Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Human Rights Campaign is urging a boycott of Walmart and urging people to shop at Target instead because Target provides domestic partnership benefits for gay employees while Walmart doesn't. Naturally, the American Family Association has its panties in a wad over it (though they themselves were recently boycotting Walmart because it's too pro-gay for them). And here's their bizarre reasoning:
Wildmon says HRC and their supporters are trying to make Wal-Mart pay financially for doing something good for the family, and Christians and other consumers need to show support by not allowing homosexuals to win their financial gamble against the store. He says that Wal-Mart is "doing something good for the family here; they're refusing to recognize homosexuals as being married, and we encourage people to shop at Wal-Mart as much as possible."
Okay Mr. Wildmon, I'd love to hear an explanation of how providing domestic partnership benefits harms "the family." If Target gives insurance coverage to a gay partner, does it harm your family? It certainly doesn't harm mine. It clearly helps that particular family by giving them access to medical care they could not afford. So exactly what family is hurt by it? Or is this like that gay marriage rhetoric where gay marriage will harm marriage without doing anything to any actual marriages?
What really bothers Wildmon, I suspect, is the notion of providing health insurance to a gay person. Medical treatment, obviously, subverts God's divine punishment on those people. Gays are supposed to be sick, their illnesses are sent by God as retribution - and how dare we interfere with God's divine wrath! And he thinks gays are the ones who are morally challenged.
Comments
Come on, Ed, show some compassion. They're dizzy from the quick 180 they had to do on the whole Walmart boycott debacle.
BTW, does anyone understand how a boycott of Walmart is a financial gamble for the boycotters? Target is nicer, its aisles less cluttered, and its prices not noticeably higher. Hell, they'll probably save money on the anxiety medicine they probably have to take after the sensory overload that is the Walmart experience.
Posted by: AnneS | November 27, 2007 9:18 AM
So, is there a fatwa against Target that accompanies this? I'm confused: We're boycotting WalMart, now we're supposed to shop there and boycot Target. Is Disney okay again?
Don needs to clarify the message, because it appears God has been on some heavy cough medicine lately.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 27, 2007 9:25 AM
*sigh* I can't help but think this is yet another over political move on the HRC's part. There is no advantage to a boycott. None. Zip. I remember a time when the HRC actually -worked with- individuals and companies to improve their benefits. No wonder their membership rolls have going down year after year since Joe took over.
(as a native minnesotan - I am required by law to shop at Target)
Posted by: yoshi | November 27, 2007 10:00 AM
I boycot Walmart because I always feel like I need to take a shower after shopping there; and I can't stand the crowded aisles! I lived in an area for six years where Walmart was the only choice. It almost led me to drinking;-)
yoshi-I lived in Minnesota for four years, and also feel required to shop at Target!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | November 27, 2007 10:47 AM
Perhaps Mr. Wildmon fears the extra financial strain Walmart would incur by helping to pay for insurance for domestic partners would force them to raise their prices on toilet paper from 47¢ per roll to 48¢. With the amount of crap he spews, any increase in toilet paper prices could be mean a lean Christmas for him and his family.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 27, 2007 10:48 AM
I don't think HRC is calling for a boycott of WalMart here, or any of the stores on their "naughty" list. The message I have seen/heard from HRC is that they'd like you to take the retailers record into account when shopping, but aren't calling for an out-and-out boycott. Besides, I don't know what they fundies are all upset about. Even if WalMart were to add DP benefits, not that many gays or lesbians would even get health insurance. As I understand it, it is relatively difficult for their employees to qualify for their insurance programs, which is why some states (e.g., Maryland) were trying to target them (no pun intended).
Posted by: CPT_Doom | November 27, 2007 11:26 AM
I have been boycotting Wal-Mart for years because their business practices are just plain evil (read "The Wal-Mart Effect" and Wal-Mart's own employee handbook for details). Now I have another weapon in my arsenal to convince people not to shop there; excellent.
Posted by: J | November 27, 2007 12:09 PM
Wow, usually I'm amused by the anti-gay rationalizing. But that was just...lazy. Not a single original word in that screed. It's like Wildmon has a checklist that goes, "Get up, shower, eat breakfast, send out anti-gay rhetoric, brush teeth..."
Thanks for the heads up. Not that I ever shop at Wal Mart anyway, for reasons listed above.
Posted by: Brandon | November 27, 2007 12:56 PM
Giving benefits to domestic partners brings to mind what Jefferson said regarding religion, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". At least to no greater extent than providing benefits to married partners injures those who aren't married.
Posted by: QrazyQat | November 27, 2007 1:39 PM
Are there any gay people who shop at Wal-Mart? Seriously? Any?
Wal-Mart is tacky. It's not accidentally tacky. It's that way by design. The lighting, the signage, the displays are all designed to appeal to people with no sense of style. It looks cheap because it is cheap.
For about the same price you can shop at the brightly lit, colorfully decorated Target. It's obvious from the advertising and marketing of these stores which one wants my business.
Wal-Mart. Seriously I'd need an I-V of pepto-bismol first.
Posted by: Houndentenor | November 27, 2007 3:37 PM
Houndentenor.....you go, girl! TACK--AY! In case you can ever use it the word for tacky in Spanish is "cursi".....I find it quite useful.
Posted by: kary | November 27, 2007 4:08 PM
Time for a new t-shirt: WWJBCMIC
(Where would Jesus buy crap made in China?)
Posted by: BobN | November 27, 2007 5:27 PM
And yet another display of Larry's utter lack of logic.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | November 27, 2007 5:56 PM
Yet another display of Larry's cluelessness. Sooner or later, you'd think he would get the fucking hint that his comments will be deleted the moment they are seen, every single time, without fail.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 27, 2007 5:59 PM
The AFA makes a pretense at being a Christian organization, but in fact it's anything but Christian. I don't know whom these people worship, but it certainly isn't Jesus of Nazareth since the AFA stands for everything that Jesus was against. They are just a bunch of puffed-up phonies pretending to be what they are not.
Posted by: RichardB | November 27, 2007 6:03 PM
As it so happens RichardB, the founder (Don Wildman) is an ordained United Methodist minister.
Which I'm told is some flavor of Christian.
Posted by: Leni | November 27, 2007 6:25 PM
Ha. Sorry, that would be Don Wildmon.
Posted by: Leni | November 27, 2007 6:27 PM
Wow, thanks for the link Leni.
And therefore, gay people don't deserve health insurance. It all makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Brandon | November 27, 2007 6:45 PM
Going to be hard for me to be involved in this boycott. I already don't shop at Walmart, don't like their policies, didn't like it the two times I set foot in a Walmart.
Shouldn't conservatives already have a problem with Target, isn't it's parent company "French?"
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 27, 2007 6:57 PM
Next, they'll have to boycott Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura, whose employer, Clear Channel, offers partner benefits and has earned a 100% rating from HRC two years running.
Posted by: Grumpy | November 27, 2007 7:18 PM
Brandon wrote:
Did it work for you? I just clicked on it to show you the part where they pretend not to hate homosexuals but the link wouldn't load. Oh well. They aren't hard to find.
In any case, the part where they pretend not to hate homosexuals is pretty much lame as the quote you posted, except that they explicitly attribute the Bible for their inspiration to "not hate" gay people. Which makes it both lame and ironic. (Ok and a little funny too.)
Posted by: Leni | November 27, 2007 8:53 PM
Grumpy wrote:
LOL.
That knowledge fills my black atheist heart with evil, wretched, secular glee :D
Posted by: Leni | November 27, 2007 9:04 PM
If it makes you feel better, Leni, Clear Channel still practices age discrimination, apparently on a large scale. And I don't know why my older brother was forced out, since he is both mid-50s and a single male (hence possibly gay). Don't be applauding these folks for doing the right thing until you're sure it is out of conviction, rather than business necessity.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 27, 2007 9:32 PM