Bay Windows - December 23, 2004
Ethan Jacobs, ejacobs@baywindows.com.

Although Target maintains they booted the bell-ringers in an effort to treat all charities equitably, some conservative Christian groups have fingered another motive behind the policy change: pressure from gay activists.

The press reports on Target's new policy that surfaced in the months leading up to the holiday season gave no indication that the GLBT community had a hand in the change. In official statements Target explained that the corporation has long exempted the Salvation Army from its policy forbidding onsite solicitation by charities but was ending that exemption out of fairness to other organizations. The initial conservative boycott efforts that followed criticized Target's decision but made no mention of suspected pressure from gay activists.

Yet earlier this month some of the groups promoting a boycott took a different approach. Concerned Women for America and IFI have floated the theory that Target was pressured to drop the Salvation Army by members of the GLBT community, although they have yet to produce hard evidence backing up their claim.

"[Gay activists] have had a long history of targeting the Salvation Army," said David Smith, senior policy analyst for IFI.

The GLBT community has had a contentious relationship for the past few years with the Salvation Army, an evangelical Christian organization that opposes same-sex marriage and believes gay and lesbian people should be celibate. In July 2001 the Washington Post printed a story on an alleged backroom deal in which President George W. Bush's administration promised the Salvation Army it would change federal regulations to exempt religious-based charities from state and local laws banning hiring discrimination against gay and lesbian people. In exchange the Salvation Army promised to lobby for Bush's faith-based initiatives program. Both the Salvation Army and Bush came under fire from gay activists after the article was printed, and the Bush administration opted against changing the federal regulations.

In November of that same year the Salvation Army was targeted by GLBT activists after overturning its western division's domestic partner benefits policy, which had been put in place to comply with San Francisco's regulations concerning charities with city contracts. The new national policy restricted benefits to employees, their heterosexual married spouses and their children.

In response the Genessee County, Mich., chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) launched a protest in which participants inserted vouchers into Salvation Army kettles that said they would withhold donations until the charity ended its discriminatory hiring and benefits policies. PFLAG chapters around the country, including locally, participated in the protest, which has continued in one form or another in the years since the initial effort.

But beyond this history of protest conservative groups have yet to produce a smoking gun linking GLBT activism to Target's decision. Smith said IFI's lone piece of evidence is an alleged phone conversation between Rick Garcia, political director for the GLBT group Equality Illinois, and the hosts of a conservative Illinois talk radio program called the Walsh Forum. Jeff Grigoletti, one of the hosts, told Bay Windows Garcia had admitted in an off-air interview that his group had contacted Target and other companies and asked them to pull their support for the Salvation Army.

Garcia, for his part, said he never made any such claim, and he suspects IFI is pushing the gay angle to raise its own profile.

"It's just a rank fundraising ploy for this lunatic group," said Garcia. "...I would love to say that we are such a powerful homosexualist lobby and we brought this corporation to its knees, but that is not the truth."

He said his group has not taken part in any Salvation Army protests in at least three years.

Concerned Women for America also cited past gay activism against the Salvation Army as its primary evidence that activists persuaded Target to show the bell-ringers the door. Spokespeople for Concerned Women for America did not return a call from Bay Windows seeking comment for this story.

Both the Salvation Army and Target are staying above the fray. A spokesperson for the Salvation Army, Major George Hood, said the charity is not endorsing any boycott of Target.

"Our counsel to all of our field units is, business as usual. We have to move on," Hood explained. He said the Salvation Army is busy trying to offset the loss of funds caused by losing the kettles at Target stores, which pulled in $9 million in 2003, nearly 10 percent of its total holiday fundraising.

Target spokesperson Paula Greear said the company's decision to ban bell-ringers from stores had no political motives.

"It is unfortunate that people are misinterpreting the basis for which we made the decision," said Greear. "Unfortunately I think there are certain groups that are taking [the decision] to put their own mission out there."

She said Target informed the Salvation Army of the decision in January and suggested they instead submit a proposal to take part in the company's charitable giving program. No proposal has been submitted as of yet.

Yet IFI, Concerned Women of America and other groups promoting the Target boycott remain convinced that it is the result of coercion by GLBT activists. Smith credits the boycott campaign with exposing the truth behind Target's decision.

"It seems to me that they wanted to do this under the radar screen," said Smith.

Regardless of Target's motives, many in the GLBT community continue to use the holidays as a venue to protest the Salvation Army's policies. The Genessee County PFLAG chapter no longer actively promotes its campaign but still encourages supporters to distribute the vouchers, which can be downloaded from its Web site. The national PFLAG organization is not sponsoring the voucher protest, but the organization said local chapters around the country are taking part.

Locally the Greater Boston PFLAG chapter is distributing vouchers to place in kettles. Pam Garramone, the chapter's executive director, said the vouchers have been e-mailed to other chapters around the state, although it is unclear how many chapters will participate.

Soulforce, a national organization working to end religious intolerance against GLBT people, is organizing its own voucher campaign, although media coordinator Laura Montgomery Rutt is quick to note that Soulforce sees it as a public education campaign, not a boycott of the Salvation Army.

Rutt pointed to the Salvation Army's alleged deal with the Bush administration and its ending of domestic partner benefits in the western conference as the motivation behind their campaign.

Hood disputed the Salvation Army's reputation as anti-gay, arguing that the Washington Post story about a deal with the Bush administration was false. He also said that the charity's employment policies do not discriminate based on sexual orientation except for staff who hold ministerial positions.

"We do not ask the question of sexual orientation in any job interview. We hire people based on skill and the ability to perform the job," said Hood.

Ordained ministers not in a heterosexual marriage, said Hood, must take a vow of celibacy.

The Salvation Army does not discriminate in terms of delivering services, and a substantial percentage of the recipients their HIV/AIDS services are gay men, said Hood. In terms of health benefits Hood argued that their denial of benefits to domestic partners was consistent with the organization's evangelical doctrine.

But Rutt said when a charity is lobbying for federal funding it cannot justify discriminating against GLBT people.

"Because they are religious-based and they have in some ways collaborated with the Bush administration in previous years to bypass discrimination issues to get money from the federal government, we feel that's a mixing of church and state," explained Rutt.

She advised people to take the money they would have donated to the Salvation Army and instead give it to a charity that does not discriminate.

"There's local charities that feed and clothe and have nondiscriminatory policies in employment," said Rutt.

041223
BY041203

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2004. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 2004. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .