The Family Research Council vitriol was spraying again last week regarding Wal-Mart's partnership with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).
From the FRC:
While the NGLCC professes to promote the "interests of the LGBT business community," this is not all they have done. Recently, they described efforts to defend traditional marriage as an attempt to "write discrimination into the Constitution..." The NGLCC also advocated attaching a pro-homosexual "hate crimes" amendment to legislation intended to protect children from violent sex offenders. Their advocacy delayed the legislation for several months. It is unfortunate that Wal-Mart has joined forces with an organization whose mission opposes many of the values shared by rural and small-town America. It is precisely the interests of average Americans that Wal-Mart has prided itself in promoting. Now, by surrendering to the radical homosexual lobby, Wal-Mart has entered the political arena with no economic benefit to their company or their customers.
Why is the homosexual lobby always "radical" as opposed to the efforts of the religious lobby to clearly write discrimination into the Constitution? What could be more radical? Traditional marriage doesn't need defending and has never been under attack.
Wal-Mart is simply doing what any corporation eventually has to do: make an effort to be inclusive and expand their customer base. As for the interests of "average Americans," apparently the FRC can't seem to grasp the concept that us queerfolk are part of the "average" America -- whatever the hell that is. (I can tell you if they were to look at a snapshot of "average America" they probably wouldn't like what they see -- but that's another blog post on the topic of immigration.)
I'm gay. I was born in the rural small-town America they have conquered. I spent several years in college about a half-hour drive from Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters. I also remember having a vibrant downtown area in my small hometown. There were clothing stores, "dime" stores, hardware stores, and a couple of nice supermarkets including a Safeway. I remember my sense of civic pride when a Gibson's Discount Center opened on the outskirts of town. Then Otasco closed their small downtown store and opened a much larger and nicer store next to Gibson's. My little town seemed to be booming when I was in my mid-teens.
Then came Wal-Mart. It wasn't long before both Gibson's and Otasco shut down. And the downtown area is virtually vacant today. Over the years, various vacant buildings also burned to the ground, never to be replaced. Downtown now has ample parking but there's no reason to park there. So much for those "values."
Wal-Mart is well aware of the negative publicity they have received over the years regarding any number of issues from the hundreds of job-losses in American small-towns, to low wages paid to employees, poor benefits, reports of forced overtime without pay, etc. They have essentially been fighting negative publicity for years. They are aware that some of us are vehement about not shopping in their stores, myself included.
As their older "average" clientele begins to die off, they know they must adapt in order to continue growing. This is why they moved in the direction of offering more organic products. (See my prior post: The Greening of Wal-Mart)
What exactly did Wal-Mart do to "surrender" to the "radical homosexual lobby?"
NGLCC excerpt:
Wal-Mart is the latest company that has heard our message about completing the circle of corporate diversity. No longer is just marketing to the LGBT segment enough. No longer is having a corporate non discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation enough. If a company is as truly committed to being a good corporate citizen in the LGBT space as they are with other diverse communities, then they need to buy back and invest in LGBT community-owned businesses like they do with other diverse segments. Their supplier base, those from whom they purchase goods and services, must look like the customer and employee base they have or are trying to attract.
OK. Which side seems more rational here?
Wal-Mart profits recently fell off 26% after their decision to withdraw from Germany. They are aware of the need to reach out to more Americans than they have in the past. Those small-town older rural shoppers are not only going to get older, shop less and eventally die off, but it's obvious the LGBT and LGBT-friendly market in general has more income to spend than the previously targeted rural "family-values" shoppers.
I'm not ready to shop there yet. But I'm a step closer. It's what they want, and eventually, will need.
hat tip: BlueGal for prodding me on this piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment