Dear Target, you made a mistake

[The Great Goose]

Is it illegal to use the bathroom of the opposite sex?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

No.

But the SJWs have stirred up the issue. laws were in place to protect transgendered people, but political activists have decided to create awareness about it (which is the last thing anyone needs when they are gong to the Bathroom! ) and the Right wing nut jobs have taken up the cry, as usual.

About a year ago I went on a crusade on Facebook to convince the SJWS to pipe down. Of course I was vilified. They never ask "why". They just follow a world wide agenda blindly. Never a thought to political backlash or consequences.

So what's the big deal then, if there's no laws being broken?

And what does SJWS stand for?
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Social justice warriors are basically Radical feminists. The goal of radical feminism is to" destroy gender". They believe that this is the only way to gender equality. As usual though, they are hypocrites who want their cake and eat it too. They draw distinctions as they work towards gender less society. That is, though they think thy want equality, they still want the perks of being female. So they lack the resolve, but instead of understanding their own limitation, as usual, someone else has to pay the price. I this case it's transsexual women baring the brunt for them. So now people who've been using the bathroom for years are likely to be attacked by the mob.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

That is to bad because I liked Target at one time. I realized that walmart always has the lowest price on everything. Walmart rocks Target sucks

 

[Pop23]

I was referring to referring to regulation of private property.

You mean like Target is doing?

So privately owned businesses are allowed to discriminate based on what ever they want?

Allrightythen

Isn't that the claim of those defending the bakery?

Might be, I disagreed with them as much as I disagree with Target

The State however stepped in, claiming the bakery discriminated, but aren't with Target?

Curious

No, not curious. The bakers violated the law. Whether you agree with WHY they violated the law, they did violate it.

Target is simply not enforcing a law. There is a difference.

No, it's more complicated then that.

Target is now participating in the sme discriminatory activity they claim to hate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

I don't know if I can agree with your calculus there, I would think it looks more like this:

* There is a relatively large portion of the public that *might* take a large enough exception to this policy to curtail their shopping at Target - BIG RISK
* This policy provides a special accommodation for a very tiny slice of the potential market (transgender individuals) who *might* increase their volume of business with Target - SMALL REWARD
* Of those consumers that don't fall into the first two groups, some may applaud the move, most won't care one way or another but in either case it's not likely to alter the amount of business they do with Target. - NO CHANGE

I can't for the life of me see where Target Management found a business upside in this policy and if I were a shareholder I'd be demanding that management explain in detail why this move made good business sense.

In any case Target is well within it's rights to implement this policy and those that are actively boycotting/petitioning Target are also well within their rights to do so, in fact this is the way society should work, it's completely voluntary (no interference from the State).

Let's put it another way. As of this post (4:16 PM EST) 984,000 people have signed the petition. Let's say that each of these people spent a minimum of $20 on whatever at Target at any given time.

Now, if we multiply $20 x 984,000 this is what we get

$19,680,000

Now, let's say for the sake of argument, that all of these customers are regular customers, who shop there at least four times out of a month if we multiply 4 x $19,680,000 we get

$78,720,000

And if we splay that out over 12 months, or multiply 12 x $78,720,000 this is what we get:

$944,640,000

In a year, that would equate to a loss of nearly a billion dollars in total revenue for Target. This is a mistake no matter how you put it. I'm not disputing that they have a right to do what they want, but if a decision could potentially cost you billions of dollars in revenue for your company, wouldn't you want to reverse it before any damage is done?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And here is the alternative scenario. Lets say these are regular customers who shop at Target once a month. Target would still lose nearly 240 million bucks each year. Don't see how this plays out as a good decision.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

Actually, Mac, a flaw in your logic.

Everyone, man or woman, must use the bathroom at some point. They will all notice if someone of the opposite sex comes waltzing in.

 

[Pop23]

And here is the alternative scenario. Lets say these are regular customers who shop at Target once a month. Target would still lose nearly 240 million bucks each year. Don't see how this plays out as a good decision.

That's only counting those who signed up.

Most will not. Take those numbers x 10 and you're more likely closer to the real numbers

 

[Pop23]

Just because a dog thinks it's a cat... Does not make it a cat.
Lol

Lizard then? A butch Lizard?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey what happened to all RWnut opposition to boycotting and trying to punish businesses for ideologies/beliefs etc.?

I guess that's disposable when the shoe's on the other foot.

 

[Pop23]

Hey what happened to all RWnut opposition to boycotting and trying to punish businesses for ideologies/beliefs etc.?

I guess that's disposable when the shoe's on the other foot.

Guess so, but then again, you're a loon

 

[BluesLegend]

If Target is trying to attract a bunch of gender confused freaks I won't shop there, I can spend my money elsewhere.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And here is the alternative scenario. Lets say these are regular customers who shop at Target once a month. Target would still lose nearly 240 million bucks each year. Don't see how this plays out as a good decision.

That's only counting those who signed up.

Most will not. Take those numbers x 10 and you're more likely closer to the real numbers

Okay, so Target takes in roughly $77 billion annually.

And instead of 984,000 there are 9,840,000 who actually disagree with this decision and choose to boycott the store.

Instead of $944,640,000 in lost revenue, it would be $9,446,400,000. That's $9.4 billion.

Even on the low end, they would still lose $2.4 billion.

Any way you slice it, this was a piss poor decision by Target to foist its own political views on the customers.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Target knows that most of its customers are capable of critical thought and reasoning. They aren't worried about the small percentage of yahoos who can't can't get their tiny brains wrapped around how people can be transgendered.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm guessing Target's calculus looks something like this:

There is a relatively tiny portion of the public who are actually paying attention, and they will be so angered about this that they'll stop shopping here. The rest will either like it or not give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Pretty much a wash, probably.
.

Actually, Mac, a flaw in your logic.

Everyone, man or woman, must use the bathroom at some point. They will all notice if someone of the opposite sex comes waltzing in.

First of all, I take great offense at the notion that I employ "logic", but I will forgive you, this time.

I can see that, but what has been happening for the last XX years? At worst, people get a little creeped out and have pretty much forgotten about it by the time they reach the candy rack.

Now, you could be right, in part because we're just in general more inclined to "do something about it" than we used to be. What I can see happening is someone who is already pissed about this making a bigger deal about it than they would have only a year ago, before all this drama started.

We'll sure as hell gonna find out. But if there isn't enough of a stink, we'll see more of this...
.

 

[Pop23]

Target knows that most of its customers are capable of critical thought and reasoning. They aren't worried about the small percentage of yahoos who can't can't get their tiny brains wrapped around how people can be transgendered.

Sureeeeeeeeee, buy Target stock then

 

[TemplarKormac]

First of all, I take great offense at the notion that I employ "logic", but I will forgive you, this time.

How was I supposed to know?

 

[LoneLaugher]

First of all, I take great offense at the notion that I employ "logic", but I will forgive you, this time.

How was I supposed to know? I am a somewhat logical individual, I'm sorry if you find that the implementation of logic is somehow offensive.

You two should meet. Mac will probably pat you gently on the top of your head if you look at him lovingly.

You should also learn to recognize when someone is patronizing you.

 

[Mac1958]

First of all, I take great offense at the notion that I employ "logic", but I will forgive you, this time.

How was I supposed to know?

Well, I go by what I'm told here, and I'm told that I "talk out of my ass".

Not quite sure how that is done, although I am reminded of the Ace Ventura, Pet Detective™ movies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can see that, but what has been happening for the last XX years? At worst, people get a little creeped out and have pretty much forgotten about it by the time they reach the candy rack.

When a predator kidnaps a child in the women's bathroom, this will go way past the candy rack. In some ways this is serious. There are evil people out there who would exploit such a policy to take advantage of women and children. It shouldn't be happening period, and now I'm watching it being legalized, or allowed, all for the sake of inclusivity and tolerance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

First of all, I take great offense at the notion that I employ "logic", but I will forgive you, this time.

How was I supposed to know?

Well, I go by what I'm told here, and I'm told that I "talk out of my ass".

Not quite sure how that is done, although I am reminded of the Ace Ventura, Pet Detective™ movies.

I try not to make assumptions about people. And people who say you "talk out of your ass" have vision problems. You most certainly do not.