The American Family Association has announced yet another boycott, or perhaps a continuation of an already existing one, and the target this time is Home Depot because it set up a booth to promote itself at a gay pride event in Atlanta. And that just makes them hopping mad:
AFA staff confirmed Home Depot was at the event and took this photo (right). We saw no business purpose for the booth. They had a spinning wheel game and were giving out small toys and prizes in celebration of the homosexual event.
One of the main purposes of “gay” pride events is to push for the legalization of marriage between men who have unnatural sex acts with other men. Rather than remaining neutral on the issue, Home Depot has taken the side of grown men who parade in public places dressed as drag queens and “fairies.”…
Home Depot also promoted homosexuality in the military. Posted on the back of the Home Depot float was a huge sign promoting OutServe. OutServe is a national organization promoting homosexuality in the military, including forcing chaplains to conduct same-sex weddings on military bases.
AFA is promoting a boycott of Home Depot until it agrees to remain neutral in the homosexual culture war.
Yes, they must be neutral. And by neutral, they mean on their side. Because you know damn well that if Home Depot had a booth at an anti-gay event, that would be “neutral.” And if gay rights groups protested that, they would be showing their fascist tendencies. And if they started a boycott of the company, that would be “economic terrorism” according to the AFA’s own spokespeople.
53 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Ace of Sevens
October 21, 2012 at 11:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
AFA sends spies to these things to make a list of supporters?
Draken
October 21, 2012 at 12:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I guess some of them volunteer to go out and witness the shameless perversity in minutious detail so they can, err, better report on what those slender, err, sleazy gays are up to.
Doubting Thomas
October 21, 2012 at 12:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Nice of the AFA to make these lists showing us who to support, huh?
Nathaniel Frein
October 21, 2012 at 12:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@3
My thoughts exactly. I think my next few hardware trips will bypass Lowes. Especially since I’m getting tired of the Boy Scouts who like to hang outside Lowes to fundraise.
Martin, heading for geezerhood
October 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So the AFA are fine with ” the legalization of marriage between women who have unnatural sex acts with other women“.
Hmmm, one should never underestimate the power of hot girl-on-girl action on the male fundagelical “mind”.
Nibi
October 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, Home Depot does sell interior design products.
Randomfactor
October 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So boycotts aren’t unnamerkin anymore?
Chiroptera
October 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
We saw no business purpose for the booth.
I dunno. Showing that they are on the side of decency (at least on this one issue) might drum up some extra business. Who knows?
-
Rather than remaining neutral on the issue….
I’m only guessing here, but I’d bet that AFA would think that coming out against same-sex marriage would be sufficiently “neutral.”
-
AFA is promoting a boycott of Home Depot until it agrees to remain neutral in the homosexual culture war.
Huh? But I thought boycotts were terrorism? Or denying others their freedom of speech? Or makes Jesus cry? Or something?
tommykey
October 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Interestingly, and encouragingly, all of the commenters on the page are critical of AFA.
grumpyoldfart
October 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think they will be delighted. Every time something like this happens, the board probably cheers loudly and says, “Thank Christ for that – now we’ve got an excuse to send out another begging letter to those morons who support us.”
John Pieret
October 21, 2012 at 1:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So the AFA are fine with ” the legalization of marriage between women who have unnatural sex acts with other women“.
Well, if you look at Leviticus and apply usual rules of Xian exigesis, it is clear that there is no prohibition of lesbianism. Not surprising in a society that sanctioned harems. The main focus was keeping other men away from the females … what the females did between servicing the alpha male was of no importance.
lofgren
October 21, 2012 at 1:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To authoritarians, “remaining neutral” on an issue means taking the side with the most (“legitimate”) power.
There is a rather slippery logic here. I think if you have X people saying one thing, and 2X people saying the opposite, then it makes a lot of intuitive sense to a lot of people to remain “neutral” by quietly acquiescing to the majority opinion, as it is more likely to maintain tribal cohesion.
timgueguen
October 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wonder how may AFA supporters engage in “unnatural sex acts.” Even amongst that bunch I’m sure there are those who do things with their spouses that cannot produce offspring.
Larry
October 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
With all the fundie wingnut boycotts under way these days, ’bout the only places a jebus-loving ‘murican can go is chikfila and papa johns.
RickR
October 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As usual, I’m drawn to the lulzworthy lingo these nuts use.
Inorite?? Everybody knows crossdressing is for young boys.
It wouldn’t be the AFA without at least one bald-faced lie, would it? I guess that constitutes “neutrality” in the wingnut mind.
tbp1
October 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Isn’t this the same group that denounced attempts to boycott Chic Fill A as unAmerican, even economic terrorism?
sebastianmarch
October 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Can we assume incidents of hand nailing will go down after this?
magistramarla
October 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
We’ll be moving back into the home that we own next spring, and we will have a lot of work to do on it. Since it is in Texas, and I want to live there for as short of a time as possible, we’ll be getting it ready to sell.
Home Depot will be getting a lot of business from us next summer!
Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)
October 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Boycotts are not economic terrorism, and we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Francisco Bacopa
October 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wasn’t the AFA and One Million Moms boycotting Home Depot a couple of years ago?
And honestly, it makes a lot of sense for Home Depot to support pro gay cause. Think of how much money interior decorators spend there.
matty1
October 21, 2012 at 3:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So are they OK with natural sex acts between men?
ah58
October 21, 2012 at 4:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe those unnatural acts involve powertools? Although I will admit that some friends I have who are into BDSM think Home Depot is a great place to find toys.
Sastra
October 21, 2012 at 4:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Businesses “remaining neutral” on gay marriage is the equivalent of atheists “shutting up” about church/state violations. A business which came out against gay marriage (like Chik-Fil-A) would not be considered neutral, any more than someone who prays to Jesus loudly and often is neutral. They are simply “right.”
If you can’t be right, then be silent. My take on their take.
godlesspanther
October 21, 2012 at 5:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So god hates hardware now. Is he still pissed off about Oreos, or has he gotten over that one?
bastionofsass
October 21, 2012 at 5:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m looking forward to the day when the AFA and the
One Million40,000 Moms will be boycotting so many businesses, TV shows, and events that they’ll be hard pressed to find anywhere to shop or entertainment to watch.D. C. Sessions
October 21, 2012 at 5:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wonder what would happen if someone tallied up all of the businesses that the various prominent wingnuts have boycotted, and sent it around to the wingnut mailing lists?
That list must be HUGE by now.
Doug Little
October 21, 2012 at 8:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m confused I thought they were against gay men. Maybe they should throw male flight attendants into the group as well, oh and any male working in the fashion industry.
What is it with these fucking morons? Everything is so black and white to them, complexity and nuance be damned.
Dr X
October 21, 2012 at 8:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So does Chick-fil-A have a hardware section?
Gregory in Seattle
October 21, 2012 at 8:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wasn’t it the AFA who said, not too long ago, that boycotts were evil and unamerican?
llewelly
October 21, 2012 at 9:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sex acts which involve smartphones, genetic engineering, or the Large Hadron Collider are verboten.
Crudely Wrott
October 21, 2012 at 11:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
From Ed’s post:
There’s a very good reason for that. Think of all the different kinds of living things that rely on hopping as a response to most any type of threat. Think about how much more efficient it is to respond with a hop, a jump, a bound, a random ballistic trajectory or a wild leap is compared to a response that takes the time and effort of establishing a firm defense based on reasoned argument.
The former requires only simple voluntary neural response and the required structure and musculature and can be obtained in an eye blink. Think springtails and fleas, springboks and frogs, for instance.
The later requires much higher neural responses plus the required knowledge and communicative skills and takes an investment of effort and intent over a much longer period of time. Think primates.
While the division of living organisms into classes of “higher” and “lower” can reveal the subjective predispositions of who makes the divisions, a more accurate assessment can be made by simply observing an organism’s response to a threat. It should be noted that some, perhaps most, threats are only imaginary.
Any further conclusions are left as an exercise for the relevant primates. ;^>
criticaldragon1177
October 21, 2012 at 11:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed Brayton
You’re right about the American Family Association. To them, if you’re not with them, you’re against them. I don’t even think they understand what Neutral means.
laurie
October 22, 2012 at 12:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This makes me want to buy stuff from Home Depot.
Although I can understand god not liking hardware stores, with the nails and hammers and such.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–
October 22, 2012 at 2:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
laurie:
Would it be God or Jesus that doesn’t like nails and hammers? I’m still a bit uncertain if they’re the same being or Father and Son.
joeyswails
October 22, 2012 at 4:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Because they’re stupid. It’s the same business purpose as a billboard or a race car.
I live in the Bay Area. Have they any idea how much the gay community spends on home and property improvement? Home Depot certainly does. Capitalism! Free markets rule!
F
October 22, 2012 at 4:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Home Depot has crossed the neutral zone. Prepare for war. Boycott the Romulan Star Empire.
Hey, that’s some fewer assholes to deal with when I’m there. Bonus! Keep it up Home Depot, your redeeming qualities have to start somewhere.
democommie
October 22, 2012 at 7:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Wasn’t it the AFA who said, not too long ago, that boycotts were evil and unamerican?”
Oh, you silly, depraved and doomed atheofag, you still don’t get it, do ya!?
When leftoperpz call for a boycott it’s economical terrorizm.
When the ReiKKKwing KKKristosphericals call for a boycott, it’s a sacrament.
Sheesh!
Nancy New, Queen of your Regulatory Nightmare
October 22, 2012 at 7:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I just went to Home Depot’s website, found their “contact us” page, chose the “Feedback” message link, and thanked them for doing the right thing and supporting civil rights.
reddiaperbaby1942
October 22, 2012 at 8:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
These people are beyond disgusting. “unnnatural sexual acts” — what century are they living in?
But as a character says of the radical right in Aaron Sorkin’s marvellous ‘Studio 60′ (I think it’s in the pilot episode), “they really do get horny at the very notion of a boycott.”
I was always sorry that closed after just one year.
blf
October 22, 2012 at 8:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think I only only pay attention to AFA’s boycotts when they boycott themselves.
Ben P
October 22, 2012 at 9:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Good straight christian men never go into that part of home depot. They stay in the “manly” part looking at long hard …boards of wood, and big tools…..
wait what were we talking about?
richardelguru
October 22, 2012 at 10:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tony, depends on whether you are Homoiousiosian or Homoousiosian.
I seem to remember that at one stage christians were killing each other over that iota!
Or maybe just boycotting like mad.
baal
October 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Said acts being ok between men and women?
This is one more reason to goto Home Depot over Menards (the Menards family gives to the same causes as the Kochs fwiw).
erichoug
October 22, 2012 at 12:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This actually makes me really happy. First because I love seeing a bunch of religious nutbags get their panties in a twist and second because I just dropped $2000 at home depot last weekend.
Hmmmm, maybe I need to call AFA and let them know..Nah, their undies are bunched tight enough already.
Gvlgeologist, FCD
October 22, 2012 at 1:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I really want to know the answer to this, both among the leadership and among the sheeple:
The hypocrisy is of course obvious. Do these people really not recognize it? Are they too stupid to notice? Do they think no one else will notice? Or are they just too cynical to care? I would love to see an interviewer ask a question like this of them.
heddle
October 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I hate boycotts and generally go out of my way to violate them, given the chance. Whether it’s idiots like this or idiots like PZ and his whining “I don’t care how many times gelato man apologizes” incident.
Gvlgeologist, FCD
October 22, 2012 at 1:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why? Do you think that the Montgomery Bus boycott was unjustified or wrong? What about the South Africa boycott? Would you go shopping at an establishment that discriminated against your race, your religion, your friends? Would you shop at an institution that promoted acts that you find abhorrent? If you wouldn’t as an individual, why not as a group?
heddle
October 22, 2012 at 1:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gvlgeologist, FCD,
I would make all those choices on my own and would not ask anyone to join me. If I thought company X was behaving in a way that was abhorrent, then I would stop patronizing company X, end of story. I do have a special disgust for Christian boycotts, since there is no precedent for such activities in the NT and indeed it seems quite contrary to the way we are called to behave. I have had several incidents where Christians have asked me to boycott–I recall Blockbuster Video in particular, where I responded that while I didn’t presently call on that establishment, I would begin doing so because I believe it is a better witness than Christians acting like crybabies. Made few friends during those incidents.
dingojack
October 22, 2012 at 1:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For some historical perspective see here.
Dingo
dontpanic
October 22, 2012 at 3:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ah, yes, that makes sense … a personal boycott, just not a public one. Somehow it’s wrong to let others know about it or urge others so join you. If only other religionists would take the same approach to their “spiritual beliefs” as well. You know, quietly hold them but never mention them to others. ::eyeroll::
democommie
October 22, 2012 at 3:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You might think that for a number of christians, “boy cotting” could conjure up all sorts of unsavory thoughts.
I boycott any organization that insists on doing business for cash only.
heddle
October 22, 2012 at 3:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dontpanic,
Who said I wouldn’t let others know about it? (I might or might not depending on the circumstances–in some cases I might have to.) What I wrote was: I would not ask anyone to join me.
The paragraph was clear enough– I would decide on my on, i.e., I would not join an organized boycott. And I would not ask others to join me, i.e., I would not call for a boycott.
Geez Louise. Please try to parse what you read. ::eyeroll::
dontpanic
October 23, 2012 at 1:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A distinction without a difference. Of course you would decide on your own. Unless there are boycott organizers out there holding guns to peoples’ heads. As for “not asking others to join”. Ah, talking to someone about it comes (generally) awfully close to laying out an argument for your actions (or in this case, non-action); I mean, is it possible to talk about a personal boycott without laying out your rationale? And what is “asking others to join” but a similar attempt at persuasion about your justification?
As for “I would not join an organized boycott”… does that mean if you heard about a boycott and agreed with the reasons the organizers laid out, and would otherwise not give your patronage because of those reasons, the fact that you heard of the organized boycott means that you would indeed continue the patronage, just to spite the fact that it is an organized boycott? Yes? Sounds like there’s some nasal surgery in your future. No? Then you would boycott? And how is that different than “joining”?
No, you’re quibbling and hair-splitting as is your wont. I read you fine the first time: your statement was merely an attempt at self-aggrandisement and acting superior by pretending you’re an “independent thinker”, not like all those “followers” who join organized boycotts.