Maybe. And I hope so. TARGET STOCK IN TOILET: Boycott Passes 1 Million As Corporate Losses Pass $2.5 BILLION! | RedState . And I know it is working with some people I know who aren’t even that political, but who have loved shopping at Target for decades. They have had enough.
I normally don’t get too worked up over boycotts. If you would have boycotted every non-Christian thing in the Roman empire you would have died in a week. Amazon.com isn’t exactly a Christian institution but they save me a ton of money and time and I plan to keep shopping there (and they don’t even have public restrooms, so no worries about that).
But boycotts do have some value, and I think this is one of those times.
If you boycott to make non-Christians act like Christians, then that won’t get far. But if you apply the “love your neighbor” test, I think this one is worthwhile. Target has put innocent people at risk solely to appease the LGBTQX bullies. That is worth fighting.
And this isn’t just some corporation following the corporate and cultural trends. When I was at Compaq, the Sr. VP of Human Resources was just as supportive of adding the Christian Employee Network Group that I led as she was adding the LGBTQX group. To her it was just a Human Resource trend and she wasn’t playing favorites. (Things changed when HP bought us, but that’s a different story.)
But Target’s move is a blunt, hateful, in-your-face move, and it follows their silliness about avoiding gender-specific clothes designations. Their “genderless” clothes displays are a self-parody. After all, even Bruce Jenner tries to dress like a traditional woman when he is pretending to be female. I think they are trying to put The Onion out of business.
Do you really want to profit someone who hates you and your worldview so aggressively?
*You’d think that if God literally blinded you while you were sinning that you might at least pause for a moment. Not with the LGBTQX lobby: Genesis 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.
I love the free market and our ability to choose where to shop. If we get bad service or don’t like the worldview of the seller, we don’t have to give them any money. Or we can steer our spending to companies with great service and similar beliefs.
I’m not aggressively into boycotts, but when companies are in your face with their dogma and I can conveniently go somewhere else, I will. But I have to concede that even though the pro-“same-sex marriage” people are hopelessly on the wrong side of the issue, part of their point here is valid:
It should be no surprise that many companies would succumb to political correctness for profit, just as many people will say the opposite of the truth to be more popular. I used to work for HP and they gave into to the “gaystapo” lobby and their boycott threats along with the pressures of some LGBT people in the company.
But you really will need to live in a cave if you think you can survive by only shopping where people completely agree with your worldview. Feel free to go where you like, but most of the time you’ll just be going where someone hates your worldview and you just don’t know it (yet).
Obviously, their “wrong side of history” bit is wrong, especially considering that 99% of people with that view are also pro-abortion.
I just choose to remind people that if you are going to use an equal sign, then the things on each side need to actually be equal. In this case, they are not. The notion of “marriage equality” it is false because it implies that any union of two people is equal to real marriage. Or that the number of people in the marriage isn’t important.
But there are two very important things that same-sex unions can’t do.
1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman. That doesn’t mean marriages have to produce children, just that they are only produced by one male and one female, and that the government is interested in those relationships because of that possibility.
2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.
Those are the reasons the government has traditionally been involved in marriages. No one is preventing gays from associating with each other (the government won’t even shut down bath houses!).
The Sola Sisters make some good points as well in To Starbucks or Not to Starbucks, That Is The Question.
And yet, at the risk of inflaming many of my Christian friends who often exercise their American right to choose to boycott a company that makes this or that anti-Christian statement, here is just some food for thought:
Should we as Christians expect lost people to act in any other way than lost people generally do?
That is to say, should we expect lost people to not have animosity toward Christians? Can we look at history, perhaps, to help us get our bearings on this? The fact is that the world in which the very first Christians found themselves was a world that was incredibly hostile to biblical Christianity, and filled with wickedness and depravity, including rampant homosexuality. And yet, I feel certain that the Christians of that time interacted in the business world. And I do not see Scriptures exhorting Christians to not buy from this or that leather craftsman or olive purveyor, based on that person’s presumably anti-Christian views.
And also, lest we forget, the Bible makes it clear that the world will have animosity toward both us and God’s Word:
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing….” (1 Corinthians 1:18a)
“You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)
Yeah, I think this pretty much sums it up for us accounting / finance types:
The Real Reason For Lefty Malaise – great explanation by Rich Karlgaard of Forbes about why Leftist ideas look swell in college classrooms but fail in the real world.
Pandering to Hispanics — L.A./Chicago Boycott Arizona… Unless There’s Money to be Made on red light cameras. You can always tell how deep principles run when people hold them tightly — provided it costs them absolutely nothing.
Supreme Court: Public schools can deny funding to Christian student groups that bar gays — a horrible decision that only passed when they tweaked it to say that groups can’t exclude anyone. But what will they do if hundreds of Christians join the Muslim group and change its leaders and by-laws to say that Jesus is the only way and Mohammad was a false prophet? Make up your own examples!
More inconsistencies — We’re Here, We’re Queer and We’re in Abject Denial — gay groups support Palestine, even though the Palestinians would kill them all if they had a parade there while Israel would not.
Israel. The only place in the Middle East where one can be gay in public, without fear of being jailed, tortured or killed. The useful idiots aligning with Palestine don’t even realize that Hamas, a terrorist organization intent on “wiping Israel off the map,” is also oppressing some of its own people, particularly women and homosexuals. But, see, this doesn’t matter to them. Hamas is anti-Israel and anti-America. This is all that matters. Because George Bush. And evil capitalist America. They are willing to turn a blind eye to true oppression and homophobia so rampant that it results in bloodshed and death, as long as it fits with their preferred global agenda.
Hillary: Let the babies starve until we fund abortions – they love expanding abortions so much that they’ll hold food and medicine for babies as a result. You can really feel the love, eh?
Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic. Maternal health does not depend on abortion. In fact, abortion is a rather moot point when it comes to the stage of worrying about the health of mothers of newborn infants, isn’t it?
Darwin Meets Orwell – call this one, “Thanks for the concession speech, Mr. Naturalist!” We’ve said for some time that naturalism can’t ground morality and this “expert” fully concedes the point. His logic and conclusions are muddy, but the net of it is great to hear. Yes, yes, we agree! If your worldview is true then people can’t be held accountable!
Glenn’s last piece on his Catholic series, Catholic Iconography and the “Saints.” Nice summary. I know many Catholics who, based on what they profess to believe, would be in the “true Christian” category. They either weren’t taught or don’t believe the false doctrines from Rome and they do believe the essentials. But that doesn’t mean I’d point people there. The Reformation happened for many good reasons.
. . . These are the heavy burdens of legalism placed upon the members of the Roman Catholic Church, which result in the Roman Catholic Church being a cultic organization, in which the majority of its members are not true Christians (as testimony after testimony of ex-members attest).
How do we then witness to Catholics? The best way is to show them that salvation is a one-time thing and that it is not as a result of works. Point them to Christ, and not to Mary, for salvation. And that everything their leaders say should be passed through the grid of Scripture.
As noted on my Facebook page, my backup dog chewed through the mesh and inside of my suitcase to get to some candy stored in the front compartment. She ate the Mikes AND the Ikes. This is a re-enactment; she ran away when I was coming down the hall the first time. She has lost a lot of teeth but still managed to chew through the fabric.
One of the myths perpetuated by macro-evolutionists (in addition to insisting that the concept is false and that those crazy creationists came up with the idea) is that so much depends on evolution. Click the link to read how bogus those claims are. Really, folks, you don’t have to believe the molecules-to-man / elephants / caterpillar-butterfly / etc. version to be able to make antibiotics.
In case you missed it, definitely spend a couple minutes on What on honest President would say, the video by Robert Reich. It is one of those pesky videos that highlights how a current Obama health care plan supporter said the opposite things a couple years back.
Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That’s true, and what I’m going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you–particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people–you’re going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.
And by the way, we are going to have to–if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die. [applause]
Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid–we already have a lot of bargaining leverage–to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you.”
— A speech that Robert Reich, who served as President Clinton’s labor secretary, delivered in 2007.
Reich took a long time to create some sort of spin once the video surfaced, but his attempted rebuttal was weak.
Don’t be fooled: Abortion is in the health care plan. Leaders who tells you otherwise are lying. Those who believe it are naive.
I don’t watch Glenn Beck, but thought we should check up on the impact of the boycott against him:
+ Maddow 9pm
+ Olbermann 10pm
+ Maddow 11pm
+ 109,000 other people
= Glenn Beck at 5pm
It must just be his time slot.