Walmart Goes Gay

Walmart has decided to join the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, in an obvious attempt to sell products to a group of people with significant disposable income. The result, predictably, is a major freakout by the religious right. Now I know, we hear from conservatives all the time about free markets and capitalism, but you don't think they actualy mean it, do you? Also predictably, the Worldnutdaily is leading the chorus of outrage. This article contains lots of ridiculous statements, but it begins by describing what's going on:

"It is correct that we have a dialogue with the (National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce)," Wal-Mart spokesman Bob McAdam told WND. "This is just what businesses do."

He said it is an effort by the company to reach out to one of its customer bases, and is being handled similarly to Wal-Mart's work with Hispanic and African-American chambers of commerce.

A report on an advertising industry site, AdAge, said that Wal-Mart had not only joined the NGLCC but also has hired a "gay-marketing" shop and started discussions about extending domestic-partner benefits to employees.

Domestic partner benefits? You mean a gay person might get healthcare and a pension? Well that just will not do. Gays aren't supposed to have access to health care, you see, because that might help them live a longer and healthier life and that gives them more time to advance the "radical homosexual agenda" and infect the rest of us. This must be stopped. Tony Perkins, idiotic soundbite please:

"It is unfortunate," Perkins said, "that Wal-Mart has joined forces with an organization whose mission opposes many of the values shared by rural and small-town America. It is precisely the interests of average Americans that Wal-Mart has prided itself in promoting.

"Now, by surrendering to the radical homosexual lobby, Wal-Mart has entered the political arena with no economic benefit to their company or their customers," he said.

Right. Because there are no gays in "rural and small-town America". Gays are only in big cities like New York and San Francisco, and it spreads there because people live so close together that they are easily infected with The Gay. Why, I've heard rumors that you can catch The Gay from a toilet seat in Sodom San Francisco. And wanting to sell chicken or tires or beach towels to gays means they've "surrendered to the radical homosexual lobby". Which makes one wonder how you would surrender to that lobby. Waving a white flag is so pedestrian, and it's hard to find a flag in a salmon or taupe color. They could wave a rainbow flag, but then some idiot from Meade, Kansas will throw a brick through the front window.

To really view the hysterical reaction to this, you have to see this column by Kevin McCullough. I especially love this bit:

On nearly every occasion I've visited a Wal-Mart, I've nearly always seen entire families shopping together - of every racial and ethnic background you could imagine. Newer than Sears, less expensive than Target, much more hip than K-Mart, there quite possibly couldn't be a more family-friendly vendor in all of America.

Until this week ...

Wal-Mart stores have now signed on to an agreement with the "National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce."

Yep. Because as we all know, if you start selling dish soap to gays, people will no longer take their family shopping at Walmart. Gays and families are like matter and anti-matter, obviously; they can't coexist in the same place. What's that, you say? Gays actually have families? I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The religious right has copyrighted the word "family" and it means only what they say it means. You gays out there who love your children and take care of them and help them with their homework and do all the things that normal people do with their kids, you may think you have a family, but you don't. Pursuant to their copyright, the moment you touched someone else's genitals in a Biblically-unapproved manner, you gave up your right to be a family. You're now just a random conglomeration of people. Worse yet, you're now a part of the "radical homosexual lobby".

And then it's back to those tired old pedophile comparisons:

Why will Wal-Mart spend monetary resources to help fund conferences that promote same-gender sexual behavior? Would they do the same for adulterers? Pedophiles? Men who like sheep?

*yawn* Stop me if you've heard that one before. But the more important problem here is the excessive focus on gay sex. Why on earth does promoting the sale of grills and garden tools to gays mean they're "promoting gay sex"? Focus on the Family really should change it's name to Focus on the Anal Sex, because it seems that this is the only thing they see in gay people. They're aren't really people to them, they're just symbols for anal sex. Walmart is not promoting gay sex by advertising to gay people, any more than they are promoting Christian sex if they take out an ad in a Christian publication. They're not starting a new department to sell them ball gags and butt plugs, for crying out loud.

I think we need to go much further with this. I think Walmart should refuse to sell products to anyone who isn't a Christian. After all, if they sell a DVD player to an atheist, they're promoting atheist sex, and that just will not do. In fact, from now on, I think Walmart should stop selling products to all sinners. If an unmarried woman comes in and cannot show them an intact hymen, then they don't get to buy that sunscreen and shampoo (because hussies like you deserve oily hair, itchy scalp and sunburn as God intended). In fact, they could make a tidy profit by selling stones to the horde outside the front door waiting to stone that slut to death for her crimes against God.

Then Walmart will once again be back in line with "rural and small-town America" and will be satisfying the bigotry of braindead zealots like McCullough and Perkins. So you gays can take your anal beads and your amyl nitrite and go back to the bathhouses where you belong. We won't let you desecrate Walmart, the last vestige of the garden of eden itself in the midst of our Sodomite culture. Walmart is for God-fearing people, people who worship Jesus and Dale Earnhardt, and not necessarily in that order.

Tags
Categories

More like this

Okay, I know I took David Noebel to task yesterday for saying that after decriminalizing sodomy, the gays got all uppity and started demanding other things. But after seeing this article from Agape Press, I'm beginning to come around. Would you believe that those damn gays think they actually have…
The American Family Association is really obsessed with Walmart's decisions to court gay customers, so much so that it is willing to completely distort reality in order to whoop up its mostly mindless followers into an anti-gay frenzy. Look at this Action Alert, where they make it look as though…
I'm no fan of WalMart's. Too much disruption of the retail world at the expense of the global environment and workers around the world and too little attention to the needs of its own workers. My side of the political fence is not friendly WalMart territory, to be sure. It turns out that right wing…
Ever on the lookout for any company who dares to acknowledge that there are gay people on the planet, the American Fascist Family Association is now targeting Walmart because - ohmygod! - they're looking for ways to market products to gay people to get a share of the half a trillion dollars they…

Focus on the Family really should change it's name to Focus on the Anal Sex,

The image I just had pop in my head of Dobson was for a milisecond hilarious and now it's beyond creepy and disturbing. I wish I could burn it from my gray matter. Thanks a lot.

Ball gags and butt plugs at Wal*Mart? Hmmmm.... That certainly would be a wide open market for reasonably priced, high quality goods. Yes, it's a market that's just waiting to be filled.

I guess you might call it, "Against*The*Wal*And*Spred*'em*Mart!"

*shakes head*

Silly fundies....

Ed, James Dobson just had another half-hour rant about the recent "pro-gay" legislation in California on his radio show today:

http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Default.asp

Happily he demonstrates the limits of his influence. He claims to have sent out over 2.5 million letters to his constituents about the issue, but to no avail--he actually sounded quite defeated by it all (along with the usual dire warnings about the destruction of all America within a single generation).

And he bewails the effect of single-party rule in California. Oh, the irony.

You mean a gay person might get healthcare and a pension? Well that just will not do.

Not to worry, this is Wal-Mart, after all -- no one's gettin' any pension or health-care plan, gay or not.

"It is unfortunate," Perkins said, "that Wal-Mart has joined forces with an organization whose mission opposes many of the values shared by rural and small-town America. It is precisely the interests of average Americans that Wal-Mart has prided itself in promoting."
.
.
.
"Why will Wal-Mart spend monetary resources to help fund conferences that promote same-gender sexual behavior? Would they do the same for adulterers? Pedophiles? Men who like sheep?"

I thought men having sex with sheep was one of the values shared by rural and small town America. And Lord know there isn't a single adulterer or pedophile found anywhere outside the big cities.

Ed, this was among your better rants and affirms your identification with comics such as Doug Stanhope. If there's solace to be had amid these never-ending stories of loopy outbursts from the religiously beshitted, such soliloquies form the bulk of it.

Still, given the increasingly dishonest and outlandish crap coming from all of these ersatz-morals "pro-family" godbangers, I'm on the edge of giving up and just becoming a full-on, actively adversarial cynic. Normally when I go running I wave and smile at people walking their dogs, mowing their lawns, etc. Today I think every time I see someone, I'll play what appear to be the percentages and yell "FUCK YOU!", drop my shorts, and angrily waggling my genitals at them without breaking stride.

You mean Wal-Mart want to sell stuff to as many people as possible? Who would've thunked it?

Wal-Mart's Popularity May Not Shield Retailer from Pro-Family Backlash
Agape Press, August 31, 2006
..American Family Association (AFA) founder Don Wildmon says the Wal-Mart spokesman's statement shows that the company has forgotten the conservative base on which it was built. "In essence," he asserts, "translated, this is what the said: 'We're so big, nobody can hurt us. We can do whatever we want to do, and nobody's going to hurt us, because we're the largest retailer in the world.'"
But an executive with Wal-Mart says the retailer cares about its entire customer base and does not want to alienate anyone. Bob McAdam, vice president of corporate affairs for Wal-Mart, says the retailer has not abandoned is core values. "I don't think Wal-Mart has changed at all," says McAdam. "Wal-Mart has always been trying from day one to appeal to as many customers as possible." That, he asserts is part of the reason the company has grown rapidly over the years. "We believe we provide a good service to people -- we provide good prices," he says.

The image I just had pop in my head of Dobson was for a milisecond hilarious and now it's beyond creepy and disturbing. I wish I could burn it from my gray matter. Thanks a lot.

Funny, but Christian sex evockd the same response from me.

By Bill from Dover (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

Shhhh... no one tell the worldnut folks that gays are already shopping at Walmart and have been for years.

Maybe they think people should have to fill out questionnaires before walking in the store.

"that Wal-Mart has joined forces with an organization whose mission opposes many of the values shared by rural and small-town America. It is precisely the interests of average Americans that Wal-Mart has prided itself in promoting.

I could have sworn blind that Wal-Mart's mission already opposed the "values of rural and small-town America"...things like preserving the small retailers on Main Street. Many "average Americans" would love to be able to set up and run small retail outlets...but the out-of-town giant attracts most of the custom.

This all kind of reminds me of the old joke about the guy who dies and goes to heaven and St. Peter is taking him on a tour. They got into this huge building, bigger than anything he's ever seen. And they walk down this incredibly huge hallway. They come to this first great door and St. Peter opens the door and it opens to this immense hall with a choir singing and an orchestra playing. St. Peter says, "These are the Catholics." He closes the door and they walk a bit further and come to another great door. St. Peter opens it and there are people whooping and hollering and having a good time. St. Peter says, "These are the pentecostals." They walk a bit further and come to another great door and St. Peter says, "We must be quiet here. I'm not even going to open this door, but these are the Baptists." The man says, "Why must we be quiet and not open this door?" St. Peter says, "Because they think they're the only ones here." I think the religious right just doesn't like to be reminded that there are gay people sharing the planet with them.

Ahhh finally, a step forward.

I get a good laugh at some of the comments fundies make and an ever bigger laugh at their delusional beliefs. I hope they really don't believe that gays only exist in the secular areas. I have lived the majority of my life in the bible belt and most of my friends were gays and pagans all of which were home grown. I also heard from a few of my gay friends that NC boys give the best head. ;)

By say no to christ (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

Hey Ed, I just want to agree with kemibe...huh, that is about this being a good rant, not the angry genital waving thing.

These people are gibbering fools.

Good for Wal-Mart. Especially that part about the domestic partner benefits.

As Jeff Hebert pointed out above, What benefits?

As Jeff Hebert pointed out above, What benefits?

Oh look, another example of someone not knowing what they're talking about before opening their mouth.

Let me help you: I work for the company and have quite decent healthcare and dental benefits. Not to mention 401K, profit sharing account, paid holidays, paid vacation, etc.

But you go on with your Wal-Mart bashing, it's the fashionable thing to do.

Be gentle, WJD. Some of the more orthodox of our liberal bretheren are confused by current events.

Walmart, along with other corporations, are soulless Republican entities that make profits and oppress the nonRepublican working class. Actively speaking ill of them at every opportunity is required to be a member of the nonRepublican clique.

This works out well until Republican fundies find a reason to dislike a Republican corporation. With two Republican targets on opposite sides of a dispute, the nonRepublicans get a bit confused as to which side deserves snarky comments.

Since the web does not convey tone, I will clarify. The above did include mockery. Although in hindsight, I am inclined to believe the orthodox kneejerk against things nonDemocrat instead of simply things Republican. Witness the comments were someone to imply they possibly approve of some aspect of philosophy that might in a slight way be part of the Libertarian platform.

Personally, I don't get the Walmart bashing over pay and benefits. I know of no major retailer or franchise that provides health insurance for non-management employees. That's pretty much the norm for all non-skilled labor in any business other than those with very powerful unions, like the auto industry. Why is Walmart singled out for outrage in this regard? The fact is that wherever Walmart opens, they get many times more applicants than they have jobs to offer. This is pretty basic economics. If you're not forced to compete for employees due to shortages, there's no incentive to provide more benefits than your competitors. I doubt the percentage of employees with full benefits at Walmart are any different than K Mart or JC Penneys, or any restaurant chain for that matter. But for some reason, Walmart is always the target of ire.

