Target Turns Its Bullseye on Traditional Marriage
By David Outten, Production Editor
The nation’s fourth largest retailer, Target, has chosen to sign on to a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to overturn a law limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Target’s corporate leadership is taking legal action in opposition to the deeply held religious beliefs of many of its customers. In doing so, Target is acting on its own opposing religious beliefs.
Jodee Kozlak, Target’s executive vice president and chief of human resources, said, “It is our belief that everyone should be treated equally under the law, and that includes rights we believe individuals should have related to marriage.”
Using “our belief” and “we believe,” it’s clear that Target’s actions are based on a belief system (the equivalent of a religion). That belief system re-defines “equality under the law” to force society to reject God’s definition of marriage in the Bible (see Geneseis 2:28 and Matthew 19:1-12, where the Bible clearly defines marriage has heterosexual and monogamous.
Imagine a baseball pitcher who wants to pitch footballs instead of a baseballs. He believes equality under the rules of baseball should permit him to throw footballs. If this player is permitted to pitch footballs every time he comes to the mound, the game of baseball would no longer be baseball. You could call it baseball, but it wouldn’t be baseball.
Equality under the rules of baseball spells out exactly what a baseball is. Gay, straight, black or white, if you want to play baseball, you have to use a baseball. Imagine Jodee Koziak saying, “It is our belief that everyone should be treated equally under the rules of baseball, and that includes rights we believe individuals should have related to pitching footballs.”
Marriage isn’t just a legal contract between any two adults — like some home or car purchase. It’s a sacred relationship established by God. Attempts to redefine it are, in essence, saying, “God, you got it wrong. You’re not treating gays equally. We want it this way instead.”
In doing so, the people of today are drastically changing at least 6,000 years of human civilization, history and social/legal precedent.
Those who voted for the laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman don’t want Target chasing off homosexual shoppers. Neither are they asking for any legal action against homosexuals. They simply want marriage to remain what God defined it to be.
Most people shop for clothes, tires, food and everything else as if the store they’re shopping at is focused on providing the best products at the best price they can. Now, it becomes necessary to decide where to shop based on the concept of morality being promoted by the corporation. If someone believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman, they may want to avoid shopping at Target.
Target trades on the New York Stock Exchange. One wonders if the stockholders of the corporation wanted the company’s leaders to join in a religious/legal conflict in opposition to beliefs of a huge portion of their customer base. In July 2013, Target stock sold for $72.56 per share. On August 8, 2014 it was selling for $54.42. In the list of America’s top retailers, Target fell from third in 2012 to fourth in 2013 – after experiencing its first sales decline in years. It seems odd that a company experiencing a decline in sales and stock value would choose to attack the beliefs so many customers. Target customers who voted for the law Target wants overruled may wish to help see Target’s income decline even faster in 2014.
Also, by promoting homosexual relationships, which can’t duplicate themselves, Target is ensuring there will be far fewer customers at its cash registers in the future.
Their rash decision is just bad business.
The most basic of principle of retail involves building a trusted brand name by making customers happy. To purposely offend a large number of your customers is the direct opposite of doing that. Most retailers will not tolerate employees who offend customers.
Imagine a clerk at a Target checkout line asking each customer if they voted for a defense of marriage law. Imagine that clerk, on getting a “yes” answer, saying, “Well, aren’t you a nasty bigot. My boss is going to help see that your stupid vote gets overturned by a judge.” How many “yes” voters do you think would return to Target?
He may not have worded his company’s new position the same way, but that’s just what Jodee Kozlak said. She said, “It’s our belief that your vote was wrong, and Target needs to pay its lawyers to get your vote overruled.” Instead of calling customers “nasty bigots” to their face, such wording might be reserved for the water cooler. Whether called a “nasty bigot” or an “enemy of equality,” the implication is the same.
Target has clearly declared war on the Bible and on the vast majority of its customers.