Target Angers Some Gay Customers With Support Of Conservative Politician

For years, Target has made a significant effort to reach out to the gay and lesbian community, sponsoring pride marches and AIDS walks, as well as offering domestic partner benefits to its homosexual employees. But the retail chain now finds itself in hot water after it donated $150,000 toward the election campaign of a anti-same-sex marriage gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota.

To be precise, Target gave the $150K to a PAC called MN Forward, which in turn is using the money to run ads for conservative candidate Tom Emmer, about whom has said:

Emmer’s a candidate who isn’t just indifferent about gay rights; he’s outright hostile. Despite claiming to be for freedom and personal liberty, Emmer’s name appears on the author line of constitutional legislature “protecting” traditional marriage.

Some groups have called for a boycott of the Minneapolis-based chain.

For its part, Target maintains its “support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company.”

A rep for Target explained their reasoning thusly:

Target supports causes and candidates based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business interests. In fact, Target’s Federal PAC contributions year-to-date are very balanced between Republicans and Democrats, and we work collaboratively with legislators and officials at all points on the political spectrum.

It was also reported this week that Best Buy likewise gave $100,000 to MN Forward.

Risky business: Target defends controversial new political donation in Minnesota campaign [AP]

Real America: Why Target Supports Tom Emmer []

Best Buy joins Target: Adds $100K donation to MN fund that supports anti-gay politician [Metroweekly]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Tim says:

    So Target basically wants it both ways: they want to have a public image of supporting gay rights, but they want to donate money to politicians and causes that support their retail and business interests, regardless of whether or not said politicians and causes clash with Target’s support of gay rights …

    Sounds like Target only supports gay rights when it’s convenient.

    • TuxthePenguin says:

      Its not really that, per se. Its awfully convenient to support gay marriage, “green” schemes, etc right now. The latter has almost become universal… so much so its not really a benefit anymore, its a requirement.

      But we’re all like this in the voting booth. The person we vote for never agrees with us 100%. I can’t tell you how many times I had to hold my nose while voting. Candidate X agrees with me on 40% of what I believe, but candidate Y agrees with me on 25%. Either way, I don’t like either… but I pick the lesser of two evils.

      • Pinklette says:

        And it depends on which percent means more to your core beliefs. The canidate who I agree with 40% might agreeing with the part of me who wants stricter environmental regulations, while the candidate who I only agree with 25% might be for equal rights reform. That would be an extremely hard decision for me.

      • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

        Yeah, but in that case it’s a lesser of two evils. It would be more fair to compare you donating money to candidate X even though you only believe 40% of what he does.

    • Jeff_Number_3 says:

      You CAN have your cake and eat it too……

      You just need to start with 2 cakes.

    • fantomesq says:

      Target has not set out to support GLBT interests. It has set out to support IT’S OWN interests… To the extent that the measures and politicians it chooses to support to further its own interests overlap with those of groups like the GLBT community, it is smart MARKETING to tout this… This does NOT mean that when another measure or politician comes along that furthers Target’s interest in another way (say the retail side of the equation, since both they and Best Buy support MN Forward that it will forgo their interests in that of the GLBT community.

      Isn’t it equally as true that by the GLBT community not supporting MN Forward (because it conflicts with their own interests) that they are failing to support Target’s interests? Go ahead and boycott… doubt Target will notice.

    • SuperSnackTime says:

      I think even you know your fabricated Target stance is false. When there is never more than two legitimate candidates for an office of significance, you may have to back a candidate that supports most of your criteria but not all.

      Sorry that you thought Target was supposed to help lead the second wave of LGBT rights in America (hint: it isn’t!)

    • Mr. Pottersquash says:

      not when convenient, when profitable. As any good publically traded company would.

      • Conformist138 says:

        This is why we think IBM helping the Nazis be more efficient in cataloging the Jews (and homosexuals, anyone with a tan, the mentally challenged, etc) was cool, right? Profit. Profit is good, even without ethics.

        The thing that is terrible about this is: Target profits from it’s image. People who know Target is different from, say, Walmart in it’s consideration of human rights and ethics are more likely to shop there. That is good for Target, they get all those consumers who care about such things. To then go out and directly contradict the stance that brings customers in, only to say “well, it’s for the money”, is pretty sickening. They want to profit off the image while profitting on opposite-minded politics. I think they could have found a candidate that is reasonable about both business and social issues. If not, well, they would have looked pretty cool if they stuck by their image and didn’t give money to anyone in that election.

    • trey says:

      gays only support straights rights when it is convenient to them… and vice versa.

      welcome to the real world.

      • kajillion123 says:

        There’s no such thing as straight’s rights, we already have them all.

        • Leiterfluid says:

          There’s no such thing as “gay” rights, either. A right is either a human right, or it’s not a right at all.

          • jiubreyn says:

            Uh yes there is. Gays do not have the right to marry, and oftentimes are turned away at hospitals when their significant other is on their hospital bed SIMPLY because they are gay. Now tell me again they don’t have rights. What world do you live in?

    • MarvinMar says:

      Target likes it both ways. ………..ROFLOL!

  2. TuxthePenguin says:

    And this is exactly why people shouldn’t be scared of corporations donating money to political campaigns… people find out. And people will complain, yell for boycotts, etc. Now, gay marriage is a difficult one because Walmart can’t take ads saying it supports gay marriage and bashing target, else it angers the anti-gay marriage crowd.

    But somewhere, ad people are thinking of ways to exploit this…

    • Tim says:

      People finding out usually doesn’t do very much to counter the damage that has been done. Sure, information is good and all, but I’d argue that money is even better.

    • ARP says:

      No, they don’t. For example, Karl Rove is touting an attack PAC that is explicitly designed to hide the identity of the donors. He also had an old fashioned PAC. Guess which one is swimming in money?

      Also Democrats just tried to start voting on a bill that would identify the source of money, Republicans are threatening to filibuster it.

      • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

        Why are do Republicans want so badly to hide where their money is coming from? Hiding something usually indicates that they are doing something wrong. That sets off huge warning bells for me. Politicians, who serve the public, should never have the right to hide anything involving their campaigns. Voters should have the right to know exactly who the politician is really serving before they vote.

    • bonzombiekitty says:

      When I was listening to a report about this on the radio yesterday, it used as an example of why companies don’t want disclosure of political donations to be mandatory. If a given campaign or PAC has to publicly disclose which companies donated and how much, it makes it much easier for people to find out and to get mad.

      • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

        Well, when they are using profits garnered from consumers to donate money for political purposes, said consumers should have a right to know where their money is going. Should they have the right to say where it goes? Only with their pocketbooks.

        • Conformist138 says:

          Exactly. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people have things backwards. We are more concerned with a person’s personal business than their business business. The people pointing fingers and screaming publicly about how immoral someone is for what they do in their private lives change once money is brought into the picture. Money must be kept hidden and private in order to be fully protected, those with money must have special consideration due to the money they control. It truly is the god of a lot of people and they demand it’s complete worship. Nothing shall stop the flow of money in and no one shall be allowed to take it away, so sayeth the purchased lawmaker.

        • Doubts42 says:

          To say that consumers have a right to know how a company spends it money is complete horsesh!t.
          if I sell you my old lawnmower on craigslist it is none of your business if i donate the money to greenpeace or spend it on crack. Once you spent the money it is no longer yours and you have no rights to it.
          The only people that have a right to know what target spends it’s money on are shareholders.

    • craptastico says:

      if you read the article though it says they’ve donated largely to both sides. most companies contribute to both sides, so the net result is a bunch of money pissed away which will untimately come from the customers pockets. instead of donating money to each, why not lower prices and let customers decide where they want to donate their money?

      • Paladingo says:

        It’s not about the money, you can donate a million dollars to LGBT groups and if you’ve still supported a government candidate (whom you hope will win, that’s why you’re paying him) who has the ability to prevent their rights, you’ve done more harm than good.

    • hattrick says:

      LOL, spoken like someone who’s obviously not in politics.

  3. Yoya says:

    Nt rll prblm… Bbl sys ts wrng, th ntd stts ws blt pn rlgn.

    • Bakergirl says:

      So why do we have church separate from state?

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      I like that joke too! thanks for the lolz!

    • pop top says:

      No, the US wasn’t.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Good troll comment.

      • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

        Eh, I give it a 5/10, D-. It should have explicitly hailed a superior secular state as example.

    • ARP says:

      I assume your comment is snark, but would suggest adding a tag.

    • BuyerOfGoods3 says:

      Re-read your bible.

    • obits3 says:

      “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19:15

    • dolemite says:

      Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Government has no business being involved in marriage, sexual preferences, sex acts, etc. They ONLY thing they need to be concerned about is providing the same rights/tax benefits/perks to same sex couples.

      Fine if you and your religion are against it. Your church just won’t provide religious ceremonies. Where the government is concerned (civil unions), they need to stop the discrimination, in all states.

    • somnambulist80 says:

      Bible also says not to wear clothes made from more than one type of fiber.

    • womynist says:

      Do not feed the troll.

    • Smashville says:

      What does the bible say about trolls?

      • obits3 says:

        “You must purge the [Troll] from among you.”

        • Smashville says:

          Now what’s the over/under dance on how many posts before some noob comes in and accuses them of trying to be trendy by removing their vowels?

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      The bible also says we should shove camels through the eyes of needles, share fresh fruit with talking reptiles and convince our friends to practice cannibalism. That might just be your version of the bible, though; hard to tell without all those vowels.

      • obits3 says:

        “shove camels through the eyes of needles” = Figure of speech
        “share fresh fruit with talking reptiles” = actually, that was condemned
        “convince our friends to practice cannibalism” Where’s that?

        • theSuperman says:

          Eating the body of Christ, of course. And drinking his blood.

          • obits3 says:

            That is the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation. Jesus often compared himself to various things metaphorically.
            “I am the bread of life,” “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate,” “I am the resurrection and the life,” “I am the true vine,” etc…
            Many would argue that this is in error and that the Passover meal (now erroneously called the Lord ’s Supper as if it is a different thing) was to be done as a remembrance of Christ’s death.
            “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” – Paul
            “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” – Jesus

            • pantheonoutcast says:

              So his claim of being the son of a deity was simply a metaphor too? As were all the miracles including resurrection? Awesome. I didn’t realize that. Thanks for clearing that up. The bible is fast becoming one of my favorite allegorical fantasy books….

              • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

                It’s a metaphor if it is convenient for it to be interpreted as a metaphor. Jesus expresses disdain for wealth. That must be a metaphor because brother in the lord Joel Osteen says it is a blessing for the favored, apparently good parking spots are too.

                Jesus goes on and on about helping the poor, yet charities that support the poor come up short year after year.Plenty of Republicans bitch and moan about the welfare that the government has been forced to give because no one wants to get in their pocket books to help, yet Jesus says:

                If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? (NIV, 1 John 3:17)

                Apparently that is a metaphor too for keep all your shit and then pat yourself on the back and take the maximum tax deduction for giving $50 worth of clothes to Goodwill.

                • obits3 says:

                  Facts are independent of how people respond to them.

                  • pantheonoutcast says:

                    As long as they’re not metaphors, though, right?

                    I mean, people walking across water, multiplying fish, parting seas with their hands and invisible, omniscient beings creating human life out of dust and bones – those are all “facts”. Because a book of metaphors translated through five languages over 400 years says they are “facts.” Yes. It’s all so clear now.

                    • obits3 says:

                      I’m not sure that this would be a hard and fast rule, but here goes:

                      1. If it is a saying in a speech used in a teaching in the text, it is probably a metaphor (i.e. “On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.”)

                      2. If it is written as an account of events, then it is probably meant to be seen as a real event (i.e. “Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray. When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified.” Notice all of the TIME and PLACE references. Look how specific it is “the fourth watch of the night.”)

                    • pantheonoutcast says:

                      Let me translate, for simplicity’s sake:

                      “If it is convenient for my argument, it is either a metaphor or a fact, depending on which argument I’m trying to make at the time.”

                      Also, Jesus claimed to be both the Messiah and Son of God multiple times:


                      Since these things were specifically speech, and, according to your description, speech should be interpreted as a metaphor, applied logic dictates that Jesus was only metaphorically the Messiah and only metaphorically the son of god.

              • obits3 says:

                The Bible makes it very clear that the resurrection acctually happened. Check out this part of Luke’s account:
                “While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
                They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
                When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.”

                My point was that the teaching of Transubstantiation has no basis other than what is very likely metaphorical. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to commit the fallacy of generalization. Like any text, the Bible needs to be studied and not just used for prooftexting.

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          A figure of speech? Jesus said it to his disciples when expressing disdain for the rich. This Jesus, who everyone worships told a rich man to give all of his possessions to the poor to get into heaven. Was that a figure if speech too? Christians must interpret it that way because most of the ones I know seem to worship their possessions and be in horrible debt because of them.

          I guess as a Christian you just get to pick and choose what is a figure of speech and what isn’t.

          • obits3 says:

            pantheonoutcast said “The bible also says we should shove camels through the eyes of needles”

            I was saying that the phrase “shove camels through the eyes of needles” is not to be taken literally. I was not talking about the teaching that the phrase applied to.

      • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

        The said book also says that one man single handedly tore apart a lion (which can weigh about 550 lbs) and that his strength came from his hair (so his hair tore apart the lion???). In addition, said man commits mass murder, despite the 6th commandment. But since god, the deity who also made the rules, was behind it, it was okay.

        We have men in prison who said that God told them to kill, etc…and society labels them as nuts. But when a man in the bible who gets his strength from his hair does it, it apparantly makes total sense.

        • obits3 says:

          His strength did not come from his hair. It came from the LORD because of the Nazarite vow. While his actions were used by God, they were not all instructed by God (i.e. he had free will). Also, the Philistines had taken over the land, and Samson was going all Rambo on them. This had the side affect of helping to free the Hebrew people. This had more to do with war.

          • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

            Because war is different. It’s murder, but it’s different because it’s in The Bible. I’m sure that Jesus would agree that we should murder people because we don’t agree with what they are doing. We get to be the judge and jury and decide who is right and wrong. Screw god, screw Jesus, if we want their oil, it’s all good.

            • obits3 says:

              “because we don’t agree with what they are doing”

              I’d be sure to tell that to the slaves back in the civil war. I can see it now:

              “You should’t want to be free. You should just keep on serving us because war is murder” Come on. You can’t be serious.

      • Jeff-er-ee says:
      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        Oh man that was awesome. I’m borrowing that the next time I hear “But the Bible says it’s wroonnnnngggggg….”

      • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

        But in Genesis, the crowd of men gathering around Lot’s house said “Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” to which Lot replied “Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.”

        So the bible also promoted gang rape of virgins.

        Of course this is just the skeptics annotated version, but I’m pretty sure it says the same thing in most bibles.

    • craptastico says:

      his comment was idiotic, but this is big misuse of disemvoweling in my opinion. agree or not, that is the opinion of a lot of people so it’s a little silly to censor it.

    • axiomatic says:

      Ignorant trolls are ignorant. I’m sure a real christian would not agree with your opinion as well.

    • Daemon Xar says:

      “Suffer not a [troll] to [commment/use vowels].”

      Updated for the new millenium.

  4. craptastico says:

    wouldn’t it be nice if companies just stopped political contributions altogether?

    • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

      Yes! Until we hugely overhaul the current contribution system, elections will come down to who has the most money.

    • ARP says:

      Yeah, we had a law that limited the money that a company could donate, but the “activist” supreme court decided that corporations are people too for speech purposes. I’m still trying to find that law listed somewhere.

      • bhr says:

        Check the numbers though, unions are still the biggest “corporate” donor out there.

      • nova3930 says:

        Boy somebody has no fucking clue what they’re talking about.

        1. The recent Citizens United decisions had absolutely NOTHING to do with campaign contributions. Its sole subject was whether the gov’t had the power to restrict independent 3rd party political speech and thankfully the answer to that was no. The Solicitor General of the US actually went before the Supreme Court and argued that the law gave the FEC the power to ban distribution of books, pamphlets, TV and movies that had a political subject immediately prior to an election. Think about that for one fucking second and ask yourself how that fits into the first amendment.

        2. Yeah, it sucks so bad that they actually read the first amendment instead of making up WTF ever was convenient at the time.

        “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” period. No mention of persons or people or anything else, simply “Congress shall make no law.”

        People should not have to give up their rights to speech simply because they choose to use their rights to assembly and association. Period.

    • JonStewartMill says:

      Four words would go far toward ending the corruption of politics by corporate interests: public funding of elections.

  5. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    So Target gives Domestic Partnership benefits, but because they made a contribution that eventually led to a candidate who is anti gay marriage(any word on his stance for civil unions?), you should boycott the company that is providing benefits to domestic partners employed by them?

    • brinks says:

      Domestic partnership benefits are something my gay friends can only dream about at their current employers. The fact that Target provides these really does show their support.

      It makes me curious about this guy’s platform now.

    • BuyerOfGoods3 says:

      Yes dear, because this is Targets way of getting legislation changed so that they no longer have to provide that, and it’s “not their fault”—Get it now?

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        Except do you know how much harder it is to repeal/stop something once you start doing it? Also, are they doing this so they don’t HAVE to support pride parades?

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        Where is your evidence for this argument? This borders on histrionics, and has absolutely no basis in verifiable fact.

    • Antediluvian says:

      He’s seriously anti gay. Not just separate but equal, but full-on anti gay. Here are two items.

      He introduced the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment which would also ban civil unions and possibly domestic partnerships:

      Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent by the state or any of its political subdivisions.

      And here’s another item.

      From —

      In 2007, Emmer authored a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions.

      In many instances, Emmer has tried to change language in bills to that same-sex couples cannot benefit. In a bill to create standards around surrogate motherhood, Emmer attempted to replace the word “parents” with the words “mother and father.” In a wrongful death bill this session, Emmer questioned the use of the term “domestic partner” just as he has in bills aimed at providing benefits for same-sex partners.

      • SkokieGuy says:

        Thanks for posting this. Frankly, his virulence can only mean that that there will be a Larry Craig incident at some point.

        How long will it take before obsessing about the sexual behavior of strangers who are consenting adults will be considered a mental disorder?

      • Kevin411 says:

        One of the biggest reasons for the outrage this time is not only his stand on equality and such (we see that every day), but his outright support of a band, You Can Run but You Cannot Hide, that has repeatedly endorsed violence against the GLBT+ community.

        Below is from:

        You Can Run But You Cannot Hide is fronted by a man named Bradlee Dean. And Tom Emmer is a buddy-buddy with Dean and his band. “These are nice people,” Emmer said of the band, who have appeared at various Minnesota GOP functions, from statewide conventions to political candidate soirées.

        But here’s what Bradlee Dean has said about LGBT people.

        “Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. 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,” Dean previously said.

        And there’s more. “[Homosexuals] play the victim when they are, in fact, the predator. On average, they molest 117 people before they’re found out. How many kids have been destroyed, how many adults have been destroyed because of crimes against nature?” Yup, that’s another Dean comment.

        • Jeff-er-ee says:

          My jaw just hit the floor. 117 on average? Wow, that means that, to compensate for all of the gay people that I know, there’s someone somewhere who is gay and has molested about 84,000 kids! Shocking!

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      I also feel I should disclose that, as of right now, I don’t support gay marriage. I support civil unions, but until the all the states and the federal government agree on what is and isn’t marriage, we should do whatever we can to give them the equal rights they deserve first, then work on the semantics.

      If the state will approve a civil union which means my Mom’s partner can stay with her in the hospital vs. denying a “marriage” which means she can’t, I’d rather they have the civil union.

      • SkokieGuy says:

        Steve, I generally would agree and in a perfect world, civil unions are granted by the government to all couples and marriage becomes the exclusive province of religion.

        But the implementation problem is there are many thousands of laws that relate to marital status, it would be unmanageable.

        You’ve either have to change every law at the state and federal level to be more inclusive, or have a civil union law state that a civil union is equivalent to marriage and all laws that refer to marriage must equally apply to civil unions.

        Doesn’t this make having the distinction essentially meaningless?

        • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

          No, my point is work on getting the rights, THEN the semantics. The big problem is #1, the elderly vote in record numbers, and #2, going straight(no pun intended) for marriage is like jumping into a pool, and causes a knee jerk reaction.

          The solution to #1 is time, because being near-deads already, they will soon die off, and voters with more open minds will take their place.

          The solution to #2 is to “start small”. Put your foot in the water first, and get used to it. I call it the “It’s not so bad, is it?” approach. Push a plate of new food in front of a kid, and many won’t try it. But give them something familiar, with the thing you want them to eat as an ingredient, and it makes it easier to eventually give them the new food, or at least try it.

          • qwickone says:

            I agree with you on the civil unions thing, but only if the state ONLY recognizes civil unions. The state has no business in calling anything marriage since that’s a religious affair. Marry who you want in whatever faith you want, but for government purposes, it should all be called civil unions (so a union certificate instead of a marriage cert). Just my opinion.

          • suedehead4 says:

            Agreed. As much as I’d like gay marriage to be legal everywhere, ASAP, I think the smarter way to get there is by starting with civil unions, which would be more likely to get through. Yes, gay marriage would be true equality, but let’s be pragmatic and go for what’s most likely to succeed right now. Baby steps.

            Other countries have done this. Same-sex civil unions have been legal in New Zealand for years and interestingly, a lot of straight couples there are choosing those in order to avoid all the religious associations that go along with marriage.

            • blueneon says:

              Fuck baby steps! Separate but equal is NOT okay. How does my marriage to another woman in CT effect you or anyone else??

          • ErnestineElipster says:

            Lovely idea – too bad that has never worked for blacks and civil rights, women and the right to vote, South Africa and Apartheid…. Listen to the people who have experience creating change. They’re saying that civil unions are second class status and unfair. They know.

      • doctordan says:

        @ Steve– based on your logic then, we can have “Blacks-only” water fountains as long as it served the same basic purpose as white water fountains?

  6. MsFab says:

    I’m not a gay customer, but I am a Minnesotan & I’m very upset with Target (and other companies) giving money to an organization that supports Tom Emmer’s campaign. I’m sure it is in their best interest to support the candidate that is going to make life easier for them & whose going to allow them to make more $$$…but as a voter, it looks to me like they support a candidate who is against many of the ideals that I stand for. And that’s where I have a problem – I don’t want to support a business that supports a candidate that I am ideologically opposed to.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      But who else does MN Forward support? I’m a Republican, but that doesn’t mean I have to support/vote for the Republican candidate chosen. I mean, if this guy was voted for in the primaries, is it Target’s problem who the people of the state chose? Was the donation made after he was nominated? It’s kind of hard to ask for your donation back, isn’t it?

      • MsFab says:

        MN has not had its primary yet, its August 10th. Tom Emmer got the endorsement from the MN Republican party, and his competition bowed out of the race after that. No people have chosen Tom Emmer, except those in the state Republican party who decided to endorse him.

    • TuxthePenguin says:

      If you don’t want to support business that support candidates you oppose… shop somewhere else. Easy solution.

      We used to call that “voting with your wallet.”

  7. obits3 says:

    Politicians are a mixed bag. You can’t just say, Target doesn’t support gay rights because of one politician. Maybe this guy will support other things that are good for Target, which in turn make Target more profitable, which can help Target employees, some of which are gay. I can’t stand people who vote based on one issue. There are a whole bunch of things at stake that need to be considered.

  8. SkokieGuy says:

    If Target had donated based on a desire to further an anti-gay agenda, pitchforks deserved, (i.e. In & Out Burger donating to Focus on the Family).

    Target was donating to a PAC (not an individual politician) with the goal of increasing job creating and pro business policies.