Ed: in Europe your joke is told about the Catholics ;-)

By Roman Werpachowski (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

Ed:

Personally, I don't get the Walmart bashing over pay and benefits. I know of no major retailer or franchise that provides health insurance for non-management employees. That's pretty much the norm for all non-skilled labor in any business other than those with very powerful unions, like the auto industry. Why is Walmart singled out for outrage in this regard? The fact is that wherever Walmart opens, they get many times more applicants than they have jobs to offer. This is pretty basic economics.

Leaving people without any health care at all might be basic economics, but it's not my idea of a decent society.

By Roman Werpachowski (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

now of no major retailer or franchise that provides health insurance for non-management employees.

Evil Starbucks doesn't count?

By Roger Tang (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

Roman-

The point still remains, why is Walmart singled out? We do not, in this country, require employers to provide health insurance to their employees. Walmart, like virtually every other company in the nation, provides it for their management employees but not their hourly employees (they may have programs for hourly employees, but I can't imagine they're really affordable for them). So why is Walmart singled out among all of these other corporations?

Ed:

Because Walmart is the biggest company and thus a favourite target? Just like everyone hates Microsoft in the computer world.

By Roman Werpachowski (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

The point still remains, why is Walmart singled out?

Well, first, everyone knows Wal-Mart -- there's one in every hamlet from sea to shining sea. It's not nearly as much fun to poke at Bob & Tom's Pro Bass Shops, since no one has ever heard of them.

Second, as Roman points out, they're the biggest. Picking on the biggest is always more fun.

Third, it was a joke, fellas, lighten up. I think it's funny that you could draw some sort of "we hate all things notDemocrat" out of that. Are we getting to the point where we have to add corporations to the list of things we can't make jokes about anymore, along with any racial minority, gender, sexual orientation, school affiliation, ethnic background, country of origin, hair color, state of residence, political affiliation, or amount of body hair? I didn't even know corporations had feelings to hurt.

Wal-Mart's just a convenient symbol that everyone is familiar with. We've all got at least one in our community, and it's a convenient stand-in for big, faceless corporations that drive local businesses away. It's not terribly fair, no, but somehow looking at their bottom line, I'll wager Big Blue will find a way to struggle on, much like Microsoft, IBM, and the IRS.

:-)

...The man says, "Why must we be quiet and not open this door?" St. Peter says, "Because they think they're the only ones here."

How do they keep the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses away from that door? Such a Heaven would be Hell for them...

By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

Three points.

The first being. Ed, did you eat your weaties this morning or what? You are definately having a great writing day - fu**ing brilliant all around.

The second being wal mart bashing. The problems with Wal Mart are far more than how they treat their employees. They also exert a lot more influence over their suppliers than any other retailer, because they can. This means that some of their suppliers have to cut their costs and that means screwing their own workers and suppliers on down the line. I think they get singled out because they are the biggest and most influential retailer in the world. There are a multitude of reasons to fight with Wal Mart.

That said, I am a Wal Mart shopper - I can't afford not to be, because I'm poor and I like to eat. I justify it because Wal Mart is willing to make concessions to people they don't need to appease. This post is a great example - does Wal Mart really need to do this? Hell no. They have also slightly increased the availability of health insurance to their workforce - not great but an improvement none the less. Would people stop working for them if they didn't do that? Yes. Would they still make shit-tons of money if they didn't? Yes. Do they need to do any of the things they have done to apease the masses - to improve public relations with absolutely everyone they can? No. Certainly they have the motive of increasing profits by increasing customers - but I don't believe that all of the policy changes they have made to improve their image are going to pay off financialy for them. They don't make these concessions so much to improve the bottom line as they do them to try to make Wal Mart a more comfortable company for people to do business with and I respect that.

Third point - other retailers. Trader Joes, another discount retailer, does in fact take better care of their employees. So do COSCO, Target, New Seasons and Wild Oats. I am certain that there are more but those are ones that I know employees of, who get higher pay and better access to bennies - though most are still out of the range for a lot of folks to afford them. This, of course, doesn't change the fact that Wal Marts have an overabundance of applicants nearly across the board.

If you ever saw the South Park on Wal-Mart I think they had it down pretty good. Wanna see the "evil" heart of Wal-Mart? Look in a mirror.

One: if you don't like them don't shop there (go to Target or K-Mart etc., they're almost as cheap), no one is holding a gun to your head. Better yet go spend twice as much for your goods at one of the proverbial Mom & Pops. Go ahead pay more and show those Wal-Mart bastards what's what.

Two: if everyone really did start going to Target or K-Mart and they got as big as Wal-Mart is now then all the populist/anti-capitalist rhetoric would soon be directed at them instead.

don't believe that all of the policy changes they have made to improve their image are going to pay off financialy for them.

Wal-Mart probably wants to increase the loyalty of their workforce. This WILL pay off.

By Roman Werpachowski (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

Ed, your comment about not knowing whether any franchise gives health benefits to non-management employees. I work for Fred Meyer, now a subsidiary of Kroger (which is cross-country, owning Smith's, etc.) and employees get health-benefits after 6 months, bar none, if they make over a certain wage (20-hr weeks). After certain milestones, these benefits increase gradually, while of course management gets further benefits. For example, I (who am not management) can currently opt into a 401K, and enjoy nearly full medical coverage for myself and any dependants I might have. Fred Meyer also extends benefits to domestic partners and is more integrated than in this regard than many other retailer franchises. Indeed, there are about 30% gay people at my store alone. We live in an area that cannot afford to reject the inestemable incomes of the locals. This is also the city that Bill O'Reilly came from; hard to imagine?!

By Jaime A. Headden (not verified) on 02 Sep 2006 #permalink

I am always slightly uncomfortable with claims about "being too poor not to shop at Wal-mart". From 1996 to 2001 my family (first two, then three people) lived on the earnings of a single worker making ten dollars an hour - our yearly gross income varied from 18k to 21k a year, depending on how many hours could be scraped up. Our monthly net income ranged from 700 in a bad month to 1000 if there was plenty of overtime that month.

We never shopped at Walmart.

That being said I do think that a lot of Walmart bashing out there is un-called for - they've developed a sound business model which is working successfully for them, and which is legal. Those of us who are uncomfortable with the ramifications of their business (loss of locally owned businesses, etc) need to be voting with our dollars and shopping elsewhere (hopefully at those locally owned businesses instead).

By PennyBright (not verified) on 02 Sep 2006 #permalink

Funny thing - I was just discussing food for the poor on another blog. I should have been clearer - I am too poor to justify spending more than I have to on food, thus I shop Wal Mart. Part of why I shop there is also that I appreciate the fact that they are trying to comply with demands from a lot of fronts that are not neccesarily going to be immensly profitable for them.

Wal-Mart probably wants to increase the loyalty of their workforce. This WILL pay off.

Yes, what they do will pay off for them. I don't even think it is a matter of employee loyalty - they get a lot of that all ready - it's just about increasing their customer base. But a large segment of the "wal mart bashers" are never going to shop there, never going to work there, no matter what they do - yet they do it anyways to get the few who will. My point is, they would expierience growth and immense profits anyways - just not quite as much. I.e. they really don't have to make the effort - it wouldn't hurt them in the least not too.

Another reason that I try to support Wal Mart is that I would like to see them come out pushing for some form of universal healthcare in this country. Some larger companies are starting to get into the idea and if Wal Mart joins in the chorus it is likely to have a fair impact on the debate. Being a big supporter of UHC, I would really love to see this happen.

I should also mention that joining the Gay and Lesbian chamber of commerce alone would be a good reason to show them some support - writing them to mention ones appreciation is always handy too. . .

Another reason that I try to support Wal Mart is that I would like to see them come out pushing for some form of universal healthcare in this country. Some larger companies are starting to get into the idea and if Wal Mart joins in the chorus it is likely to have a fair impact on the debate.

I am also in favor of universal *basic* health coverage. However, support for it from big companies might not be as altruistic as it sounds. Big companies sometimes support "more government" to kill smaller competition. Burdens which any increase in social spending will put on all companies be bearable for the big ones, but can put smaller ones out of business. And big companies have more political leverage to shape the law in such a way that it doesn't hurt them too much.

By Roman Werpachowski (not verified) on 02 Sep 2006 #permalink

I don't begin to pretend that the motives of big business to support UHC are remotely altruistic - they are far from it. But for some, such as GM, it may be a matter of survival - as their healthcare costs are killing them.

As for small business. I am a small business owner and the one of the challenges I face is the health of potential employees. Right now I don't have any but as my handy service is growing and I am occasionaly picking up bigger jobs I am looking at taking on another person within the next six months or so. Not only don't I have the ability to provide health insurance I don't even have it myself. With UHC I wouldn't have to worry about my employee getting sick and not being able to take care of it - not to mention I would lose less time when I get sick. The better the productivity I can get out of my workers the better my business will do.

I just don't see my motivation for UHC any different than that of big business - but even if they were different, I would be glad to have them as an ally. I take the same attitude with libertarians. I support the same premise they do when it comes to social/civil issues yet am in polar opposition to them when it comes to economic issues, being something of a socialist. But where our beliefs coincide I find myself their ally even while I will fight them tooth and nail when it comes to issues like UHC. My problem with the dems v repubs is that it doesn't foster the environment that allows for such alliances and debates. By neccesity our current system breaks down into an either or mentality instead of a, what about options c,d,e,f,g mentality.

Party loyalty, any party loyalty splits off some of a person's loyalty to their country. I am not saying that is essential that everyone be some sort of uber-patriot but lets get past these stupid, divisive, parties.

Can you tell me what drives the cost of health insurance so high that even a small business owner cannot afford it? How much would you have to pay for a decent insurance?

By Roman Werpachowski (not verified) on 03 Sep 2006 #permalink

I just checked the costs of private health insurance in Poland. The most expensive package at one of the providers is 200 PLN/month. This is about 60 USD/month, and less than 10% of average salary in Poland.

Don't you have TWO problems in the USA?

1. no UHC
2. bloated health care cost

By Roman Werpachowski (not verified) on 03 Sep 2006 #permalink

Not really contributing to the discussion at all here but Ed, from someone who enjoys a good rant himself, may I compliment you on an inspired cocktail of vitriol, contempt and sarcasm. Well done!
*sound of enthusiastic transatlantic applause*

We won't let you desecrate Walmart, the last vestige of the garden of eden itself in the midst of our Sodomite culture.

LOL!

*wipes tears*

Ohhh. Thanks Ed. I've suffered a debilitating computer virus and have been unable to get online on for over a week. I was starting to have serious withdrawel systems, but man- this cleared it right up.

Ed, I just wanted to set the record straight regarding this comment:

Walmart, like virtually every other company in the nation, provides it for their management employees but not their hourly employees (they may have programs for hourly employees, but I can't imagine they're really affordable for them).

Wal-Mart does, in fact, offer health insurance to hourly employees (of which I am one). And it is, in fact, quite affordable. And I'm not talking some bare-bones plan, the coverage is pretty comprehensive. (Hell, I've heard of it covering trips to the Mayo Clinic.)

You do have to work there a year before you can enroll, but waiting periods are normal, aren't they? (They are in every job I've had).

The critics like to claim that 50% or so of Wal-Mart employees lack insurance. What they fail to mention is that some of those are still in the waiting period, and many others choose not to get the company's insurance because their spouse has insurance from another workplace and it's not needed. For anyone who wants it, it's available and affordable and there's no problem.

That being said, I admit to having plenty of complaints about my company. Generally they are matters of internal operations that wouldn't mean much to someone who doesn't work there. But the criticisms usually tossed around by the public at large (and the professional critics) are often inaccurate, misleading, or downright dishonest, which is why I will often take the time to correct them.

I don't believe in people being discriminated against, but I think Walmart is making a mistake accepting the same sex marriage. Marriage as God defines it is between a man and a woman. It was never intended to be two men or two women. I think things will only get worse in todays society if more people just act like homosexuality is just a normal thing or you don't really agree with their lifestyle but you shouldn't speak up against it. This is not my opinion, but anyone who believes in God and believes what the Bible says to be true would see that Homosexuality is a sin. We cannot judge others ourselves, but God is the one who will judge them in the end.

By sherry butler (not verified) on 07 Sep 2006 #permalink

I was not happy when I heared from someone today that their preacher said they should not shop at Walmart anymore because of Walmart's supporting Gay Marriage's Rights. I remember hearing once that Sam Walton was a very religious person. I know that Sam Walton was very interested in his store being wholesome and a family store.
I am so sure that Sam would not be happy supporting same sex marriage and Gay rights.

By shirley butler (not verified) on 07 Sep 2006 #permalink

Well gosh, sherry or shirley or whatever your name is, thank you for stopping by to say virtually nothing.