LGBT extremists shamelessly cause a scene at a Target store.

[Greed and Death]

The groups have the right to discourage people from shopping at target.
They left when ordered to they could be served with trespassing charges if they come back.
Hijacking the intercoms might be something that could subject them to a civil penalty, I am not certain on that point of law.

[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.

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.

The only thing it would'e got me thinking about was shut these people up and get them out of here. And that is regardless of what they were saying

[Daistallia 2104]

Exactly. Is target promoting that candidate because of legislation he would support that benefits target? Most likely. Is target promoting him because he is anti-gay? Doubtful.

Hell no. Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...I can't blame them either, because they're in it to make money and that comes first within the confines of the law. Now, if Target were actively backing anti-LGBT legislation things might be different, but right now they're interested in making money.

Giving $150,000 in political funding to an anti-civil-rights candidate is actively backing that candidates agenda.

[Haiz]

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.

I know, Equality right?

[Since when have gays always had the right to marry?]

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

[The Scandinvans]

They call target bigoted, 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.

What a crock of shit. "Ahh, these damn Jews are protesting about a million-dollar donation to a Nazi organisation! When will they learn that they don't deserve any special treatment? Those bigoted fuckers."

If people were talking against homosexuals, you would most likely agree they should be arrested. Free speech comes with the tolerance of others.

BULLSHIT. There is no right to not be offended.

There is when it is a private place and the store has the deserve to maintain a general state of duo quorum on their premise. Under that logic I can go into a store that is frequented by gay persons and hand out pamphlets advocating something that is offensive to their way of life, while not expecting to be ejected from the store. If it was a public place, like a park or street corner, then it would be different. But the moment you enter a private place of business you surrender the expectation to be allowed to speak freely.

[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.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

[Zephie]

Exactly. Is target promoting that candidate because of legislation he would support that benefits target? Most likely. Is target promoting him because he is anti-gay? Doubtful.

Hell no. Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...I can't blame them either, because they're in it to make money and that comes first within the confines of the law. Now, if Target were actively backing anti-LGBT legislation things might be different, but right now they're interested in making money.

Giving $150,000 in political funding to an anti-civil-rights candidate is actively backing that candidates agenda.

No, no it's not. It's indirectly supporting.

[Farnhamia]

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.

No, we really want the laws changed so that everyone is required to marry the same sex. All heterosexual marriages will be declared invalid and persons not marrying someone of the same sex after a reasonable period of time, say, two weeks, will be rounded up and sent to re-education camps in Death Valley. Or maybe sent to Saudi Arabia, we haven't worked out all the details yet.

Oh, did I say that out loud?

[Farnhamia]

Exactly. Is target promoting that candidate because of legislation he would support that benefits target? Most likely. Is target promoting him because he is anti-gay? Doubtful.

Hell no. Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...I can't blame them either, because they're in it to make money and that comes first within the confines of the law. Now, if Target were actively backing anti-LGBT legislation things might be different, but right now they're interested in making money.

Giving $150,000 in political funding to an anti-civil-rights candidate is actively backing that candidates agenda.

No, no it's not. It's indirectly supporting.

If there were a professional Twister league, my friend, you would be in its Hall of Fame.

[Haiz]

Exactly. Is target promoting that candidate because of legislation he would support that benefits target? Most likely. Is target promoting him because he is anti-gay? Doubtful.

Hell no. Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...I can't blame them either, because they're in it to make money and that comes first within the confines of the law. Now, if Target were actively backing anti-LGBT legislation things might be different, but right now they're interested in making money.

Giving $150,000 in political funding to an anti-civil-rights candidate is actively backing that candidates agenda.

No, no it's not. It's indirectly supporting.

So? Its still supporting, which is viable for information to be given by an organization about said funding. Both sides do it. It brings into question certain things, but your argument really has no point of getting across your point.

[The Scandinvans]

The groups have the right to discourage people from shopping at target.
They left when ordered to they could be served with trespassing charges if they come back.
Hijacking the intercoms might be something that could subject them to a civil penalty, I am not certain on that point of law.

What they did was quite foolhardy and morally awkward, but you are correct. They do not deserve, at legally and morally, deserve to face legal charges.

[Blouman Empire]

[Since when have gays always had the right to marry?]

Always just not to someone of the same gender.

And before anyone says anything, I am just answering the question not making an anti-gay marriage post.

[Daistallia 2104]

The groups have the right to discourage people from shopping at target.
They left when ordered to they could be served with trespassing charges if they come back.
Hijacking the intercoms might be something that could subject them to a civil penalty, I am not certain on that point of law.

Were they actually hijacking it? From what I gathered, they brought their own megaphone.

[Haiz]

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.

No, we really want the laws changed so that everyone is required to marry the same sex. All heterosexual marriages will be declared invalid and persons not marrying someone of the same sex after a reasonable period of time, say, two weeks, will be rounded up and sent to re-education camps in Death Valley. Or maybe sent to Saudi Arabia, we haven't worked out all the details yet.

Oh, did I say that out loud?

OH MY GOD ITS POLITICALLY CORRECT SOCIALIST LIBERALS IN WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!

Did I say that too loudly?

[Farnhamia]

The groups have the right to discourage people from shopping at target.
They left when ordered to they could be served with trespassing charges if they come back.
Hijacking the intercoms might be something that could subject them to a civil penalty, I am not certain on that point of law.

What they did was quite foolhardy and morally awkward, but you are correct. They do not deserve, at legally and morally, deserve to face legal charges.

What does "morally awkward" mean?

[Soheran]

Gays have the right to marry the opposite sex

Is that what you want?

I'm sure it will work wonders for the institution of marriage...

[Zephie]

The groups have the right to discourage people from shopping at target.
They left when ordered to they could be served with trespassing charges if they come back.
Hijacking the intercoms might be something that could subject them to a civil penalty, I am not certain on that point of law.

Were they actually hijacking it? From what I gathered, they brought their own megaphone.

Yeah, i was corrected earlier, the megaphone is laying on the floor.

[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.

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

So what? A large number of people (according to you) will willingly deny people rights because they find a few activists annoying. That doesn't sound inaccurate. To me it just shows that those people have a somewhat low moral character.

[Chumblywumbly]

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

It is indeed a sad thing that many succumb to fallacious reasoning.

Happily, however, I imagine many won't.

[Tergnitz]

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

Exactly, as it was on the store's private property, Target had every right to call the police and expel them from the store, which is exactly what they should have done. If these protestors want to demonstrate on the public property in front of the store, that is perfectly fine, but they cannot simply walk inside and harass and film shoppers without their express consent.

[Haiz]

The groups have the right to discourage people from shopping at target.
They left when ordered to they could be served with trespassing charges if they come back.
Hijacking the intercoms might be something that could subject them to a civil penalty, I am not certain on that point of law.

What they did was quite foolhardy and morally awkward, but you are correct. They do not deserve, at legally and morally, deserve to face legal charges.

What does "morally awkward" mean?

Screaming at the moral majority about being immoral is morally awkward?

[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.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

"Creating a Disturbance" is a subjective decision that can only be made by a Police Officer. Filming in a public area (privately owned or not) is legal. And Target's rules on solicitation, or their policies in general, have no power of law. ALL they can do is ask you to leave - or request that police arrest someone who refuses to leave for trespassing.
Companies may ACT like their policies mean something, but unless you work for them, they don't.

[Greed and Death]

The groups have the right to discourage people from shopping at target.
They left when ordered to they could be served with trespassing charges if they come back.
Hijacking the intercoms might be something that could subject them to a civil penalty, I am not certain on that point of law.

Were they actually hijacking it? From what I gathered, they brought their own megaphone.

I couldn't tell, just figured they found the frequency that goes to the intercom(normally for emergency use).
If they brought their own megaphones i see no issue, they left the property when ordered to do so.

[Ryadn]

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

Because it was a protest.

On private property.

It wasn't acting as private property until they were asked to leave---which they did.

We'd all be so lucky if TPers protested this politely.