Fed-up Wal-Mart worker quits over pro-'gay' agenda

How absurd. To suggest that all technically inclined people are somehow sympathetic to the cause of gays. This is only happening at large corporations whose human resources departments are run by a bunch of feckless individuals who are too scared to challenge this "Gay" Human Rights nonsense. Most Americans do not work for large scale companies. They are not bombarded on a daily basis by "diversity" councils, inclusion groups or some other silly political correct motivated diatribe. Small to mid size companies are too busy actually getting the work done for large companies who are too busy wasting their time and resources on these distracting issues.These "large" companies in fact employ a minority of the American work force. Believe me, I work for a large corporation, they waste a lot time and effort in trying to "socialize" us on what is right and wrong and spends little time in trying to figure out how we can be more productive as a corporation.

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.”

…Of course, this doesn't explain why Wal*Mart doesn't just ignore the issue entirely.

Stating that position in the reverse, these companies would still have access to 98 percent of the available pool of qualified resources.

True, I'll cede that point.

It would seem that silence concerning such personal items was not only appropriate etiquette, but was also conducive to good working relationships.

Can't argue with that.

I hope this clarifies my perspective. Thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my original post in such detail.

If I might, let me recap the argument:

WalMart publicly announced a policy supporting homosexual practitioners. Some people objected. I pointed out that silence from corporate entities on this issue is the wisest business position in that such a position offends no one, i.e., stockholders, customers, employees, etc.

You initially disagreed, but after reconsideration, now agree. Debate concluded, correct?

You initially disagreed, but after reconsideration, now agree. Debate concluded, correct?

Yep. I think we do agree that a corporation should take no position on this issue, nor should it be involved in its employees' private lives.

maybe … they haven't found any logical reason to discriminate against anyone or hide the fact that they don't discriminate against anyone.

From my earlier post: 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.”

Perhaps, you could provide some logic to explain how silence on this issue constitutes discrimination? In any debate rationale I have ever seen, lack of affirmation has never been construed to be opposition.

To further the point, they also see the gay community as a viable money maker.

Do they not also see the community that opposes, and is offended by support of, homosexual practices equally as a viable money maker? Based upon unbiased opinion polls, as well as ballot initiatives, the size of this population segment is much larger than that which would be favorably influenced by the action cited in the article at the beginning of this thread. Consequently, the smart business move still appears to be silence on the issue.

When it comes to wal mart, most people just don't care. They're still going to shop there.

Based upon your postulated logic in the above assertions, WalMart needed to do nothing to increase business from homosexual practitioners and ran no risk from inaction. Therefore, given that doing nothing is cost free, from a business perspective, that course still remains the smart business move.

I would also imagine that the outcry from folks who aren't quite so narrow minded ...

Perhaps, you would care to present some facts and logic to back your assertion that those who oppose homosexual practices are narrow minded?

Even folks who will vote for these marriage amendments don't feel the need to persecute on other levels.

You have made an assertion unsupported by either logic or fact. In the discipline of logic, this is known as a “gratuitous assertion.” As such, it is logically defeated by a “gratuitous denial,” i.e., your assertion is false. If you have unbiased statistics to support your assertion, feel free to present them. Otherwise, your opinion is meaningless as a debate support point.

Beyond a “gratuitous assertion,” you have maligned those who oppose homosexual practices by the accusation of “persecution.” Perhaps, you could supply some facts and logic to support this implied charge of yours that simple opposition to homosexual practices is “persecution?”

In any event, it's a start I suppose.

Perhaps, you would care to define what it is a start towards?