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

Skip to comments.

Home Depot stops doing business with federal government (even cash!)
Saint Louis Today ^ | June 16, 2002

Posted on 06/16/2002 11:29:08 AM PDT by John Jorsett

Edited on 05/11/2004 5:33:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Home Depot Inc., the nation's largest hardware and home-improvement chain, has told its 1,400 stores not to do business with the U.S. government or its representatives.

The Post-Dispatch checked with managers at 38 stores in 11 states. All but two said they had received instructions from Home Depot's corporate headquarters this month not to take government credit cards, purchase orders or even cash if the items are being used by the federal government.


(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-329 next last
To: eno_
Nailed it. Nice job.
101 posted on 06/16/2002 2:52:22 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
From A May 2001 Stockholders Proposals

We have been notified that this proposal will be presented for consideration at the meeting:

WHEREAS: Home Depot claims to bar employment discrimination but its written policies do not explicitly bar discrimination based on sexual orientation; Our company has an interest in preventing discrimination and resolving complaints internally so as to avoid costly litigation and damage to its reputation as an equal opportunity employer; San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle and Los Angeles have adopted legislation restricting business with companies that do not guarantee equal treatment for lesbian and gay employees and similar legislation is pending in other jurisdictions;

Our company has operations in and makes sales to institutions in states and cities which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; A recent National Gay and Lesbian Task Force study has found that 16% - 44% of gay men and lesbians in twenty cities nationwide experienced workplace sexual orientation harassment or discrimination;

Other leading retailers, including Albertson’s, BJ’s Wholesale, CompUSA, Costco, Office Depot, Safeway, Sears, Staples, SuperValu, Target, TJX, Toys R Us, and Walgreen’s, all explicitly bar discrimination based on sexual orientation, as do more than half of Fortune 500 companies;

National public opinion polls consistently find more than three-quarters of Americans support equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals;

RESOLVED: The Shareholders request the Board of Directors amend Home Depot’s written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and to substantially implement this policy.

STATEMENT: By implementing a written policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, our Company will ensure a respectful and supportive atmosphere for all employees and enhance its competitive edge by joining the growing ranks of companies guaranteeing equal opportunity for all employees.

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL B (ITEM 4 ON THE PROXY CARD)

Well, HD has lost my Business! They are now looking out for No 1 in keeping sales going in "gay" areas! Others do it so we should too!( Another Klintoon legacy!)

And their decision is based on "polls"!! Morality need NOT apply to making money! (X42 again!)

Granted doing business with the Feds is difficult, but then, the Feds ARE the biggest RAINBOW Coalition backers! Go Figure! Anyway LOWES KNOWS!!!! (I hope)

102 posted on 06/16/2002 2:52:24 PM PDT by texson66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
When you do business with the government, you have to fill out a huge paperwork package for the privilege of having them buy from you. Then you're subject to all kinds of audits and have to file and track mountains of paperwork because every single purchase has a paperwork package involved.

I have a small consulting business and one of my clients is a major Fortune 500 company that does a minimal amount of business with the federal government, primarily through commissaries. Every year I would get a four or five page questionnaire that I had to fill out indicating I was in compliance with a variety of laws and telling me that the feds had jurisdiction over who I give preference to in hiring because I provided services to a company that did business with the feds. Hell I didnt contract with the government, I contracted with the company. The feds can kiss my ---.

103 posted on 06/16/2002 2:54:30 PM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: azsportsterman
Military commanders are required by law to place all establishments that discriminate against their personnel off-limits.

Refusing to accept govt issued credit cards isn't discrimination against personnel. I'm absolutely sure it that uniformed member of our military establishment used a "civilian" credit card, it would be honored no problemos.

104 posted on 06/16/2002 2:54:38 PM PDT by joeyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: joeyman
Frankly, I'm so impressed I'm gonna go out of my way to do business with them.

Burt being pressured by sexual exhibitionists and perverts to conduct business in strict compliance with the liberal democrat political agenda is okay?

You go ahead and do business with Home Depot. Liberal democrats will be thrilled.

105 posted on 06/16/2002 2:55:47 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
I really like Home Depot's "Under no circumstances, at any time, be visible to or make eye contact with a customer" rule. I'm amazed you were able to learn that they were out of stock or didn't stock a product, since that requires actual contact with a phantom employee.

When I go into our local HD, my experience has been that most of the employees are on their phones complaining to one another about the latest outrageous management demand on them while hotfooting it around the corner to avoid interaction with the despised customer.

Plus their lumber stinks.

Your Home Depot is definately different from the one around here. Ours has better lumber than the Lowe's next door, has friendly helpful staff, and will come running to assist you if you appear to need it. I buy most of my building supplies there.

That's not to say that I never spend money in Lowe's. I just bought an unfinished solid wood corner kitchen curio there since nobody else seemed to have one, finished or otherwise. That store, too, is friendly.

Maybe its just a southern thang. :^)

106 posted on 06/16/2002 2:56:17 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
Damn, Bob! Can't you tell the difference between federal employees (individual customers) and the federal government? This policy does nothing to discriminate against any individual -- it just bans sales to the federal government. I would hope that all those Department of Energy will be smart enough to know the difference...
107 posted on 06/16/2002 2:57:13 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
ATOMIC_IDIOT (all caps) wrote:

HERE >>>>>>> . <<<<<<< anal retent

Another advertisement?

By the way, it's "rententive".

PS: In a battle of wits, don't show up unarmed. Moron.

108 posted on 06/16/2002 2:58:55 PM PDT by handk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Why? Because government employees, especially those in enforcement functions, have a strong influence over laws.

Not half the power liberal democrats exercise through PFLAG, Rainbow Coalition, and other "private" organizations.

Oh yeah, add the libertarian bean-brains to the pro-liberal democrat alliance. Go spend your money at Home Depot--you and zon. Make Papa Marx proud.

109 posted on 06/16/2002 2:59:42 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Ok, let's take it step by step here, then maybe you'll understand.

Oak Ridge is a small city, built in 1942, by the Federal Government in order to build the first nuclear weapons, a business they're still in, along with weapons and energy research, and research of other kinds.

Nearly every business here is related to supporting the Federal Government's facilities here in Oak Ridge. The local Home Depot does a lot of business with those folks. Granted, they are private contractors with the Federal Government, however, they usually get their purchase orders for supplies, product and consumables from the facility they're working at - i.e., one of the local Federal Government facilities.

Home Depot here in Oak Ridge made the majority of its bulk sales to the local facilities, i.e., the Federal Government. Since Home Depot is now refusing to do business with them, that business will be taken back to the folks they used to do business with. The primary reason Home Depot built it's facility here was to do exactly the kind of business that they are now refusing to do.

OK, I'm going to read back over this and see if it was clear enough. I realize there's a few words of more than two syllables....

110 posted on 06/16/2002 3:05:00 PM PDT by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
being pressured by sexual exhibitionists and perverts to conduct business in strict compliance with the liberal democrat political agenda is okay?

Nah, that sucks. But what you gonna do? It's like wanting to buy American and finding out almost everything you buy is made in China. This moves the ball down the field a few inches in the right direction towards less regulation. I'll take it.

111 posted on 06/16/2002 3:05:00 PM PDT by joeyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
...being pressured by sexual exhibitionists and perverts to conduct business in strict compliance with the liberal democrat political agenda is okay?

Last time I checked, Home Depot's founding partners have completely opposite political views, and both put their wallets where their mouths are. On the Left, Bernie Marcus supports every liberal cause you can imagine, though his benevolence to medical and humanitarian charities is quite admirable. Other than Home Depot, his monument to fame will be a $200,000,000 Aquarium in Midtown Atlanta.

On the Right, Arthur Blank supports a myriad of Conservative candidates and causes throughout the United States. Other than Home Depot, he will be known as the (new) owner of the Atlanta Falcons.

That is all public knowledge, available on the internet. That said, however, I don't shop at Home Depot because of anybody's politics. I shop at Home Depot because it is a great business which sells what I want at prices I am willing to pay. That's why I bought its stock, and that's why I'll go back...

112 posted on 06/16/2002 3:06:44 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
I agree.
113 posted on 06/16/2002 3:06:54 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kcvl; ALL
SEE POST #43 FOR YOUR ANSWER, FOLKS.

Sorry for yelling.

114 posted on 06/16/2002 3:08:06 PM PDT by Humidston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine;All
If a person wants to know what the federal government really thinks of it's veterans compare the VA hospitals quality of service to the private hospitals' quality of service. There's your answer. A person would think that the VA hospitals would be among the highest quality since it is taking care of those that risked their lives for the rest of us. But it's just the opposite.
115 posted on 06/16/2002 3:11:17 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission moved to intervene in a 1995 lawsuit covering 310 Home Depot stores east of the Mississippi. A third lawsuit is pending in New Jersey. This is the largest sex discrimination case the EEOC has ever taken on. The HD response? Home Depot said it was "puzzled and outraged" that the federal government has intervened in a class-action sex discrimination lawsuit against the nation's largest building supply retailer.

On discrimination and EEOC laws:

Sheesh, we can't even trust our "employees" -- government officials -- to let them into our homes and businesses without a search warrant if we don't want to let them in. But somehow a business is forced to trust a total stranger with an open door policy. A person/business owner can refuse to allow a government agent access to his property but not a total stranger! And get this, it is the government that can't be trusted without a search warrant that is telling property owners that they must trust total strangers.

Discrimination laws are unjust.

116 posted on 06/16/2002 3:11:23 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: KirklandJunction
On the other hand, I've never had luck finding a Home Depot employee that I could bother with with a question,

Sometimes I have to wait a few minutes but that is because they are helping another customer with his questions. On the whole, I find them trying to be very helpful.

117 posted on 06/16/2002 3:15:20 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
I hate those long words, too! From what I read, HD's new policy would not affect sales to other businesses which contract with the feds -- only sales to the federal government itself. If the contractors want to use their own funds to purchase materials, I doubt HD cares how they intend to use them.

But it sounds like you're saying that those small contractors are making their purchases with federal purchase orders instead of their own capital. That would be a problem -- but would make me wonder why they do that. Might they rely on federal POs because it would take too long for the feds to reimburse them? If so, that would prove the wisdom of Home Depot's decision not to do business with a slow-paying, strings-attached customer like the federal government...

118 posted on 06/16/2002 3:17:15 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: inkling
The US is not at war. War has not been declared by Congress. They have the authority to declare war against Al Qaeda and its allied groups. If they don't, they have no right to be exercising wartime powers.
119 posted on 06/16/2002 3:17:49 PM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Maybe its just a southern thang. :^)

That's a definite possibility.

I think Yankees tend to be a little more crotchety.

Like me :-)

120 posted on 06/16/2002 3:19:18 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Zon
If a person wants to know what the federal government really thinks of it's veterans compare the VA hospitals quality of service to the private hospitals' quality of service.

The government tried to close down many VA hospitals and subsidize the treatment at regular hospital while upgrading those still remaining. There was a swell of opposition as the "fear-mongers" declared the republicans were trying to shutdown the VA hospitals (implying LESS service) to the veterans. So, in the midst of it all, the program was dropped.

121 posted on 06/16/2002 3:19:27 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
READING COMPREHENSION ALERT!!!!! The article says NOTHING about refusing service to "uniformed military personnel". It says it will refuse PURCHASES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which is a whole 'nother thing. I am sure that if the guy in uniform was buying something for his/her own use, Home Depot would happily sell it to him/her.

Please re-read the paragraph below.

One Home Depot associate at a store in San Diego said, "It feels weird telling some kid in uniform that I can't sell him 10 gallons of paint because we don't do business with the government."

Sure sound like they are going to not sell to military personel.

Didn't Home Depot align itself with PFLAG about a year or so ago?

a.cricket

122 posted on 06/16/2002 3:20:30 PM PDT by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
I don't smell lefties. I can understand that they don't want the government telling them how to run their business any more than they have to.
123 posted on 06/16/2002 3:27:40 PM PDT by Pushi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Every year I would get a four or five page questionnaire that I had to fill out indicating I was in compliance with a variety of laws and telling me that the feds had jurisdiction over who I give preference to in hiring....

Great, so the feds can hassle and/or prosecute you if you don't enact a formal affirmitive action program in your small business. What a load of crap! Government meddling in business hiring sucks and they shouldn't have anything to do with it, especially with the screwey ways that the feds do their hiring. They'll not hire the guy with the best qualifications and hire a total lunkhead because he fits the racial profile that they want for some diversity program. But they're competent to micro-manage your hiring practices (NOT!).

124 posted on 06/16/2002 3:28:16 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
"Always, everywhere, at every opportunity - tell Big Stupid Government to jam it."

What I did twenty years ago and for the same reasons.

Mega-bump!!

125 posted on 06/16/2002 3:33:28 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Why shop at HomoDepot when you can shop at Lowe's?
126 posted on 06/16/2002 3:34:03 PM PDT by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azsportsterman
Based on my 22 years military service, I will not boycott HD. It's time big companies stand up to the government.
127 posted on 06/16/2002 3:39:20 PM PDT by Pushi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
That explains a lot, thanks for posting it. I presume that means that if you're wearing a military uniform, they're going to have to assume that whatever you're buying is for government use?
128 posted on 06/16/2002 3:39:21 PM PDT by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: handk
Seems your not happy unless your cutting someone down are ya ?

 
  Posted by handk to Poohbah
On News/Activism ^ Jun 10 8:54 PM #38 of 51 ^

Let me guess: you're not one of the hypothetically (or actually) employed.

That would certainly prop up your ego, right?

  Posted by handk to chimera
On News/Activism ^ Jun 5 4:09 PM #31 of 103 ^

You're wasting your intelligence on HELLRAISER II.

He belongs on "Street Smarts".

  Posted by handk to Poohbah
On News/Activism ^ Jun 2 10:01 PM #33 of 114 ^

In other words, you have no evidence to support your case.

I don't know who you are, but I know what you are. I've run into people like you all my life, and I've learned not to waste my time.

You're only feigning interest in the subject matter. If you had even a minimal threshold of interest, you would, of your own volition, go searching around for additional information. That's what people do who sincerely have an interest in something.

But no, you camaflouge your true interest level (=none), by claiming the lame "I don't have to do anything, you're the one that has to show me proof!"

Well, let's talk about "proof". Like I said above, I know what you are. No amount of proof will be satisfactory for you. How do I know this? Well, besides skipping a discussion, and wanting the proof right now!, you tipped your hand in another way.

See, you require "peer reviewed" proof. Snobbery. And it's your "out".

"Well," says Poohbag, "that's not a recognized peer group."

I once told a friend about a federal law that Congress passed. He didn't believe me. I assured him it was a fact. He asked for proof. I told him I had a photocopy from the United States Code from my local library.

In other words, I had conclusive evidence of my claim.

His reply? Mr. Prove It Me?

"Well, you can't believe everything you read."

You're that guy. Same modus operandi. And same waste of time.

  Posted by handk to Poohbah
On News/Activism ^ Jun 2 9:13 PM #7 of 114 ^

First, it's from the Idaho Observer, which makes it suspect.

Whatever.

Second, I'd just love to see those studies that "prove" exposure to electromagnetic energy causes cancer. Care to supply citations from peer-reviewed journals?