    Target has a 100% rating on the 2009 and 2010 Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index.

    Frankly, I wish more companies work as hard on GLBT friendly policies and be as supportive of their GLBT employees and communities.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      And the PAC, MN Forward, supports candidates from both parties.

    • VouxCroux says:

      Let’s not forget though that In’N’Out is a privately owned company while Target is publicly traded. Maybe it doesn’t change a thing, but I felt that t was worth pointing out.

  9. pop top says:

    I wish cognitive dissonance hurt. You can’t be for personal freedom and liberty AND be against the freedom to choose who you love and marry.

    • TuxthePenguin says:

      I’ve never understood both sides of the argument. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

      On the “conservative” side, I don’t understand the anger about any couple getting married. Homosexual, heterosexual… hell, I have no problems with a brother/sister getting married if they wanted to. What is it my busienss?

      On the “liberal” side… why the push for “marriage”? If you could get everything that marriage entailed but they named it “civil unions” then why push for marriage? If the goal is equality, you’re short only in the (actually) literally sense. “A rose by any other name…” and all.

      If the goal is “rights” then take the compromise and go with “civil unions”. Then again, its just as greedy to want to try and restrict the use of a damn word.

      My solution – make everything a civil union and leave granting “marriage” to religions/organizations. That’s the other side of the compromise coin…

      • Antediluvian says:

        Your solution (civil unions and miniature American flags for all) is perfect and elegant, and will never happen.

        The situation is that the word “marriage” is one of the benefits of marriage. And until your solution is implemented (again, not gonna happen), the state grants couples marriage licenses. Churches are free to honor or ignore any state-granted license for their own religious purposes (eg, Catholics ignore divorces and consider remarrying to be adultery and the 2nd marriage doesn’t exist).

        So the other solution is marriage for everyone. Also simple and elegant, and frankly, a lot easier to implement.

      • dolemite says:

        I think the problem is, most people don’t differentiate between civil union and marriage. Liberals only want the same rights for everyone. They really don’t care if people are married in church or “the eyes of God”. They simply want the states to provide the same tax breaks, adoption/visitation rights, etc. The problem is, the Right gets involved and distorts the issue, making it about what the bible says. Why is the government concerned about what the bible says?

        • TuxthePenguin says:

          See, I don’t believe that. If those pushing “gay marriage” were to suddenly step back and say “ya know, just give us civil unions with all the benefits of marriage but without the title” I think they’d suddenly win. It would make those on the “conservative” side of the argument look like loons at that point. There are many who are on the pro side that are just as “evangelical” with the issue as those opposed to it.

          • pop top says:

            Yeah, how dare they get “evangelical” about being denied rights and being treated like a second-class citizen.

      • obits3 says:

        I agree. The state has two reasons to be involved in marriage:
        1. Property rights
        2. Children
        The states should have gay marriage.
        At the same time:
        Each religious entity should be allowed to define marriage without worries of being sued.
        Individuals should be allowed to express an opinion on various types of sexual activity without fear of losing professional licenses.
        I think that many conservatives would be ok with gay marriage, but they are afraid that making gay people a protected class would lead to violations of the freedom of speech and lesson one’s ability to get things from the state (i.e. reverse discrimination).

        • pop top says:

          Reverse discrimination is discrimination, no matter who does it (I hate that term btw). Oh no, the poor conservatives can no longer mistreat gay people based solely on their irrational hatred of them. How terrible. Nowhere in ANY gay marriage bill has there ever been a requirement that would force churches or clergy to marry gay couples against their will. That idea is something the anti-gay marriage folks started spouting off to scare people.

          If someone lost their professional license because they discriminated against a Black person who was married to a White person because they didn’t agree with interracial marriage, would that be ok? No, it wouldn’t be. So why would it be ok for someone to discriminate against someone because they’re a man married to a man?

          • pop top says:

            OK, i misspoke and got some words out of order. That’s what I get for copying and pasting from Word…

            It should say: “If someone lost their professional license because they discriminated against a Black person who was married to a White person because they didn’t agree with interracial marriage, would that be ok? Yes, ti would be. Then why would it be ok for someone to discriminate against someone because they’re a man married to a man?” Sorry about the confusion… :(

        • Jeff_Number_3 says:

          In the book “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Sunstein and Thaler suggest a solution very much like this. The state would perform ‘Civil Unions’ that could be undertaken by anyone, and confer all the rights and responsibilites that marriage today confers, and social organizations like churches (or diving clubs) can perform ‘Marriages’ which is a social title (and the group can choose who they want about who they bestow it on) but provides no legal benefits.

          • ARP says:

            I agree with that approach, but I think too many religious conservatives would feel like they’re losing something by not having the state recognize their “marriage.” They aren’t, but perception is often more important than reality.

            • erinpac says:

              It’s the same reason they don’t want to give gays the term marriage – it’s “special” to them and they want it recognized more.

              Currently marriage can be done as a religious ceremony, a civil one or both. Yes, you can do one without the other, do them at separate times, etc. That’s why certain groups keep getting tried for child rape and such instead of bigamy, and how the multiple “wives” draw benefits as single mothers.

              Right now civil marriage and spiritual marriage share a label, and many do them together. By human nature, many would do them together regardless. Currently, civil unions AREN’T equal, and in many states they can’t be without repealing multiple laws. They’re specifically prevented from being equal. Obviously many feel it’s inferior. I see no real benefit to changing the name of the institution because some want to feel better than others. Besides, many religions (including some Christian) will already marry gays (and have for a long, long time) – it’s only the civil side they really have room to fight about. Take away the civil name and they may realize the gays can already have the religious one (depending on religion, of course), and there’s not much they can do about that (ohnoes! *heartattack*).

      • pop top says:

        So basically your argument boils down to “separate but equal”? Why shouldn’t it be called marriage? It’s not equal if it’s different in any way. Your question about why it has to be all or nothing is pretty dumb, no offense. There shouldn’t be any differences between a gay marriage or a straight one because there are no differences. The sex of the person you’re marrying shouldn’t come into play.

        But I will agree with you that I do like the “everyone have civil unions” idea.

        • TuxthePenguin says:

          My argue is a bit more complex than I posted, but the biggest problem is this.

          Right now “marriage” as it is defined is limited to one MAN and one WOMAN.

          Say the gay rights activists get their way. Suddenly one limitation is excluded. What is to stop the Mormon church (or its fundamentalist brethren) from suddenly saying “hey, why limit it to 2 adults? Why not four consenting adults?”

          They actually have a stronger argument if they wrap it up in their religion. The whole “prohibit the free exercise…”

          Yes, it is the slippery slope argument. But its valid in this case. But I don’t mind it.

          My solution is elegant in its simplicity. Just drop the term marriage wholesale and allow anyone to marry. Heterosexual/Homosexual couples, brother/sister, four people… doesn’t matter, all are covered under the same laws. Make it all business and legal and leave the social constructs alone.

          • pop top says:

            I totally agree with you. I don’t care who gets married as long as everyone is a consenting adult. But as it stands right now, there’s no reason to not allow two gay people to get married and call it “marriage”. We’re talking today’s culture and social norms, not a fantasy utopia.

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            And at one point, women were property and blacks were defined as 3/5 of a person. Times change as we as a society become more enlightened. And the definition of marriage needs to change simply to “One ADULT to another ADULT.” That’s it. I’m sorry that a group of people who blindly follow a 4000 year old book of superstitions don’t like it. I don’t like that a grown, semi-educated person actually believes that a man put two of each animal on a boat for a 40 year flood and that dinosaurs lived among humans. I’ll let them keep their little fantasies, but they need to keep their fantasies out of everyone else’s private lives.

      • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

        On the contrary, I’d like to take “Civil Unions” and “Marriage” away from the state.

        These are not powers the government should have ever had. Marriage, and the legal protections, contracts, and privileges unconstitutionally bind the pursuit of happiness to a social construct lacking explicit state oversight. When the state sponsors something, they inevitably try to control it, so you wind up with marriage based immigration (and the costs of making sure it’s not a sham marriage), marriage based laws (declaring prenups void), marriage based privacy (HIPAA allows spousal disclosure, but anyone else is prohibited, no common-sense clause for fiancees), etc etc etc.

        Legalize weed, privatize marriage, give me a pony.

        • pop top says:

          The government has to oversee marriage BECAUSE of the legal implications involved. If you let only churches decide it, you’ll get situations like the FLDS marrying 50-year old men to 12-year old girls. That is not a good idea at all. Churches shouldn’t be involved in property disputes or custody agreements, just as much as the state shouldn’t be involved in church-specific matters.

          Really though, look at the countries where they let the religious institutions dictate the law and define marriage. You get places that ban women from divorcing, women lose custody of their children if they divorce, they have no property rights, etc. Putting marriage solely in the hands of the church, any church, is not good for women.

          • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

            Who said anything about the church? Marriage is, at it’s core, simply a contract. Terms should be enforced by law just like any other contract: you can’t enter a contract where you are allowed to abuse your wife any more than you’re allowed to enter a contract where you are allowed to abuse animals. This also removes any straw-man arguments like “oh, you can marry kids!” and “oh, you can marry animals!” as neither can consent.

            I would expect churches would continue to conduct marriages: really they’re just executing marriage contracts PLUS whatever rituals they have much like a Realtor would execute sales contracts. The plus side is then: so can anyone else.

            So the Catholic church haets teh gays and won’t marry them. So what? There will be someone who will. And maybe there will be “marriage mills” that’ll do it on the cheap without any flair or pretense of something sacred. Because, let’s get real, it’s not sacred.

            The whole gay-marriage thing exists only because the government has laws against it. The reasons for why marriage is desirable are many, but at least one of which is reduced taxes. Sounds like government trying to dictate behavior.

            • TuxthePenguin says:

              You are a man after my own heart. If I could control the country for ten minutes, that’s exactly what I would do.

              What they want are all the legal rights of marriage. (Or so they constantly claim). There is no reason we can’t work out a solution that gives them that. It is simply, at base, a contract. That’s all it is.

              I have no problem with looking at it like that. On the legal (ie, governmental) side, its exactly what it is. Fifteen people wanting a huge communal union? Fine. If they want it “blessed” by a church/religion, go find one. That part is no business of mine.

            • ChunkyBarf says:

              Simplistically speaking, taxation is social engineering.

              There is a high tax on cigarettes to discourage smoking.

              There is a lessening of tax to encourage marriage (and by extension procreation to make more future tax payers), etc…

              I think it will be a while before the whole ‘gay marriage’ issue is sorted out (i.e. legalized), but I do think it will happen during my lifetime (and I hope it does regardless of what it is actually called).

          • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

            Don’t forget that women get their vajayjays sewn together and their clitorises chopped off so the man can be assured he’s marrying a virgin, even if he’s not.

      • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

        I am liberal and support civil unions as opposed to marriage. I don’t care if they give straight people civil unions either. I consider marriage as something between the couple–a vow of lifetime love and devotion. What the state chooses to call it has no bearing on me as long as I can be on my husband’s insurance and get the tax breaks.

      • JMILLER says:

        So basically you are for separate but equal. I do nto accept that. No religion is forced to “marry” gay people, but why can’t a religion that wants to do so? Religions are not some monolith that all believe the same thing. You do not get a civil unions license when you marry,. It is called a marriage license. Your church can marry you, but the ONLY legal standing is marriage PERIOD. It is a state sanctioned contract. I would be happy to see marriage benefits banned entirely for both gay and str8, but if not gay marriage is the compromise I am willing to make. I think marriage is unfair to single people, the same as you do not deserve a tax break for your interest on your mortgage, or for spitting out children.

      • SolidSquid says:

        To an extend I’d agree, but there are two problems with that. The first is that civil unions and marriage are, at present, *not* the same. A civil union doesn’t grant all the rights that marriage does (iirc visitation rights is one example, although I could be wrong on that). The second was one I hadn’t thought of until it was pointed out to me. You’re essentially changing the rules specifically to avoid granting a specific group of people the same recognition as everyone else. This *really* isn’t a precedent which should be getting set.

        Besides, there are religions which *do* allow gay marriage, so would they be blocked from doing the service so that marriage remains between a man and a woman? Or would they be allowed to perform the ceremonies if they wanted to? If it’s the latter, how is that any different to pushing for full marriage?

  10. myCatCracksMeUp says:

    I read this story this morning and have already decided to boycott Target. There is no way I want my money going to homophobe politcal candidates. I know that some money I spend will make it’s way to those candidates anyway, because I buy from so many places, but I’m not going to spend at a place that I do know about.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Except MN Forward supports candidates from both sides.

      • MsFab says:

        Not true, MN Forward only supports 1 gubernatorial candidate, who is Tom Emmer.

        • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

          Well, it’s hard/stupid to support more than one candidate in the same race, isn’t it? Doesn’t mean they can’t support a Dem for congress/senate/etc…

          MN Forward will work “with a broad coalition of Minnesota job creators to elect candidates from both parties who support policies that enhance job growth in Minnesota…”

    • SkokieGuy says:

      Target is trying to support pro business and pro jobs candidates. Target is clearly NOT against gay folks. Maybe, if more jobs get created, Target can hire more people who will then be eligible for Target’s domestic partner benefits and lots of the goodies that our own government doesn’t supply.

      Or you could boycott Target, and maybe if lots of people do, then their sales will decline, they will have to lay off employees and GBLT people will have fewer employers hiring that support equal GLBT rights.

      This will be a good thing why?

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      I’ve boycotted Walmart 5 times now. I temporarily suspend said boycotts when I need cheap plastic goods or pottng soil for $2.98.

      • dolemite says:

        My Walmart boycott isn’t going so well either. Partly because my wife likes them (despite the documentary we watched about them), and partly because they seem to put every other place out of business. I stand by my boycott of their music dept though.

  11. NarcolepticGirl says:

    I would never find anyone to vote for if I required a canidate to share ALL of my opinions and beliefs.

    • brinks says:

      Good point.

      I had a couple of friends boycott Urban Outfitters several years ago because of their campaign contributions to republicans such as (gag) Bush. I still shopped there on occasion…when I was feeling rich).

      If I can be friends with people whose opinions I don’t agree with 100%, I can still shop places that at least still do some things I agree with (i.e. Target’s domestic partner benefits).

    • Smashville says:

      I agree. Although I do find the ones who go out of their way to condemn the “gay agenda” (which, as far as I can tell…the gay agenda is, “Treat us like people.”) are the ones that I vehemently oppose. It’s also the reason I can’t bring myself to go to church anymore…after the day the preacher went off on this whole thing about gays being heathens, going to hell, etc. I’m not gay…but for crying out loud, it amazes me how simple- and narrow-minded and simply hate-filled people get about it. I can’t be part of a religion that goes out of its way to promote hatred like that and I can’t vote for a candidate who promotes hatred like that.

      • Brandroid says:

        Maybe you need to find a new church then. Both the churches I go to (one when I went to college and one when I went back home) treat homesexuality like every other sin (like dishonoring your parents, taking other gods before God, etc). Its not like a “supersin” or somehow worse than any others. And at no point at my churches have disparaging remarks been said about those that practice it. Its a love the sinner, hate the sin type thing.
        Now, if you don’t think homosexuality is a sin, then your problem is not with your pastor/church but with the Bible/Christianity (assuming when you say church, you mean Christian church) and thats a whole different comment for a different time.

        • Smashville says:

          I don’t want to go to any church that promotes hatred and discrimination.

          I don’t believe homosexuality is a choice. I believe people are naturally predisposed to it.

          How can something you can’t help be a sin?

          • Brandroid says:

            I don’t believe its something you “can’t help”. I believe there is always a choice. If there is no choice, then homosexuality becomes a “condition”, just something that their body is making them do, some random configuration of their genes. And to me, that seems more offensive than saying its a choice.

            And if we end up not agreeing on this by the time this post is old news, who cares? This is America, we’re allowed different opinions. Agree to disagree and all that jazz. :D

            • Smashville says:

              At least you appear to be clear-headed enough to recognize that you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe and there probably isn’t any way for either of us to bring one to the other’s side.

          • kagekiri says:

            Being lustful, homosexual, proud, lying, killing, etc, even with a genetic predisposition does not excuse the sin, because all sins are basically genetic predispositions in the eyes of the Bible. Even being born as a sinful human is already a sin.

            This makes sense if you think of God as the person for who the universe was made (thus its his property and he can do whatever he wants with it), but it makes you wonder about the justice involved, as he’s the one who built a universe he knew would end up breaking down and is punishing it for the breakdown (factoring in omniscience, sovereign will, omnipotence, etc).

  12. segfault, registered cat offender says:

    Would this make the news if the headline were “Target Angers Some Conservative Customers With Support Of Gay Politician?”

    • BuyerOfGoods3 says:

      Yes, and you know it.

      • obits3 says:

        I think the point was that the outrage would be at the Conservatives and not Target. The media has to have a defalt bias on this issue, because they don’t want to get sued.

    • shaner55418 says:

      It would, but the roles would be reversed: the customers who object to the donation would be the subject of criticism, not the corporation or politician.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Yes, because all ultr right wing Republican Christian politicians know that you are supposed to hide your homosexuality by marrying a straight chick, form a coalition against it so you can pretend that you think it is grossly immoral, until you get caught trying to pick up other men in a bathroom at an airport.

  13. UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

    Ah, single issue groups.

    Let’s boil every decision in the world down to a single issue, and make decisions solely based on that single issue alone!

    Never mind that Target has had a long history of supporting the issue you care about in other ways– they have erred, and therefore we should all boycott them! Never mind that Target shows good behavior in other important issues. This is THAT issue. THAT issue is way more important than other issues.

    • ARP says:

      OK- so I just read about Tom Emmer and now I’m no longer opposed to him on a single issue- I’m opposed to him on multiple issues.

      Point taken though- it’s sort of like family or friends. If they have a few bad habits, you’d probably forgive them as they are good people overall. If they have a lot of bad habits, you’d probably disown them. Everyone’s tipping point is different.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      It’s not so much a single-issue decision. It’s just an issue that you can’t compromise on.

      The ultimate decision of what defines marriage and the rights of the GLBT community are a significant one, which will change the dynamic of this country. Because for a country who’s first thought in anything we do is “what are our rights,” changing what your rights are becomes a dramatic and life-altering moment.

      Whether or not you think the issue is that important, it will change the shape of this country and future issues of freedoms.

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        And boycotting Target fixes the problem how?

        Never mind that it’s simply political pageantry, how will this achieve the stated goals?

        I agree completely that this is an important rights-based issue, but taking pot shots at anyone who happens to tangentially support someone who doesn’t agree with your single issue will not achieve your political goals. Hell, I supported Obama, and apparently some GLBT groups have called for his seat based on his weak policy regarding DADT.

        Should I be persona non-grata now?

    • somnambulist80 says:

      Let’s boil every decision in the world down to a single issue, and make decisions solely based on that single issue alone!

      This isn’t a single issue. Even if the MN Republicans and Tom Emmer want to legalized gay marriage, I would still find myself in opposition to almost every other plank in their party platform.

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        I don’t like Emmer’s platform. I don’t even like the PAC. Not even a bit.

        But let’s be completely honest here: the GLBT group in question probably doesn’t care about either one’s stance on free trade, taxes, health care reform, etc. It’s a single issue that they care about, and their entire boycott is based on this single issue. Regardless of whether or not you dislike Emmer’s other policies, basing one’s entire political paradigm on a single issue strikes me as silly.

    • Bye says:

      Yeah, it sucks to be labeled a single-issue voter when that measly issue is something that affects my life, and many other people’s lives, every single day.

      I’d love to not have to think or fight about this but this single issue affects how I live. It’s difficult not to be somewhat myopic as a result of it. And seriously, unlike many other issues that plague our country, it’s extremely difficult to understand how any fair-minded person, politician or not, can be against this – or at the very least, consider it trivial.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Slavery was a single issue, segregation was a single issue, giving women the right to vote was a single issue. Guess those single issues weren’t important either.

    • kajillion123 says:

      Yeah, what’s the deal with gays really, really caring about who wants to keep them second class citizens?

  14. DrWebster says:

    I’m all for gay rights, but I’m not going to boycott Target over this. Target’s perogative, first and foremost, is to make money — they’re a business after all. It’s becoming increasingly unattractive for businesses to continue to call Minnesota home (my wife is a chemist, and a lot of companies in her field have moved across the border to Wisconsin). Also, they gave the money to an organization, not directly to Emmer’s campaign — MN Forward gave the money to Emmer without Target’s input or approval.

    • MsFab says:

      i”m a chemist in MN and there are still many many companies that operate here. Tim Pawlenty has given more than enough tax breaks to companies in MN.

    • BuyerOfGoods3 says:

      Well let’s not hurt the poor business — that would be wrong! …. Really? If we choose not to support a business who wants to further a Hate agenda, I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

      • DrWebster says:

        So, despite the fact Target has openly said it continues to support gay rights, it actually donated the money to secretly undermine them? As in, Target is secretly homophobic? Are you calling Target liars?

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        Target donated to an organization that donated to a politician. They didn’t give Emmer money directly.

    • Paladingo says:

      “I’m all for gay rights until it’s a tiny hassle to me!”

      Fixed that for you. Your privilege is showing.

    • JMILLER says:

      “THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

      THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

      THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

      THEN THEY CAME for me
      and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

      I am all for no slavery, unless of course it means the price I pay for food will go up.

  15. BuyerOfGoods3 says:

    “Tartget supports…based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business interests.”

    They must not realize how many Gay and Lesbian people are in this Country. They think this wont effect their ‘bottom line?’ Just wait, thanks for the update Consumerist.

    • tbax929 says:

      I know this gay woman won’t be shopping there.

      I don’t have a problem with people who don’t give a shit who their retailers support, but I have to vote with my dollars. Sorry, Target. This brand-new homeowner, who is spending at least $30,000 on furnishings will not be spending any of it there.

  16. rpm773 says:

    Walmart and Target, bastions of conservatism…

    If I’m K-Mart, suddenly for the first time in 40 years, I’m not feeling so down about myself.

    • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

      How, exactly, is Target a “bastion of conservatism?”

      • rpm773 says:

        Lighten up. It was meant in jest.

        • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

          Sorry, hard to tell sometimes on the intertubes.

          Now that I can tell, it’s funny. Though I do think Wal*Mart is actually pretty conservative. I mean, they’re the app store of big box retailers! They don’t even have porns!

          • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

            Christian conservatives watch porn too. I’ll bet that could be a new market to tap, Christian porn:

            Dear lord Jesus, I want to thank you for bringing this plumber into my home for me to copulate with. Please bless this fornication and help us both to reach climax and get pleasure form one another’s bodies. Please, help me and assure that I don’t accidentally bite this man’s penis or hurt his balls if things get weird. And please help me to not be overcome with jealousy when roommate Liz joins in for a threesome. It is in your holy, precious, and wonderful holy name I pray. Amen.

    • brinks says:

      Walmart’s been off limits for me for years, if Target has to go, too, then I hope Kmart has got some big expansion plans in the works. There aren’t many around here.

  17. msbask says:

    I don’t vote based on one issue alone, but it’s really hard to vote for someone who opposes you at your core because of who you are…. no matter how many other issues you may agree on, like abortion, immigration, estate taxes, whatever.

    Substitute “women” for “gay” (or really any other group), then rethink: If Target gave money to women’s groups, then gave money to a male candidate who was openly hostile toward all women….. what would we all think?

  18. AngryK9 says:

    “I want to live how I want to live, believe what I want to believe, do what I want to do. You are free to do the same as long as you live the way I think you should, believe the way I think you should, do what I think you should”

  19. ZeshawnWhiles says:

    Someone needs to tell Target that the ONLY issue for which they should focus on is gay marriage.

  20. ZeshawnWhiles says:

    I love the notion that gays are discriminated against. Last I checked they have the exact same marraige rights as straight people. I am straight and I, too, cannot marry someone of the same sex. How am I getting any special treatment for being straight?

    • Smashville says:

      I believe this is known as a humor fail.

      • MaliBoo Radley says:

        Not even a humor fail. Conservatives actually think this way. They also believe that being gay is a choice. You know, if only these people would choose to be straight, they could all be straight married. Blah.

        As a straight woman, I have asked myself – “Self, when did you chose to be straight?”. I answered “I didn’t, I’ve just always been naturally attracted to men”. Same thing with gays. Gosh .. I really wish we could all get past this.

        • Smashville says:

          Agreed. It’s not like one day you wake up and go, “You know what’d go great with this shirt? Romantic relationships with people of my own gender!”

          I should preface that I’m not gay. But I’m fairly certain that the fact that nothing in me wants to have sex with a man means that I didn’t choose to be straight. Which means I can’t see how someone could possibly choose to be gay. Which, to me, means it has to be natural. Also, I can’t see how anyone could possibly eat cilantro. As far as I know, people also don’t choose to like cilantro.

  21. smo0 says:

    Eh…. either you please everyone, or no one….
    Personally, I think their support of the LBGT cause is awesome – we need to break down the doors and tear up the old foundations before we can level the pavement….

    But it sounds like the people in charge of Target probably have core beliefs… kind of like the ballgag and the whip in the CEO’s closet… I’m thinking the true colors are starting to shine through.

    I cannot wait til that generation dies off – then maybe we can repair the planet, legalize marijuana, gay marriage, visable tattoo’s and piercings at work… wait what? Sorry about that last one… I do, however, attribute those little spiteful dress code policies to archaic institutions run by “the generation that needs to die already.”

    … with the exception of hippies of course….

    • bhr says:

      Yes, everyone who disagrees with you should die. I’m in my early 30s and don’t support the legalization of pot outside of prescriptions and as an employer I expect my employees to come in each day looking professional. A lot of customers, even young ones, prefer customer facing employees to dress a certain way, and I would rather not offend any potential business.

      • smo0 says:

        Yeah but I work in a place where I have zero contact with customers… yet I have to abide by a policy which makes me uncomfortable daily. I have to sit… all day…. I’ve seen slacker dress attire in places with people who deal with 200+ customers a day….

  22. stardeo says:

    Remember, Target is the remaining subsidiary from the old Dayton Hudson Corp., after Dayton’s/Marshall Field’s was sold of to Macy’s. Mark Dayton, another candidate for MN Governor is the heir to the Dayton’s fortune.

    So this is even more amusing and convoluted than just being about gay rights.

    This is about corporations wanting representation that favors them.

  23. stardeo says:

    Remember, Target is the remaining subsidiary from the old Dayton Hudson Corp., after Dayton’s/Marshall Field’s was sold off to Macy’s. Mark Dayton, another candidate for MN Governor is the heir to the Dayton’s fortune.

    So this is even more amusing and convoluted than just being about gay rights.

    This is about corporations wanting representation that favors them.

  24. stardeo says:

    Sorry about that, my browser just vomited on me.

    Guess it’s time to take a shower.

  25. MaliBoo Radley says:

    I’m going to cut Target some slack here, as they’re great and I don’t want to shop at Walmart.


    As a married, Atheist and child-free person, I’d like to do away with marriage and have civil unions across the board. Then, if a person wants a blessing, they can have one in the church of their choice. There is nothing about my marriage that fits the traditional definition, other than the fact that I’m a woman and my DH is a man. We’re childless by choice and god free.

    I think it’s about time for “marriage” to evolve.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      ‘There is nothing about my marriage that fits the traditional definition’

      Yours and a lot of other people’s marriages. Looks like marriage has indeed evolved!

  26. adlauren says:

    If you look at the Target PAC (TargetCitizens Political Forum) you’ll see that they’ve actually been pretty fair in how they donate money over the years.

    Those are donations made by employees through the company PAC though. Corporations recently (January) were given the ability to donate to individual campaigns in unlimited amounts, but corporation-to-PAC contributions haven’t ever been limited. The disclosure act that failed in the senate yesterday would have required companies to make public their corporate donation history to both independent candidates and PACs (I believe), but again, that failed.

    You can see where MN forward got their corporate money here (page 4):

    Pretty shady IMO (coming from a Republican working for Republicans in DC). Target’s donation history is their prerogative though..if you don’t like it, don’t shop there. Based on the wild fluctuations of their company PAC, I’d say it’s only a few years until their corporate leadership swings the other way. Then they can make just as shady donations to progressive interest groups.

  27. spevman says:

    I was impressed with this woman’s method of protest:

  28. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    Well, giving money to political campaigns may not be in the best financial interest of Target since they risk pissing off half of their customers who may not support the campaign they donated to. If I weren’t so addicted to Target, I might not be too happy about this, but my scruples disappear when it comes to Target. I’ve already been 3 times since Sunday.

  29. Jemaine says:

    Snds lk th g ppl jst wnt mr ttntn.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      What a deep, insightful comment! Thanks for sharing — it really contributed to the discussion at hand!

    • amgriffin says:

      I hope you’re not the Jemaine. If so I’ll have to transfer all my FOTC crushing to Rhys for the crassness of that comment.

  30. White Speed Receiver says:

    Target is a very progressive company to work for. I’ve worked at HQ, and they do a good job of taking care of all their employees.

    But they also need to protect their corporate interests. Minnesota could join the ranks of California, Illinois, Michigan, and New York very quickly if things go a certain way in November.

  31. chimpski says:

    Messed up. I’m not shopping at Target anymore.

  32. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    Hey, Christian conservatives watch porn too. I’ll bet that could be a new market to tap, Christian porn:

    Dear lord Jesus, I want to thank you for bringing this plumber into my home for me to copulate with. Please bless this fornication and help us both to reach climax and get pleasure form one another’s bodies. Please, help me and assure that I don’t accidentally bite this man’s penis or hurt his balls if things get weird. And please help me to not be overcome with jealousy when roommate Liz joins in for a threesome. It is in your holy, precious, and wonderful holy name I pray. Amen.

  33. DWMILLER says:

    It is Target’s money. They can do whatever they want to do with it!(as long as its legal) Why does everyone has a problem with someone or some company that does things they don’t like? Aren’t we free?

  34. MrEvil says:

    Isn’t the anti-gay practices of the Salvation Army the reason their bell-ringers were expelled from Target stores? Kinda strange they’d support ANY political candidate for fear of outrage from one side or the other.

  35. savdavid says:

    Target just lost my business which I am sure doesn’t bother them. Subsidizing hatemongers is wrong.

  36. kataisa says:

    Boycott the boycotters!

  37. IntheKnow says:

    Hmmm, I believe that both candidates positions on this topic are not extreme. While I may support one of them, if both candidates take a position on , say 10 topics, I’m sure there will be at least one where there is common ground.

    Target supports a candidate who generally believes in less government interference and lower taxes – which would essentially allow Target to create more jobs, buy more inventory and compete better in the market place. Sounds pretty reasonable.

    Let’s say for example that I am a Republican and the Democrat wins the election. Am I to boycott the representative’s office now that I disagree with he/she on certain matters or do I lobby the office, write letters, emails, etc for monies, aid and influence for my locality, county, or state?

    Be rational, stop throwing immature fits. If your argument doesn’t hold water with a substantial number of people, come up with a better argument.

  38. CartmanPat says:

    GitEmSteveRonaldRegan, why are you trolling the comments and acting like a douche? We get it, you’re conservative…just keep it at church, mmmkay?

  39. Memtex784 says:

    How about funnel all that campaign money from all candidates so it can help fund the food banks and education….wait that makes too much sense!

  40. FrankReality says:

    It’s actually pretty simple – the other candidates from the DFL party are extremely anti-business and want to drive Minnesota’s business taxes up to be among the top three highest in the nation. Furthermore, the DFL party would love to be able to unionize Target, BestBuy and other major retailers such as WalMart.

    Target and Best Buy really would like to keep their stores and headquarters in Minnesota and as a Minnesotan and a tax-payer, I’d like to keep them here too.

    Think of it this way – a company or a individual store can’t support gay rights if it goes out of business.

  41. Jinger says:

    same sex domestic partners/spouses of the target team members are no longer eligible to use the discount card. its only 10%, but it kind of sucks that target commits so much to the cause publicly, but does not let their own tm utilize the discount for his/her loved one. they can still be covered under the health insurance policies though. kind of odd.

  42. ScandalMgr says:

    I won’t be shopping there.

  43. dcamsam says:

    If Target had contributed – directly or indirectly – to a racist politician, there would be no question as to whether it was wrong. There would be no “but Target doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race, so it’s okay and shut up!” excuse. Or “Target supported a Black Pride parade, so it’s okay and shut up!” Or “Target does what is profitable for Target, so it’s okay and shut up!” Or, and this is really laughable, “Target can’t support racial equality unless the pro-business racist wins, so it’s okay and shut up!”

    But Target contributed to a homophobic politician, so it’s okay and shut up.

    Well, protestations by “some of my best friends are gay” conservatives notwithstanding, it’s not okay, and anyone who considers anti-gay bigotry to be wrong knows it – and won’t be shopping at Target (or Best Buy) as a result.

    Oh, and lest anyone argue that this issue is irrelevant because the other candidates are no different, Emmer is, in fact, the ONLY major candidate for Minnesota governor who opposes same-sex marriage.

    In a race where Target could have chosen from any one of several pro-equality candidates, it not only declined to support any of them, it chose to support the ONLY anti-gay candidate.

  44. thisistobehelpful says:

    How bout we just stop letting any sort of private business donate to candidates? Lets see them get by on capped personal donations. But wait, that might even the playing field…

  45. lumberg says:

    If you look at Target’s facebook page, people have been spamming them with “I’m not shopping here anymore!” messages. I don’t understand this for the life of me.

    I am a Christian. I don’t hide that fact. And as a Christian, I do not support the idea of same sex marriage. That doesn’t mean I somehow hate gay people or hold some sort of malice toward them. It simply is not in line with what I believe to be the definition of marriage. I also don’t believe in sex before marriage – but that doesn’t mean I hate people who do that, so why should the gay marriage issue be any different?

    The key words in all of that are “I believe.” These are things “I believe.” And for the time being, we still have the right to our own beliefs in this country (sort of). So why, then, do people think Target HAS to share their same belief system before they can shop with them? Are there honestly that many people out there who know the political affiliations of all the companies they shop with? If not, then those of you angry with Target could’ve been shopping at an anti-gay store for years – and that would make you quite the hypocrite for bashing Target now.

    And guess what – Target has sponsored pride marches and AIDS walks. They also offer domestic partner benefits to its homosexual employees. As someone who is not in support of homosexuality, should I be up in arms to find this out after having shopped at Target all these years?

    I’m not. Truth is, I don’t care. Know why?

    Because just as I am free to believe that homosexuality is not a lifestyle God intended for us, other people are free to believe otherwise. My beliefs are just that – MY beliefs, and I don’t hold it against anyone for feeling differently. If you are gay and you’re a friend of mine, have I ever made you feel looked down upon for it? Chances are, I don’t even bring it up. I knew a couple of people at my last job who were gay. We were good friends. Just because we have different lifestyle choices doesn’t mean that I am going to shun them. EVERYONE is different in one way or another, and if we shunned everyone who didn’t match up with our own feelings, opinions, and beliefs, we’d never know anyone. EVER.

    So why, then, do people do this when a company like Target does what they’ve done? Geez, I could argue that I’m not shopping at Target anymore simply because they donated to a political campaign (I say let those pieces of crap raise their own money – they sure take enough of ours once they’re in office). But I’m not going to do that. The people running Target have the same rights as anyone else in this country – the freedom to believe what they want.

    Who are we to try to take that away from them?

    I guarantee that if I went to the facebook page of another company that supported something I don’t agree with (we’ll say scientology, for example) and started bashing them for not agreeing with my beliefs, I’d get ripped in half by its supporters. Freedom of choice/belief/religion in this country is limited only by EVERYONE ELSE’S opinions. It’s a society where either you agree with others, or you’re an intolerant bigot and an idiot.

    Let freedom ring, indeed.

    As someone else already said, the hypocrites of this country seem to live by this motto: “I want to live how I want to live, believe what I want to believe, do what I want to do. You are free to do the same as long as you live the way I think you should, believe the way I think you should, do what I think you should.”

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      So you believe you are entitled to be free to limit the personal rights and freedoms of people you dislike? How quaint.

      • lumberg says:

        See, that’s the problem with most people. You take my disagreeing with a person’s choices and beliefs as the same as disliking a person. That is not at all what I said/hinting/suggested/implied. You can disagree with someone’s opinion without disliking them.

        Not only that, but I am not trying to limit anyone’s personal rights or freedoms. But the institution of marriage comes from the Bible, and I believe that if a person is going to take part in it, they should observe the same principals. That having been said, I’m not against civil unions or domestic partners. And I hold no anger or animosity toward homosexuals who have been married. That is their choice and belief. I disagree with the decision, but I disagree with stuff my fiance does sometimes and I love her dearly.

        Contrary to popular belief, it IS possible to vote against an issue yet harbor no bad feelings toward those who support it. It’s called tolerance, love, and acceptance. It is what Jesus taught, and as a Christian, I will continue to follow that creed.

        • erinpac says:

          So those who have religions that support gay marriage should not be allowed to follow the dictates of those religions because some (yes, only some) Christian branches don’t believe in it?

          Marriage is not a solely Catholic (or even Christian) institution, and predates the Bible, and our current civil marriage already deviates from the dictates in that book by not allowing bigamy and not considering women chattel.

  46. JulesNoctambule says:

    There are more than just ‘some gay customers’ that are pissed off, believe me. Target’s weak excuse aside, this is really one issue where they can’t have it both ways.

  47. esc27 says:

    A boycott is beyond ridiculous. Target has gone out of their way to promote and be fair to homosexual issues. If the homosexual rights groups can’t cut Target some slack in this one situation, then why should Target bother to continue giving domestic partner privileges/etc.

  48. lumberg says:

    Another point: People are complaining that the money they’re spending at Target is going to organizations that they (the customers) do not support. No, it isn’t. Your money is going to the products you purchased. You didn’t donate anything, you PAID money in exchange for goods and services. It then becomes Target’s money to do with as they please. Don’t like it? Don’t shop there. But don’t act as though you’ve somehow been swindled into paying for a campaign of some politician you don’t like – your money was to cover the purchases you made.

  49. nerble says:

    They wanted someone who would be business friendly. Those candidates are Republicans. If you’re gay and angry don’t shop there. The end.

  50. FrankReality says:

    The rest of the story…

    So to summarize: Alliance for a Better Minnesota (and CBS News) want us to swallow the following:

    That Bill Sorem Just Happened To Videotape A Random Outraged Customer:

    It’s hard to say if the producer wanted this event to look like a candid camera incident; it certainly looks staged. But it was presented by the Uptake and A4aBM as an organic, grassroots, random protest against Tom Emmer and against Target’s donation to the “MNForward” PAC, which supports Emmer in the gubernatorial election, and by CBS as .evidence of a mass movement against Target.

    This is bad journalism.

    That The Uptake Is Anything But An Arm Of The DFL:

    After participating in an ABM attack campaign – which, as we noted two weeks ago, is funded by unions and, mostly, Mark Dayton and his relatives – future protestations of being “journalists” should be taken with a large block of salt.

    Long story short; the Uptake is staging the news for the ABM’s, and the DFL’s, benefit.

    This is not journalism.

  51. acasto says:

    Where in the Constitution does it say that it isn’t limited to people? The preamble makes it pretty clear that it is dealing with people. Not corporations, and not definitely not foreign entities.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.