Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fed-up Wal-Mart worker quits over pro-'gay' agenda
WorldNetDaily ^ | November 1, 2006 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 11/01/2006 4:19:04 AM PST by Man50D

Sam Walton's original stores wouldn't even sell recorded music if it contained profanity and Janet Baird was happy working hard to make the company money, setting up and managing wedding fairs and other promotions, and won awards for her efforts.

She and her husband even married at one of the store's events.

But no more. The Ohio woman, after hearing the shocking confirmation directly from the mega-corporation's international headquarters that the company is, in fact, contributing to the financial and moral agenda of the nation's "gay" chamber of commerce, she quit. And she's not a bit worried.

"I got God backing me. That's where I stand on it," she told WND in an interview.

Baird had worked for the corporation, in various branches including Sam's Club and Wal-Mart, since 1992. It was a recent tip she received from her brother that was the beginning of the end, because he told her "my company had joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce."

It was during an interview with WND in August that Wal-Mart spokesman Bob McAdam said, "It is correct that we have a dialogue with the (gay chamber). This is just what businesses do."

"Sam Walton was such a moral man, he wouldn't even allow music to be sold in his stores if it had bad language," Baird said. "When it comes to moral values, first of all they started selling smutty magazines, then they brought in nasty music and videos, even ones others refused to sell, like 'Brokeback Mountain.'"

Now this comes along. "I sent an e-mail (to the company) asking, 'What have you done to Sam Walton's store?" Baird said.

McAdam had told WND the move was just another business outreach, much as the company's affiliations with other chambers of commerce, such as the Hispanic organization.

But to Baird, it wasn't the same. She called the corporate office for its response. "The lady said, 'Yes.' When I asked if the money I spent shopping at Wal-Mart would go to support same-sex marriage, she simply responded, 'Sales are sales.'"

"I let her know how long I had worked at Wal-Mart and told her that I would no longer work for this company and never spend another dime there. She replied, 'I hope you don't mean that.' I did mean it. The next day I went to the store and quit. The manager that signed my exit papers had no idea about what had been going on in the leadership of Wal-Mart."

Now she's staging protests in front of that store, and others nearby, to let people know of the company's affiliations and commitments.

She said a large part of her years-long commitment to the company was because of the original core values the company exemplified.

"I began working with Sam's Club in 1992. Mr. Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart Stores, had recently passed away. The more I learned about this man the more I wanted to do what I could to make this an ever better place to work.

"I worked in marketing and put together the first wedding expo. This was a fund-raiser that allowed vendors to set up for a weekend and all the proceeds went to the Children's Miracle Network. It was a huge success," she said.

"This became a yearly event. I was so proud to work for this company. I was privileged to be the event coordinator for a number of Wal-Mart sponsored events and raised a lot of money in the community," she said.

One beneficiary was a young man named Luke Clemons. He was 18 and needed a liver transplant. "We managed to raise enough money for (the) transplant and start a Luke Clemons Foundation," Baird said. He survived four more years.

For that work, she was given a Member Service Award.

"This was not a job to me, it was a ministry given to me by God Himself to help His people in need and get paid for it at the same time," Baird said.

But things changed. "Today Wal-Mart is not the same company Mr. Sam started. I think he would rather see it go under than to see what it has become. Mr. Sam loved God – the store he began does not!" she said.

Her boycott is getting its start in front of the store where she used to work, on the Lexington Springmill Road in Ontario, and then at the nearby store in Mansfield, Ohio, and then will continue to other stores.

"As Christians we have to take a stand and get the word out because most people are not aware of what is happening," she said.

Her big boycott launch will be the Friday after Thanksgiving, November 24, she said, because that traditionally is the biggest single shopping day of the year.

"We will be joining all of you on the day after Thanksgiving … to bring the Gospel of Christ to the very gates of hell," she said.

She's replaced only part of the income she gave up by leaving Wal-Mart, by accepting a position in a physician's office.

When Wal-Mart initially confirmed the agreement to support the "gay" chamber, Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., immediately launched a citizens protest of the move.

It also was at that point that an advertising industry site, AdAge, confirmed Wal-Mart not only had joined the NGLCC but also has hired a "gay-marketing" shop and started discussions about extending domestic-partner benefits to employees.

In the AdAge report, Justin Nelson of the NGLCC described the company as "pragmatic."

"They have been viewed with some degree of skepticism by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community, and it's important for them in terms of gaining market share to change that," he told AdAge.

Perkins told supporters that the "heat" from the "radical left" apparently influenced the company's corporate decisions, and he wants constituents to let Wal-Mart know of their displeasure.

"While the NGLCC professes to promote the 'interests of the LGBT business community,' this is not all they have done," Perkins said. "Recently, they described efforts to defend traditional marriage as an attempt to 'write discrimination into the Constitution …' The NGLCC also advocated attaching a pro-homosexual 'hate crimes' amendment to legislation intended to protect children from violent sex offenders."

"It is unfortunate," Perkins said, "that Wal-Mart has joined forces with an organization whose mission opposes many of the values shared by rural and small-town America. It is precisely the interests of average Americans that Wal-Mart has prided itself in promoting.

"Now, by surrendering to the radical homosexual lobby, Wal-Mart has entered the political arena with no economic benefit to their company or their customers," he said.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; walmart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

1 posted on 11/01/2006 4:19:06 AM PST by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Sam is probably spinning in his grave.


2 posted on 11/01/2006 4:23:49 AM PST by flynmudd (Proud Navy Mom to OSSR Richard T. Blalock-DDG 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Now this is a woman with principals! We should be more like her and this agenda would be defeated. God bless her.


3 posted on 11/01/2006 4:32:08 AM PST by trustandobey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

One of the companies top executives led the dialogue with NLGC, I understand.

I don't have his name handy but it is probably worth mentioning at some time in the future.

I think a lot of people are experiencing a deep disappointment with the company that Sam Walton built on higher standards than people like Lee Scott have.


4 posted on 11/01/2006 4:33:41 AM PST by Nextrush (Communism died in the Soviet Union, but Diversity lives on everywhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I personally used to love shopping at WalMart, but when they put up all their signs in English AND Spanish, I rarely go there now. Our community has Japanese, Vietnamese, Russian, Chinese and several others beside Mexicans.


5 posted on 11/01/2006 4:33:47 AM PST by YellowRoseofTx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I hope Sam is turning in his grave! I've been a very ardent supporter of Wal-Mart for 30 years! I will not buy from there again, unless they drop this agenda now.


6 posted on 11/01/2006 4:40:24 AM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D; 4CJ
Meanwhile--those quitting for the same reasons at GM, HP, APPLE etc. sure in the heck don't make the snews.

Double standard. Nah, not with the lamestream mess??!

7 posted on 11/01/2006 4:40:52 AM PST by 100-Fold_Return (In Prisons Tattletales Are the Same as Child-Molesters...hmm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
"Now, by surrendering to the radical homosexual lobby, Wal-Mart has entered the political arena with no economic benefit to their company or their customers," he said.

One must wonder why so many companies feel it necessary to announce and implement programs and support for such a small segment of the population at the expense of alienating a much larger segment.

Silence on this issue retains the good will of the population that views homosexual behavior as undesirable without antagonizing homosexual practitioners and their supporters. Therefore, it would seem the smart business move for stockholders, customers, employees and everyone else would be “no comment.”
8 posted on 11/01/2006 4:43:55 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

So once more, the assault by the leftists has succeeded in 'taking down' yet another corporation that was formerly based on family values vs. on leftist 'no values'.

How sad.


9 posted on 11/01/2006 4:49:34 AM PST by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

The answer is clear and obvious. WalMart is trying to get the socialist, anti-Corporation leftists off of it's back. The only way to do that is to donate to their leftist causes and to embrace the ideology of the left.

I bet the DemRats/leftists are celebrating everywhere over this.


10 posted on 11/01/2006 4:53:31 AM PST by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
"This was not a job to me, it was a ministry given to me by God Himself to help His people in need and get paid for it at the same time," Baird said

I guess God took His ministry back?

11 posted on 11/01/2006 4:55:33 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

"I got God backing me. That's where I stand on it," she told WND in an interview.

Let me know how much he pays.

The people on these threads are pathetic. If you all boycotted every company that gave a few grand to some gay group, you'd be living out in the woods in a log cabin, chasing rabbits with a stick.

Forget all the good Wal-Mart does and has done, all the people they employ, all the money they save Americans, they **GASP** gave a few thousand bucks to a gay group!

The media has FReepers number with this story. It would be kind of funny were it not so sad.


12 posted on 11/01/2006 5:03:12 AM PST by L98Fiero (Evil is an exact science)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XenaLee

Appeasement never works...A lesson that history teaches over and over, again.


13 posted on 11/01/2006 5:07:01 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

"It is unfortunate," Perkins said, "that Wal-Mart has joined forces with an organization.."

More freakin' spin. I donate to the Unted Way but I have not "joined forces" with them. Ridiculous.

Why don't people stop paying their taxes since a hell of a lot more money from taxes goes to gays than does Wal-Mart money. Come on, Janet Naird, put your holier-than-thou money where your holier-than-thou mouth is. The government gives milllions to these groups. What do you intend to do about that? You could always move to A Middle Eastern country.....please?


14 posted on 11/01/2006 5:09:27 AM PST by L98Fiero (Evil is an exact science)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
Two reasons. One, the gay community isn't that small, only 2% of the population self-identifies as gay on surveys but the real numbers are somewhat bigger. (4% wouldn't surprise me.) More importantly, there are a lot of people who find they have a gay relative or an old friend who turns out to be gay, or gay colleagues. They realize that gays are ordinary people and are no threat to them. So there are plenty of straight people who are sympathetic to gay people now.

But the other reason these companies cater to the gay lobby is that if you want to recruit technical and creative talent for your company, you'd best not be allergic to gay people. And the ones who are straight that you've already hired might be very sympathetic to gay people, and would bolt if you transmitted the message that gay people are not welcome at your firm or might be poorly treated at your firm. (I'm a math professor, so I know a lot of these kind of people. The academic culture at even small red state schools is now very pro-gay, if you are uncomfortable around gay people you're going to be an unhappy camper. It doesn't bother me. My point being that the technical and creative people come from the university environments, and share the same culture.)

15 posted on 11/01/2006 5:15:44 AM PST by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

So...Wal-Mart is run by perverts now....


16 posted on 11/01/2006 5:33:26 AM PST by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Perhaps they should change their name
to Up-Mart, "For the discerning defect!"


17 posted on 11/01/2006 5:35:27 AM PST by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shery
I will not buy from there again, unless they drop this agenda now.

Walmart is shaking in its boots.

18 posted on 11/01/2006 5:37:57 AM PST by opinionator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

Homosexuals are *not* "ordinary people"
nor are they or ever will be "normal".

They are biological, genetic,
sexual, and cultural, defectives.


19 posted on 11/01/2006 5:44:27 AM PST by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


20 posted on 11/01/2006 6:03:53 AM PST by NYer (Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to Heaven. St. Rose of Lima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

So... gay people are the best and brightest among us? Genetically better or are they smarter because they have figured out new and exciting uses for their pee pees?


21 posted on 11/01/2006 6:08:58 AM PST by pgyanke (We can't share the blessings of peace with those for whom violence is holy imperative. -andy58-in-nh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah; WKB

I can find elsewhere to do my business.


22 posted on 11/01/2006 6:10:41 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
Silence on this issue retains the good will of the population that views homosexual behavior as undesirable without antagonizing homosexual practitioners and their supporters. Therefore, it would seem the smart business move for stockholders, customers, employees and everyone else would be “no comment.”

… the gay community isn't that small, only 2% of the population self-identifies as gay on surveys but the real numbers are somewhat bigger. (4% wouldn't surprise me.)

Let’s see… your own figures mean that 96 percent, or more, of the population is not homosexual. Other sources claim that over 80 percent of the population is Christian. Christianity holds that homosexual behavior is sinful and should be avoided. Therefore, even if only half of those who are identified as Christian sincerely hold those beliefs, the proportion of the population that takes offense at homosexual agenda support from a major corporation is many times greater than the proportion you cite as homosexual. Therefore, the logic of my statement continues to stand unrefuted.

More importantly, there are a lot of people who find they have a gay relative or an old friend who turns out to be gay, or gay colleagues. They realize that gays are ordinary people and are no threat to them. So there are plenty of straight people who are sympathetic to gay people now.

Unfortunately, I have a relative who claims to be a lesbian. Such does not make me sympathetic to her in any sense other than sincere regret for her choice and earnest hope for her reform. There is no reason to assume that the majority of others who have a relative in similar circumstances view the situation any differently.

But the other reason these companies cater to the gay lobby is that if you want to recruit technical and creative talent for your company, you'd best not be allergic to gay people.

Again, let’s examine the question raised by the logical implication of your statement. Are you claiming that the distribution of “technical and creative talent” is some how restricted to the homosexual segment of the population? Perhaps, you are implying that there is not an adequate distribution of “technical and creative talent” among those individuals who are not homosexual?

Assuming that “technical and creative talent” follows a Gaussian distribution in the population (as do nearly all other traits), then there is no reason to assume that even if a company actively refused to hire homosexual practitioners, they would exclude more than 2 percent of the potentially available pool of “technical and creative talent.” Stating that position in the reverse, these companies would still have access to 98 percent of the available pool of qualified resources.

And the ones who are straight that you've already hired might be very sympathetic to gay people, and would bolt if you transmitted the message that gay people are not welcome at your firm or might be poorly treated at your firm.

Conversely, those who are straight that you have already hired might be very offended and might bolt if you transmit the message that you support the homosexual agenda… to wit, the individual cited in the article posted at the beginning of this thread.

I'm a math professor, so I know a lot of these kind of people. The academic culture at even small red state schools is now very pro-gay, if you are uncomfortable around gay people you're going to be an unhappy camper.

I served as adjunct faculty for both graduate and undergraduate courses in engineering, forensics and simulation (a field, no doubt, with which you are familiar) at two different universities for a number of years. Amazingly enough, I do not ever recall asking any of my fellow instructors, my students, or the organization administrators about their sexual preference, nor do I recall them volunteering such information. It would seem that silence concerning such personal items was not only appropriate etiquette, but was also conducive to good working relationships. Why would the situation be any different for good business relationships?

It doesn't bother me. My point being that the technical and creative people come from the university environments, and share the same culture.

I don’t think you realize how insulting and condescending your comments appear. No technical and creative people come from other sources than university environments? All of those who come from university environment have the same opinion concerning homosexual practitioners? Because you do not have a problem with this issue, no one should?
23 posted on 11/01/2006 6:16:02 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: metmom; tutstar; duckbutt; Fiddlstix; somniferum; WKUHilltopper; DieHard the Hunter; NZerFromHK; ...

Baptist Ping


24 posted on 11/01/2006 6:33:40 AM PST by WKB (I Refuse To Have A Battle Of Wits With An Unarmed Person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
i>I don’t think you realize how insulting and condescending your comments appear.

I made comments reflecting my own experience. If you find this insulting or condescending, I am sorry. But I stand by my post.

25 posted on 11/01/2006 6:43:40 AM PST by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NickatNite2003
Not according to the American Psychiatric Association: Gay, Lesbian and Bi Issues.
26 posted on 11/01/2006 6:45:25 AM PST by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
No, I wasn't saying gay people are the best and the brightest, just that the university technical/creative culture is often gay friendly, and that some of these folks are indeed gay.

And your post drips with hate. Why?

27 posted on 11/01/2006 6:50:04 AM PST by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: flynmudd

more reason to buy food from Schwans...


28 posted on 11/01/2006 6:52:46 AM PST by Schwaeky (Welcome to America--Now speak English or LEAVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

I think the GayLesbo crowd is doing shakedowns with these companies. Like Jesse Jackson did. Some stand and will not fall, many cave and pander.

Yuck.


29 posted on 11/01/2006 7:00:06 AM PST by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

You mean the American Pederast Association???

These are the same "psychiatrists that are
trying to get pedophilia and incest, *decriminalized*.

These APA freak perverts, have been "empathizing"
and vicariously expirienecing with their sicko
patients so long, that they've acquired their
their hungers and apetites...and now want to get
them decriminalized, so that if and when *they*
get caught being sicko perverts, they won't get
sent to an institution for perverts.

The APA is a bunch of souless, sicko, leftard
plague rats too...just like the ACLU..allways
talking about the "good" they are doing,
attacking and destroying one moral standard
or precept after another..., whith their pieces
of emergency toilet paper "degees".


30 posted on 11/01/2006 7:00:08 AM PST by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
And your post drips with hate.

LOL!! Questioning your ridiculous assertion that we marginalize the sexually degenerate in our society to our own peril is "hate"?! For which paper do you write?

31 posted on 11/01/2006 7:00:17 AM PST by pgyanke (We can't share the blessings of peace with those for whom violence is holy imperative. -andy58-in-nh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
Not according to the American Psychiatric Association...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks, I needed good laugh today!

32 posted on 11/01/2006 7:03:49 AM PST by pgyanke (We can't share the blessings of peace with those for whom violence is holy imperative. -andy58-in-nh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

APA = NAMBLA = ACLU = Socialists = DemoLibTards =
a Culture of Death.


33 posted on 11/01/2006 7:05:39 AM PST by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NickatNite2003

APA = NAMBLA = ACLU = Socialists = DemoLibTards =
NARAL = NOW = Planned Parenthood = Ruth Mengele
Ginsburg = Hollywood & Burbank = a Culture of Death.


34 posted on 11/01/2006 7:10:17 AM PST by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
"No, I wasn't saying gay people are the best and the brightest, just that the university technical/creative culture is often gay friendly,..."
_________________________

I think it's fair to say almost all politically correct universities are militantly secularist in their orientation. Thus it would be no surprise that in this environment that homosexuality would not be recognized for what it really is, one more step in that march for turning humanity into barnyard animals "soul less creatures".
35 posted on 11/01/2006 7:11:24 AM PST by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
I made comments reflecting my own experience. If you find this insulting or condescending, I am sorry. But I stand by my post.

Is the only part of your post you stand by?

Do you not wish to attempt to address the portions of my post that refuted your earlier post?

Alternately, do you concede that your earlier post was logically defeated?
36 posted on 11/01/2006 7:15:33 AM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

hehe


37 posted on 11/01/2006 7:16:59 AM PST by kenth (There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
It makes me so angry that gay and lesbian people have this need to fully define themselves by their sexual preference. Is there nothing else about their lives that is worth talking about? Honestly, most homosexuals I have known are the most creative, energetic people. Can't they think of themselves as something other than "gay?"

Why on EARTH does any company (aside from one making sex toys, etc) need to create an entire marketing division focused on attracting people with a certain sexual preference? They did not hire a "heterosexual marketing" group, or a "beastiality marketing" group. Where is the "pedophile marketing" division? What other sexual preferences can they create an entire marketing division for?

Reprehensible and discriminatory. I guess I'll have to drive the extra miles to shop at Crest.

38 posted on 11/01/2006 7:30:55 AM PST by I'm ALL Right! (There's a fine, fine line between a stoat and a sporkweasel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
Not according to the American Psychiatric Association:

American Psychiatric Association??? What a joke. A bunch of whacked out nutjobs themselves deciding that other whacked out nutjobs are OK? On what basis do they make that determination? Who are they to say this is normal and on what basis?

Simple biology alone tells you it's not. But I guess that's just too obvious for the brainwashed educated elite to figure out.

39 posted on 11/01/2006 7:56:19 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
I don't have his name handy but it is probably worth mentioning at some time in the future.

I think the leader of that "drive" was a female. Will check.

40 posted on 11/01/2006 7:58:39 AM PST by madison10 (Live your life in such a way that the preacher won't have to lie at your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: I'm ALL Right!

Good questions. Don't gays use the same products the rest of us use?

Gays often say that what goes on in the privacy of their own homes/bedrooms is nobody's business. Well, fine. KEEP IT THAT WAY! Stop shoving it in my face, flaunting it everywhere you go in public, and trying to force acceptance of it by passing laws legitimizing it.

Here's a hint: Keep it private and people won't get so in your face when you get in theirs.


41 posted on 11/01/2006 8:00:27 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WKB

Well...since the WalMart closest to me is 40 miles away...


I guess I won't shop there. ;o)


42 posted on 11/01/2006 8:06:55 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
I think it was her:Charlyn Jarrells Porter, Senior Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer
43 posted on 11/01/2006 8:09:02 AM PST by madison10 (Live your life in such a way that the preacher won't have to lie at your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: trustandobey

bump that


44 posted on 11/01/2006 8:18:34 AM PST by tutstar (Baptist ping list-freepmail to get on or off)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madison10

I had a man in mind who was meeting with the NLGCC and reporting back to the head office, although she is obviously involved in "diversity" at Wal-Mart.


45 posted on 11/01/2006 8:20:47 AM PST by Nextrush (Communism died in the Soviet Union, but Diversity lives on everywhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
The people on these threads are pathetic. If you all boycotted every company that gave a few grand to some gay group, you'd be living out in the woods in a log cabin, chasing rabbits with a stick. Forget all the good Wal-Mart does and has done, all the people they employ, all the money they save Americans, they **GASP** gave a few thousand bucks to a gay group!

By your logic, no company can ever be held accountable for any donation it gives, no matter how objectionable it might be. You would just pull out your "moral balance scale" and do a weight comparison, and as long as the "good" outweighs the "evil" everybody is to keep their yaps shut and their wallets open.

46 posted on 11/01/2006 8:30:26 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
One, the gay community isn't that small, only 2%

As opposed to evangelicals? Church-going Catholics?

They realize that gays are ordinary people

Who have a lower life-expetency than three-pack-a-cigarette smokers who skydive. It's not a lifestyle you'd want someone you care about to get involved with.

you'd best not be allergic to gay people.

Which is why Wal-mart was just floundering away when homophobic Sam was running things. LOL. The idea that gays are somehow more "creative" than straights I've always found laughable. Cole Porter, as talented as he was, was certainly not more so than Hank Williams or Johnny Cash or Chuck Berry.

47 posted on 11/01/2006 8:31:58 AM PST by Tribune7 (Go Swann Go Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
Come on, Janet Naird, put your holier-than-thou money where your holier-than-thou mouth is.

Correct me if I'm wrong: This comment gives the impression that you're "holier-than-thou, Janet Naird."

48 posted on 11/01/2006 8:34:12 AM PST by Colofornian (Nice boomarang post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
The WND could write the same article about every company in the Fortune 1000.

So everyone can boycott all "homosexual agenda" companies, here is a list of companies "outed" by WND as having an 100% rating by "Gay-Rights" groups.


Adobe Systems

Aetna

Agere Systems

Agilent Technologies

Allianz Life Insurance

Alston & Bird

American Express

AMR Corp. (American Airlines)

Anheuser-Busch

Apple Computer

Arnold & Porter

AT&T

Avaya

Bain & Company

Bank of America

Bausch & Lomb

Bell South

Best Buy

Boeing

BP America

Bright Horizons Family Solutions

Bristol-Myers Squibb

California State Automobile Association

Capital One Financial

Cargill

Carlson Companies

Charles Schwab

Chevron

ChoicePoint

Chubb

CIGNA

Cisco Systems

Citigroup

Clear Channel Communications

Clorox

CMP Media

CNA Insurance

Coca-Cola Company

Consolidated Edison

Coors Brewing

Corning

Credit Suisse First Boston

Cummins

Daimler Chrysler

Dell

Deloitte & Touche USA

Deutsche Bank

Dorsey & Whitney

Dow Chemical

DuPont

Eastman Kodak

Eli Lilly & Co.

Ernst & Young

Estee Lauder Companies

Faegre & Benson

Fannie Mae

Ford Motor Co.

Freescale Semiconductor

Gap Inc.

General Mills

General Motors

GlaxoSmithKline

Global Hyatt

Goldman Sachs Group

Google

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care

Heller Ehrman

Hewitt Associates

Hewlett-Packard

Honeywell International

Hospira

ING North America Insurance

Intel

IBM

Intuit

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Jenner & Block

Johnson & Johnson

Kaiser Permanente

Keyspan

Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group

KPMG

Kraft Foods

Lehman Brothers Holdings

Levi Strauss & Co.

Lexmark International

Liz Claiborne

Lucent Technologies

McDermott Will & Emery

McKinsey & Co.

Mellon Financial

Merck & Co.

Merrill Lynch

MetLife

Microsoft

Mitchell Gold and Bob Williams

Morgan Stanley

Morrison & Foerster

Motorola

Nationwide

NCR Corp.

New York Times Co.

Nike

Nixon Peabody

Nordstrom

Northrop Grumman

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

Owens Corning

Pepsico

Pfizer

PG&E

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Powell Goldstein

PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Prudential Financial

Raytheon

Replacements

SC Johnson & Son

Schering-Plough

Sears Holdings Corporation

Sempra Energy

Sprint Nextel

Starcom MediaVest

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

State Street

Sun Microsystems

SunTrust Banks

Tech Data Corp.

The Olivia Companies

US Airways

Viacom

Visa International

Volkswagen of America

Wachovia

Walgreens

Wells Fargo

Whirlpool

Xerox
49 posted on 11/01/2006 8:34:55 AM PST by FFIGHTER (Character Matters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
…PROTECT MARRIAGE !... Your children deserve it as wholesome as possible…

You saw what happened in NEW JERSEY!... Don't let it happen in your state! Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota and South Carolina see details below how to vote on all 8 states - links to each state’s election boards - etc)

Why gays hate marriage - By Kevin McCullough - Sunday, October 29, 2006 -- [ excerpt ] --

Despite of all that their angry-mob front groups argue for in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution and more importantly the sanctity of marriage. That is also the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.

This week - dateline Trenton New Jersey... where a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal, utopia.

With utter contempt for God, and for the voters of their state the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise, that what the Bible terms perversion, the voters should call healthy.

But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges, and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral world view? The answer is simple, no longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over the actions of their sexual behaviors because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy - that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong….

Eight states are voting on amendments to their Constitutions. All of them seek to protect marriage essentially the same way as Arizona's amendment describes it below


...The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.
I am hearing rumors that the homosexual agenda research institute (kidding!), as most lefty organizations... resort to lies or disinformation To confuse the voters purposely, on how to vote on the ANTI-GAY-MARRIAGE amendments in the different states. So, I did the research for every of the eight states voting on amendments to their constitutions preserving the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman.”

All of the eight states define the amendment (change/addition to the state's Constitution) essentially the same way. Arizona defines the amendment this way:

All states handle this by having the voters vote on once, except for COLORADO that requires voting on twice: one amendment and one Referendum.

-- Public Announcement from EP -- :)


* VIRGINIA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for VIRGINIA at the bottom)

* WISCONSIN Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for WISCONSIN at the bottom)

* TENNESSEE Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for TENNESSEE at the bottom)

* ARIZONA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for ARIZONA at the bottom)

* SOUTH DAKOTA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH DAKOTA at the bottom)

* SOUTH CAROLINA Vote "YES" (to add amendment) (see links for SOUTH CAROLINA at the bottom)

* IOWA The only state I could not find the information.. what a mess.. even the Servers were so slow. Drove me crazy!... Found the documents but seems like they did not include the amendment….speaks poorly of that state to me)

* COLORADO

****** On Amendment 43 (Marriage)> Vote "YES" (to add amendment)

****** On Referendum I: Vote "Do not approve" or "NO" (To reject it,depending on how the question is phrased. Don't trust homosexual groups - they lie and confuse issues - this should be looked more carefully since it can be approved later anyway.

(Colorado is more complicated. It has 2 items: Adding Amendment 43 (Vote "YES) and approving Referenum I (Vote NO or Do NOT approve). See COLORADO at bottom for details)


* VIRGINIA *

Virginia State Board of Elections

Virginia: The amendment - Ballot question # 1 (page 3)

1 FINAL COPY Proposed Constitutional Amendment To Be Voted on at the November 7, 2006, Election PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Article I. Bill of Rights. Section 15-A. Marriage. BALLOT QUESTION NUMBER 1

Excerpt -------------------------

EXPLANATION Present Law The Constitution does not define marriage. Under current statutory law in Virginia, persons who marry must have a license and be married by a licensed minister, judge, or other person authorized by law to perform marriages. Present law prohibits marriages between certain individuals. For example, the law prohibits a marriage between a brother and sister, between a couple where one of the parties is married to someone else, and between couples of the same sex. In 1975, the General Assembly enacted a statute (present Code of Virginia § 20- 45.2) that states "A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited." In 1997, the General Assembly added a sentence to § 20-45.2 that states that: 2 Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law to prohibit certain civil unions or other arrangements between persons of the same sex. That law (Code of Virginia § 20- 45.3) states that: A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

Thus, civil unions or other arrangements which purport ?to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage? are prohibited by statute.

Proposed Amendment If approved by the voters, this proposed amendment will become part of the Constitution of Virginia. The proposed amendment adds a definition of marriage as the ?union between one man and one woman? to the Constitution's Bill of Rights and prohibits Virginia and its counties, cities, and towns from creating or recognizing any legal status by any name which is comparable to marriage. Marriage in the Commonwealth creates specific legal rights, benefits, and obligations for a man and a woman. There are other legal rights, benefits, and obligations which will continue to be available to unmarried persons, including the naming of an agent to make end-of-life decisions by an Advance Medical Directive (Code of Virginia § 54.1-2981), protections afforded under Domestic Violence laws (Code of Virginia § 18.2- 57.2), ownership of real property as joint tenants with or without a right of survivorship (Code of Virginia § 55-20.1), or disposition of property by will (Code of Virginia § 64.1- 46).

A "yes" vote on the proposed amendment will result in the addition of the proposed Section 15-A to Article I, the Bill of Rights. A "no" vote will mean that there will be no change made in Article I, the Bill of Rights."


* WISCONSIN *

Winsconsin State Elections Board website

Winsconsin:November 2006 Referenda Questions

Winsconsin:See the actual document (the amendment)


* COLORADO *

Colorado Secretary of State – Elections Center

Colorado:Amendments and Referendums

[1] Colorado: Amendment 43 (Marriage)

[2] Referendum I: Referendum I Referendum I Colorado Legislative Council Staff FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: August 31, 2006 Fiscal Analyst: Janis Baron — 303-866-3523 BALLOT TITLE: SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO AUTHORIZE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, and, in connection therewith, enacting the "colorado domestic partnership benefits and responsibilities act" to extend to same-sex couples in a domestic partnership the benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted by colorado law to spouses.....

Summary of Legislation

Upon voter approval, Referendum I establishes legal domestic partnerships in the state of Colorado. Additionally, it specifies eligibility requirements, definitions, procedures, rights, responsibilities, and means for terminating domestic partnerships. The fiscal note cannot accurately project the number of domestic partnerships that would be entered into in Colorado should Referendum I be adopted. For purposes of this analysis, the fiscal note assumes 3,500 annually.


* TENNESSEE *

Tennessee Division of Elections

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment # 1 (Marriage - Page 3)

Constitutional Amendment #1 (Page 3)

Shall Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section: SECTION___. The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.


* ARIZONA *

Arizona Secretary of State - 2006 Ballot Propositions and Judicial...

Arizona Proposition 107: Proposing an amendment to the constitution of arizona; amending the constitution of arizona; by adding article xxx; relating to the protection of marriage...

OFFICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE

proposing an amendment to the constitution of arizona; amending the constitution of arizona; by adding article xxx; relating to the protection of marriage

~[snip]~

The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment will preserve the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” and prohibit the creation of any other legal status similar to that of marriage. It will assure that marriage is defined by the voice of the people and not by a few activist judges.

A “yes” vote will protect Arizona from having marriage radically changed to a union of any two people regardless of gender. It will affirm that both mothers and fathers play significant roles in the raising of children and that the legal union between a man and a woman deserves special status in producing the next generation of responsible citizens.

A “yes” vote will not prohibit same-sex couples or anyone else from forming relationships. It will, however, keep schools, media, organizations, religious denominations, and other societal institutions from being forced to validate, and promote same-sex “marriage”.

A “yes” vote will not invalidate anyone’s civil rights. Marriage is about bringing men and women together, not about civil rights.

A “yes” vote will not restrict private companies from voluntarily granting benefits to domestic partners, nor will it prevent domestic relationships from taking advantage of existing laws that enable these individuals to share health insurance or death benefits, designate hospital visitation rights, or grant medical durable power of attorney to anyone.

A “yes” vote will affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of a strong family and that strong families are the foundation of great nations.

~[snip]~

ARGUMENTS “FOR” PROPOSITION 107 Protect Marriage Arizona’s Statement Protect Marriage Arizona has been formed as a grassroots response to attacks on marriage in state after state. We say, “Let the people decide.” We believe Arizona citizens should be given the opportunity to vote on our state’s marriage policy, and we are confident that Arizona will join 20 other states that have voted to reaffirm the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. A state constitutional amendment provides the strongest possible legal protection for marriage against redefinition by activist state court judges. We also hope to show our national leaders that states want the opportunity to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage. Marriage between a man and woman is the basic building block of society. As the Supreme Court put it, in a case upholding laws that prevented marriage from being redefined to include polygamy, “marriage is the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.” Arizona promotes and benefits marriage because marriage between a man and a woman benefits Arizona. Children do best when they have the security of living with a married mother and father. With all the challenges to marriage in society today, the last thing Arizona needs is to redefine marriage in a way that guarantees some children will never have either a mom or a dad. Unfortunately, today’s courts seem bent on destroying that foundation. It’s time for the people to respond by voting ‘yes’ on the Protect Marriage Amendment. The Protect Marriage Arizona amendment does exactly what it is entitled to do, that is, protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NAME, the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, encourages Arizonans to vote “Yes” on this amendment to protect, for future generations, the long-standing definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The traditional definition of marriage must be protected. Some would say marriage is a right; it is not -- it is a privilege that carries responsibilities. Society confers legal benefits to marriage, because marriage benefits society. Historically, healthy marriages have been foundational building blocks to any successful society -- Arizona included. This amendment to Arizona's constitution will affirm marriage’s traditional definition, ensuring it for future generations by prohibiting its redefinition by activist judges and others. Research indicates many benefits for children who are raised by a mother and father, including: they are more likely to succeed academically, are physically healthier, emotionally healthier, demonstrate less


* SOUTH DAKOTA *

South Dakota: 2006 Ballot Question Pamphlet Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson

South Dakota: Constitutional Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. 2006 Ballot Question Pamphlet Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson Constitutional Amendment C Title: An Amendment to Article XXI of the South Dakota Constitution, relating to marriage. Attorney General Explanation South Dakota statutes currently limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. However, the State Constitution does not address marriage. Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.

A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.

A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is.


* SOUTH CAROLINA *

South Carolina State Elections Commission - Ballot Measures 2006

South Carolina: Constitutional Amendment 1 - Marriage

SUMMARY

This amendment provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union is valid and legal. The State and its political subdivisions are prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction.

However, this amendment also makes clear it does not impair rights or benefits extended by this State, or its political subdivisions not arising from other domestic unions, nor does the amendment prohibit private parties from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. View Complete Text Information Provided by: South Carolina State Elections Commission

50 posted on 11/01/2006 8:36:07 AM PST by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson