Boycott...Target?
 

Perhaps you've heard? There's some really bad news.

Target and Best Buy donated large sums to support an anti-gay marriage gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota.

Yup. Let the boycott begin.

Target says their "support of the GLBT community is unwavering" and only supported the candidate for business reasons. Um, weak.

It's a huge, huge bummer. I go to Target constantly. I spent hundreds of dollars there on baby stuff and have been buying all my diapers there. Seems like any time we need anything for the house, there we are. Target gave me my first credit card when no one else would.

As the article above mentions, the gay community thought Target was on their side, so the backlash is going to be pretty big. I would gamble that before long Target will donate a large sum to a gay friendly candidate. If they made the statement (which in itself can alienate homophobes), the action must follow.

There's a group on Facebook and Target's page is inundated with comments.

Sigh. I hope this resolves soon.

Sure, I'll go along. But then it has been years since I was in a Target (I grew up in a town without Wal-Marts, Target was Wal-Mart and got all the cheapo associations).

But if I did go to Target, I wouldn't boycott them for this any more than I'm going to boycott every business who supports the only mainstream Republican candidate for governor in a state.

It may be weak, but I don't seriously doubt that Target is supporting Emmer over the Democratic candidate primarily for reasons related to economic and regulatory policy. I'm not exactly shocked that gay marriage is not the primary driving issue for a public corporation. I do have a problem that a corporation (or any other collective can directly fund electoral advocacy but that's now entirely legal so I can't really blame them for doing it.

If there were a viable fiscally conservative pro-gay marriage Republican running for Minnesota governor then I might find it more appalling that they threw behind Emmer. Target, in terms of how they actually treat gay people has a 100% rating from HRC; ideological purity is a lot to expect from non-ideological entities.

There are many one issue voters, which drive me crazy. Many Republicans will sit out elections rather than vote for a pro-choice republican, and what they don't realize is that this is shooting themselves in the foot. While this isn't an election, it is basically the same idea.

I would encourage you (and everyone) not to be a one issue type of person. If Target generally supports the ideals you believe in, it seems a bit unreasonable to make this one point the driving force in your consumer relationship with them.

What Alex said. As I recall, Target contributed to a PAC that backed the Republican. If one boycotts Target, there's probably a lot more boycotting to be done. That said, as more of our local downtown stores shutter, I will happily boycott Target. At least until the one that's been the subject of all the litigation finally moves into Petaluma.

I think that if this boycott sticks and Target responds, it may be a bellwether moment. You're right in pointing out that most businesses donate to conservatives for economic reasons and not much has been done by liberals to respond.

The thing is, if one really believes that abortion is the killing of a baby that should have the right to live (which I do not, just illustrating a point), or that opposing gay marriage rights is just as wrong as prohibiting interracial marriage, it changes the game. If a candidate supported your economic policies but was a self-declared racist, would you still vote for him? Don't tell me there are no make-or-break issues.

No I wouldn't vote for that canddiate. But depending on the degree to which that candidate was running on a single issue I also wouldn't boycott every business and person who donated to or voted for that candidate.

To me, boycotting Target because they support a Republican candidate who also (not supporting because) opposes gay marriage (which is still the majority opinion in this country as wrong as it is) is as sensible as Baptists boycotting Disney because they granted partner benefits.

Will there be calls for boycott of every business that directly or indirectly supports the candidacy of Meg Whitman, who also opposes gay marriage? Or Barack Obama (who also, at least publicly, does not support gay marriage)?

But if you're a single issue voter then by all means boycott. I'm just explaining why I won't join. The issue on which my litmus test is based is different.

It sucks that they did that but I agree with what Alex said.

I do have make it or break it issues when it comes to my personal voting choices but gay marriage isn't at the top top of the list.

Where are people proposing you shop if you don't shop at Target? You're supposed to boycott Wal-Mart because they keep their employees hours just barely below what they need to get benefits. Or they did something else.

CVS? Rite-Aid? Their prices are high and selection is low.

Lopsided as it may be, as gays - money's all we've got. We don't have the numbers to wield any political clout. But by and large, we don't have kids - and everyone seems to love our disposable income.

I try to be balanced in many things, and it's true there's no direct line from a contribution to any particular issue a candidate supports.


But gay rights is a make or break issue with me. I appreciate knowing who supports my right with deeds, or with hollow words, or not at all. I can conduct my personal spending accordingly.

I don't know if I'll "boycott" Target, but I'll think before I buy anything there for a while.

While I understand that the reaction to this comes from the fact that Target has in the past actively defined itself as supportive of the gay community, and thus this feels two-faced, I have to agree that the fact that it was a donation to a PAC (which has zero stance one way or the other on gay marriage) that happens to give money to this candidate, rather than a direct donation to the candidate, is an important detail.