Salvation Army Drug Clinics Rejecting Transgender People

Every year when the holiday season arrives I encourage people to walk on by the Salvation Army kettles without putting in even a dime. Why, because the organization continues to be stridently anti-LGBT despite many mealy mouthed statements aimed at hiding the truth that the organization remains a right wing religious body that is in some ways little better than the "family values" hate groups.  As Think Progress is reporting, in New York the Salvation Army has been caught discriminating despite that state's non-discrimination laws.  There are plenty of worthy charities to which contributions can be made.  The Salvation Army is not one of them.  Here are highlights on the situation in New York:

The New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR) announced last week that it was charging four different substance abuse centers, one of which is run by the Salvation Army, with discriminating against transgender patients in violation of city law.

[T]he violations found included:

·        Refusing to accept transgender people as patients or tenants
·        Assigning trans people rooms based on their sex assigned at birth instead of their lived gender identity
·        Unwarranted physical examinations to determine if trans people are on hormone therapy or have had surgery
·        Segregating transgender patients into separate rooms.

The discrimination was found through a testing process after the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF) tipped off the commission that mistreatment was happening. One of the clinics told the testers outright, “No, we don’t [accept transgender patients].” Another clinic’s representative said, “People with moving male parts would be housed with men.”

The NYCCHR has the authority to fine violators up to $250,000 and can also require trainings, policy changes, community service, and mediated apologies.

Two of the clinics found to be violating city law have religious affiliations. The Addicts Rehabilitation Center was founded by a church, operates a gospel choir as one of its programs, and is currently run by Rev. Reginald Williams, a baptist preacher.

The Salvation Army is itself a church with a long history of discriminating against LGBTQ people. While that history has mostly focused on its rejection of homosexuality, a Salvation Army-run homeless shelter in Texas was also accused of anti-transgender discrimination in 2014. Their public relations campaign to improve their LGBTQ image has rung rather hollow.

The recent U.S. Trans Survey found that 22 percent of trans people had been harassed or denied treatment when trying to access services from a drug or alcohol treatment program.

Federal Court Jury Begins Hearing Evidence in Gay Couple's Suit Against United/Continental Airlines

Christopher Bridgeman and Martin Borger with us on our wedding day in DC

I noted on May 3, 2015, that the case of our good friend against United/Continental Airlines for seemingly homophobic tampering with their luggage was set to go to trial in federal court after all kinds or maneuvering and court motions by United/Continental to have the case dismissed or to drive my friends into giving up (the court docket shows over 100 filings and motions).  Yesterday, the trial began and the story has made the Houston Chronicle and Towleroad.  As I have said before, given the fortune in legal fees that United/Continental has run up in this matter to date, I am dumbfounded that the airline - which claims to be gay friendly - has never made a settlement offer that, in my opinion, wasn't yet an a further insult to our friends.   Particularly disingenuous in my view is the airlines effort to shift blame to TSA personnel even though the tape used to affix the sex toy was clearly the airline's tap.  Here are highlights from the Chronicle's coverage:

A Houston federal jury is hearing opening arguments Tuesday in a case where baggage handlers are accused of humiliating a gay couple by manipulating a duffle bag to cause a sex toy to be exposed when released on a baggage claim carousel.

Christopher Bridgeman and Martin Borger filed the suit after a trip to Costa Rica in May 2011. They returned to the United States on a Continental flight through Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport, cleared customs and rechecked their bags for the domestic trip home to Norfolk, Va.

Upon retrieving their belongings, they discovered an unexpected object taped between the zipper of one piece of luggage: A purple sex toy. The Virginia couple's 2012 federal lawsuit, filed in Houston, alleges that the device had been removed purposefully from the duffle and slathered with a greasy, foul-smelling substance to embarrass them. The petition claims the airline's baggage handlers intentionally inflicted emotional distress and invaded their privacy by searching through their luggage.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt of Houston dismissed the case in late 2012, but a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reinstated the lawsuit a year later.

Since then, Continental's parent following that carrier's merger with United - United Continental Holdings - has been trying to have the lawsuit sacked.

United claims their employees did not open the bag and could not have known what was inside to intentionally target gay men. The airline's filings in the suit also question whether any alleged intrusion was the fault of a United employee because the federal Transportation Security Administration screens luggage and has some in-transit control over baggage.

The lawsuit has been featured in national news stories and discussed in legal blogs for more than three years.

Trial exhibits include photos of the toy. Expected witnesses include United baggage handlers based in Houston and Norfolk as well as the general manager of the Norfolk International Airport.

As recently as last week, Hoyt denied United's claim to side with the company – thus, leaving the door open for trial.

Seven jurors – four women and three men – were selected Monday for the trial. Jurors also will consider if any airline employee intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the men.

The lawsuit claims that Bridgeman and Borger "experienced extreme shock and horror" when they saw their toy exposed and "when observing the surprised and/or laughing faces of numerous onlookers in the baggage claim area."

As noted before, I will NEVER fly United/Continental and I would like to know how the NGLCC allows United/Continental to remain a "gay friendly" carrier when this is how they treat gay travelers.  

Gay Couples Lawsuit Against United Airlines to Go to Trial

Back on August 26, 2012, I wrote here about the travesty done to a young gay professional couple from Norfolk (who are as a disclaimer close personal friends) seemingly by employees of United/Continental Airlines at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas.  As I recited at the time, in response to demand letters, the leadership of the airline basically "flipped the bird" to these innocent victims and victimized them yet again - even though United/Continental Airlines claims to be LGBT friendly through their involvement with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.  In my view - and as the saying goes - actions speak louder than words.  And Continental's actions have spoken volumes.  So much so, that the husband and I have made a point to NOT fly on United/Continental since 2012 (our upcoming trip to Paris will be on American Airlines).

For those who are newer readers, the tape on the bag pictured above clearly reads "Continental Airlines" and tellingly, the zipper on the bag was undamaged (I saw the luggage bag personally), so that there was no legitimate basis for taping up the bag while unzipped.  The actions against this couple by United/Continental employees were both shocking and clearly done to invade the couple's privacy and to inflict intentional emotional distress as the baggage made its way around the luggage carousel at Norfolk International Airport to the couple's horror.

 

Due to the airline's shocking attitude, the couple filed a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas District Court, in a lawsuit is styled Bridgeman, et al v. United Continental Holdings, Inc. and Continental Airlines, Inc., on August 24, 2012.  Since that date, the case history has been like something out of a John Grisham novel with the huge corporation trying any and all means to wear down the individual plaintiffs.  United Continental first removed the case to federal court (the case is Case 4:12-cv-02848) and argued that Article 17(1) or Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention - which governs international flights - applied and that the couple's claims are preempted.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas accepted this argument and dismissed the case.  Our friends appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal in November, 2013, and remanded the case back to the District Court.   As Jonathan Turley noted on his blog, this was an important (and negative) ruling for the airline United/Continental and the airline industry:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has handed down an important ruling in favor of two gay men who were the targets of a foul joke by employees of United Continental airlines. 

What is most striking about this case is not only the refusal of United Continental to settle the case but the sweeping argument the airlines tried to make to strip passengers of the ability to seek damages for such outrageous and disturbing conduct by airlines.

The court found that the convention did not apply under Article 17(1) because this injury was not suffered on the flight or as part of exiting or disembarking. Thus, it remained subject to state law. On Article 17(2), the court ruled:

The alleged misconduct in this case simply does not relate to any damage to Plaintiffs’ duffel bag, which they admit is “just fine” and undamaged; rather, Plaintiffs seek a remedy for the way in which their bag was utilized to inflict personal injury. Accordingly, we decline to shoehorn Plaintiffs’ claims into the substantive scope of Article 17(2) merely because a bag is central to their factual basis. Instead, we reach our conclusion based on a natural reading of Article 17(2)’s text

The claims are therefore not preempted by the convention.  United Continental in the meantime showed that, once again, airlines treat passengers as voiceless, rightless living luggage. If they had prevailed, passengers would have been barred from seeking relief in state courts for even the most egregious conduct by airline employees.

Fast forward another year and a half and United/Continental has suffered a major blow.  After countless depositions and motions and briefs, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has denied United/Continental's motion for summary judgment.  The order was entered on April 29, 2015 and is now available on pacer for subscribers.This means that the case will go to trial and that there will be a public airing of some of the airline's, in my view, outrageous arguments and defenses.  For the life of me, I do NOT understand why the airline has not made a serious settlement offer.  It has already spent a huge sum on legal fees and settling would have avoided the bad precedent now set by the 5th Circuit ruling and continued bad publicity.

Stay tuned for more coverage as the matter goes to trial. 

Illinois Lawsuit Against Exxon-Mobil for Anti-Gay Bias to Move Forward

Year after year the Board of Directors of Exxon-Mobil refuses to enact workplace non-discrimination policies protecting LGBT employees (ironically, Mobil had such protections until it was acquired by Exxon).  Now, because of its failure to protect LGBT employees from discriminatory workplace practices, Exxon-Moil has found itself facing a lawsuit under the State of Illinois' non-discrimination laws.  While claiming that the lawsuit is "baseless" - yeah, just like I'm Queen Victoria - has refused to admit liability.  Now, the Illinois Human Rights Commission has ruled that the lawsuit can move forward. Here are highlights from The Washington Blade:

A complaint alleging anti-gay bias in hiring practices at oil-and-gas giant ExxonMobil can move forward now that the Illinois Human Rights Commission overturned a lower body’s decision to dismiss the case.

In a decision dated July 14 and obtained Tuesday by the Washington Blade, the Illinois Human Rights Commission — a 13-member body that determines whether unlawful discrimination has occurred under Illinois state civil rights law — remanded the case back to the Illinois Department of Human Rights, which had thrown out the case in January on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

“The Respondent’s dismissal of Freedom to Work’s charge is VACATED and Freedom to Work’s charge is REINSTATED and REMANDED to the Respondent for FURTHER INVESTIGATION and other proceedings to consistent with this Order and the Act,” states the order, which was signed by Illinois Human Rights Commission Executive Director N. Keith Chambers.

The relief sought by Freedom to Work includes a change in ExxonMobil’s equal employment opportunity policy to enumerate protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity as well as attorney’s fees.

Although the Illinois Department of Human Rights dismissed the case on the basis of no employer-employee relationship between Freedom to Work and ExxonMobil, the order indicates that both Freedom to Work and the department later petitioned the Illinois Human Rights Commission to remand the case so a thorough investigation could proceed.

Peter Romer-Friedman, counsel at Freedom to Work and attorney at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, say now that the case has been remanded, ExxonMobil will have to explain why it elected to hire the less-qualified straight candidate.

“We are relieved but not surprised by the state agency’s decision that Freedom to Work and other civil rights groups have the right to challenge unlawful discrimination, including Exxon’s sexual orientation discrimination,” Romer-Friedman said. “This decision means that Exxon will have to answer tough questions about why it treated a well-qualified LGBT applicant far worse than a straight applicant who had lesser qualifications. The decision also paves the way for other non-profit groups to enforce civil rights laws.”

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, predicted ExxonMobil will be “dragged kicking and screaming” this year into adopting workplace protections for its LGBT employees — either because of his organization’s complaint or Obama’s executive order.

“This oil giant has a lot to lose here, and it should be clear that the clock is ticking and it’s now time to update Exxon’s policies to give LGBT Americans a fair shot on the job,” Almeida said.

In the interest of full disclosure, I inherited a chunk of Exxon-Mobil stock from my late parents who had owned Mobil stock for 40 years before the Exxon takeover and reversal of Mobil's enlightened polices.  Since they had a minimal basis, they never sold the stock to avoid getting hit with a large tax bill.  With my stepped up basis, I was able to unload the stock  without tax impact rather than be involved with an anti-gay company.

Discriminatory Insurance Companies - Farmers Insurance; Optima Health

As the cited column in the New York Times referenced in the previous posts noted, legally married same sex couples residing in anti-gay states continue to suffer discrimination as a result of their home state's bigotry.  But the bigotry stems not only from state sponsored discrimination.  Sadly, a number of insurance companies use anti-gay state laws as an excuse to discriminate against married same sex couples.  I've experienced two examples of late.  The lesson to same sex couples? Shop around for coverage.

The first case of gay discrimination involved Optima Health through which both the husband and I had small group plans for our respective businesses.  When we married in April, we investigated to see whether we could be insured as a married couple under either of the two plans.  The answer was "No" since Virginia does recognize your marriage.  The result was that we would have had to maintain the two separate plans and pay steep premiums under both.  When I took my new job with the national title insurance agency, I got coverage through the company's Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan and could secure coverage for the husband.  The savings: roughly $500.00 per month.  I terminated my firms old small group plan through Optima (my daughter was hired by the same company and got health coverage too).  

The more recent case of discrimination involves Farmers Insurance through whom I have had my autos and rental property insured.  When I bought a newer Mercedes last week, the dealership - Tysinger Mercedes which is a huge supporter of HRBOR - indicated that Mercedes has a plan with Liberty Mutual Insurance where Mercedes owners can get discounts (ironically, my new employer has a similar set up).  As a result, I got a quote from Liberty Mutual to price shop for identical coverage.  While the Mercedes discount helped, the big savings - almost $500 per year - was from the fact that Liberty Mutual will recognize the husband and I as being married.  Farmers Insurance, like Optima, is using Virginia's anti-gay laws as an excuse to treat us as single and hit us with higher premiums.  As of Monday morning, my vehicles (two are driven by my daughter) will be insured through Liberty Mutual. 

Again, if you are legally married and live in an anti-gay state, if you can, shop your insurance coverage.  You may have options and you may save money.  In our case, $6,500 a year.  You can also send a message to companies like Optima and Farmers Insurance that they are going to lose business by relying on state sponsored discrimination as an excuse to charge you higher premiums.

Chick-fil-A’s Foundations Dramatically Reduce Anti-LGBT Giving

It has been many years since I last patronized Chick-fil-A given the company's funding of vicious anti-gay organizations.  And I know many others who likewise make a conscious effort to avoid spending a penny at Chick-fil-A.  Now, even though the move is unexplained, Chick-fil-A seemingly has drastically reduced its anti-gay funding effort.  No doubt the Christofascists who rallied to Chick-fil-A's past bigotry will not be pleased to learn this news.  Think Progress looks at this development.  Here are some highlights:

A year after nearly doubling its anti-LGBT giving, Chick-fil-A’s WinShape Foundation apparently reversed course in 2012, eliminating nearly all its grantmaking. Its separate Chick-fil-A Foundation made about $120,000 in grant donations, including about $25,000 to the anti-LGBT Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Between 2010 and 2011, Chick-fil-A’s corporate foundations increased their grants to anti-LGBT groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation and the National Christian Foundation, from $1.9 million to more than $3.6 million. Neither of these organizations received a penny in 2012, according to the foundations’ 2012 Form 990s, publicly available tax documents filed by non-profit organizations. The foundations’ overall spending was roughly even, meaning more of its efforts were focused on its own programs. But the drop from $3,623,938 to $25,390 in anti-LGBT donations represented a reduction of more than 99.2 percent.

In the summer of 2012, the company came under fire for its anti-LGBT giving and company president Dan Cathy’s comment that the company was “guilty as charged” of advocating a biblical view of the family. Amid the criticism, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and others organized a “Chick-fil-A” appreciation day. 

But it appears that the company foundations scaled back anti-LGBT giving by simply scaling back all of its giving to outside non-profits. Their few donations included contributions to WinShape’s home in Brazil for needy children, scholarships for a Christian college in Georgia, and money for Habitat for Humanity and the United Negro College Fund.

This trend will have to continue for a period of time before I again grace the doorway - or drive through window - of a Chick-fil-A.  It would be nice if the trend proved permanent. 

No Word from Coke on Why it Sponsored Olympic Anti-Gay Arrest

As AmericaBlog and other outlets have reported, the first anti-gay Olympic arrest has been made in Russia. The offense? Pavel Lebedev was simply waving a small rainbow flag along the Olympic flame parade route, in his hometown of Voronezh, Russia.  Equally troubling is the fact that the thug security personnel who roughed up Lebedev was wearing Coke insignia.  As I have noted before, our household has ceased buying Coke products in protest over Coke's willingness to get in bed with tyrants like Vladimir Putin and to indirectly subsidize the abuse of gays.  Here are more details from AmericaBlog:

It’s been four days since Coca-Cola-sponsored Olympic security, apparently sporting the Coke logo, roughed up and arrested a gay Russian human rights advocate for simply waving a rainbow flag along the parade route of the Olympic flame.  And still no statement from Coca-Cola explaining their complicity in the attack.

Pavel Lebedev was simply waving a small rainbow flag along the parade route, in his hometown of Voronezh, Russia, when Coca-Cola-sponsored security jumped him for exercising his freedom of speech and voicing his support for human rights.

As we’d reported earlier, Olympic security, in blue uniforms (see photos below), wore only a select few corporate logos on their uniforms, one of which was the Coke logo, either on their pant leg and/or their coat/hoodie.

At the time of our reporting, while all the other “blue” Olympic flame security were wearing the Coke logo (in the photos we could find), only part of the logo was visible on the man who assaulted the gay rights advocate. I’ve since communicated with a gay rights group in the region that assures me that all of the blue Olympic flame security were wearing the same logos, and that the assaulter must have been wearing the Coke logo, just like every other blue Olympic flame security agent.

I also obtained additional photos from Pavel Lebedev’s friends in Russia, who smartly photographed the entire arrest, and it’s astonishing the degree to which Coke’s branding was everywhere in the photos of the attack.

This is truly one of the biggest corporate branding blunders in American history.

Coke has a lot of explaining to do. For example:

1. Why would Coca-Cola sponsor Olympic security officers to begin with?

Coke knows that the job of security is to rough people up. And in this case, Coke surely knew that there was a very good chance that its sponsored-security-personnel would be roughing up gay civil rights activists. So why did Coke permit its logo to be placed on Olympic security personnel?

2. And just as importantly, how many gay people need to get beaten up by Coke-sponsored security before Coca-Cola removes its branding from these thugs?

Has Coca-Cola asked the Russians to remove its branding from the security uniforms?  And will Coca-Cola return any money it made from the gay-bashing security personnel wearing the Coke logo?

Coke needs to come clean.

Meanwhile, I will work to encourage everyone I know to switch from Coke.

Buitoni Pasta: We Sell 'Pasta for All'

Barilla Pasta continues to try to undo the PR damage done by the homophobic statements made by Guido Barilla.  The statements have prompted calls for a boycott of all Barilla products by gays and gay friendly allies and may yet turn out to be business school examples of how not to run a business.  The boyfriend and I for our part have no intention of buying Barilla products any longer.  Meanwhile, some of Barilla's competitors have jumped at the opportunity presented to make it very clear tha they do not share Guido Barilla's hateful views.  The image above is what rival Buitoni has posted to it Facebook page making it clear that Barilla's anti-gay views are not shared by all pasta makers.  I guess I know what brand I will pick up the next time I am in the grocery store.

Barilla Pasta Chief: We Don't Like Gays, They Can Buy Another Brand

In what will hopefully turn out to be a disaster for the company's bottom line, Guido Barilla, the CEO of Barilla, which has almost half the Italian pasta market and a quarter of that in the United States, made clear that he doesn't like gays and that, if gays don't like his views, then they can buy a different brand of pasta.  Personally, until now, the boyfriend and I have bought Barilla products.  But no more.  There are plenty of other options and Mr. Barilla can expect to not see another penny from us.  From remarks on the blogosphere, we will not be alone in this boycott.  The Independent looks at Barilla's statements:

Gay rights groups are calling for a boycott of the world’s biggest pasta maker Barilla after the company’s chairman said he would never use homosexual couples in his advertisements.

Guido Barilla, whose firm has almost half the Italian pasta market and a quarter of that in the US, told Italy’s La Zanzara radio show last night: “I would never do an advert with a homosexual family…if the gays don’t like it they can go an eat another brand. 

“For us the concept of the sacred family remains one of the fundamental values of the company.”

He added: “Everyone has the right to do what they want without disturbing those around them”. But then the pasta magnate upped the ante by attacking gay adoption. “I have no respect for adoption by gay families because this concerns a person who is not able to choose," he said.

Alessandro Zan, a gay rights campaigner and an MP in the left-wing Sel (Sinistra Ecologia Libertà) party, said:  “This is another example of Italian homophobia. I’m joining the boycott of Barilla and I hope other parliamentarians do the same.”  Campaigners have urged a boycott of all 20 brands owned by the Parma-based company, which include Voiello pasta and Filiz and Misko products.

By Thursday lunchtime, the company, which promotes its products using images of young, blond-haired children and their attractive parents, sought to underline its “respect" for gays in a statement attributed to its chairman.

“I’m sorry if my comments on La Zanzara have created misunderstanding or polemic, or if I’ve offended anyone. In the interview I only wanted to underline the central role of the woman in the family," he said.

But Ivan Scalfarotto, an MP in the centre-left Democratic Party, wasn’t convinced. “It’s depressing that a businessman used to working and travelling around the world should say what Guido Barilla had said. I certainly won’t be buying his products any more.”

Talk is cheap.  If Barilla wants to convince me of his contrition, he will have to have the company produce some ads with gay families.  Until, then, my money will be spent on other brands.

Hate Group: Boycott Betty Crocker

Tony Perkins - the KKK affiliated leader of registered hate group Family Research Council - has his panties in a wad and is calling on godly Christofascists to boycott Betty Crocker products in particular and General Mills products in general.  Why?  Because the company has been supportive of gay marriage and recognizes that a majority of Americans now support marriage equality.  Of course, the idea of a Christofascist boycott is a farce.  When faced with a boycott orchestrated by American Family Association, another registered hate group, Starbucks' saw its profits increase significantly.  I for one will make a point of buying General Mills products.  Here's a sampling of Perkins' spittle flecked caterwalling:

At Betty Crocker, the only thing they're mixing up is their priorities. Hi, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker's latest promotion is a recipe for disaster. This summer, the famous dessert line decided to jump on the same-sex "marriage" bandwagon-and bring cakes to celebrate. In Minnesota, where parent company General Mills is headquartered, Betty Crocker decided to donate wedding cakes to the first homosexual couples who exchanged vows on the first day that counterfeit marriage was legal. "Betty celebrates all families," said manager Laura Forero. "We don't want to be old fashioned," the company explained. Unfortunately for General Mills, the majority of Americans think natural marriage is anything but old fashioned. And they've made it tough on companies like Target, Starbucks, and JC Penney who disagree. Know where your money is going. When you're at the store, think outside the Betty Crocker box! For a full list of products that are undermining marriage, check out DumpGeneralMills.com. 

The irony, of course, is that Christofascists like Perkins have a conniption fit when LGBT groups call for boycotts of anti-gay companies.  Joe Jervis sums up the hypocrisy well:

When anti-gay Christianist hate groups call for nationwide boycotts of LGBT-friendly companies, that is a righteous use of the free market in order to preserve morality, marriage, family, and The American Way. But when GAY groups use or threaten the use of a boycott, THAT is homofascist intimidation, intolerance, bullying, and a "mafia-style" attempt to deny the freedom of speech. (Hello, Oregon!) Just so we're clear.

My contempt for the "conservative Christian" crowd grows more every day.

Publix – Employee Owned Company Touted By Forbes As ‘Wal-Mart Slayer’

I will readily admit that I do not like Wal-Mart and deliberately go out of my way to never spend a penny at that retailer.  In many ways Wal-Mart defines what is wrong with much of corporate America nowadays: employees paid serf like wages and greed the main motivation for management and shareholders.  I simply have not desire to in any way subsidize such a company.  Thus, it was interesting to come a cross an article the suggests that Wal-Mart may have met its match in Publix, a Florida based retailer that we frequent when we are in Florida.  Publix is employee owned and stresses both customer service and paying employees a living wage.  Here are highlights from the article:

Walmart, its very name brings with it an image of a soulless corporation, a company which abuses its employees down so much that they will rip the company to shreds on their own internal website when asked. A company reliant on government assistance to keep its employees able to even eat. It is a recipe for disaster. And those who follow the teachings of Milton Friedman and other objectivist economists would try and explain that this is absolutely required for a successful company. But don’t tell that to Publix, which now sits as the most profitable grocer in the United States, holding a remarkable 52.8% of the grocery market in highly competitive Florida, against Walmart’s 14.5%.

How does Publix do it? Are they even more soul crushing, seeking to demoralize employees to the point that they are wage slaves, like McDonald’s does? The opposite, Publix is an employee owned corporation. You read that right, employee owned. The company does well, then the employees do well. This gives your average employee of Publix a stake in improving the companies bottom line, thanks to regular dividends. They do this by retaining customers, through excellent customer service. Even Forbes magazine has come to recognize that the Publix business model is a “Walmart Slayer.” And to add to the fears of the Beast of Bentonville, Publix is expanding into new markets, just as other companies are copying the Publix model.

Publix, through its focus on its staff and customer service, is able to beat Walmart’s shareholder returns, with a compound growth of 18% per year, as opposed to Walmart’s 10.5%. Of course, Walmart is a publicly traded company, while Publix is owned by its employees, so if someone wishes to invest in Publix, they would first need to begin working for Publix, and their rate of ownership is based on their wages. This encourages the hardest workers, those who dedicate themselves to the company, giving them a real stake in the company as they labor.

Publix began 1930 by George Jenkins, and was mocked by other grocers when he opened for offering amenities like chairs to relax in and air conditioning for the customers, combined with award-winning customer service. His store prospered during the Great Depression due to this employee and customer centered model of doing business.

The tragedy for Walmart is that the very model which Publix is an excellent example of, was once touted by Sam Walton himself. He firmly believed that workers who were invested in the company became more motivated, and motivated employees brought in happy customers. Sam Walton would be spinning in his grave if he were to read what the employees of his company thought of it today.

Walmart may have met its match, and its name is Publix.

Disclosure:  My past client, Michael Moore - of the Moore v. Virginia Museum of Natural History - is the stepson of one of George Jenkin's heirs.  She's a wonderful lady and an ardent gay rights supporter.

Target Donates $50,000 to PAC Backing Cuccinelli

One has to wonder at times get corporate CEO's get and keep their jobs given what has to be their dishonesty and/or stupidity.  (For the record, I was in-house counsel for a Fortune 50 corporation and saw such idiocy at close hand).  A case in point is Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel who in the past had to apologize for Target's contribution to a virulently anti-gay Minnesota GOP candidate.  Now, as Right Wing Watch and other media outlets report, Target has contributed $50,000 to a PAC that is backing anti-gay zealot Ken Cuccinelli who not only wants to keep LGBT Virginians in a permanent inferior citizenship status, but would even criminalize oral sex between consenting spouses.  Thus, the question is whether or not Steinhafel and company are liars or idiots, or do they merely see LGBT consumers as morons.   Here are highlights from Right Wing Watch:

Back in 2010, Target Corporation was forced to apologize when it came out that it had funded campaign ads on behalf of virulently anti-gay Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. The controversy hit the Minnesota-based company hard, in part because it vocally supports gay rights and has a reputation as a supportive workplace for LGBT people.

But Target didn’t stop giving to anti-gay candidates. As Abe Sauer reported at the end of 2010, Target gave a total of $31,200 to anti-gay candidates in that election cycle. And now, the company is indirectly funding one of the most extreme anti-gay culture warriors in the country, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Target reports that in the first half of this year, it contributed $50,000 to the Republican Governors Association, which so far this year has spent nearly $3 million on behalf of Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial campaign.

In apologizing to his employees for the company’s contributions to Emmer’s campaign, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel promised to launch “a strategic review and analysis of our decision-making process for financial contributions in the public policy arena” and to start “a dialogue focused on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, including GLBT issues.”

How did that “dialogue” lead to support for an organization that is dedicating itself to supporting Ken Cuccinelli? After all, Cuccinelli not only opposes advances in gay rights, he actively wants to remove protections for gays and lesbians that have already been won. Cuccinelli wants to reinstate Virginia’s “Crimes Against Nature Law,” which would outlaw oral sex between consenting adults – of any gender. In one of his first acts as attorney general, he ordered  the state’s colleges and universities to rescind non-discrimination policies that covered sexual orientation. He has said that being gay “brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their souls,” and said that “homosexual acts” are “intrinsically wrong” and don’t comport with natural law.” He even disparaged gay rights activists for trying to overturn sodomy bans and push for HIV/AIDS educations in schools.

Last year, Target launched a line of t-shirts to benefit a gay rights group, declaring itself “100 percent committed to the goal of families being respected in all communities including parents who happen to be LGBT."  Yet, in Cuccinelli, Target is backing a candidate who is promising to roll back the rights of LGBT people and their families in Virginia.

It looks like I will not be buying anything at Target anytime soon.

Back in 2010, Target Corporation was forced to apologize when it came out that it had funded campaign ads on behalf of virulently anti-gay Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. The controversy hit the Minnesota-based company hard, in part because it vocally supports gay rights and has a reputation as a supportive workplace for LGBT people.

But Target didn’t stop giving to anti-gay candidates. As Abe Sauer reported at the end of 2010, Target gave a total of $31,200 to anti-gay candidates in that election cycle. And now, the company is indirectly funding one of the most extreme anti-gay culture warriors in the country, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Target reports that in the first half of this year, it contributed $50,000 to the Republican Governors Association, which so far this year has spent nearly $3 million on behalf of Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial campaign. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/target-gives-50k-group-supporting-anti-gay-va-candidate-ken-cuccinelli#sthash.ldhF9NR0.dpuf