This "GAY" Crap is GOING TOOOOOO FAR!

Ya know, I said I have or know gay people...only one that I openly joke with.

Like Karen stated, though, why flaunt your sexuality...especially in cases like this:


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110325/D9M6A8QO0.html


Target sues San Diego gay rights group


Mar 25, 10:19 AM (ET)

By JULIE WATSON

Google sponsored links
NDN Shareholder Alert - 99 Cents Only Stores worth more? Join the class action online.
www.RigrodskyLong.com

Most Ridiculous Lawsuit - What's this month's most ridiculous lawsuit? Vote in the poll!
www.FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org


SAN DIEGO (AP) - Target Corp. is suing a San Diego pro-gay marriage group to get it to stop canvassing outside its San Diego County stores, alleging its activists are driving away customers.

Rights advocates say the trial between Target and Canvass For A Cause that begins Friday could further strain relations with the gay and lesbian community after controversy over its $150,000 donation to a business group backing a Minnesota Republican candidate opposed to gay marriage.


(That's where I call it totally, "Ridiculous"!!!!!)


Minnesota-based Target insists it remains committed to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and its lawsuit has nothing to do with the political agenda of the organization.

"Our legal action was in no way related to the cause of the organization and was done so to be consistent with our long-standing policy of providing a distraction-free shopping experience by not permitting solicitors at our stores," the company said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

Target says it has taken similar action against a number of organizations representing a variety of causes. It alleges in the lawsuit that the San Diego group's activists harass customers by cornering them near its stores' front entrances and debating with them about their views on gay marriage.

The group says it canvasses at shopping malls, college campus and stores like Target to collect signatures and donations in support of gay marriage.

The corporation says at least eight Target stores in the area have reported receiving more than a dozen complaints daily since canvassers started working outside their stores in October 2010. Target says the activists have refused to leave when asked politely and shown the company's policy prohibiting "expressive activity" on its property.

Canvass For A Cause director Tres Watson says Target wants to silence the 12,000-member group that formed in 2009 because it promotes gay marriage.

"It's very David vs. Goliath," he said. "We understand they're the Goliath in the room. They've got all money in world to get us to stop talking about gay marriage."

Watson says volunteers are trained daily on being professional and polite and their aim is to educate the public about the rights of gays and lesbians.

He says they have a right to work outside the stores and the courts have ruled in the past that shopping centers are today's public squares where freedom of speech should be allowed.

"We train our staff and volunteers very carefully in techniques in winning people over," he said. "When you're trying to persuade voters and reach out to the community with a message, there is no advantage to being aggressive."

Target was seen as an ally of the gay and lesbian community before it gave money to MN Forward, which supported Tom Emmer, who lost the governor's race to Democrat Mark Dayton.

Target later said it was sorry for the hurt feelings and tried to repair its public relations damage from the controversial donation. Target created a committee to help it better scrutinize decisions regarding financial donations.

The company also negotiated a deal with Lady Gaga to sell a special edition of her upcoming album in a partnership Gaga said was tied to their "reform," supporting the gay community and making up for past "mistakes." [color=#CC00FF]But the singer backed out a few weeks ago.

She's enough to make you gag!
Now, have I included all the rainbow colors in this article so as to not get sued?

It's easier to get married than to divorce.

Take my straight nephew's advice regarding "marriage".

Don't do it. A piece of paper causes nightmares.

UrRight wrote:

SAN DIEGO (AP) - Target Corp. is suing a San Diego pro-gay marriage group to get it to stop canvassing outside its San Diego County stores, alleging its activists are driving away customers.

What a frivolous lawsuit. It's going to cause more harm than good.

Between that and the republican donation, not looking good for Target!

I understand, Jack. They wouldn't even let the Salvation Army bell ringers stand in front of their stores a few years ago. Lots of complaints on one of the boards about that.

Maybe Target should have looked at Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins before filing their suit.

happy jack wrote:

if you were a business owner attempting to make a living and to remain in business, who would you feel more obliged to satisfy – your customers, who keep you in business, or a whiny gaggle of professional victims?
I certainly know who I would prefer to keep happy.

I'd like to make a few points. A company like Target is going to have all kinds of customers. (Liberals, Conservatives, Gays, Straights, Blacks, Asians, ect.) That being said, if I were a business owner with such a variety of customers I'd try to avoid donating to any political cause. Would you shop somewhere that donated to Planned Parenthood?

I hope you're separating this group of protesters from the LGBT community in general. Not all LGBT individuals are whiny professional victims.

I disagree with what these protesters are doing. If I remember correctly Target tried to make nice. I mean they couldn't take back their donation, but they apologized for isolating the community.

I do think the lawsuit is frivolous still. If they are on Target's property, Target needs to call the police. I've been to the Merrillville Target and the Valparaiso Target. Both have pretty huge parking lots owned by none other than Target. I think I could get in and out without anybody bothering me.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Maybe Target should have looked at Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins before filing their suit.

Pruneyard is very bad law, designed to pacify whiners, with no respect for the rights of private property owners.

Now you're a legal scholar?

happy jack wrote:

If I felt compelled to debate anyone, it would be the proprietors, not the customers.

Agreed. This group is picking the wrong battle.

happy jack wrote:

You shouldn't have to duck and hide in order not to be bothered, and Target should be allowed to prevent its customers from being bothered. It is their property.

Right again. What I don't understand is the necessity of suing. Anyone harassing people on their property should be removed by the police and prosecuted for trespassing if they return. There has to be some sort of law that prevents people from doing this without Target having to further damage their image.

happy jack wrote:

UrRight wrote:

Ya know, I said I have or know gay people...

How many do you own?
Do you rent them out for parties?

No, but I'm certain you rent clowns for parties.

Clowns are scary to some people.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Pruneyard is very bad law, designed to pacify whiners, with no respect for the rights of private property owners.

Now you're a legal scholar?

You don't need to be a legal scholar to recognize that a law which tramples all over private property rights is a very bad law. You do, however, need to be a selfish, whining idiot to believe that it is a good law.
I don't know how you operate, but I, and I alone, decide who is welcome in my house, and if their behavior doesn't conform to my standards, they do not come back.
How flippin' complicated is that?

So according to you the Justices that ruled on this are selfish, whining idiots?

happy jack wrote:

What I do know, however, is that they made the world a little more friendly for the selfish, whining idiots who believe that their self-centered little agenda is so freakin' important that they feel they have the right to trespass, harass, and invade the private space and property of others.
Does that answer your question?[/b]

Yeah,well I don't see people that simply want the same rights extended to them as others enjoy,promoting a "self-centered little agenda".

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

What I do know, however, is that they made the world a little more friendly for the selfish, whining idiots who believe that their self-centered little agenda is so freakin' important that they feel they have the right to trespass, harass, and invade the private space and property of others.
Does that answer your question?[/b]

Yeah,well I don't see people that simply want the same rights extended to them as others enjoy,promoting a "self-centered little agenda".

Then they should showcase their agenda in a public forum, and not invade the privacy of others. If their agenda is legitimate, then people will pay attention to them without being forced to do so.

The people being canvassed are free to walk away at any time. No one is being "forced" to do anything. If they were then I would imagine that these canvassers would be subject to arrest. Can you point to any actual examples of people being "forced" to participate or is this just more hot air?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Can you point to any actual examples of people being "forced" to participate or is this just more hot air?

Yes.
This is from the article, which you apparently didn't bother to read.


Target says it has taken similar action against a number of organizations representing a variety of causes. It alleges in the lawsuit that the San Diego group's activists harass customers by cornering them near its stores' front entrances and debating with them about their views on gay marriage.


There's your example.
In extra-large font.
In color.
If a person is cornered, that person has little recourse other than to barrel his way out of that corner, requiring physical contact with the harasser, and potentially making the cornered person appear to be the aggressor, subjecting the cornered person to the unwanted attention of law enforcement, as he will be the one perceived to have initiated physical contact. Most people would be reluctant to do that.
Does that make it any clearer for you?

No,it doesn't. In fact,you're not even close. Here's a quickie legal lesson for you......Allegations made by a plaintiff in a lawsuit are not proof of anything nor are they to be considered as evidence! Jurors are always instructed on that very point. They are simply accusations that have yet to be proven.

Now I'll ask you again...Can you point to any actual examples of people being "forced" to participate? How about arrests? Surely if someone was cornering people in an aggressive manner they would be subject to arrest,much like a panhandler would be in a similar circumstance. Target has security guards,do they not? Has anyone been detained by them,later arrested,and found guilty of a crime?