yes, and I'm all about going to McDonalds now to get my ice cream!  Here it's just a short golf cart ride away. 

I ran across this "heated" article and while it is a subject I'm not very interested in personally, I am interested in the human condition as a whole. That said, let me get to the point.

Apparently something has occurred in stark contrast to Chucks article here. Target (and Best Buy) has donated a large sum of cash to a Republican, I will assume for his pro business stance. It turns out this Republican politician is not a fan of the gay agenda. Now gay activists are proposing a boycott of Target (and Best Buy) until they contribute a like amount to a pro-gay politician (which one can assume is a Democrat). You can read the details HERE.

I realize many of this articles commenter's no longer post here, so this may be skewed. I'm curious if everyone applies the same logic to their position now that the target (no pun intended) is reversed. What say you?

They have been trying to do that for a long time.  Like most boycotts that are mostly political instead of ethical, they have never had any success.

When it comes to a pissing contest, gays will lose, and most know it, so they do not go along with it.

Yeah, I have my opinion on the controversy. I'm not really interested in the right or wrong of it. What does interest me is the position of the commenter's here. Would they support the opposition now that the position is reversed, or keep to the group they support despite the which side of the boycott the two parties are on. I remember this article when it first appeared. I didn't participate due to lack of interest. Now that the situation (while not exactly the same, but close enough) is reversed, I thought it would be interesting to compare attitudes on the issue. Some times these older articles hold their relevancy. At the very least it helps one determine if they support a principle or a cause. I'm not looking to reheat anything, just take an introspective look.

I know.  This is true.  I have yet to hear of one successful homosexual boycott.  They are having enough time trying to go thru the judical system getting their way and in order to do so they have to circumvent the vote of the people every time. 

I had to take a minute to remember this article I wrote so long ago now.  You bring up an interesting point Nitro.  I was wondering where you were in the discussion as I looked over a few of the pages to refamiliarize myself with the subject matter.  I recently heard about the Target situation but didn't know it included Best Buy as well. 

To me I think it makes more sense for a business to give to the Conservatives than it does the Liberals.  To me it just makes good economic sense.  I can't imagine a business wanting to give to the liberals who are not only willing to take that money but the rest that's in the till as well. 

So what is your opinion? 

Here's my 2 lincolns - big business is not about economic sense, but economic power.  And it is easier to legislate your opposition out of the market than it is to beat them out of the market with superior performance and products.  Thus, while small business is generally fiscally conservative (the entrepreneur is still running the show and knows what it means to have a couple of extra bucks to rub together), big business is just in the market of shortchanging the market by whatever political party will do it for them.

First, sorry KFC I should have been clearer in my inital comment. It was a comment by Chuck that led me (back) to your article (his comment, not his article, it yours). After re-reading my my comment it just plain comes off wrong, even though it is clearly visibly your article.

I never commented on this issue back in 2008, I really didn't have anything constructive to add. I comment now, just to see how people feel now that the role is slightly reversed. Were the comments make by those posting in support of fairness, against unfairness, in support of homosexuality, or against it. It's really about people. Rarely do we get an opportunity where an issue is reversed as this one is. That's why I resurrected it, this particular issue still doesn't interest me much, but the dynamics of two opposite stories with the same commenter's does. Hope I explained that clearly.

Well for me, I look at it this particular issue this way. One could take the gayness out of the equation entirely. It boils down to one group threatening a company to pony up an equal amount of money in support of their cause, because of a contribution made to someone they don't like, or face a boycott. It almost sounds like extortion to me. I would imagine it would be difficult for one to buy many of the things they need if they followed that line of thinking. Not saying a boycott is never appropriate (I'd like to see one on Venezuelan oil), but not domestic businesses as impact on US workers should be minimized as much as possible.

Great point!

Just like our politicians and welfare?