LGBT extremists shamelessly cause a scene at a Target store.

[Soheran]

i guess youre theo nly one to think that

I very much doubt it. People say all the time that advocates for one or another cause they support are sometimes obnoxious.

[Vetalia]

So boycotters decide to impact their bottom line.

So?

To be honest, I think the loss of conservative Christian shoppers would be far greater than the loss of LGBT shoppers...

Bear in mind I don't think Target is right. Let nobody get that impression.

[Sathoran]

Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...

So boycotters decide to impact their bottom line.

So?

They are slandering target in order to try to get people to stop shopping there. They should be charged with something. It's the equivalent of me trying to tell people to stop shopping at walmart because they burn babies, when they really don't.

Yeah, Target did contribute the money. No slander there. You really do have no leg to stand on here.

[Rolling squid]

Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...

So boycotters decide to impact their bottom line.

So?

They are slandering target in order to try to get people to stop shopping there. They should be charged with something. It's the equivalent of me trying to tell people to stop shopping at walmart because they burn babies, when they really don't.

It ain't slander if it's true.

[Kaputer]

The problem with this is they hijack the PA system. As a Methodist straight man I fight for equal rights for all including homosexuals, but this is not the proper forum.

[Satirius]

Because corporate rights trump human rights amirite

[Dododecapod]

Well, it seems that the minority has the right to harrass the majority.

ABSOLUTELY! It's called free speech.

But only in public or with the permission of the private holders

Nope. As I said before, provided you're willing to move on when asked, or to be arrested, privately-owned publically accessible areas are fair game.

So if they can be arrested and stopped and moved on from saying whatever they want the first amendment doesn't give them that right.

I can go on a killing spree provided I am willing to be arrested, doesn't mean I'm allowed to do it.

There are laws against murder, there are no laws against protest.

Then how can they be arrested?

Again it isn't protected by the first admendment, if they can be stopped by the holders or by the government (through the police) then the first admendment doesn't give them that right

Sure it does. The right to do something doesn't protect you from consequences of using that right - only LEGAL consequences, i.e. being arrested for what you say. And they could only be arrested if they refused to leave.

[Haiz]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Its their first amendment right to peacefully assemble. They did not destroy anything, and the store could request that they move or leave.

It's not a first amendment right to cause a public disturbance, harass others, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, and solicit on private property in violation of company policy.

And what would the company do? Ask them to leave. Thats first step id assume for people getting a bit to rowdy or unruly? Show me where they resisted any commands and caused a public disturbance.

[Sathoran]

The problem with this is they hijack the PA system. As a Methodist straight man I fight for equal rights for all including homosexuals, but this is not the proper forum.

No they didn't, they brought their own. They damaged no property and left when asked.

[Haiz]

Because corporate rights trump human rights amirite

But Corporate Rights=Human Rights (for the corporation)!

[Soheran]

So I can bring a megaphone and say "gay people are cocksuckers that need to be put in their place," and that wouldn't be considered hate speech and get me taken away in handcuffs?

Um... yes?

You do realize that the US doesn't have hate speech laws?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

You just need a good hard fuckin', Zephie. Take a big gay cock and enjoy self-loving your self-loathing gay self.

Okay, this is flamebait and mod action is forthcoming as soon as some details are worked out.

Edit: Details worked out. Due to prior nations' history, we're going for a *** one-day ban ***. This is subject to change.

[Vetalia]

Because corporate rights trump human rights amirite

Depends on what side you're on. If I had to choose between the corporation and anyone else in this economy, no contest...I'll be their Petain.

[Chumblywumbly]

Has political protest/civil disobedience been brought down to such a state that shouting through a megaphone is now seen as an act of 'extremism'?

Pitiful.

[Dododecapod]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

So I can bring a megaphone and say "gay people are cocksuckers that need to be put in their place," and that wouldn't be considered hate speech and get me taken away in handcuffs?

Not if you had a group of people with you as an organized protest. If you're on your own, then while the same rules SHOULD apply to you, the police don't always follow the correct procedures.

[New Manvir]

if i acted like a douchebag while promoting my cause, would you support it?

You acting or not acting like a douchebag wouldn't have anything to do with it. I mean, that's almost a paradigmatic case of an ad hominem fallacy.

i guess you're the only one to think that

No, I agree. I'd support your cause if I agreed with it, despite your actions. The fact that you wouldn't seems, to me, to imply moral laziness on your part.

[Daistallia 2104]

LGBT extremists shamelessly causes scene at a target store and uploads it onto youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1inmoke ... re=popular

Did you post the right video? Where were the extremists shamlessly causing a scene?

I want to know if other LGBT people find their actions are justified, or ashamed a group of people that tries to represent them acted so immaturely.

Ally here. They were justified.

They are angry Target apparently donated 150,000 dollars to the campaign of somebody that doesn't support gay marriage,

Rightfully so.

so their argument is you're hate-filled and discriminate if you don't support the special treatment of LGBT.

Incorrect. Their argument is that target is hateful and discrinminates because they support discrimination.

They call target bigoted,

Correctly.

but in the description, the videomaker writes "Call Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel at 612-696-6234 and DEMAND they get the $150,000 back or donate $150,000 to queer youth or transgender services!"
That sounds bigoted to me, them supporting the special treatment of LGBT.

No special treatment was asked for. If the government tells you you can't marry because your name begins with Z, it's not asking for special treatment if you want that disctimination stopped.

Harassing shoppers, handing out soliciting material, causing a disturbance, and filming people against their wishes: Why weren't these people arrested?

Because it's not politically correct to arrest gay people for trying to promote their culture.

What promotion of culture?

OP, you are not going to be able to win. The people in here are so liberal that they are conservative. They come in droves, and you will be overwhelmed.

The OPer's loosing out, but not because of a dogpile. Rather, the OP was a stupid argument that is easily defeated.

Fact: businesses are likely to back candidates with their economic interests in mind. Social issues like LGBT rights are a distant, distant second and nobody should be surprised if they really don't give a shit about the issue.

However, Target has gone out of their way to support an anti-civil-rights candidate.

[Haiz]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

So I can bring a megaphone and say "gay people are cocksuckers that need to be put in their place," and that wouldn't be considered hate speech and get me taken away in handcuffs?

You assume too much about "Political Correctness OMG!".

[Blouman Empire]

Sure it does. The right to do something doesn't protect you from consequences of using that right - only LEGAL consequences, i.e. being arrested for what you say. And they could only be arrested if they refused to leave.

Of course they can't be arrested for what they say but they can be arrested for where they are saying it.

Regardless it is a douche move and their are better ways to go about.

Really people use some class.

[Tungookska]

if i acted like a douchebag while promoting my cause, would you support it?

You acting or not acting like a douchebag wouldn't have anything to do with it. I mean, that's almost a paradigmatic case of an ad hominem fallacy.

i guess you're the only one to think that

No, I agree. I'd support your cause if I agreed with it, despite your actions. The fact that you wouldn't seems, to me, to imply moral laziness on your part.

i guess you guys didnt read the thread and notice the large number of people who think otherwise

[Zephie]

No special treatment was asked for. If the government tells you you can't marry because your name begins with Z, it's not asking for special treatment if you want that disctimination stopped.

Gays have the right to marry the opposite sex, which has been the way for all this time. Gays want everyone to be able to marry the same sex, so that is creating a new "right" for everybody.

[Haiz]

Fact: businesses are likely to back candidates with their economic interests in mind. Social issues like LGBT rights are a distant, distant second and nobody should be surprised if they really don't give a shit about the issue.

But such connections between issues happen on both sides. Its irrelevant what Target directly supports. Its within their right to protest and to inform, and within Target's right to dictate disturbances on its property. No crimes unless its a public distrubance, assault or vandalism.

[Dododecapod]

Sure it does. The right to do something doesn't protect you from consequences of using that right - only LEGAL consequences, i.e. being arrested for what you say. And they could only be arrested if they refused to leave.

Of course they can't be arrested for what they say but they can be arrested for where they are saying it.

Regardless it is a douche move and their are better ways to go about.

Really people use some class.

Maybe so, but it was still a legal move. And sometimes you need to shake people out of their comfort zone to get them to start thinking about this stuff.

[Soheran]

To be honest, I think the loss of conservative Christian shoppers would be far greater than the loss of LGBT shoppers...

That may be their calculation--they stonewalled HRC's request for reciprocal donations to LGBT organizations--but I very much doubt it. The activism on this issue is increasingly unidirectional.

[Dododecapod]

No special treatment was asked for. If the government tells you you can't marry because your name begins with Z, it's not asking for special treatment if you want that disctimination stopped.

Gays have the right to marry the opposite sex, which has been the way for all this time. Gays want everyone to be able to marry the same sex, so that is creating a new "right" for everybody.

So, what's the problem? Why does this impact you?