Category Archives: Corporate Ethics

Target feeling the pressure, but the fight isn't over

NO!Following Target's decision earlier this year to institute a policy whereby biological men could on a whim gain access to bathrooms and changing rooms normally reserved for girls and women, NOM and other conservative groups launched a boycott of the store to let them know that this kind of ideological move was not only dangerous for its customers but also insulting and bad for business.

In the months since, with stories cropping up regularly of how the policy was backfiring, Target has definitely felt the pressure, and this week comes news that the store is at least beginning to see the errors of its ways. From the Chicago Tribune:

Target said Wednesday that it is preparing to spend $20 million in coming months to add single-stall bathrooms along with men's and women's restrooms in its stores, a move meant to accommodate shoppers concerned about the retailers' policy of allowing customers and employees to use the bathroom that corresponds to the gender they identify with.

The story goes on to note some of the staggering statistics of Target's reported sales and projections which show that the boycotts have had a serious impact on the store, as much as the corporate execs and the media would like to downplay this.

However, this move by Target is only a beginning of righting the wrong of enforcing a dangerous gender ideology that puts women and girls at least in a very uncomfortable and unseemly - if not dangerous - situation of needing to undress in front of members of the opposite sex. (You'll note that this new "accommodation" of single-occupancy facilities is ironically for those who feel uncomfortable being in such a situation with members of the opposite sex, rather than the small minority of those who don't identify with their own biological sex!)

So, we need to keep up the pressure!

If you still haven't pledge to "Say No To Target," we encourage you to do so today. It's working!

"I was terminated because of my religion"

Another sad story of the "tolerance" of the LGBT movement comes to us today from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, writing at

In May, Javier Chavez, senior store detective at the Macy's store in Flushing, New York, received a phone call stating that a male had entered the ladies room with a female companion. A female customer, and her daughter, were afraid to enter because of the male's presence. A security employee who reports to Chavez advised the man to leave and use the men's room. He left claiming to be a female. He then complained to store officials that he was asked to leave.

Chavez was subsequently told by an Assistant Store Manager that certain males can use the ladies restroom. This was news to him. A few days later, an assistant security manager told him that transgender persons can use the bathroom of their choice.

He said he had just become aware of this policy, stating that it was contrary to his religion and the Bible. But he hastened to say that he would nonetheless enforce Macy's policy.

That's where one would think the story would end: but it doesn't:

Macy's would not leave this alone, and this is where it crossed the line.

Chavez was then summoned to meet with the Human Resources Manager, who suspended him. He was later terminated.

"After my employer learned that I was a practicing Catholic, with religious concerns about this policy," Chavez says in his formal complaint, "I was terminated because of my religion, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law."

Read the rest of Donohue's commentary here.

This is just another example of why we need so urgently Congress and state legislatures to enact protections for people of faith who simply want to conduct their lives - at home and at work - in accord with their beliefs about marriage and God's design for men and women. Now would be a good time, if you haven't already done so, to join us in this effort and sign our petition to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform urging them to pass the First Amendment Defense Act!

Without FADA, stories like this will unfortunately only become more and more commonplace.

File Under: "Things They Told Us Would Never Happen"

One could publish a book entitled, Things LGBT Activists Insisted Would Never Happen, But Did - and it would, grimly, be a long one. Whether it be public figures losing their jobs because of their religious beliefs on marriage or private business owners threatened with legal action and financial ruin for refusing to participate in celebrating a marriage that conflicts with their conscience, we've seen case after case in which the things they told us would never take place have come to sad fruition.

Today, the headline in this category reads, Transgender woman arrested for voyeurism at Target, and while we are shocked by the story we cannot say we're really surprised:

A transgender Idaho Falls woman was arrested Tuesday on one count of felony voyeurism for a report that she took pictures of another woman changing clothes in a dressing room at Target in Ammon.

Shauna Patricia Smith, 43, is in custody in the Bonneville County Jail under the name Sean Smith, according to the jail’s active inmate roster. A Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office news release said the suspect also is known as Sean P. Smith.

Sheriff’s deputies responded Monday to the store after a woman reported that someone was taking pictures of her while she was inside a dressing room trying on clothes, the release said. The victim noticed the subject reaching over the wall with a cellphone taking pictures. The victim confronted the suspect who then fled the store on foot, the release said.

Sheriff’s Office Spokesman Sgt. Bryan Lovell said he didn’t know whether the reported victim was wearing underwear when she was photographed.

Detectives reviewed witness information and security footage from Target that led them to come in contact with Smith, the release said. After interviewing Smith she was taken into custody by detectives and booked into the jail.

Detectives are investigating to determine if any more victims exist relating to this incident, the release said.

While the actions of this individual are outrageous, what is perhaps more maddening is that Target deliberately invited such behavior by intentionally putting the safety and privacy of girls and women at risk!

We have called on our supporters to SAY NO TO TARGET, and we renew that call today.


If you haven't signed our boycott petition, we encourage you to do so today, and then please share this message with your friends on social media and encourage them to do likewise!

Want room for ideology in your coffee?

The pro-same-sex marriage corporate behemoth Starbucks has taken its ideologically-driven LGBT agenda to a new level with a new ad featuring two reality TV star drag queens.

The ad feature Bianca Del Rio and Adore Delano, two drag queens from a reality TV show on the LGBT network, OUTtv.

Thus Starbucks continues to serve up a healthy dose of ideology added in with the cream and sugar in its cups of coffee. It's as good a reason as ever to Dump Starbucks if you haven't made the commitment to do so already.

New Study Suggests It's Better to Leave Religion Off Your Résumé

Do you list your involvement with religious organizations on your résumé?  You may want to cease revealing your religious affiliation on your résumé, a new study by the Southern Sociology Society suggests.  The study found that applicants whose résumés included faith affiliations were 26 percent less likely to be contacted by employers.

PapersThe Southern Sociology Society researchers sent out 3,200 fake résumés, one a control group of résumés without any religious affiliations and one group of résumés with various religious affiliations indicated by membership in a religious organization in college.

The study suggested that in order to improve their résumés, applicants refrain from publicly displaying their religious affiliations.

Natalie Wyman at The Family Foundation writes:

What does this say about our society? Citizens are advised to hide their religious beliefs so it will be easier to get a job. Shouldn’t we be advising employers to stop discriminating against applicants just because of their religious beliefs? The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly lays out this fundamental right to freedom of religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” So why does the study suggest that Americans need to restrict their free exercise of religion in order to get a job?

Unfortunately, religious discrimination in the workplace has been escalating in recent years. Studies like this one exemplify the need for more protections for religious liberty in our state and in our country. The purpose of religious liberty is not that everyone must hide their faith for fear of offending others; rather, everyone should be allowed to express their faith in public without fear of being punished.

So much for diversity.

ICYMI: The American Conservative: Rooting out the Brendan Eichs at JPMorgan Chase

From The American Conservative:

This is chilling. What on earth could being an “ally” of the gay community have to do with whether or not you are a good bank employee? Is a Baptist who treats everyone, gay and straight, with fairness and respect, and who doesn’t bring his religious views into the workplace, an LGBT ally, even if he quietly disapproves of gay marriage? Why is Chase not asking if people consider themselves allies of African-Americans, or Hispanics, or any other minority group? Should Chase ask its employees whether or not they consider themselves allies of the Jewish community? Of Muslims? Of atheists?

What business is it of a bank’s to know the private views of its employees?

A few years ago, a friend of mine worked for a privately held company whose president/CEO sent out an employee survey asking similar questions, including polling his employees on their political and religious beliefs. The company was not political, and non-sectarian — yet the president was known for his highly conservative political and religious views. The survey scared employees to death, and, I learned, offended even religious conservatives (like my friend) who feared it would put members of his department who were political liberals and/or unbelievers in jeopardy, despite the quality of their work.

