Attention Target Shoppers: Meghan McCain in Aisle 9
Marriage equality supporter Meghan McCain pushes her new tome out next month, Dirty Sexy Politics.
In related news, Gilt Groupe has come under fire for a sale with Target that ran on Friday.
Gilt's CEO Susan Lyne responded to anger from Gilt's members:
"Some of you have noted that Gilt benefits from the efforts and talent of the LGBT community -- and you are absolutely right. We consider ourselves lucky to work in an industry that flourishes precisely because it embraces diversity and change. As a company and a community we are better, more creative, more successful because of the contributions of our LGBT colleagues. The sale we are doing with Target today is the result of many months of work on the part of Gilt employees and Target team members far removed from decisions about corporate political contributions. I am grateful to both groups for the care and effort they put into bringing something special to our respective customers. Whether you visit the sale today or not, please know that we will continue to celebrate the contributions of our LGBT employees and vendor partners and to support their events wherever we can. As always, thank you for engaging with us, today and every day."
Gilt would like to say to our LGBT friends, Fuck Off.
In related news, Rosie O'Donnell shopped at Target last week because she had a panic attack in Marshall's due to the smell and crowd. - Sirius/XM show
Posted by: PeterPumpkinEater | Aug 23, 2010 12:37:51 PM
I don't get it, what was the point of Megan's tweet? Was oblivious of the Target boycott, rubbing our faces in it, or making some sort of joke that I didn't get?
Posted by: Mike C. | Aug 23, 2010 12:58:58 PM
Slow news month?
I am sorry, but I am weary of all the Target bashing. The company made one stupid donation, apologized and promised to be more careful about its political donations in the future. They got caught, and they know they will be under scrutiny. Exactly how much foot-kissing does anyone expect from them? Anyone who thinks, like the HRC, that a huge corporation can be commanded to to make further donations to unspecified LGBT friendly candidates as some sort of penance and compensation is foolishly naive about how corporations handle their political donations and what they can and should be forced to do by activists who may have lost perpective.
Target made the donation to a candidate from its home state based solely on how his policies might affect the retailer's business, or possibly just to be on his good side in the event that he won. I'm willing to bet that whoever approved the donation was less concerned with the candidate's social positions than they were about Target's bottom line, and if you think that Target, or any other comparable American corporation has concerns more important than that then you are kidding yourself.
Besides that, Target's record on LGBT issues has been otherwise exemplary. We shouldn't forget that the company obviously has LGBT employees who receive benefits for their partners and families etc., which is still far better than what many other comparable companies offer.
There are far greater enemies to be fought than Target, and making a witch hunt of people who chose to shop there and celebrities who are obligated to work with the company is counterproductive and tiresome.
Posted by: Abie | Aug 23, 2010 1:11:27 PM
Perhaps she had a deal with Target that was negotiated before the current hullabaloo blew up.
Posted by: Tone | Aug 23, 2010 1:12:28 PM
I'm sorry, but the Gilt Group has too many fabulous deals to just boycott. At least let me stock up on merchandise first. Who wants to boycott while looking frumpy?
JK...sorta.
Posted by: Asher | Aug 23, 2010 1:18:14 PM
Target had the best opportunity to make things right. Instead they choose to dig their heels into the ground and stand up for bigotry and inequality.
Sorry, Abie, but an apology and a "promise" to not do it again doesn't placate me. I don't see the burden in making an equivalent donation to a lgbt friendly candidate.
Yes, Target makes corporate decisions based on it's bottom line. Thankfully that bottom line includes consumer consumption, which lgbt help to make up.
Unfortunately, some people need (for whatever reason) to shop at Target. I don't and won't be supporting a company that believes that some people deserve rights and others don't, and when asked to change their position gave the middle finger to all those men and women who believe in basic marriage rights.
Posted by: Leonard | Aug 23, 2010 1:49:01 PM
Essentially Gilt is deciding this the same way Target did. Putting profit ahead of doing the right thing for their customers. I won't be shopping at either.
Posted by: Trasker | Aug 23, 2010 2:02:56 PM
For those of you defending Target - is your need to shop for cheaply-made goods from China that overwhelming. I enjoyed Target as much as anyone - but our relationship was pay as you go - I owe Target nothing - and clearly they feel the same way.
Target has never been the friend to the gay community that some on here need to believe - period. Their willingness to take our money does not make them our friend.
All Target had to do was denounce Emmer's rabidly anti-gay platform - and assure its customers that they would never make a donation again without considering the candidates entire platform - not just one issue - they continue to refuse to do those two simple things - since Target executives - based on their pattern of giving - likely approve of his anti-gay platform - and as soon as they can find a way to give without their customers knowing - will gladly give to him -- and those like him again.
Target is not who they claimed to be - Target is a lie - whether it be the pittance they actually give to the gay community in charitable donations - their top executives giving to rabidly anti-gay candidates - the hiring of executives who worked for rabidly anti-gay candidates -- and their initial refusal to even see a problem - and then their continued refusal to even have the dignity and decency to apologize - and "I am sorry that what I did upset you" IS NOT AN APOLOGY. I AM SORRY FOR WHAT I DID is an apology -- Target got credit for a lot more than they ever actually deserved.
As a citizen, as a taxpayer, as a consumer - I should not have to wear a Target red shirt - or spend money in Target - to be treated equally in America - which is evidently the only equality Target really understands or cares about.
Posted by: ricky | Aug 23, 2010 2:49:21 PM
Hello Donald,
Thanks for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.
Starbucks prefers to not to engage in debate on political or social issues that do not directly impact our business. Given this, we have not taken a position on this issue. Our focus is making our stores welcoming to everyone and providing our customers with the highest quality coffee and customer experience.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your concerns.
Best Regards,
Belinda W.
Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company
800 23-LATTE (235-2883)
Monday through Friday, 5AM to 6PM (PST)
Posted by: Donald | Aug 23, 2010 2:51:33 PM
Wow, that was handled poorly.
I could understand if they said that the money for this had been spent months before the whole political donations thing and that their company couldn't afford to throw it away.
I could also understand if they said they had business contracts to honor but that they would try to find a more GLBT-friendly distributor for their goods when the contract was up, providing that one is available.
As it is, this is just mildly insulting doublespeak.
Posted by: El-Brucio | Aug 23, 2010 3:09:08 PM
The Target boycott is lame. Are you queens bored or something?
Posted by: Royy | Aug 23, 2010 3:48:07 PM
What does Starbucks have to do with anything?
Posted by: crispy | Aug 23, 2010 4:00:25 PM
Hey Royy - No, I am was not bored - until I read your post. Thanks for playing - you brought nothing to the game - now kindly get off the field.
Posted by: ricky | Aug 23, 2010 4:20:28 PM
I missed it - did Walmart start to offer domestic partner benefits?
Why are we so mad at Target, when their leading competitor, the LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE US, still doesn't provide healthcare to same-sex partners of its employees.
we're totally screwed as a society, the reactionary effects of a 24 hour news cycle driven by the twitter feed has made us lose sight of real issues.
Posted by: Dan B | Aug 23, 2010 8:01:33 PM
@Ricky: I agree with most of your comments, but could you stop channeling Emily Dickinson? English is an excellent language that offers a variety of punctuation for your use apart from the dash—I recommend the semi-colon, comma, and parenthesis for starters!
@Royy: "lame"=ableist. using a word that once regularly described people with physical impairments in a pejorative sense is clearly disrespectful towards PWD.
"queens"=misogynistic. gay/queer men who disagree with you are like women, who are nagging and self-centered.
please try again when you are actually able to make a point legitimately.
Posted by: Joey | Aug 23, 2010 8:09:38 PM
I have shopped with Gilt since day one, and know some of the GAY guys in the fashion industry that founded GILT. Believe me when I state, the Target incident caught them off guard as they were prepping for this arrangement well before the news broke. It is definitely egg on their collective faces, however I will still stand behind GILT and know they will be more conscious of their business partners in the future. Do not hold it against GILT, they are a VERY LGBT friendly and owned company.
Posted by: Cory | Aug 24, 2010 12:53:34 AM
But they DO care! See!
Dear Karen,
Thanks for taking the time to share your concerns with us.
Many of our guests make Target a part of their life and that’s why we appreciate hearing your comments. At Target, we are fully committed to fostering an environment that supports and respects the rights and beliefs of all individuals.
I understand the disappointment and frustration that you’ve shared with me, so I’ll be sure to share your comments with our executives.
Sincerely,
Kevin
Target Guest Relations
(800) 440-0680
I would have preferred "Dear Sir or Ma'am"
SO sincere. Seriously, they gave to a guy who supports a violent fringe group whose words and actions can hurt gay kids. Giving, say, $150,000 to The Trevor Project or the Matthew Shepard Foundation would do me just fine. Like for like in my opinion. HRC completely out of the picture.
Posted by: Karen | Aug 24, 2010 3:26:09 AM
Lay off Emily Dickenson Joey.. Unless you can sing it to the tune of “Yellow Rose of Texas” it’s not close to Emily…
Posted by: Dave | Aug 24, 2010 9:43:38 AM