Not to me, it sounds like saying it is best to do business with the worst because that will incent everybody better than them. But if that's the logic I'm interested in hearing it.

Not to incent everybody, just Target.

And I never said to do business with the worst. I was going on the premise (quite debatable, I'm sure) that Target is about as good as a liberal is going to get in the mega retail category, so one temporarily goes elsewhere, not expecting the alternatives to be better (if they were better, you woulda switched already) but hoping to hurt Target enough to change course. I'm not committed to this, just tossing naive thoughts around.

To a corporation taxes and business laws have much more of an impact on them than gay marriage and other social issues. Whether or not their gay employees can get married have nothing to do with their revenue or tax liability.

Target and Disney have chosen to offer the same benefits to all employees regardless of sexual orientation. That's what they should be doing. It would be nice if candidates who were supporting gay rights were also supporting business practices that the major corporations are after but for now it seems that 'business friendly' candidates are also the gay-unfriendly ones. Perhaps this is what we (collective we) should focus on changing. Personal boycotts aren't going to change anything and short of growing your own food (better get those seeds from a 'clean' organization) and making your own clothes (better make sure the fabric, and machinery is from a 'clean' organization) you're always going to be giving money to someone who supports something you disagree with.

I get what you're saying. But if you go to #2 to incent #1, why not go to #3 to incent #1 and #2. And so on. Those who get punished most are those who do the best, it seems backward to me.

Another way of saying I have a problem with the logic is a parent with two kids. One has always been well behaved and responsible. The other one is always getting in trouble and being a general pain in the ass. They both get caught stealing a car together. So you punish the good kid more because he's always been a good and you do nothing to the bad kid because he behaved as you'd expect. I know some parents for whom that logic will make sense, but it doesn't to me.

Though I understand it in a way. As I tell Lani, she's the only person who can truly piss me off and make me out-of-control angry because it feels like a betrayal every time I'm forced to realize she isn't perfect (and vice versa, I can make her angry in ways nobody else can). Not that this is fair.

I doubt that going to #3 would incent #2, especially if I have not been a loyal customer of either. (And going to #5 would probably not even register with #'s 2 through 4 at all.) The goal is to get Target's attention. An endless regress of supporting ever more vile businesses wouldn't serve that goal, or any.

Corporations aren't individuals, so I can't quite see an applicable logic to the parenting example. (I would try to punish both kids equally - in reaction to that one incident - but would certainly be more shocked by the actions of the usually good one - at least, that's what I tell my childless self.) However, underlying a lot of the public anger is, I'm sure, a sense that Target has been and ought to be better. (Whether or not they ever have been, I just don't know) So, what is the best way to get their attention? The only leverage we've got is our dollars. I have some sympathy with those who want to take action now rather than see a store they have felt good about slowly become just like the others. (Again, it may already be, and may always have been.)

Absolutely, those we care about most can drive us the buggiest!

I believe the only way I could find a store that was completely aligned with my beliefs would be to open a store of my own.

I kinda think Target has more influence giving $ to a bad guy to get a seat at the table with the bad guy to tell their story (e.g. we offer benefits to partners of gay employees what's the big deal?) vs. not giving $ to a bad guy and having no influence to make him/her change.

We're just saying the same thing over and over. But one more try.

Why is this the goal? Target is a company that has given 95% of what is wanted on the gay rights issues.

If the driving goal is to get the other 5% then I agree that the PR of a boycott may make sense.

What I question is why getting that 5% would be the driving goal when there are 50 companies out there that only give 5% of what is wanted. That said, I recognize that the real political game here is not targeting Target but getting press attention on Emmer's anti-gay positions. Fine, I'm ok with that political game. I just can't work up any actual outrage for Target and I suspect neither can most of the organizations presenting otherwise.

Demanding absolute ideological purity may bring personal comfort, but it can also put you on the fringes and negate any effectiveness for seeming completely unreasonable. If all being at the forefront of gay rights gets you is prominent denunciations for for any remaining lapse then why bother?


PETA ends up looking unreasonable as a whole even when making reasonable demands about animal treatment because equate as equally bad killing cockroaches in the home and shooting roman candles out the asses of cats.

Yes, I think the driving goal is to get that other 5%. (If that other 5% can be understood as not supporting candidates who oppose gay marriage - I don't really know how percentages can be figured on such things) It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to want Target to avoid supporting candidates as outspokenly anti-gay as Emmer. (As opposed to, say, asking Target to be completely politically progressive. Demanding ideological purity would indeed be stupid, and I don't think anyone proposing a boycott is asking for that.)

I'm not feeling any outrage - more of an eye-rolling sense of "Well, of course they aren't as cool as I was hoping. *sigh*"

Actually, I hadn't considered the negative attention to Emmer angle, but, yeah, I'm totally on board with that!

Edited to add - Yes, getting better from the other less enlightened companies would be a really good goal too.

Visible mojo to Marla since Le iPhone is making it difficult to give her Mojo mojo.