Hey, if you're too lazy to Google the subject matter, fine. Just don't expect me to bring it all to you on a silver platter like you're some fat piece of royalty.

    Posted by handk to Alas
On News/Activism ^ May 14 1:03 PM #685 of 794 ^

susan collins (R) Maine, could have only evolved from pond scum and sewer setament. Now, give me the money!

"Setament"?

It's spelled "sediment"; you dumbed down, evolution believing, brainwashed moron!

PS: I'm not offering the reward, idiot. Reread the article. Oops! You didn't learn reading comprehesion either.

HEY ANAL if you dont have something more constructive to say shut your yap and sit down

handk member since April 11th, 2001

Hope you have a nice life in your correctly spelled perfect world .... i hope if you are married that you and your get all the best out of life all the love you need and want and that your children are many and a blessing to you but leave your correction to just that you and yours im 42 and if i need corrected ill do it myself my father lives a couple miles away with my mom he hasnt corrected me since i was 18 and joined the navy if you feel you need to correct someone go somewhere else and do it

If you feel you just cant help yourself and hafta get in that last word go for it because i wont respond

Its a shame is'nt it this all started over a freeking >>>>>.<<<<<


129 posted on 06/16/2002 3:40:47 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Hey, you testosterone-laden marine (not that there is anything WRONG with that), the things I was after on my last three trips (and I mean LAST three trips) were basic things:

an indoor/outdoor submersible pump that would come on if it got wet

wall anchors for 1-inch #8 screws (for plaster)

and 25 watt reflective lamps for some mini-spots.

I don't go there for the window shades and stencils. though I confess to a couple of stencil purchases at Lowes.

130 posted on 06/16/2002 3:43:34 PM PDT by SarahW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: azsportsterman
"We support our own"

and we welcome all government employees to continue to 'support your own'.

But please explain then why you need half of my income to pay for your income so you can 'support your own'. Please feel as free as you need to be to support your own, but do it on your own dime.

131 posted on 06/16/2002 3:44:31 PM PDT by Lloyd227
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
I do government contracts and I wish I could afford not.

The requirements in the back of all allow them access at demand to see your books, for any reason. In otherwords if you're going to agree to business with the government, they assign themselves the right to anything they want.

Don't get me started on OSHA and EPA. Did you know that you can not dispose of an empty spray paint can without puncturing it first and draing any possible fluild. That fluid must be disposed of at an EPA approved company. You must have reciept. Note $2500 fine for each occurance,,,,,

I'll send the rest of my paychecks to Home Depot. They are right.

132 posted on 06/16/2002 3:46:41 PM PDT by Quick Shot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Well, I would really like to know what the heck is behind this decision.
133 posted on 06/16/2002 3:51:39 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
Take a look at reply #69 for an explanation. It sounds plausible to me.
134 posted on 06/16/2002 4:06:04 PM PDT by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: JBCiejka
The strange part about it is they won't even take cash.

Okay, it's time I fess up--I work for HD. The cash thing is fairly easy to understand--HD doesn't accept tax exempt status on government, business, or church transactions in cash--they have to be either check (in the agency, business or church name) or credit. So the cash angle is simple--cash can't get tax exempt status, so the feds won't use cash anyway.

I understand everyone's comments on here--it's hard to find help in my store, too (and Tennessee Bob, FYI, I am familiar with the Oak Ridge store, and I don't believe it's doing very much with its Pro Sales anyway, which would encompass (or would have) the government accounts).

It was rolled out to us as too many bureaucratic hoops to jump through (and the fact that just one employee not following the Fed rules would result in penalties throughout the company).

Insofar as the equal rights for gays in the workplace, I, personally, don't have a problem with equal rights--I don't think anyone should be held back because of their sexual orientation--I just don't think they should be given preferential treatment.

And yes, everyone at my store was incredibly upset with the PFlag thing last year.

135 posted on 06/16/2002 4:09:57 PM PDT by I Luv Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
Before giving us a purchase order, they sent me a 16-page "qualification" form to fill out - all kinds of bureaucratic gibberish and PC nonsense about how we'd grab our ankles to meet all the government standards to be Good Approved Citizens.

I sent it back after a pass through our shredder, with a note saying, in effect, "You want to buy our stuff, you send a check like everybody else. If not, go pound sand and stuff your forms."

Always, everywhere, at every opportunity - tell Big Stupid Government to jam it.

I can think of a few reasons :

1)The federal government was putting in orders for 3,000 light bulbs or whatever, and perhaps Home Depot was not equipped to handle something like that logistics wise

2)The government business was impacting their other business in some way

3)The government was purchasing things in bulk that perhaps HD was selling at a loss to attract customers, or that impacted many private customers.

4)Too many restrictions on HD from the government.

I don't know why people are bashing HD without knowing the story. If the story is there are too many restrictions on HD to sell to the government (which is what it sounds like), FReepers would be cheering HD on. If the story is that the government business was impacting other areas, FReepers would understand. They should think about how many times they buy stuff on sale and are restricted to 1 or 2 of the items, perhaps the same thing is happening here, and HD doesn't like the government cleaning them out when they really are oriented towards people like you and I.

136 posted on 06/16/2002 4:31:26 PM PDT by texlok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Don't many federal bureaucracies have the ability to make "rules" which have the force of law?
137 posted on 06/16/2002 4:32:03 PM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: eno_
As an additional add-on to your comments, surely these fed employees can read....like perhaps the Constitution. They apparently don't believe the Constititution applies to them cause they're 'entitled to live at the public trough--it might interfere with a paycheck and retirement or other perks.

If its unconstitutional, these fedgov workers are not friends of the Country--they are enemies of the Constitutional Republic just as sure as all socialists are.

I'll certainly be looking forward to hearing more about Home Depot's decision. So far, I say bravo. Why don't we have a lot of principled businesses who finally say, we're tired of all the fedgov rules and regs that add so much to the costs of business that its choking our nation, and that they refuse to sell to fedgov until such time as the fedgov honors the Constitution.

138 posted on 06/16/2002 4:32:19 PM PDT by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Let's see, the United States is at war. Home Depot's response is to refuse service to uniformed military personnel? How patriotic. Here's one veteran that will be shopping at Lowe's today.

You have got to be kidding me. Our "war" (which I can't really say is a war now since we seem to be in that stage of nation-building that comes after a war.)does not have anything to do with HD or you or I for that matter.

If HD doesn't want to sell to the government, it's their right. This is a free country. I saw nowhere in there that they were targeting any one particular facet of the government, so don't make it out to be against the military.

If you had a business, I'm sure you would prefer to have the right to refuse service to certain customers. Perhaps the paperwork that revolves around the goverment was costing too much time/resources for HD.

139 posted on 06/16/2002 4:34:35 PM PDT by texlok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Wow - you are so deep.

Who owns Home Depot? Do you have a 401K with a tracking fund? Probably > 50% of the people on this thread own some HD one way or another.

It is funny to see conservatives bash HD for attempting to avoid some hogwash leftist feel good legal traps.

The simple reason is risk vs return. HD has figured out that the potential cost (risk) of some government lawsuits is greater than the gain from selling to the Feds. It is that simple.

I see another note on this thread how HD doesn't hire women for the floor jobs. Typcial knee jerk discrimination - of course they hire fewer women - their goal is to hire experienced contractors. What percentage of contractors are women that you know - personally? If you don't have an answer, pick up a phone book and call ten at random.

This is not un-patriotic on their part. They have a fiduciary duty to do the best they can for their shareholders. My opinion is that they are doing this.

The real question is why should a nice american company have to avoid the US feds to do the best it can for its owners?

140 posted on 06/16/2002 4:35:39 PM PDT by Diva Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Barbara14
Maybe the feds will realize that the American public is growing tired of their heavy handed behavior.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, HOME DEPOT!