There was nothing illegal about the survey, at least as far as my friend knew, just as there’s nothing apparently illegal about the Chase survey. Still, in my friend’s case, the president’s survey of his workforce was a real blow to morale in the company, because it made those who lined up on the other side of the president afraid for their jobs, and angered at least some religious and political conservatives on staff who, like my friend (a manager there, and a religious conservative), wanted to protect his team from the prospect of reprisal.

JPMorgan Chase

ChristianNews - Chilling Implications? Largest Bank Asks Workers if They Support Homosexuality

From Christian News Network:

The largest bank in the United States now allegedly requires its employees to state whether or not they are supporters of the homosexual lifestyle.

JPMorgan Chase, headquartered in New York City, is the United States’ largest bank, with total assets of over $2.5 trillion. The bank has overtly supported homosexuality for several years, appearing in several “gay pride” events and even offering a number of special benefitsto bank employees who identify as “LGBT.”


As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that “closely held corporations” can operate according to their owners’ religious beliefs. However, because JPMorgan Chase is a publicly-traded banking company, the same standards likely do not apply. The bank’s questioning of employees’ beliefs on homosexuality is therefore concerning to many Christians.

Narrowing the Halls of Higher Education

Two stories in the news lately demonstrate chillingly how far the new orthodoxy of marriage radicalism has infiltrated the sector of society where formerly freedom and diversity of opinion were most prized: the Academy.

First, from The Daily Caller, comes news that Angela McCaskill  has been denied legal redress in court after having been targeting with harassment and intimidation as a result of having signed a petition to protect marriage in Maryland:

Angela McCaskillMcCaskill, the first black deaf woman to get a Ph.D from Gallaudet, sued the university last year for illegal discrimination based on race, religion, marital status and political views.


The acclaimed school for the deaf suspended and then demoted Angela McCaskill after a lesbian professor discovered her name on the petition to put “Proposition 6” — which would have overturned Maryland’s legalization of gay marriage — on the November 2012 Maryland ballot.

As if this weren't bad enough, a proposed Christian law school in Canada is "facing opposition from lawyers who do not like the university's stance on 'sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.'"

From the story:

The British Columbia Law Society had voted 20-6 on April 11 to approve the law school, but then lawyer Michael Mulligan convinced his fellow lawyers to sign a petition to overturn the decision. As a result, 1,300 signed to back Mulligan.

In addition, the Law Society of Upper Canada executive voted 28-21 to reject Trinity Western law grads the opportunity to practice law in Ontario, Canada on April 24. However, on April 25, Nova Scotia Barristers' Society voted 10-9 to approve the school, but only if it cancels its evangelical stance on "sexual intimacy" outside of traditional marriages.


Photo Credit: CBC News

Photo Credit: CBC News

"The idea that Trinity's law school graduates aren't really qualified is not going to get them very far, because there's no end to that argument," said [Christian Higher Education Canada Executive Director Justin Cooper]. "Are they going to give a 'religious test' to every Muslim and Hindu graduate of a law school who may hold some similar values?"

Perhaps a more incisive question would be whether an evident bias in favor of redefining marriage on the part of a given law school would subject that program to stricter scrutiny, on account of the fact that its graduates would be unlikely to remain impartial if faced with the prospect, say, of defending a religious business owner targeted with a lawsuit for declining to violate their beliefs?

It is doubtful: the same double-standards cutting through all of the institutions in society as part of the march to redefine marriage and sexuality are taking firm root in the halls of higher education, it seems, and those halls are becoming too narrow to accommodate anyone who won't step into line with the new radical ideology.

"The post-totalitarian system demands conformity, uniformity, and discipline"

In a brilliant piece by Mollie Hemingway at The Federalistshe draws upon the thinking of Czech leader Vaclav Havel (who once observed that "the post-totalitarian system demands conformity, uniformity, and discipline") to comment upon the recent dust-up at Mozilla over Brendan Eich's views on marriage.

Hemingway's piece is entitled "The Rise of the Same-sex Marriage Dissidents," and you should read the entire thing today. Here's a snippet:

Havel-FirefoxTo explain how dissent works, Havel introduced the manager of a hypothetical fruit-and-vegetable shop who places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” He’s not actually enthusiastic about the sign’s message. It’s just one of the things that people in a post-totalitarian system do even if they “never think about” what it means. He does it because everyone does it. It’s what you do to get along in life and live “in harmony with society.” (For our purposes, you can imagine that slogan is a red equal sign that you put up on your Facebook page.)


Did we mindlessly put up red equal signs when we hadn’t even thought about what marriage is? Did we rush to fit in by telling others we supported same-sex marriage? Did we even go so far as to characterize as “bigots” or as “Hitlers” those who held views about the importance of natural marriage?


In the greengrocer scenario, Havel notes that if the text of the sign read “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,” he might be embarrassed and ashamed to put it up. The dissidents are the ones who, by refusing to put the sign up, or refusing to recant, shine a huge light on the system, including the ones who go along to get along. All of a sudden those Facebook signs, those reflexive statements, those cries of “Bigot!” look less like shows of strength and more like shows of weakness.

If you haven't yet followed NOM's call-to-action over the Eich controversy, please take some time to do so today.

"Dumb Starbucks"? Couldn't Have Said It Better Ourselves

A new coffee shop in California is creating quite a buzz using some novel branding. Behold, Dumb Starbucks.

We did a bit of a double-take when we saw the first reports about the new cafe because of the close rhyme of its name with our own Dump Starbucks campaign.

Dump StarbucksWhile it probably isn't what the founders of the new shop had in mind, we think it's fair to call a company dumb when it suggests that anyone who doesn't agree with its radical agenda to support redefining marriage should take their business across the street.

That is why, after all, we have maintained our call for all marriage supporters worldwide to do just that: Dump Starbucks for its corporate intolerance toward those who hold the basic and common sense belief in marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to instead buy their coffee elsewhere. Maybe those marriage supporters in California will want to give Dumb Starbucks a try instead? Send us your pics if you do!

Crisis Magazine - The Persecution of Christians

ChristianityIn the aptly named Crisis Magazine, Stephen Beale has begun to chronicle the persecution of Christians as they take public stands through their businesses against the redefinition of marriage.  NOM has chronicled many of these for you, but the article is a timely reminder of the growing threat to our free exercise of religion as marriage is redefined.  Beale quotes, Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of The Thomas Moore Law Center:

These cases represent a new battlefield in the clash between the freedoms of Christians and the “radical homosexual agenda”…Despite their relatively small numbers, radical homosexuals wield enormous power. They dominate our cultural elite, Hollywood, television, the mainstream news media, public schools, academia, and a significant portion of the judiciary…As a result of their power, homosexual activists are able to intimidate and silence opposition.

Read more here.

Eviscerating our First Amendment Freedoms

"It's an evisceration of our freedom of association," said John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage...

We’ve been saying for years that one of the first casualties when you redefine marriage are our first amendment rights of religious liberty, free speech, and association.  Now even the mainstream media has picked up on the growing list of attacks on the rights of businessmen and woman who wish to run their enterprises by the tenets of their faith.  The Wall Street Journal reported,

Erasing the First Amendment

As more states permit gay couples to marry or form civil unions, wedding professionals in at least six states have run headlong into state antidiscrimination laws after refusing for religious reasons to bake cakes, arrange flowers or perform other services for same-sex couples.

The issue gained attention in August, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state antidiscrimination laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

Similar cases are pending in Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington, and some experts think the underlying legal question—whether free-speech and religious rights should allow exceptions to state antidiscrimination laws—could ultimately wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Read more)

However, there is a easier way to resolve this issue than going to the US Supreme Court – Don’t Redefine Marriage in the first place.

Grappling With the Arguments

Oregon PolitiChick State Director Maggie Wilson-Mars writes at the PolitiChicks blog about "The Very Real Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage." Wilson-Mars is a Mormon woman and a conservative with a homosexual son with whom she often argues about same-sex marriage - with him arguing against it, and her in favor.

Throughout her piece she is dismissive of many of the arguments in favor of traditional marriage that we here at NOM know are based in greater logic and evidence that she seems willing to credit them. Nonetheless, despite her reasoning and convictions in these matters, she wrote her article to admit that there's one argument that can't be so easily dismissed -- even though, ironically, it's the one most frequently waved off in our society: namely, the so-called "slippery slope." She writes:

Sweet CakesHere in Oregon, a bakery refused to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding. They will sell to anyone, but draw the line at providing wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. The community was outraged. Portland/Gresham is a liberal, pro-gay town and they weren’t having it. It caused such a ruckus that the Oregon Attorney General opened an investigation. [...]

A few days ago, the Oregon bakery ... decided to operate from home. The emails, messages, phone calls and threats are so bad they can’t take it. Remember, they’re still the focus of an investigation by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries into possible violation of the states discrimination laws. There’s no reassurance for churches, etc. if businesses are already being forced to participate in ceremonies that they are morally opposed to or face fines, attacks and shutdown. Just in my own personal life, I know many conservatives who have no problem with gay marriage itself, it’s just that supposedly non-existent slippery slope that rears that its ugly head time and time again. I can’t help but look into the future when I see things like bakeries getting investigated and terrorized.

Of course, just like we here at NOM have more evidence and reasons to support the arguments Mrs. Wilson-Mars rejects, we (sadly) have more proof of this danger that follows in the wake of marriage redefinition as well.

Voting With Our Wallets

Did you know that Starbucks was recently reported to be perceived as the most LGBT-friendly brand in the U.S.? JCPenney, Target, Apple and Amazon round out the top five.

If you've been following the national marriage battle over the past 18 months this should come as no surprise. Starbucks has said that gay ‘marriage’ is one of its corporate values. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who recently purchased the Washington Post, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to redefine marriage in Washington State. Target and JC Penny both support gay ‘marriage’ and the homosexual lifestyle in general, as does Apple.

In the same survey, it was reported that 75% of LGBT respondents said they were actively boycotting Chick-fil-A.

We only vote at a ballot box once a year at most. But we vote with our wallets every day. That’s why NOM maintains its Corporate Fairness Project - which includes the Dump Starbucks, Dump General Mills, and Thank Chick-fil-A initiatives – to inform you of what companies are taking active stands in the marriage battle, and where your money is best spent in defense of this sacred institution.

Dump Starbucks

Oregon Bakery Owners' Decision Aligned with State Constitution

Before the owners of "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" were forced to close their very successful Oregon bakery, voters in their state had approved a referendum to define marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman. In other words, same-sex unions were not even legally recognized in Oregon.

Why then would Aaron and Melissa Klein be harassed to the point of closing their business just for declining to support a ceremony that was technically illegal in their state anyway? NewsBusters has more:

Sweet CakesFollowing a voter-approved referendum in 2004, Oregon's constitution (Article XV, Section 5A) has stated that "... only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."

For some reason, that doesn't seem to matter in the "Sweet Cakes" controversy over Aaron and Melissa Klein's refusal earlier this year to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple's (not legally recognized) "marriage." The turned-down couple has filed a civil-rights complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Department of Labor and Industry. In the meantime, the Kleins, who have experienced ongoing harassment and threats against anyone and everyone who might refer business to them, have closed their storefront business and are operating it out of their home. Aaron has taken employment elsewhere.

No press coverage that I have seen has raised the seemingly valid issue of how the Kleins can be forced to do something in support of a ceremony, i.e., same-sex "marriage," which is not legally sanctioned and could construed to be an illegal act.

It seems like a stretch to assert that the 2007 law trumps the language hard-wired into the state's constitution and forces the Kleins to support something the state doesn't formally recognize.