Target makes things worse

Target donated money to a group that then supported a bigoted candidate for governor in Minnesota this past election cycle. (The guy lost.) This caused problems with non-bigots, especially the ones who are being actively denied rights. As a result, many pro equal marriage protests have been taking place against Target stores across the country, including in San Diego. Now Target has decided to make things worse for itself:

Target Corp. is suing a San Diego pro-gay marriage group to get it to stop canvassing outside its San Diego County stores, alleging its activists are driving away customers.

Yeah, that’s kind of the point of protests. Now expect a lot more of them, Target.


17 Responses

  1. I love target, fantastic pretzel selection.

  2. Aww, now I have to go to the Super Walmart instead of the Super Target (or check out BJ’s Wholesale club).

    The Super Target here in Florida has an entire aisle of wines in the supermarket section, right next to the entire aisle of beers.

  3. Are you implying that the Target corporation takes an anti-gay stance?

  4. I’m saying the way to shed the image of being anti-gay/pro-Republican is not to sue groups of gay people.

  5. Of course, they are one of those special, protected groups that can’t be criticized or sued without provoking claims of hatred.

  6. Actually, they don’t receive protection in many states. Indeed, you contributed to making sure they wouldn’t be protected in Maine when you voted in favor of bigotry.

    But this goes for any group. Target is making a mistake by suing them. The better tactic would be for the company to go out of its way, especially in San Diego, to prove that it is actively pro-equality.

  7. Perhaps they shouldn’t be actively trying to cause damage. That’s exactly the goal of the “protest” as you pointed out yourself. If you want to cause damage than you shouldn’t be surprised or upset when you get sued.

    I doubt we’ll see more protests anyway. Not everyone can waste time carrying signs and harassing passerby indefinitely, some people have to work.

  8. You’re right. Gays don’t work.

  9. Is that what I said? You think all those protesters are gay?

  10. What you indicated is that liberals, especially those who are gay and who support equal rights for gays, are lazy and don’t work, instead focusing on issues of “damage” to your precious fucking corporations – you know, those corporations that DO NOT help America, those corporations which advocate for making money through policies which hurt labor and fair wages, those corporations which don’t pay taxes, instead sucking at the teat of the taxpayer (more than any of those wretched poor people ever have).

    I believe that’s what you said.

  11. Oh no, Its just a simple observation. I have observed that while a lot of the tea party events end up on weekends, the more liberals ones go on for days or weeks. Think of the teachers that just decided they weren’t going to teach for 3 weeks in Wisconsin.

  12. If the goal of a protest is to disrupt business, you pretty much have to hold the protest during business hours.

    And yes, that is an entirely legitimate goal, by the way.

  13. And a perfectly legitimate response to sue them for the damages they are causing. Pointlessly. I haven’t seen widespread protests yet Michael.

  14. How is it legitimate to sue citizens for exercising their right to freedom of speech and assembly? By contrast, there is no “right” to profits.

  15. As is so often said: “your right to swing ends at my nose.” Certainly you have a right to say anything you want and assemble anyplace you want. You do not, however, have the right to cause damages to others while you exercise those rights.

    I’m surprised you think it should be otherwise.

    Tell me what you would think of a picket line at the end of a homosexuals driveway, preventing him/her from going to work. There is no right to profit/work is there? Yet I doubt you would disagree that the individual could sue for damages, at the very least.

  16. Actually, I would disagree that a lawsuit is in order, as long as the protestors are on public land and obeying the law.

    Cutting into a corporation’s profits is not illegal.

  17. I haven’t said that they should sue. Only that they are just as well within their rights to do so as these fools are to protest. The fact that they may have a case to seek damages is beside the point.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: