Target and Salvation Army
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sat, 11/20/2004 - 13:10
Recently, I stumbled across a blog entry talking about how Target is not allowing the Salvation Army to ask for donations on their property. Hugh Hewitt writes about it here, and points to an article at Boston.com about this. Other conservative bloggers have also picked up on this.
Last month, a Target opened up in our town. I don’t like shopping. My wife does the shopping for the family. She loves target. She hates Walmart. Is some of this political? Perhaps. So, I thought I would dig a little deeper.
It is worth noting Hugh Hewitt is a nationally syndicated right wing talk show host. It appears as if the conservatives hate Target almost as much as the liberals hate Walmart.
Hewitt attacks Target in is blog entry and on his radio show, but he skips over other facts. The Boston.com article starts off with, “a growing number of retailers, from Best Buy to Target, are banning Salvation Army bell ringers from their doors -- to avoid having to choose between competing charities and out of concern for customers, they say.”
It goes on to state that even the darling of the right and bane of the left, Walmart, limits Salvation Army to “only a total of 14 calendar days, and for no more than three days in a row”.
Digging a little deeper, one comes to the false urban legend that Target does not support veterans.. Snopes also points to Forbes article that lists Target as a top philanthropic donor.
I have mixed feelings about Salvation Army not being at Targets. People have pointed out the strong anti-gay agenda of Salvation Army, as noted in this Washington Post article. However, Salvation Army does do some good as well.
In the end, it appears as if the call by certain right wing commentators for people to boycott Target isn’t about philanthropy or love of one’s neighbor but about ideology.
Ideology?
Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 11/27/2004 - 03:40.Just stop it. Puhleeze.
Target said "We've decided to disallow the Salvation Army because it sets a bad precedent".
How exactly is allowing a great philanthropic organization to collect nine MILLION dollars to give to needy people during the holidays setting a bad precendent?
How exactly is this an Ideological issue? You really need to rethink whatever it is you're thinking here.
I thought liberals were supposed to "care" about people. Here's your opportunity to work WITH the right wing wacko conservative idiots for something that's good. But you'd rather hang your hat on "ideology" differences. You should be ashamed of yourself.
--Stew, http://getstewed.blogspot.com
Did you read what I wrote?
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sat, 11/27/2004 - 12:56.It doesn't appear as if you did, or that you paid very close attention.
All businesses need to determine what groups will be allowed on their premises at what time. How does it affect business? Does it encourage customers to come, or discourage them? How do you set a policy that is fair to everyone?
If you read the article, that I pointed to, you will find many companies, including Best Buy and Walmart have limited or completely disallowed Salvation Army from the premises.
Also, if you paid attention, you would find that there are many people who do not accept your assertion that the Salvation Army is a 'great philanthropic organization'. Many people find its policies and approaches objectionable.
How is this an ideological issue? Again, if you paid attention, you would have noted that it is conservative commentators who have been leading the attack on Target. They have not attacked other firms that have similar policies, such as Best Buy or Walmart. These attacks stem from attacks earlier which were based on incorrect information about how Target supports veterans.
One of the criticisms of liberals by the conservatives is that they try to help out people without thinking about the full picture. You suggestion of working together on something of questionable merit sounds very much like the same flaw conservatives have attacked liberals with.
I am pleased that you came by to comment, but you really need to do a much better job.
Target what?
Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 11/28/2004 - 22:40.er, double edged sword notwithstanding:
The Salvation Army collected (and distributed) nine (that's 9) million bucks to needy families through the "drop a buck in the kettle". The folks that found the organization "questionable or objectionable" probably didn't give a dime. Would you agree?
When companies decide to limit philanthropic organizations it's bad. Period. Pretty simple point there. This has nothing (that I've found) to do with any urban legends regarding Veterans.
You can coat it, derive your point anyway you want but my point is very simple. Target is doing a dis-service to the community as a whole by deciding to reverse their stance on allowing the Salvation Army to collect money on premises.
And for what it's worth, I think (being a business owner) that what the Salvation Army does, is a great thing. If I attracted enough walk-in business, I'd gladly give my doorstep to the Salvation Army or any other philanthropic organization. It wouldn't detract from my business at all.
Stop trying to read a bunch of nuances into this and realize that what Target is doing is flat out wrong.
In the meantime, I'll be voting with my dollars this Christmas season.
Stew (getstewed)
Voting with your dollars
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Mon, 11/29/2004 - 09:52.I am glad you are voting with your dollars. I hope you are consistent and boycott Walmart and Best Buy as well since they have similar policies.
Also, let me know how I can get some philanthropic organizations to fundraise on your premises. Maybe we can start with Planned Parenthood and the Gay Men's Health Crisis.
I think you miss the point!
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 11/18/2005 - 10:46.I am a Christian, by many accounts a liberal.
I would agree that it is wrong for any private entity to be forced to do anything. This would include Target being forced to allow the Salvation Army or Best Buy being forced to allowing a Gay charity to collect at there locations. Each of these businesses has a right to chose what use of their property they will allow.
But I also have a right to express my objection to their decisions by shopping at another store.
This I will do by going to Wal-Mart. This is called "freedom" of association. I can chose to associate with another store because of a policy that I protest.
This is no different than choosing not to go to a golf club because they do not allow women or choosing not to shop at a store because they sell fur. Both of witch I have done in the past.
Every citizen has a right to chose where they spend their money. The left use this tactic all the time when it is for issues they care about. But then blast the other side when they try it. This is hypocritical and difficult for people like me who tend to fall in the middle more often or not.
As for the Salvation Army's anti gay agenda, they are a private charity that can set their own policies. If you are dissatisfied with those polices then feel free to associate with other organizations. The American Red Cross is a good alternative.
Target vs. Walmart
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 12/24/2004 - 00:21.I'm a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and I definitely prefer Target to Walmart. Boycott Target? Yeah, I heard about it, of course. I'm not playing though, even though I'm not terribly fond of Target because a lot of their stuff is the same old junk Walmart has. That being said, I agree with you, there IS political bandwagon-hopping going on, if you ask me. I'm all for a good cause or a good boycott, but come ON.
I think Hugh Hewitt is brilliant on many, many things, but this Target nonsense is a little silly. I mean, does anyone REALLY care if Target doesn't want the ringers outside? I prefer to give to charity--yes, including the Salvation Army!--on my terms, not as a result of an (admittedly passive) ambush. I'm glad to not have to embarrassingly pass by without dropping chump change in their buckets.
Beth
target vs. ringers
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 22:11.You are not baggered to drop chump change into buckets,so why should you be embarrassed?
Well, you must run into nicer
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 19:00.Well, you must run into nicer ringers than I've run into.
Re:
Submitted by MikeSmith937 on Tue, 03/03/2009 - 01:39.It is worth noting Hugh Hewitt is a nationally syndicated right wing talk show host. It appears as if the conservatives hate Target almost as much as the liberals hate Walmart.
English Dissertation | Essay Help
Each of these businesses has a right to chose what use of their property they will allow.
Dissertation Writing
Re:
Submitted by petterprkr619 on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 06:14.derive your point anyway you want but my point is very simple. Target is doing a dis-service to the community as a whole by deciding to reverse their stance on allowing the Salvation Army to collect money on premises.
Media Assignment | Marketing Assignment