Incidentally, I just happened to be speaking to my wife on the phone a few minutes ago and I asked her if anyone gets paid just to ring bells. She said they sometimes hire homeless people.
That reminds me, I don’t give donations to Virginia either. 
This may be dated.
http://www.alternet.org/story/11934/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199806/ai_n8784073
If it is, I’ll drop coins in again, but last I heard, they had terminated contracts with San Francisco rather than comply with that city’s domestic partnership law. They’d rather NOT provide health benefits (and cave to pressure from the right) to domestic partners than help people (they do still provide services in SF, just not as much as they used to). If they won’t take the city of SF’s money, they don’t need mine either.
I like the quote from the SA in this one.
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=301&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport
As of 2004 (when Target used it as an excuse to kick them out from in front of their stores), the SA hadn’t changed their minds.
I already said the SA does not offer domestic partnership benefits for unmarried employees (straight or gay), but that’s as far as it goes. They do not discriminate in hiring and do not refuse insurance to gay employees.
Their policies with regard to clergy (i.e. actual Church members, as opposed to employees) are more stringent and I think that may be where some of thje public confusion comes in. All those people with the quasi-militaria ranks and uniforms are clergy (SA is a church, not a “charity”), not employees.
Two people close to me happen to be descended from religious Salvation Army people (making a total of one set of parents and two sets of grandparents). They report that all these SA relatives practice a sort of Christianity that borders on fundamentalism, and are highly (and in my opinion, offensively) disapproving of the “lifestyles” that my friends and I practice.
I am also rather dubious about their commitment to World Evangelisation.
Both of these people have pointedly distanced themselves from this aspect of their families.
Of course, the SA does a lot of good as well. But I just can’t get past the Christian missionary thing.
I wonder if people would give to any other charity that unarguably did good works, but also (under the very same name) practised an evangelical, fundamentalist religion.
Hm. I am tempted to start a thread.
They’re not a charity, they’re a church.
I would, if they didn’t preach at me and gave their assistance to everyone, based solely on need. That’s the thing about Sal’s: They help out anyone who needs it and they don’t care who it is. They give services that are really needed by the truly needy – food, clothing, shelter, addiction services. And they really do give the vast majority of donations to their services – none of those “directors” living high on money people only thought was going to charity. IOW, they are extremely effective in efficiently providing a high level of services directly to those who need them. They are much, much better at that than most other charities you could name. Now, they do come with a hot side dish of Jesus, but they’re not going to shove Him down your throat before giving you the coat or or dinner or bed you need. So those of you who are more comfortable giving their money to charities that do not discriminate at all, in any way – which I respect – please take the time to make sure those charities really *are]/i] using the money as they say they are.
Yep, and as a church, they have some offensive beliefs. They do good work, but there are plenty of other organizations that also do good work who don’t have offensive beliefs. I’ll give my money to organizations who both do good works AND support the rights I believe in. Fortunately, there are plenty of charities out there. They chose to reduce services in San Francisco (by not accepting city money) rather than offer domestic partner benefits to their employees in the city. That was close to a 20% reduction in funds for them. If not giving employees domestic partner benefits is more important than doing their good work, they made their decision, far as I’m concerned.
You are right, they don’t discriminate in hiring practices except amongst their clergy. I’m not dropping money in the collections basket in a Catholic Church, either.
A cut? Hell no! I’ve been ringing a bell for the Salvation Army every Sunday for several years now and far from getting paid, I match dollar-for-dollar what gets put in my bucket. So do several other ringers in my town.
They do good work, the Salvation Army. They’re in my will.
My brother was hired as a PT employee, but has since worked over 40 hours a week. I wonder if they signed him up for benefits. I’ll have to ask next time I talk to him (which isn’t often).
If you’re the lady who dissed me at Kroger, I’ll apologize.
Of course, if you aren’t, it’ll be fun telling her about you. 
When I hear of another charity that helps as many people as the Salvation Army does with better hiring practices of paid employees I’ll start donating to them instead.
Until then my money goes to the Salvation Army. I’ve personally known families and people they’ve helped.
Is there another charity that does similiar work without church affiliations?
[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Yep, and as a church, they have some offensive beliefs. They do good work, but there are plenty of other organizations that also do good work who don’t have offensive beliefs.[/quoet]It’s the work that counts, though, isn’t it? I mean, who cares what they believe privately. They’re the ones who are on the frontlines with the best organization when something like Katrina or the Tsunami happens, and if you want to help victims like those (or just those in need in general), the Sal is about the most effective way you’ll find to get it to them.
Can you name any that have anything like the effectiveness, the sweep or the economic efficiency of the Salvation Army?
What makes you think they reduced any services? They haven’t had to reduce any services that I’m awre of. Whatever money they lost in public funding was more than made up for in private donations.
Catholic Charities is actually another very good orgnaization.
I’m not aware of any established churches that universally support domestic partners. There are some factions of mainstream churches that do, but they are usually at odds with the main church.
As far as charity work goes, the Catholic Church isn’t even in the running. Nor do they claim to be.
Peace,
mangeorge
I may have given the wrong impression in the OP. My (mistaken) assumption was that they gave people in need a cut of the bucket. And I was far from sure about that. Some who are in need, as has been mentioned, do get paid an hourly rate for their work. That’s a good thing.
Nope, wasn’t me! I live north of the Mason-Dixon Line and I ring at the small, locally-owned supermarket in my town. We don’t have Krogers here. I don’t diss people; I smile at them because my family has lived here for generatons and I know most folks in town. That helps me collect quite a bit because my friends and acquaintances don’t like to pass me by without making a contribution.
BW, somebody above mentioned that he/she doesn’t know how much he/she collects. I always know exactly how much is dropped my pot because all the funds collected in my town stay here to help a local charity that is allied with the Salvation Army. I even help count the collected money fro my pot an all the other pots. That’s how I know how much to match.
Last Sunday, FWIW, I collected $329.65 in two hours.
Catholic Charities IS another very good organization. Very similar. Also doesn’t get my money anymore (and they used to - I used to write them a real check every year). They, however, did take the trade - they provide benefits to domestic partners in San Francisco in exchange for city money - however, something like 40% of their funding was from the city.
(I lied, I buy four weaths every year from the Boy Scouts to support one inner city troop run by a friend who is an atheist - so I do give money to the boy scouts.)
Its more than just the work that counts. The ends does not justify the means for me. Its an organization of bigots (bigots for religious reasons, but bigots) and I can’t put money in their pots any longer - even if they do feed the hungry. I hope they see the light.
Well, different people have different levels of comfort. If I thought someone was missing a meal so I could stand on principle, I would be less comfortable than I am realizing that the beliefs of an organization do not cancel out the good works the organization does – especially when the organization doesn’t even link the two together.
I feel the same way. I can both agree that they do good work and decline to support them for their discrimination.