I hope they do as well. Maybe this would jumpstart something that would start getting rid of some of the idiotic paperwork and regulations concerning government purchases, and maybe save some money for the country. Of course it would turn around and be spent on something else :-/

141 posted on 06/16/2002 4:36:35 PM PDT by texlok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 537 Votes
Re: "I get really tired of this 'We're at war' crap. "

JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISTS

September 14, 2001

This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.



From "The War Powers Act of 1973"
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a)
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.


142 posted on 06/16/2002 4:48:32 PM PDT by ChadGore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Its probably just a matter of it being too big a hassle dealing with the federal government. Puts them under the burden of a bunch of PC nonsense that they wouldn't otherwise have to deal with.
143 posted on 06/16/2002 5:01:19 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling; another cricket
"According to the article uniformed personnel can't even purchase items in cash. So much for letting them buy things for personal use. I'm all for limited government, but when hatred of the Feds spreads to contempt for the military, I'm not going to play along."

All the "man in uniform" has to do is say it is for his own use, and not being sold to the government.

For proof, see reply #44. This don't sound like "contempt for the military" to me.

144 posted on 06/16/2002 5:03:38 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"While it is an expression of Freedom, and they are able to not deal with the government, I would say that under the conditions indicated, it is unpatriotic. They can't be complaining about government paperwork, there is none for cash purchases. I don't know what their reason for not dealing with the government, especially the military, is, but absent a better explanation than that given in the article, I would call it unpatriotic. If that supply sergent had to go farther or spend more of your money to satisfy his unit's needs, then that's just that much less they can do to accomplish their mission, under fixed limits of money and personnel."

Supplying the units needs is what we pay the GSS and other FedGov purchasing departments BIG BUCKS to take care of. As to patriotic, when the Congress actually passes a declaration of war, then I'll buy it.

145 posted on 06/16/2002 5:04:18 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Home Depot is a Bush-hating, gun-grabbing institution. There is no doubt in my mind this is an attack on President Bush. I note that even though this is supposedly long-standing policy, managers only received the orders on this three weeks ago.
146 posted on 06/16/2002 5:04:21 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Don't many federal bureaucracies have the ability to make "rules" which have the force of law?
Yup. Let's say I make a GMO version of cilantro that'll give you a Jamiacan Grade-A head rush. The DEA can make cilantro a controlled substance. No congressional action required. Now the layman might think spotting the separation of powers problem here is easier than finding Waldo, but the FedGov reality distortion field filters that out.
147 posted on 06/16/2002 5:09:28 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
"This is the first company I've ever heard of establishing a policy of not doing business with the federal government. I find it hard to understand," she said.

I know of one other large business who refused all gooberment contracts,and even told the feds to get the hell out of his place of business. This is a large sporting goods wholesaler that was offered a gooberment contract to supply small specialized orders to special operations units. Since he was a vet himself,he was more than happy to talk to them about this,so he invited them down. Things started to go down hill rapidly when they started asking questions like "how many blacks do you have in supervisory positinos? Women? Homosexuals?",and went ALL to hell when they told him he would have to have the requisite number before they could do business with him. He told them he didn't believe in ANY of that crap,and they needed to get the hell out of his store before he had them arrested for tresspassing.

It's odd that Home Depot would take a similiar stance,though. The owner is a dedicated Dim who donates a percentage of his profits each year to gun control.

148 posted on 06/16/2002 5:10:54 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Home Depot is anti-American and anti-Bush (I am sure there are previous articles on FR about their exploits). The people who are posting here on FR in support of them don't know this. Thanks for spreading the word.
149 posted on 06/16/2002 5:14:16 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
I frequent both The Home Depot and Loews.

The owner of Home Depot is a dedicated Dim,and donates a percentage of his profits to gun control each year. Lowes refused to put up "no gun" signs in their stores when HCI lobbied them to do so.

150 posted on 06/16/2002 5:16:03 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-329 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