Post 44 is irrelevant to my point. Post 44 does nothing to dispute the fact that the AFA article at the top of this thread is either intentionally misleading or unintentionally ridiculous.
Like many online retailers, Wal-Mart has an affiliates program that lets other Web sites sign up with little or no scrutiny. I don't have any particular problem with that. Perhaps I should. But, I wouldn't be surprised if legally, they can't pick and choose who their affiliates are, any more than they can pick and choose who their customers are.
Regardless, thanks to this incident, AFA has lost some credibility with me. From now on, whenever I see any sort of 'warning' from AFA, I'll either go over it with a fine-toothed comb, or I'll ignore the AFA altogether and expect a more credible organization will sound the alarm if the issue is actually worthy of my attention.
They can't choose their customers? If someone's a pain, disruptive, criminal - they can refuse service (in this PC day and age, it may be troublesome, but they can do it) and kick them out.
Don't tell me Wal-Mart may not take down the "affiliation". I'm sure they could be unaware of these anonymous set-ups. Once they find out, they may be able to cancel it.
If they may not, it's because of PC legalistic nonsense. But in the real world of nature, it would be their perfect right. Just like it's the right of us to not shop at Wal-Mart because of their association or for any other reason.
You've said that before as well as others have, but I still don't see it. The following text is directly from the AFA article:
In a show of support to help homosexuals legalize same-sex marriage, Wal-Mart has agreed to automatically donate 5% of online sales directly to the Washington DC Community Center for Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender People. The cash donation will come from ALL online purchases made at Wal-Mart through the homosexual group's Web site. This move follows Wal-Mart's joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and agreeing to give generous financial help to that group.According to the facts as I've read them, the above is accurate. In what way is the article either intentionally misleading or unintentionally ridiculous.