Advocacy Group Boycotts Walmart over DVD Sale

April 6, 2006 12:10 p.m. EST

Felicia Willis - All Headline News Staff Writer

Los Angeles, CA (AHN) – Amid protests from a Christian advocacy group, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, decided to sell DVD copies of the gay-themed film "Brokeback Mountain."

The American Family Association, which called for the boycott, began putting pressure on Wal-Mart not to carry the Academy Award-winning movie in its U.S. stores. The group accused Wal-Mart of deserting its "family-friendly" corporate image by selling the film, about two cowboys who are involved in a homosexual love affair.

In a notice on its Web site, the group advocated that "concerned Christians to let their local Wal-Mart managers know how they feel and that they are not pleased over the chain's decision to promote and carry the pro-homosexual movie."

A Wal-Mart spokesman, Gail Lavielle, denied the retail giant was advocating any social agenda.

"The only thing we take into consideration when we decide to sell something is whether we think there's demand among our customers," Lavielle said in reports. "We're a retailer. We want to sell things our customers will buy."


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003075630

Run! Hide! The Crazy Christian Thought Police are coming!!

this is bs, but i don't know why anyone is surprised. wal-mart is hypocritical and bows to political pressure quite often. eg, won't sell explicit music, but rated r movies are fine. won't sell handguns but shotguns are great.

What really pisses me off is the fact that the religious nuts think they should be able to tell Wal-Mart what to sell and what not to.

What's next? Maybe holocaust deniers should try to tell Wal-Mart not to sell Schindler's List.

Good point Feenix!

It's sort of astonishing that a large number of people apparently have absolutely nothing better to do with their lives than sit around worrying about what DVDs should and shouldn't be distributed to willing buyers, based on a criterion that expresses one's ability to mind one's own business in matters of sexual intimacy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/beausoleil/Internet%20funnies/partnership.jpg

What really pisses me off is the fact that the religious nuts think they should be able to tell Wal-Mart what to sell and what not to.

What's next? Maybe holocaust deniers should try to tell Wal-Mart not to sell Schindler's List.

Why not? They're doing it legally. Abortion advocates want to force drug stores to carry morning after pills, advocates of a different kind want to force insurance companies to pay for viagra, etc, etc. If Wal-Mart wants to sell the garbage, they can do so. There's nothing sinister about a group making their voices heard, legally.

It's sort of astonishing that a large number of people apparently have absolutely nothing better to do with their lives than sit around worrying about what DVDs should and shouldn't be distributed to willing buyers, based on a criterion that expresses one's ability to mind one's own business in matters of sexual intimacy.

That's why conservatives rarely get involved in mass demonstrations. They have other things to do.

There's nothing sinister about a group making their voices heard, legally.

Yes, there is. It's called censorship. I call it thought control. Ban everything that opposes your point of view, because you want everyone to agree with your point of view, and you don't want to give anyone the chance to think about it.

In fact, the free flow if ideas is the ideal that inspired you to write that statement in the first place! These Christian advocacy groups are using their freedom of speech to try to squelch everyone else's freedom of speech!

Yes, there is. It's called censorship. I call it thought control. Ban everything that opposes your point of view, because you want everyone to agree with your point of view, and you don't want to give anyone the chance to think about it.

In fact, the free flow if ideas is the ideal that inspired you to write that statement in the first place! These Christian advocacy groups are using their freedom of speech to try to squelch everyone else's freedom of speech!

Now, hold on here. There's a real BIG difference between a group of people petitioning a company to not sell a certain product and the government using the law to squelch certain forms of speech. At no time is Wal-Mart PREVENTED from selling whatever they want to sell. Now, if the government were doing it, they would be prevented, and you would have actual censorship. Would you sqelch THEIR freedom of speech because you don't like what they are saying to Wal-Mart?

I think the real issue here is why does the media report on groups of nutcases that care about Brokeback Mountain instead of stories that matter?

Queers need to learn their place while they're still able to walk. Where is that place? Out of my sight with their hollywood funded agenda.

Now, hold on here. There's a real BIG difference between a group of people petitioning a company to not sell a certain product and the government using the law to squelch certain forms of speech. At no time is Wal-Mart PREVENTED from selling whatever they want to sell. Now, if the government were doing it, they would be prevented, and you would have actual censorship. Would you sqelch THEIR freedom of speech because you don't like what they are saying to Wal-Mart?

I didn't say anything about taking away the Christian group's right to boycott WalMart. But just because I wouldn't abuse the power of the state to prevent it, that certainly doesn't mean that I agree with it.

That's an important distinction that most authoritarians don't understand. There's a difference between opposing something and outlawing it.

What these Christians are doing is wrong. But it's not the role of government to dictate morality, so they can do it if they want to. I highly doubt if they would take the same position about acts that they deem "wrong".

I think the real issue here is why does the media report on groups of nutcases that care about Brokeback Mountain instead of stories that matter?

so you're saying that the media has a reputation for typically reporting on worthwhile issues? if this story doesn't 'matter', than the rest of the large majority of stories that the media covers are criminally worthless. talk about nutcases....more video tape has been wasted on the likes of say, tom cruise, than all the stories involving christian political activists combined.

Queers need to learn their place while they're still able to walk. Where is that place? Out of my sight with their hollywood funded agenda.

Wow. There's some bitterness, right there.
:eek3:

Wow. There's some bitterness, right there.
:eek3:

Yep, tons. Bitterness perhaps lessened if not for the fact that I've been hit on by gay guys my entire adult life and I'm just sick of it.

You must be purdy.

Haha, I bought my copy at Wal-Mart.

I didn't say anything about taking away the Christian group's right to boycott WalMart. But just because I wouldn't abuse the power of the state to prevent it, that certainly doesn't mean that I agree with it.

That's an important distinction that most authoritarians don't understand. There's a difference between opposing something and outlawing it.

100%.

DEAD.

ON.

so you're saying that the media has a reputation for typically reporting on worthwhile issues? if this story doesn't 'matter', than the rest of the large majority of stories that the media covers are criminally worthless. talk about nutcases....more video tape has been wasted on the likes of say, tom cruise, than all the stories involving christian political activists combined.

I think my point was pretty clear in that the media is not reporting on things that matter.
Our tax dollars are being spent on various nefarious things, and I'd really like to hear more about that than Tom Cruise or Brokeback Mountain.
All stories like this do is divert attention from the things that are really important.

Now, hold on here. There's a real BIG difference between a group of people petitioning a company to not sell a certain product and the government using the law to squelch certain forms of speech. At no time is Wal-Mart PREVENTED from selling whatever they want to sell. Now, if the government were doing it, they would be prevented, and you would have actual censorship.
correct.
I think my point was pretty clear in that the media is not reporting on things that matter.
Our tax dollars are being spent on various nefarious things, and I'd really like to hear more about that than Tom Cruise or Brokeback Mountain.
All stories like this do is divert attention from the things that are really important.:nice:

You must be purdy.


I was thinking he must be gay. ;)

I think my point was pretty clear in that the media is not reporting on things that matter.
Our tax dollars are being spent on various nefarious things, and I'd really like to hear more about that than Tom Cruise or Brokeback Mountain.
All stories like this do is divert attention from the things that are really important.

agreed.

Yep, tons. Bitterness perhaps lessened if not for the fact that I've been hit on by gay guys my entire adult life and I'm just sick of it.

I've had similiar experiences and I'm sick of it too. The first one happened when I was 16, and it's happened many times since.

About a month ago it happened yet again when this gay dude hit on me at a gas station. I was just pumping gas and minding my own business. He was a complete stranger and just approched me out of the blue, as if I was supposed to drop everything and run off with him or something. I didn't respond, and I guess he could tell by my expression that he was in danger of losing a few teeth if he took another step closer. I can't help it. I get pist off when these people approach me, and I think that it's a perfectly natural response. I also think that most men feel the same way, but many are afraid to admit it these days because they don't want to be labeled as a "bigot".


Maybe it's not bigotry. Maybe we just find their sexual ideas toward us completely disgusting. After all, about 98% of the human race is straight, and most straight people tend to find the very idea of enganging in gay sex completely revolting.

If we, as straight people don't "accept" someone's gayness, and put up with their advances, then we're supposed to feel guilty about it, or be sorry for being "bigoted". Sorry. I don't, and I won't. A gay guy hitting on me gives me the creeps, that will never change, and I'm not shy about letting that be known.

Queers need to learn their place while they're still able to walk. Where is that place? Out of my sight with their hollywood funded agenda.


You should come out to Hollywood sometime with your metal detector, I swear there's an underground city under the Hollywood hills.

Why not? They're doing it legally. Abortion advocates want to force drug stores to carry morning after pills, advocates of a different kind want to force insurance companies to pay for viagra, etc, etc. If Wal-Mart wants to sell the garbage, they can do so. There's nothing sinister about a group making their voices heard, legally.

No one said it was illegal. They said it was ridiculous authoritarian garbage behaviour.

Anyway . . . you guys have the right to hate freedom, and no one can take that away from you, but that doesn't mean we have to approve of it. Just as theocrats are free to hate the American way, Americans are free to discuss the failings of their broken, dogmatic, insane ideologies. The right-wing pseudo-Christians have the right to protest against freedom, and we have the right to discuss it.

Maybe we just find their sexual ideas toward us completely disgusting..

Now you can identify with how many females feel when guys hit on us

I didn't say anything about taking away the Christian group's right to boycott WalMart. But just because I wouldn't abuse the power of the state to prevent it, that certainly doesn't mean that I agree with it.

That's an important distinction that most authoritarians don't understand. There's a difference between opposing something and outlawing it.

What these Christians are doing is wrong. But it's not the role of government to dictate morality, so they can do it if they want to. I highly doubt if they would take the same position about acts that they deem "wrong".

A mere boycott is not outlawing anything. The christians are therefore in agreement with your views.

I've had similiar experiences and I'm sick of it too. The first one happened when I was 16, and it's happened many times since.

About a month ago it happened yet again when this gay dude hit on me at a gas station. I was just pumping gas and minding my own business. He was a complete stranger and just approched me out of the blue, as if I was supposed to drop everything and run off with him or something. I didn't respond, and I guess he could tell by my expression that he was in danger of losing a few teeth if he took another step closer. I can't help it. I get pist off when these people approach me, and I think that it's a perfectly natural response. I also think that most men feel the same way, but many are afraid to admit it these days because they don't want to be labeled as a "bigot".


Maybe it's not bigotry. Maybe we just find their sexual ideas toward us completely disgusting. After all, about 98% of the human race is straight, and most straight people tend to find the very idea of enganging in gay sex completely revolting.

If we, as straight people don't "accept" someone's gayness, and put up with their advances, then we're supposed to feel guilty about it, or be sorry for being "bigoted". Sorry. I don't, and I won't. A gay guy hitting on me gives me the creeps, that will never change, and I'm not shy about letting that be known.

You're not "supposed" to accept the advances of anyone in whom you're not interested. Using the fact that some gay individuals have hit on you to justify in your head some idea that gays as a group are a poor stock of people (or however you wanna phrase it) is whack; though if that's not already readily apparent to you, I doubt there's anything I can say on an internet message board to convince you of it.

It grosses me out a little when a girl hits on me, but I don't go and hate on all girls (or even the individuals doing the flirting) for it. Sheesh, it's not that serious.

No one said it was illegal. They said it was ridiculous authoritarian garbage behaviour.

Anyway . . . you guys have the right to hate freedom, and no one can take that away from you, but that doesn't mean we have to approve of it. Just as theocrats are free to hate the American way, Americans are free to discuss the failings of their broken, dogmatic, insane ideologies. The right-wing pseudo-Christians have the right to protest against freedom, and we have the right to discuss it.

Would you support a group that petitioned Wal-Mart to sell Brokeback Mountain, or would you exercise the same outrage? In other words, are you upset that this group is exercising their freedom of speech or the content of that speech? After all, a group trying to make Wal-Mart sell something they don't already is also fighting freedom in the same way.

Men are more aggressive and less subtle when they hit on a woman than a woman is when she hits on a man. A note for you women. Most men don't even realize that you're doing it because they literally don't pick up on subtle cues. All they think is, "woman attractive, good".