Target’s Action Directly Supports Homophobia
It’s not Target shareholders, or Target employees, who are donating to the campaign of a homophobe. It is the corporation itself.
<snip>
(A)ny time a corporation puts corporate money-- funds that the organization has earned but has not paid out to individual shareholders, funds that belong to the corporation as an entity – towards the support of a candidate, that organization is directly supporting the views of that candidate.
<snip>
Sure, folks are going to say “But what about all Target’s other support of the gay community? Shouldn’t that count?”
Certainly, that track record of real support matters. But, if the executives of Target don’t demonstrate their corporation’s claimed values in each and every action — from health insurance to marriage rights — their claims to hold those values aren’t authentic.
A corporation that truly supported it’s LGBTQ employees and customers? A corporation truly dedicated to diversity and inclusion? That corporation would decline to contribute to a homophobic candidate.
If they could not find a pro-diversity candidate with economic policies they also liked, they would sit it out.
It really is that simple.
Really.
More:
Target Misses the Mark on Diversity: Corporate Donation equals Corporate HomophobiaNow do you get it?
Socially-conscious progressives don't go boycotting willy-nilly, you know -- or, in your words, "fly off the handle" (a phrase that really grates on me in this case) for no good reason.
Some of us understand the difference between the frivolity of boycotting the entire Starbucks chain because one Joe Schmuck barista donated ten bucks to Prop H8, and taking legal, nonviolent, and often effective action against
the decision makers of a company demonstrating that said company's so-called "commitment to diversity" is just so much horseshit when it comes down to dollars and cents.
You also wrote:
"My take is that Target, Best Buy, etc etc donated because of the fiscal policies (which I don't agree with) they support without thinking beyond that to the social policies of someone like Emmert."
And how would you suggest we make it clear that there are consequences to donating corporate money to bigots (especially those who are buddies with potential gay-killers)?
It isn't my fault the Target suits failed to investigate the potential beneficiaries of their newfound corporate personhood before they started throwing money at one.
Bad P.R. and a hit in the pocketbook may just make them more cautious in the future.
Again:
A corporation that truly supported it’s LGBTQ employees and customers? A corporation truly dedicated to diversity and inclusion? That corporation would decline to contribute to a homophobic candidate.
If they could not find a pro-diversity candidate with economic policies they also liked, they would sit it out.
It really is that simple.
Really.
One more thing: You do realize, don't you, that this is a direct result of
Citizens United? And that this is only the beginning of many such incidents to come? And that if we don't find a way to come down, hard, on companies taking advantage of the most asinine, undemocratic decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the past half-century, the Target dust-up is going to seem like a picnic?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
