ROFL. Need a good LAUGH? "Why is Walmart promoting homosexual activism?"

[Grebrook]

Click on this link.

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF06H39.pdf

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2006/09/03/why_did_wal-mart_go_gay

We all need a good laugh here at DU after all of the fighting over Chavez-Pelosi-Rangel.

[razors edge]

1. something wrong with link?

nearly locked my puter.

[Grebrook]

2. It's a printable flyer and the program is adobe reader, which takes a few

seconds to load.

[OneBlueSky]

3. "Wal-Mart never excluded anyone from being employed there . . .

based on their sexual preference," says the author . . .

I hate it when someone refers to homosexuality as a "preference" . . . it's not a preference, it's an orientation . . . preference implies some sort of choice, and in my experience being gay isn't at all about choice . . .

I have a preference for coffee over tea . . . my sexual orientation has nothing to do with "preference," thank you very much . . .

[Jamastiene]

4. Hear here.

I hate that when people assume it is a choice too. I even argued vehemently with someone right here in GD about a month ago about it. They still never got it. It infuriates me. :mad:

[NMMNG]

5. Moran

Why will Wal-Mart spend monetary resources to help fund conferences that promote same gender sexual behavior? Would they do the same for adulterers? Pedophiles? Men who like sheep?

The conferences don't promote same gender sexual behavior but promotion of equal rights for GLBT people. But then being truthful has never been a strong point of RWers.

And why did they have to change their policy on the extension of benefits for married to partners to now include same-sex domestic partners? Will they also extend the benefits to opposite-sex domestic partners? Why are they discriminating against heterosexuals?

No, they aren't discriminating against heterosexuals, the US is discriminating against homosexuals by not letting them get married. If homosexuals could get married they would be automatically eligible for spousal benefits and Wal-mart (and other companies) wouldn't have to extend benefits specially to them.


This was never about Wal-Mart really needing to become more tolerant - they didn't. But a handful of hateful activists put a bulls-eye on the retailer that scared them.

"Hateful activists"? Since when is asking for equal rights hateful activism? Indeed it's the other way around. :crazy:

[mykpart]

6. Does anyone else think it's ludicrous

that we are defending WAL-Mart?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Always give the Devil his due.

Nothing weakens an argument like overstating it.

[tanyev]

8. Uh-oh. All good fundies better boycott!