to white-knight that homophobic jerk.

I’ll just take this to mean you’re too embarrassed to apologize like a grown-up.

[stpauler]

@mister_nyx

Okay, so even you can’t explain why the hell you felt the need to launch this ever-changing string of complaints at me, or why you decided to white-knight that homophobic jerk.

I’ll just take this to mean you’re too embarrassed to apologize like a grown-up.

If you stay around this board, take some time and learn how it works. How one needs to support one’s argument with facts and not rambling accusations about how one is being oppressed. Also, you will want to really tone down the rhetoric and see things are more gray than black and white.

Really, no apologies are needed except when you call other folks names such as “jerk”. And by you I do mean “you”. Just in case you missed it, here’s a cite regarding the board’s rules:
You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling)

[Miller]

@stpauler

If you stay around this board, take some time and learn how it works. How one needs to support one’s argument with facts and not rambling accusations about how one is being oppressed. Also, you will want to really tone down the rhetoric and see things are more gray than black and white.

So, you’re going to hold onto the position that you haven’t been absolutely destroyed in this discussion by mister nyx?

Okay, then. Hope that works out well for you.

[stpauler]

@Miller

So, you’re going to hold onto the position that you haven’t been absolutely destroyed in this discussion by mister nyx?

Okay, then. Hope that works out well for you.

If he had a single salient point that wasn’t ZOMGHOMOPHOBIA and then had that consistent with other companies that did the same thing, he might even have a single debating point. As for now, he’s more into launching ad hominems and cowering under a rainbow flag.

[Gyrate]

@stpauler

If he had a single salient point that wasn’t ZOMGHOMOPHOBIA and then had that consistent with other companies that did the same thing, he might even have a single debating point. As for now, he’s more into launching ad hominems and cowering under a rainbow flag.

He’s had several. You just seem to prefer to read them all as ZOMGHOMOPHOBIA, judging by your responses.

I’m with Miller here. Stop digging.

[MsWhatsit]

Seriously, dude. Sometimes it’s OK to just gracefully admit that you were in error and let it go. Even on the Internet.