There's a guy here, well, actually he's a girl now and her name is Marcy. She very conservative and is involved in a lot of political causes. She is furious about the Target thing and will not shop there anymore. She completely understands that this isn't about "real" transgendered people. That Caitlyn Jenner belongs in a girls bathroom. But gender fluid "Harry" needs to use the bathroom of his biological gender.

THIS is the crux of the whole thing -

Perhaps most important, this boycott is not about disagreement with a political position taken by a company. It does not ask families to pay more, or change their behavior, merely to punish some large, faceless corporation for saying or doing something politically left-wing, anti-American, or stupid. This boycott also is not about whether homosexuals or transgender people are to be shown respect, or even whether their lifestyles are to be celebrated in a public space. This boycott is about the safety of our children. There is no concern, here, with any kind of virtue-signaling on the part of those boycotting Target. One can be a strong supporter of the rights of homosexuals and of transgender persons (not the same thing, it should be noted) while being appalled at Target’s policy and, more importantly, not wanting to go to Target so long as that policy is in place.

apple wrote:

---

If the boycott is even mildly successful in reducing sales and customers, the people that will be hurt are the store clerks... suffering from reduced hours and employee layoffs, and their families will suffer as well. In any siege, the vulnerable get hurt first. I guess their lives don't matter.

---

 If the Target corporation takes the losses out on them, rather than the executives that made this bad decision, that is on them, too. You don't get to blame the public for the corporation's policies. But nice try.

Here's a thought to chew on.

This is not a new store policy. Supposedly, it's been store policy since the day the doors opened that transgendered people could use which ever bathroom they are most comfortable using.

IF that's the case.

WHY the public announcement?

Are there other reasons?

Kickbacks maybe?

And then there is the publicity.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Here's a thought to chew on.

This is not a new store policy. Supposedly, it's been store policy since the day the doors opened that transgendered people could use which ever bathroom they are most comfortable using.

IF that's the case.

WHY the public announcement?

Are there other reasons?

Kickbacks maybe?

And then there is the publicity.

---

 thanks Lily, it has always been the policy as far as I can tell.

Target made this announcement in response to NC Govt announced their anti TG laws.

-- Edited by apple on Tuesday 10th of May 2016 06:29:34 PM

apple wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Here's a thought to chew on.

This is not a new store policy. Supposedly, it's been store policy since the day the doors opened that transgendered people could use which ever bathroom they are most comfortable using.

IF that's the case.

WHY the public announcement?

Are there other reasons?

Kickbacks maybe?

And then there is the publicity.

---

 thanks Lily, it has always been the policy as far as I can tell.

---

 Ok. So? 

There are other questions there. 

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

If the boycott is even mildly successful in reducing sales and customers, the people that will be hurt are the store clerks... suffering from reduced hours and employee layoffs, and their families will suffer as well. In any siege, the vulnerable get hurt first. I guess their lives don't matter.

---

 If the Target corporation takes the losses out on them, rather than the executives that made this bad decision, that is on them, too. You don't get to blame the public for the corporation's policies. But nice try.

---

 Nice try?  

 

Its a fact, this boycott will effect people who just want to work for a living. That is if it is successful and y'all shut down Target.

---

 And a new chain will quickly move in, probably one is already planning the strategy.  The workers will have jobs with the new owners.  Happens everyday in business. The losers are the stockholders.

And they will, see my post part two

There are many reasons Target would take a position on such a charge issue. It is consistent with its previous actions on LGTB issues, including featuring same-sex couples in its promotional materials. Target also is making a push for more affluent and more urban shoppers, which tend to skew progressive on social issues. And, as the retailer competes for the best tech talent for its e-commerce efforts in Silicon Valley, where major tech companies from Apple AAPL 0.68% to Salesforce.com CRM 1.74% have been at the forefront of the fight for LBGT rights, Target can ill afford to be seen not inclusive.

Indeed, those are pretty much the same reasons Walmart, WMT -0.23% with its presumably more conservative customers, last year pressured Arkansas’ governor to veto a so-called “religious” freedom bill that opponents said would allow business to discriminate against LGBT people.

At the same time, given the current state of retail- Target’s comparable sales rose a hard-fought 2% last year – if those 1 million people indeed do boycott Target, it could be painful.

But it looks as though such campaigns rarely hurt a company. Target and Starbucks SBUX 1.50% have in the past angered conservative shoppers with stands on LGBT rights and for asking shoppers to keep guns outside of their stores even when local laws allow it, and both companies’ sales continue to grow. Ditto Apple, Facebook FB 0.96% and Google GOOG 1.44% .

So, the odds are, this will blow over.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/28/target-transgender-bathroom-petition/

Tolerance is a HUGE difference than putting children in danger.

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

If the boycott is even mildly successful in reducing sales and customers, the people that will be hurt are the store clerks... suffering from reduced hours and employee layoffs, and their families will suffer as well. In any siege, the vulnerable get hurt first. I guess their lives don't matter.

---

 If the Target corporation takes the losses out on them, rather than the executives that made this bad decision, that is on them, too. You don't get to blame the public for the corporation's policies. But nice try.

---

 Nice try?  

 

Its a fact, this boycott will effect people who just want to work for a living. That is if it is successful and y'all shut down Target.

---

 They can go work for the other stores that pick up the customers. That's how a free market works.

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

And where was your concern for all those Canadian clerks that lost their jobs when t MN Target failed spectacularly in Canada? You and yours obviously didn't care enough about them to keep the stores open.

---

 I was not protesting target, I just didn't like the prices. They had nothing really to offer that the existing stores didn't have. 

---

 And the stores were not the same as US Target.  The products were of lower quality.  There was no benefit to shopping there.  It was pointless.  They imported junk from China, got busted by their market and went bankrupt.  For THAT I felt that the employees definitely got the short end of the stick.  If Target had done it properly it wouldn't have been an issue.

Tignanello wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

And where was your concern for all those Canadian clerks that lost their jobs when t MN Target failed spectacularly in Canada? You and yours obviously didn't care enough about them to keep the stores open.

---

 I was not protesting target, I just didn't like the prices. They had nothing really to offer that the existing stores didn't have. 

---

 And the stores were not the same as US Target.  The products were of lower quality.  There was no benefit to shopping there.  It was pointless.  They imported junk from China, got busted by their market and went bankrupt.  For THAT I felt that the employees definitely got the short end of the stick.  If Target had done it properly it wouldn't have been an issue.

---

 So you had your reasons for not shopping there.  Other people have theirs.  Yours are not more valid or important.

Hypocrite....

I couldn't read beyond this statement:

Conservatives are conservative precisely because they value family and faith above politics. We do not virtue-signal in the manner (or to the extent) of typical progressives, for whom driving a Prius or noisily boycotting Israel is a source of instant self-satisfaction. Rather, conservatives seek to do their best for their families and to lead decent lives within given circumstances.

What BS.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

I couldn't read beyond this statement:

Conservatives are conservative precisely because they value family and faith above politics. We do not virtue-signal in the manner (or to the extent) of typical progressives, for whom driving a Prius or noisily boycotting Israel is a source of instant self-satisfaction. Rather, conservatives seek to do their best for their families and to lead decent lives within given circumstances.

What BS.

flan

---

 So you didn't read the article?  Please don't bother to comment, then.  It would be an ignorant, ill-informed bunch of words and crap.

My mother has been calling the stores around here asking if they are allowing men in the women's room. When they say if they identify as a woman, she tells them she will not be shopping there anymore.

Stock is up $2 over last week. If this is what happens when people boycott...keep it up! I might be able to retire early!

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Stock is up $2 over last week. If this is what happens when people boycott...keep it up! I might be able to retire early!

---

 Where are you getting your numbers?

 

I heard it was down as well. Sorry if that affects you, MM.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I couldn't read beyond this statement:

Conservatives are conservative precisely because they value family and faith above politics. We do not virtue-signal in the manner (or to the extent) of typical progressives, for whom driving a Prius or noisily boycotting Israel is a source of instant self-satisfaction. Rather, conservatives seek to do their best for their families and to lead decent lives within given circumstances.

What BS.

flan

---

 So you didn't read the article?  Please don't bother to comment, then.  It would be an ignorant, ill-informed bunch of words and crap.

---

 You say that like it would any different from the norm.

---

 I don't understand why you talk about yourself like that...

flan

Again, why would you think that I cared one iota about your opinion?

flan

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

And where was your concern for all those Canadian clerks that lost their jobs when t MN Target failed spectacularly in Canada? You and yours obviously didn't care enough about them to keep the stores open.

---

 I was not protesting target, I just didn't like the prices. They had nothing really to offer that the existing stores didn't have. 

---

 And the stores were not the same as US Target.  The products were of lower quality.  There was no benefit to shopping there.  It was pointless.  They imported junk from China, got busted by their market and went bankrupt.  For THAT I felt that the employees definitely got the short end of the stick.  If Target had done it properly it wouldn't have been an issue.

---

 So you had your reasons for not shopping there.  Other people have theirs.  Yours are not more valid or important.

---

 I disagree (not on the valid or important part) but I think that there is a difference between making a political choice to not support a business because their values or ethics don't align with yours or choosing to not shop somewhere because they have nothing you want to buy.

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

And where was your concern for all those Canadian clerks that lost their jobs when t MN Target failed spectacularly in Canada? You and yours obviously didn't care enough about them to keep the stores open.

---

 I was not protesting target, I just didn't like the prices. They had nothing really to offer that the existing stores didn't have. 

---

 And the stores were not the same as US Target.  The products were of lower quality.  There was no benefit to shopping there.  It was pointless.  They imported junk from China, got busted by their market and went bankrupt.  For THAT I felt that the employees definitely got the short end of the stick.  If Target had done it properly it wouldn't have been an issue.

---

 So you had your reasons for not shopping there.  Other people have theirs.  Yours are not more valid or important.

---

 I disagree (not on the valid or important part) but I think that there is a difference between making a political choice to not support a business because their values or ethics don't align with yours or choosing to not shop somewhere because they have nothing you want to buy.

---

 Thank you, I was not trying to make a statement by not shopping there.