Target doesn’t bend to special interests!

Today comments I sent into the Star Tribune were published on the topic of Targets donation to a pro-business group that subsequently gave money to Rep. Tom Emmer's campaign for Minnesota Governor. The comments posted today is the second time my comments were published by the Star Tribune on this topic. My comment from July 29, 2010 (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/100939139.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr) were:

 

The uproar by the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community over Target's $150,000 donation to a group that has placed an ad for Tom Emmer is questionable. Target is one company that recognizes the plight of the GLBT community by offering domestic partnership benefits and donating money to pride parades.

The donation by Target is to back a candidate who is probusiness.

Why is it OK for the GLBT community to focus on one issue when backing a candidate, but not OK for Target?

Since that time advertising and negotiations have been taking place trying to force Target into donating similar money to groups and candidates that a friendly to the GLBT community. After hearing that Target said they would not cave to pressures from outside of Minnesota I wrote this(http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/100939139.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr):

 

Kudos to Target executives for not being baited by the Human Rights Campaign into an attempt to extort money by a single-issue group ("Target balks at counter contribution," Aug. 17). Does the HRC not realize that Target offers benefit programs that are friendly to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community while also giving money for the annual Pride festival? Or is this just another case of an outside force coming to Minnesota to push its weight around?

Target executives made a business decision to give money to a probusiness group that in turn helps probusiness candidates get elected. Target did not donate money to an anti-GLBT group. Will the HRC hire all the workers that Target, or any other company, has to let go if the environment in Minnesota becomes too toxic for businesses to thrive?

To paint Target, or any other business, has being anti-GLBT is pathetic. People are boycotting Target as well because of their donation choice. Don't people understand that in order for Target to thrive and offer jobs that it will back pro-business groups? Just take a look at the West Coast. Recently Utah raised their top level tax rate to 11% and the result was many businesses left the state and revenues dropped by $600 million. We need businesses in our communities to keep tax revenue flowing and if that means they donate money to a pro-business candidate then so be it. As I originally posed, "Why is it OK for the GLBT community to focus on one issue when backing a candidate, but not OK for Target?"

 

Remove Government from the Marriage equation

This past week Chief United States Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 that Californians passed last year that defined marriage between a man and a woman. The argument is that Prop 8 violated the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GBLT) community Civil Rights. Let's be clear here, marriage is not a right. The choice of any two people or several people for that matter, wanting to share their lives together is not a matter that Government needs to be a part of. I understand that the GLBT feels they have the "right" to marriage. I understand the religious proponents of the same-sex marriage are determined to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Why is that we feel this dilemma needs government intervention. Am I alone to see that government created this mess by their co-op of marriage by giving tax breaks, requiring a license and collecting fees?

It is time for both sides to agree to remove government from the process. Remove marriage as an option in the IRS tax code. Remove the license requirement with states. The issue seems so simple solved by removing government from the equation. The barriers that the GLBT are looking to be removed are health care coverage, recognition of property rights that exist between married couples and having the same legal standing that is granted to married couples. Well, a number of companies, i.e. Target, already have recognized the health care situation by allowing coverage for domestic partners. My thought is that every health care plan should be label in this manner as the domestic partner can be anyone. The property of rights and legal standing is already obtainable through power of attorney and other legal writs and this is where all couples should be directed to.

Government has only made a mess of this issue. I know many will argue that the license in important to ensure the legal standing of the married couple – of age, not already married or citizens of the US. Do any of those reasons really matter? I understand that most religions see polygamy as a bad thing but who are we to dictate to another how they are to spend their lives? We speak of religious tolerance, and are backed up by the Constitution, yet we do not recognize the ability for a woman to "marry" several men and women. As I said before, it is time to get government out of the marriage business. By removing them from the equation we create a win/win situation. Marriage is not longer institutionalized and returned to Religious groups and all of us will have to develop legal writs with our partnerships.

Pride Festival allows Brian Johnson to partake

Over the weekend the Twin Cities saw the GLBT community celebrate with a "Pride Festival". Last week the group was looking to bar Brian Johnson from being involved because of his views on homosexuality. After hearing of "Pride Festival" stance, I wrote the following to the Star Tribune (which was published in Saturday's paper): http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/97195119.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

The feud over Johnson smacks of hypocrisy. The Pride festival touts, on its website, that "nearly 400 vendors and exhibitors set up at the Pride Festival each year. From food and beverage to arts and crafts, employee groups and local nonprofit organizations, you can find just about anything you're looking for at the Pride Festival." But if the judge had not ruled, you would not have been able to find Brian Johnson.

Where did the tolerance, diversity and compassion go with Pride organizers? Jim Kelley, Pride festival manager, stated in the Star Tribune that "free speech and liberty belong to everyone. We are leasing this space, and if someone came into your home and started telling you what an awful family you have, [they] can have that opinion; [they] just can't have it in your house."

Again, where is the tolerance? What better place to discuss, openly, the topics concerning the community than at Pride? Or is tolerance of others only saved for the oppressed, downtrodden and castoffs of society?

When I opened the Sunday paper I was happy to hear that Johnson and his group were allowed to walk among the Pride Festival. From all accounts that I have read both yesterday and today, of the Pride Festival is that Johnson's group did not create the type of disruption that officials thought might take place.