Target CEO “would not have approved” cave-in to LGBT lobby?

But was told he couldn’t back out. From Tyler O’Neil at PJMedia:

On Wednesday morning, The Wall Street Journal dropped a bombshell. Almost exactly one year after Target’s original pro-transgender announcement which caused a huge backlash and helped tank the company’s profits over the past 12 months, the Journal reported that Target’s CEO did not approve of the statement — and would not have approved it, if asked.

In early March of this year, the company suffered the largest one-day stock drop since the 2008 economic crisis. In dollar terms, the drop was the company’s largest hit ever. This also followed a report of fourth-quarter profits that fell below expectations, and a pessimistic full-year outlook. To make matters worse, Target’s disappointing results contrasted with better-than-expected earnings reported by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Home Depot Inc. More.

Reality check: Isn’t the guy fired already? He can’t expect his customers to pay for a war on their basic habits and values. He should have got rid of the people who told him he couldn’t back out. One can’t help wondering how much WalMart paid them… 😉 😉 😉

See also: Marvel! Readers tire of partisan comics

  • Malcolm Y

    Note that the Target CEO was upset that the tweet was sent out not that he didn’t support the policy. I think that this WSJ “article” is an attempt to get sympathy “Well Target didn’t really MEAN to do it.” and get people back to their stores.

    The article notes that WalMart etc have similar policies: they just didn’t advertise them. And their customers have a “live and let live” attitude. What? We’re supposed to accept that these disgusting perverts can waltz through any bathroom they please?

    “Abortion rights” started when the Supreme Court jammed them down our throats. At that time the majority was against it. Now “Abortion rights” are a sacrament never to be questioned.

    No one should agree to this revolting “live an let live” pablum. Live and let die.

    • That “Live and Let Live” attitude should read – “We just don’t want the general public to know.”

    • Agreed. It is how WalMart survives. They don’t insult the base by advertising it. I wasn’t offering them a medal, just explaining why the other guy should get his horse fired.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Most people are not reflexively intolerant. People are reflexively intolerant of being ORDERED to be tolerant whether they like it or not. Therein is the problem with LGBTQ activism. They don’t demand tolerance they demand surrender and obedience and quite frankly, fuck that shit whatever it is.

    • Frances

      It is not intolerant for a woman to decline to share a bathroom with a man in drag, whatever the “self-identification” said male professes. It’s common sense, modesty, and a desire not to find oneself in a stall being photographed by a pervert with a camera in “its” shoe.