Wal-Mart CEO Has a Problem With Gays

May 13, 2009 Full story: www.huffingtonpost.com 532

Mike Duke, who has been chief executive of Wal-Mart Stores for just three months, is getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere. It's not the kind of attention a new CEO wants.

"Shameful, bigoted and discriminatory" is the headline over one blog post about Duke.

Why? Because, it turns out, Duke signed a petition last year that put an initiative known as Act 1 on the ballot in his home state of Arkansas. The controversial initiative says that only married couples may become adoptive or foster parents in the state, closing the door for same-sex couples. It passed in November with 57 percent of the vote.

News that Duke had signed the petition caught the company flat-footed. When I asked a Wal-Mart spokesman for a comment, I got this response and no more:

I can confirm that Mr. Duke did sign the petition. Also, Wal-Mart did not take a position on the ballot initiative.

At the very least, Duke's decision to sign the petition reflects poor judgment. As a senior executive of Wal-Mart, he should have known that supporting a controversial measure widely seen as anti-gay could boomerang. (The Arkansas Democrat Gazette called Act 1 "just another exercise in stirring up bad feelings.") Duke has alienated LGBT customers and their allies, as well many of his own employees.

Full Story
First Prev
of 27
Next Last

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#1 May 13, 2009
You can see a photocopy of the petition sheet that the CEO of Wal-Mart signed, which is a public document made available by the Arkansas Secretary of State, at the following link:

http://knowthyneighbor.org/arkansas/pdfs/1026...

Since: Mar 09

Paragould, AR

#2 May 13, 2009
What- wrote:
You can see a photocopy of the petition sheet that the CEO of Wal-Mart signed, which is a public document made available by the Arkansas Secretary of State, at the following link:
http://knowthyneighbor.org/arkansas/pdfs/1026...
can't find any better QUEER news to display other than that? You are slipping, What- I am disappointed?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#3 May 13, 2009
roadkill0 wrote:
<quoted text> can't find any better QUEER news to display other than that? You are slipping, What- I am disappointed?
#1) This is a great (and relevant) news story.

#2) In your second sentence in the post above are YOU asking ME if YOU are disappointed?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#4 May 13, 2009
The interesting thing about Act 1 is that it ultimately discriminates on the basis of whether or not one is having sex (because as long as you're not having sex with anyone, then your ability to adopt or foster is not affected by Act 1)-- as under the Act 1:

----------

Homosexual single (unmarried and not cohabitating with a sexual partner) wanting to adopt --- an adoption is fine.

Heterosexual single (unmarried and not cohabitating with a sexual partner) wanting to adopt --- an adoption is fine.

Cohabitating roommates that are not having sex, whether they are heteroxexual or homomosexual (or both)--- an adoption is fine.

Under the amendment,(cohabitation + sex)- marriage = no adoption.

----------

The only way to give any effect to this amendment is for the government to peer into the bedroom and see if cohabitating roommates (or presumably even housemates) are having sex or not -- because cohabitating roommates of any sexual orientation who are not having sex can adopt under this Act.

This issue got started when a law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting or fostering was UNANIMOUSLY declared Unconstitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court (in 2005 I believe). In 2006 there was an attempt to get an outright ban on homosexual adopting and fostering passed in the Arkansas legislature AND IT FAILED (with the reasons being that it would be Unconstitutional). And that prompted Act 1 -- which was a thinly veiled attempt to appear to not be blatantly Unconstitutional by sacrificing the rights of some heterosexuals in order to prevent some homosexuals from adopting and fostering.

Here is the flyer that was created by the creators of Act 1 (whos name is on the Petition that the CEO of Wal-Mart signed) and was distributed all over Arkansas (including on my front door):

http://adoptionact.familycouncilactioncommitt...

Notice how there is an entire section that describes how Act 1 is going to "Blunt the Gay Agenda" -- just as it was advertised in every other way that it was advertised. The "Act One Blunts the Gay Agenda" paragraph says (among other things) that "Arkansas has no law to prevent adoptive or foster children from being placed with homosexual couples."

And the case against Act 1 is in no way relegated to homosexuals -- Act 1 violates the exact same rights of "privacy" and "equal protection" and "due process" of the heterosexual cohabitating sexual partners who aren't married as it does with the homosexual ones.

...not to mention the rights of the children that are being violated...
BOYCOTT

Rockford, IL

#5 May 13, 2009
What- wrote:
You can see a photocopy of the petition sheet that the CEO of Wal-Mart signed, which is a public document made available by the Arkansas Secretary of State, at the following link:
http://knowthyneighbor.org/arkansas/pdfs/1026...
Boycott Wal-Mart! If it costs you a little more to buy elsewhere, then just buy less. Sometimes less is more.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7 May 13, 2009
Wal-Mart is anti-gay because the fairies keep coming in to the stores and stretching out the bikini bottoms around the crotch area and hanging them back on the display rack.
freedom of speech

Dallas, TX

#9 May 13, 2009
boycotting wal-mart is just as much freedom of speech and expression as is the ceo's signing that obscene document

freedom cuts both ways

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#10 May 13, 2009
Razorback Jack wrote:
Wal-Mart is anti-gay because the fairies keep coming in to the stores and stretching out the bikini bottoms around the crotch area and hanging them back on the display rack.
WTF?
applejuice

Paragould, AR

#12 May 14, 2009
Some people have nothing better to do with their lives than to worry about stupid shit, or what the next guy in line is doing.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#13 May 14, 2009
Here we go again. The Gay Mafia is going to harass another citizen for simply exercising their constitutional rights.

You guys are pretty stupid and are sinking your cause fast. If you disagree with this man or Miss Ca then make your case. The harassment just shows how truly intolerant and unhinged you are.

Hopefully this man will stand up like Miss Ca did. He will be supported.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#14 May 14, 2009
WaterBoarder wrote:
Here we go again. The Gay Mafia is going to harass another citizen for simply exercising their constitutional rights.
You guys are pretty stupid and are sinking your cause fast. If you disagree with this man or Miss Ca then make your case. The harassment just shows how truly intolerant and unhinged you are.
Hopefully this man will stand up like Miss Ca did. He will be supported.
You are apparently just as clueless about the Constitution as Miss California.

Only the GOVERNMENT can violate your 1st Amendment rights.

But I guess (even working within you misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment) you're not for the "Gay Mafia's" 1st Amendment rights are you?

Can you say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#15 May 14, 2009
WaterBoarder,

The CEO signed a petition to take rights away from people.

Sure, it was Constitutional for him to do that (as it is Constitutional for people to criticize him for it).

It would also be Constitutional for him to sign a petition to make it legal to kill and eat human babies who are 1 year old or less.

Even if your argument was coherent (and not a misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment), it still wouldn't matter.

Like we're not supposed to criticize what he did "just because it was Constitutional."

You're going to have to do a little bit better than that.
Free America

United States

#18 May 14, 2009
What- wrote:
You can see a photocopy of the petition sheet that the CEO of Wal-Mart signed, which is a public document made available by the Arkansas Secretary of State, at the following link:
http://knowthyneighbor.org/arkansas/pdfs/1026...
Ahh, so what I said was true. They are attacking people who signed the document and who better than a CEO of Wal-mart. What-, this is a horrible story. The Huffington lie machine is using this for propaganda not news.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#19 May 14, 2009
Free America wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, so what I said was true. They are attacking people who signed the document and who better than a CEO of Wal-mart. What-, this is a horrible story. The Huffington lie machine is using this for propaganda not news.
He is not "a" CEO of Wal-Mart -- he is "the" CEO of Wal-Mart.

You say that this is a "lie," but even Wal-Mart admits this (it's indisputably true).

Other than that I'm not sure what your complaint about this is though.
Free America

United States

#20 May 14, 2009
What- wrote:
<quoted text>
He is not "a" CEO of Wal-Mart -- he is "the" CEO of Wal-Mart.
You say that this is a "lie," but even Wal-Mart admits this (it's indisputably true).
Other than that I'm not sure what your complaint about this is though.
I didn't say it was a lie. Saying Huffington lie machine is just my opinion of Huffington post. You remember what I said about it on the thread posted about the release of the names who sign the petition right? Release it and then start attacking those who signed it. Looks like that is what they are doing, and since the CEO of Wal-mart signed it well then make it news worthy and attack Wal-mart. Looks like they are looking for big names who signed it and want to destroy those people to make Arkansas yell mercy on the issue. The propaganda machine is focusing it's eye on Arkansas.

Since: Nov 07

now residing in Valdosta, GA

#21 May 14, 2009
WaterBoarder wrote:
Here we go again. The Gay Mafia is going to harass another citizen for simply exercising their constitutional rights.
You guys are pretty stupid and are sinking your cause fast. If you disagree with this man or Miss Ca then make your case. The harassment just shows how truly intolerant and unhinged you are.
Hopefully this man will stand up like Miss Ca did. He will be supported.
I know that personally I'm not asking for his rights to be stripped or restrained in any way whatsoever nor will I be boycotting Wal-Mart since I don't shop there to begin with.

As far as the Miss California thing goes... if an intellectually bankrupt walking piece of Barbie plastic is the person you want to rally around be my guest. She's an imbecile. You know it. I know it. The whole world knows it because she made up a term like "opposite marriage" and demonstrated her severe lack of knowledge. She has devoted her life to being eye candy and yet somehow she's the one with the right idea in all of this.

That being said... she was doomed no matter what the answer.

That's right I said it.

Do I still think she and Mr. Duke are bigoted and using whatever vehicle they can to express their bigotry while pretending to be among the masses of the "caring good moral people" of the world?

You bet I do, and I'll say it if I damn well please just as they had the right to speak their minds and excersize their rights.

I also have the right to determine where my fat dirty dollar is spent, and sometimes I find a business' practices or the people they employ so repugnant that I deem it fit not to line their pockets with money that I've worked hard to earn.

I simply haven't the time, the energy, nor the inclination to "harrass" anyone, and whether you think so or not the overwhelming majority of gay people feel the same way.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#22 May 14, 2009
Free America wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say it was a lie. Saying Huffington lie machine is just my opinion of Huffington post. You remember what I said about it on the thread posted about the release of the names who sign the petition right? Release it and then start attacking those who signed it. Looks like that is what they are doing, and since the CEO of Wal-mart signed it well then make it news worthy and attack Wal-mart. Looks like they are looking for big names who signed it and want to destroy those people to make Arkansas yell mercy on the issue. The propaganda machine is focusing it's eye on Arkansas.
Every petition to the government is public information (and that is common knowledge)-- do you think that the government should make a special exception and keep this petition secret just because of the controversial subject matter?

If people sign a petition to take people's rights away, then their names should be public -- and people have every right to criticize those people who signed the petition.

I hope that this story makes national news on television, though it hasn't yet.

Free America

United States

#23 May 14, 2009
What- wrote:
<quoted text>
Every petition to the government is public information (and that is common knowledge)-- do you think that the government should make a special exception and keep this petition secret just because of the controversial subject matter?
If people sign a petition to take people's rights away, then their names should be public -- and people have every right to criticize those people who signed the petition.
I hope that this story makes national news on television, though it hasn't yet.
You seem to not understand. I'm not opposed to the petition being public. Nor am I opposed to people criticizing, but I guarantee that if there were no big names that signed it, there would be no liberal news story. To me the story is on the same news standard as Hannity and mustard burger President Obama ordered. I seriously doubt a journalist would write about Bob Ford, or Sherri Baclay and criticize them for signing the petition. It's all about keeping the propaganda machine running.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#25 May 14, 2009
Free America wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to not understand. I'm not opposed to the petition being public. Nor am I opposed to people criticizing, but I guarantee that if there were no big names that signed it, there would be no liberal news story. To me the story is on the same news standard as Hannity and mustard burger President Obama ordered. I seriously doubt a journalist would write about Bob Ford, or Sherri Baclay and criticize them for signing the petition. It's all about keeping the propaganda machine running.
This is not on the "same news standard" as Hannity criticizing Obama for eating spicy mustard (and not ketchup) on his hamburger -- there is an actual issue here.

It is news no matter who signed the petition, but it's just a fact that big names get more attention (no matter what issue you're talking about).

Not to mention the rank hypocrisy involved in the CEO's previous statements go LGTB employees -- which is a credible national news story in itself given the size and scope of Wal-Mart.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#26 May 14, 2009
It isn't like the petition wouldn't be a news story if the CEO of Wal-Mart (or no one famous like him) had signed it -- it was a news story before anyone had ever found his name on there.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 27
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
University of California to add a gender-neutra... 25 min Jimbo 14
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 35 min Shem 1,626
Transgender woman says guard ordered her out of... 37 min James 2
Board member opposes teaching definition of gay 1 hr DNF 104
Top in dammam looking for filipino bottom 1 hr Looking 35
Any bottom in dammam or khobar 1 hr Looking 9
Shocking M'Sia: Where transgenders, gays & lesb... 1 hr NOM s Waffle House 3

Transgender People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE