MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Social Cons Boycott Target for Complying with Transgender Law Pushed by Social Cons

The retailer is doing exactly what supporters of N.C.'s HB2 said they should do. Why are folks upset?

TargetCredit: Kevin DooleyMore than 850,000 people are saying they're going to boycott Target stores for making a formal announcement over something that had probably already been an informal policy for some time now: Transgender customers (and employees) can use the restrooms appropriate for the sex that matches their appearance, not necessarily their birth sex.

Color me deeply, deeply skeptical that more than 850,000 people who have signed an online petition actually have any real intention of boycotting Target. Online petitions are about as credible as online polls. But it both feeds a culture war narrative and gives the conservative American Family Association, which has been struggling for any sort of relevance post-gay marriage, some media publicity. (One of their other campaigns, "One Million Moms," is encouraging people to call TJ Maxx to get them to stop advertising on ABC's Once Upon a Time because there was a lesbian kiss.)

It just feels like a lot of "signaling" from both sides. Target had to make a big deal out of advertising this policy in the wake of the passage of some of this transgender bathroom legislation, and now religious conservatives have to make a big deal out of their opposition to it. There's a lot of heat, but I suspect in a week or so we'll discover little has changed. It is reminiscent of the failed boycott against Chick-fil-A that was launched because of its founder's financial support of Christian conservative organizations that opposed same-sex marriage. Boycotts aren't particularly good tools in the culture war because: one, they prompt the "other side" to rally to the side of those affected by the boycott to give them more business; and, two, they end up telling companies that in order to keep one set of customers, they must reject another set of customers, which puts the companies in an awkward position. If the aforementioned "rally" happens, why would they reject these customers?

In any event, there's a bit of hypocrisy in this boycott, possibly based on the fact that people don't quite understand what North Carolina's transgender law actually does. The law requires that transgender people use the bathroom of the sex listed on their birth certificates—but only in government facilities and schools. The law makes it very clear that private businesses and companies are free to establish whatever policies they choose on how to accommodate transgender customers and workers. And that's exactly what Target has done.

That is to say: Target's announcement is that it is complying with the law that social conservatives pushed through in North Carolina. It is following both the letter and the spirit of the law. This is what supporters of the law asked for. This is how Gov. Pat McCrory defended the law. So it's a bit rich that those who got exactly what they asked for are turning around and boycotting a business that used its right to accommodate customers in a way they didn't like.

To be clear: I'm very much pro-boycott as a tool of cultural influence. I find it much preferable to the alternative of using laws and regulations as a solution (being both libertarian and gay, I've been on the wrong side of those laws and regulations too many times to count). But not only do I think these kinds of boycotts are not effective, these proponents are oblivious to the fact that this is pretty much an outcome of what they said they wanted.

Photo Credit: kevin dooley / photo on flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    (One of their other campaigns, "One Million Moms," is encouraging people to call TJ Maxx to get them to stop advertising on ABC's Once Upon a Time because there was a lesbian kiss).

    Why are we burying the lede within parenthesis here?

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    We'll always have Paris.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If there's one thing you can count on, it's the emptiness of a so-con boycott. Remember Disney World? Exactly, neither does anyone else.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    I had completely forgotten about the existence of the so-con Disney World boycott over "Gay Days". I think I was there once when they were picketing. Some of the picketers had their kids with them. Kids looked miserable. I would too if I was a kid forced to protest Disney on the Disney campus instead of going on rides.

  • ||

    ^This. Heh. They are incapable or realizing they are humorless killjoys.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Target had to make a big deal out of advertising this policy in the wake of the passage of some of this transgender bathroom legislation, and now religious conservatives have to make a big deal out of their opposition to it.

    Businesses should not make social proclamations unless it's going to positively affect their bottom line.

  • R C Dean||

    The retailer is doing exactly what supporters of N.C.'s HB2 said they should do.

    Setting their own policy without interference from the state.

    Why are folks upset?

    Because they don't like the policy that Target chose, and are acting exactly like "cultural libertarians" by boycotting Target. I don't see this as inconsistent at all with supporting the law that allows choice. You pick the bathroom policy you want, and I'll pick the businesses I want to do business with.

    I could write pretty much the same article about a retailer that elected to stick to same-sex bathrooms, and was boycotted by righteous proggies. I am glad to see some awareness of the way the pro and anti forces are really not all that different in their tactics and presentation:

    It just feels like a lot of "signaling" from both sides.

  • ||

    I am not a fan of boycotts. Do business with people who do their business well, do it cheaply, do it conveniently for you, or any criteria you choose, but when you try to organize a boycott over political issues (as opposed to service issues) you are trying to coerce compliance with your beliefs. I don't think it should be illegal, but I think it is bullying and stinks of an authoritarian mind set.

  • R C Dean||

    For the values of "coercion" currently on offer in the US, I don't think boycotts really ought to count.

    It does stink of bullying, etc. But, I can't blame for cons for declining to unilaterally disarm and leave the field to their opponents.

  • thrakkorzog||

    While I'm not a huge fan of boycotts, it beats the system of finding out what 50% + 1 of the population think about an issue then making that the law of the land.

  • RC1891995||

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....esses.html

    I liked the above article from Daily Beast. I wonder how many of the listed companies that "support" LGBTQ people are used by folks at the AFA.

  • Entelechy||

    Cue boring demands for Constitutional Amendment banning signs on doors.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    The national security hawks will want to ban doors, because what have you got to hide? They will be joined by the social conservatives as far as bathroom stall doors, because teh gays. Not to be confused with teh gaze, Swiss or otherwise.

  • CE||

    You guys don't see where this is going. The so-cons won't be happy until there's a TSA agent outside of every restroom checking to make sure you have the right equipment to enter.

  • Microaggressor||

    I NEEDS TO CHECK YA ASSHOLE

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    This thread won't be complete until John posts at least 50 times and tells Scott what's in his mind.

  • ||

    I all fairness, Scott's juxtaposing not exclusively SoCon actions as though they were exclusively SoCon and idiotically inconsistent;

    Of course, socons couldn't advocate one thing with regard to the law and then practice something different privately or online. They *must* be logically inconsistent morons completely oblivious to their own actions. They *should* be opposed to transgendered individuals both privately and publicly/legally. Otherwise, WTF else could possibly be wrong with them?

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    I all fairness, Scott's juxtaposing not exclusively SoCon actions as though they were exclusively SoCon and idiotically inconsistent;

    Not really. He compared it to the Chick-Fil-A boycott, which was a boycott on the liberal side.

  • ||

    He compared it in it's irrelevance. Which I don't exactly disagree with.

    What I do disagree with is;

    Color me deeply, deeply skeptical that more than 850,000 people who have signed an online petition actually have any real intention of boycotting Target. Online petitions are about as credible as online polls. But it both feeds a culture war narrative and gives the conservative American Family Association, which has been struggling for any sort of relevance post-gay marriage,
    ...
    possibly based on the fact that people don't quite understand what North Carolina's transgender law actually does.

    Scott admits that the population composing the boycott is exceedingly amorphous, he then pronounces them to be behaving in a manner ideologically inconsistent with HB 2, which they aren't. He then proceeds to lib/transplain it to them as though 850,000 people couldn't possibly include a few hundred thousand judges, lawyers, and constitutional scholars or otherwise contain a few hundred thousand Target employees and/orjanitors who actually have to clean the bathrooms and might want some say in the matter.

    If it's all social signalling, Scott's signal is pretty blatantly anti-AFA even when they aren't exactly related to any/all (libertarian-slanted) laws involved and are actively observing the 'rules of libertarianism'.

  • Hugh Akston||

    something that had probably already been an informal policy for some time now: Transgender customers (and employees) can use the restrooms appropriate for the sex that matches their appearance, not necessarily their birth sex.

    Well that certainly explains all the reports of women and little girls being raped in Target bathrooms.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why is it always women and little girls, Hugh? You don't think I live in constant fear from the woman who identifies as a "man" leering at my manhood from the adjacent urinal?

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    +1 "where is it?"

  • CraigL||

    Is rape the only consequence that matters? Does it not matter that if a man wants to hang out in the ladies room and leer or expose himself no-one can kick him out or call the cops? That's what "use whatever bathroom you want" means. Where do you get the idea this is only about trans people? Most trans people probably do a good job disguising themselves anyway.

  • Michael Wayne||

    That's the way I see it. One might even call that reason.

  • R C Dean||

    something that had probably already been an informal policy for some time now:

    If Target had kept its corporate yap shut, rather than noisily courting the approval of proggies and SJWs, they wouldn't have been boycotted. They decided they wanted to play the game; well, this is how the game is played.

  • tarran||

    Courting the approval of the proggies is how they keep the heat off of them; consider the proggie war on Walmart which was started by a set of unions frustrated at their failure to organize some of its workers. Target submitted and paid the danegeld and were recorded as a goodthinkful company.

    The announcement was yet another shipment of the danegeld to their extortioners

  • ||

    Yep, sucks when the invisible hand bitch slaps you, eh, t?

  • Jimbo||

    Exactly.

  • SimonD||

    Personally, I boycott Target because of high prices and low quality (especially produce). I don't have kids, and I'm big enough to take care of myself, so the bathroom deal isn't a big issue personally. I'd be much more concerned about locker rooms anyway (particularly in schools).

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm torn between continuing to stay away from Target because of their position on guns and wanting to see if their women's restrooms are nicer than the men's, like just about everywhere else.

  • BYODB||

    I just want to find out if my word is a good enough measure of being allowed into the women's room or if there's some sort of government test or accreditation I'll need for entry. Also, I intend on leaving the seat up. Not out of spite, you understand, but because it's the right thing to do.

  • Anarcho-Woodchipper||

    "terms and conditions may change without notice" seems like a lost art these days

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's an election year so... it's kind of implied.

    *shrugs*

  • Irish ♥s Lauren Southern||

    The fight over this is so fucking stupid it's killing my brain cells.

  • Idle Hands||

    I'm just done, It's so fucking exhausting.

  • Glide||

    There are humans who are basing their votes for who to lead the nation on how candidates feel about bathroom signs.

    Wasn't the 21st century supposed to be smarter than this?

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    Wasn't the 21st century supposed to be smarter than this?

    [insert token Idiocracy reference here]

  • Microaggressor||

    The more trivial the issue, the more passionate/stupid people get over it.
    Wasn't there a name for this?

  • Rhywun||

    That alt-text read my mind.

  • R C Dean||

    Really? I've always found "big box" bathrooms to be clean, well-lit, etc.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Especially the women's room.

    *ducks*

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Are you telling me you'd drop a deuce in Target instead of waiting 20 minutes to get home?

    Gross.

  • Rhywun||

    This. Unless you have some sort of medical condition, there's no excuse.

    I went on a date once with this guy - middle of Manhattan, restaurant, a little shopping, wandering around... he stopped no less than 4 times, I think it was, to avail himself.

    Never saw him again.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    *high five*

  • R C Dean||

    I hope you washed your hands first.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Here's one difference between the SoCons and proggies..

    The SoCons passed laws which leave private businesses free to decide who uses their bathrooms.

    If the proggies had their way, the government would order private businesses to follow proggy bathroom dogma at the expense of crippling fines and damage awards.

    Even the boycotters of Target are content to take their own business elsewhere, they don't propose to use government force.

    It's like gay marriage - under SoCon "tyranny," businesses got to *decide for thsemselves* whether to make gay cakes, cater gay weddings, etc. Under the progs, businesses are denied that choice, they must follow the dogma the government dictates to them or go out of business.

    I know there's a great need for some people to posit a moral equivalence, but I'm not seeing it.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    The SoCons passed laws which leave private businesses free to decide who uses their bathrooms.

    HA HA HA HA HA OOOOH HA HA HA HA HA HA

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Seriously? In a post about a North Carolina law which does exactly what I said?

  • R C Dean||

    There is so much smoke around the NC law that I actually went and looked at it. This is what it does:

    (1) Tells government facilities (schools, etc.) to allow bathroom access based on birth certificates (which, BTW, can be changed in NC to show a different birth sex if you tranny hard enough). This strikes me as one of the more reasonable compromises, honestly. Its the way we do it in my hospital, and I think its probably about the best way to manage this.

    (2) Tells private businesses to do what they want without interference from local government.

    Exactly what is wrong with this law, again?

  • commodious spittoon||

    Its the way we do it in my hospital, and I think its probably about the best way to manage this.

    So what do you charge for... adjustments? Asking for a friend.

  • R C Dean||

    Pretty sure we don't do sex change surgeries here. Honestly, I've never asked and don't much care one way or the other (except to the extent it would be a high-margin cash business).

  • BYODB||

    I think they're asking how much your hospital charges for making adjustments to birth certificates or how much the hospital charges to list your daughter as a son on their certificate at birth. It's...a confusing sentence regarding your hospital and what they do.

    "Pretty sure we don't do sex change surgeries here."

    Well, that's clearly illegal sir. I don't know under what statute or law, but if I'm in the minority my rights trump yours. I'd be sorry, but I'm too much in the minority. I'm sure you understand.

  • Idle Hands||

    here's the bill:


    42 "§ 143-422.12. Places of public accommodation – defined.
    43 For purposes of this Article, places of public accommodation has the same meaning as defined
    44 in G.S. 168A-3(8), but shall exclude any private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to
    45 the public.
  • Idle Hands||

    I think your right(@R C Dean) as I read it, although I tend to think the that the best solution to this is to have the school boards and local jurisdictions be accountable for their own practices in their local gov. buildings as it makes more sense. But the law seems to basically lift the burden of liability off private businesses and allow them to "discriminate" or "not discriminate" as they see fit. Although it's quite possible I'm an idiot and didn't read the bill correctly.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    That's how I read it, too. I'm supposedly in school for learning how to read this stuff, so don't trust my interpretation further than you can throw it.

  • retiredfire||

    It gives private businesses the choice.
    To proggies, the only time anyone gets to choose is a pregnant woman about if, or when, to kill her baby.
    Otherwise they scream "discrimination" at the top of their lungs and want you to be executed for having the temerity to decide who you wish to freely associate, or do business with.

  • Arroway||

    "...if you tranny hard enough."

    It's like you haven't even been paying attention.The fact that we have no "free" national medical care system that covers sex reassignment is tantamount to actively blocking people who cannot afford to tranny hard enough out of pocket from achieving their goals. (Remember, "not paying for = actively blocking"). And then you have the nerve to pile additional indignity on them by preventing them from using bathrooms that align with their gender!?

    (FWIW, I couldn't care less. Piss in peace wherever you want.)

  • ||

    Right, "Socons" are fighting in the bathrooms because the beaches, landing grounds, fields, streets, and other hills weren't the right hills to die on.

  • Tony||

    Well, in this case it's the socons who are using big government to impose their personal preferences. You're the one trying to force an equivalence when nobody asked.

  • Idle Hands||

    As I read the bill it just limits mandatory discrimination (against transvestites) to gov. buildings and institutions themselves. Although it appears to allow private businesses to discriminate as they see fit, it also doesn't legally force them to discriminate.

  • Mickey Rat||

    How is a boycott using big government? The explanation has got to be amusing.

  • DesigNate||

    The use of government is in the forcing people to use government toilets in accordance with the plumbing they were born with, not the boycott.

  • Mustang||

    The solution, of course, is to reduce the government to the point where they don't have facilities in which to have discriminatory bathrooms.

  • retiredfire||

    Whether someone is a male or a female isn't a personal preference. It is a matter of biological science.
    It has long been accepted that males and females have separate facilities for personal hygienic purposes, like relieving oneself of waste, as it frequently requires exposing ones sex organs. Men do so in separate men's only bathrooms and vice versa.
    The city of Charlotte made a law that upended that and the state legislature made one that corrected the situation and returned it to what it had been for centuries.
    This is a return to normalcy after a city decided to use big government to impose an edict on many who din't want it.

  • Irish ♥s Lauren Southern||

    Trying desperately to care. Cannot do so.

    Target decided to make gender neutral bathrooms, as is their right. People who didn't like that policy boycotted, as is their right.

    I don't see how it's hypocritical to say 'businesses should be allowed to do what they want with their bathrooms' and then *personally* boycott if they do something you don't like. There's no conflict between those positions.

  • ||

    There's no conflict between those positions.

    And for a libertarian rag to rather explicitly say ideological inconsistency is *the only possible* explanation *very* telling.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    They need to get at least one or two writers on staff that don't toe the SJW line (in intent, if not in solution)... the uncontested intellectual laziness in a lot of these Kulturkampf articles distracts from any libertarian point being made.

  • ||

    I'd say that is a kind/generous interpretation.

  • Mustang||

    I don't really see what's logically inconsistent about this boycott. So they pushed through the law that allows private businesses to make a choice about their bathrooms, and people who are obviously opposed to their position are now boycotting that business. Isn't that how we want things to work anyways? You've got the freedom to choose your position and others have the freedom to not associate with you. I don't support the boycott, but they're actually being consistent about their opposition to bathroom choices, and they're doing so in a way that still allows businesses to make the choice in the first place (i.e. without the law forcing one side or the other in a private matter).

    Am I missing something, or is this just about putting down SoCons?

  • OldMexican Trained Philosopher||

    Re: Mustang,

    Am I missing something, or is this just about putting down SoCons?


    I don't know any more, because when the law passed, everybody at Reason ripped of their clothes and started to wail in outrage at the establishment of legal discrimination. All of a sudden the law is all right and it is the SoCons who are in the wrong.

    I guess that when it comes to SJWs, being schizophrenic is a job requirement.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I've never shopped at Target, so really I don't think they care if I have an opinion on this.

    I did stand near the exit while waiting for some one else. I'm not going back - That much red hurts the eyes.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Ask me about my boycott of the Rolls Royce company.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I don't buy from Rolls Royce because I can't afford one.

    I don't buy from Target because I'm not fond of the store.

    These two are not the same.

  • Citizen X||

    Eddie is hereby invited to vacate UnCivil's lawn.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    I shop at Target all the time, mostly because it's closer than Walmart and cheaper than Publix when it comes to groceries (especially with the 5% off on their branded credit card). Hoping to see a few protesters and counter-protesters next time go there so I can laugh at all of them.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    They tricked you into getting a Target Card?

    They got my CC info stolen. I tell them that every time they try and get me to sign up.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You got your credit card info stolen by getting a credit card and using it anywhere. Hackers and identity thieves had your number long before the Target breach.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    My CC number wasn't compromised until it was used at Target. Their marketing department used it (unencrypted) as an identifier in violation both Visa's and the processing bank's policies.

    Their marketing department has done some amazing things, including correctly predicting customer pregnancies based upon shopping habits, but they also got my CC number stolen.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So your bank had never reissued you a card because of compromised data or suspect purchases until after the Target breach? Even if that were true, it's only because no one had gotten around to buying and using your number yet.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    The funny thing is that, IIRC, their branded card didn't get stolen in that hack, because it uses encrypted chip + pin.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Their store branded cards weren't in the database that hacked. They had a different identifier for those and didn't need to use the actual CC number.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Exactly how is this hypocrisy? The boycotters are not demanding a law to force Target to change their recently announced policy. They are trying to leverage their influence as past and potential customers to tell Target's management that this policy does not serve their interests. This a weak tu quoque on Shackford's part.

  • Mustang||

    This could have very easily been turned into an article talking about a minor win for the freedom of association, but that doesn't seem to fit the narrative.

  • UnCivilServant||

    He couldn't stand to give credit to dirty, dirty socons.

  • jacquelinegroessler||

    I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ------------------- http://www.richi8.com

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Did it involve public bathrooms in any way?

  • ||

    ^Threadwinner.

  • straffinrun||

    Is that your stage name?

  • straffinrun||

    Here they have a little button you push in the women's bathroom that makes sweet little noises like birds chirping when a gal has a particularly noisy growler. I want to replace it with the sound of Mel being disemboweled in Braveheart.

  • Jimbo||

    "Hey, can I get a courtesy flush?"

  • ||

    WTF? Srsly, Strafin? Adult women can't deal with the reality that their bodily functions are sometimes noisy? #safespacegeneration #getmeouttahere

  • straffinrun||

    Yes, but I think this happens from time to time.

  • creech||

    Maybe a better target would be the NBA who threatens to withhold the all star game from Charlotte or one of the other companies that "won't do business in North Carolina." If businesses want to go out on a limb with these issues then it is only natural they are going to get hit with counter-boycotts.

  • ||

    Maybe a better target would be the NBA who threatens to withhold the all star game from Charlotte or one of the other companies that "won't do business in North Carolina."

    Which is funny because it *kinda* comes *closer* to the making sense wrt the intent of the 14th Am. At least, I could see a Federal interest in the public good if, e.g. a small group of telcos conspired to refuse service to the State of N.C. (with all the given libertarian accoutrements of 'not a *valid* interest' and neither internet or basketball are constitutionally guaranteed rights, etc.).

  • OldMexican Trained Philosopher||

    Social Cons Boycott Target for Complying with Transgender Law Pushed by Social Cons

    That is to say: Target's announcement is that it is complying with the law that social conservatives pushed through in North Carolina.


    Doesn't the law merely protect businesses from undue prosecution for refusing to grant access to persons of a specific sex to the restrooms that were NOT built for them? So how does a business comply with such a law? The law was not meant to regulate the business' behavior but to protect it from the State. So it is not like Target has its hands tied here or something. So why are YOU objecting to the So-Cons boycott? They can boycott anything they want. They're not being hypocritical. They're being ridiculous, but not hypocritical.

    It is following both the letter and the spirit of the law. This is what supporters of the law asked for.


    You're being disingenuous. The law was not meant for THEM. It was meant for the State, local and municipal governments.

  • ||

    So how does a business comply with such a law?
    ...
    You're being disingenuous.

    If you've communicated these points to people I haven't, I thank you.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    A timely reminder that statists of all stripes are assholes.

  • roversaurus||

    "Social Cons Boycott Target for Complying with Transgender Law Pushed by Social Cons"
    reason complains about Social Cons Boycott of private business for social advocacy pushed by Reason

    How many recursive layers of hypocrisy can we find here? I see Reason as far more hypocritical than the Social Cons.

  • DesigNate||

    I think it's kinda stupid to boycott anything for political reasons, mostly because if I did, I wouldn't get to do much (you wouldn't believe how many places have gone fucking retarded over Texas' open carry law).

    Now you sell me a shitty product? That I'll boycott the hell out of.

  • John||

    They are not boycotting for political reasons. The dressing rooms and the bathrooms are part of the service that Target sells. These people have a problem with the way Target is providing that service and thus are going elsewhere.

    A political boycott would be refusing to go there because the Target CEO said something they didn't like or Target gave money to some pro tranny cause. That is not what is happening here.

  • Mongo||

    Fitness clubs now have private shower stalls. I think this may have came about by Muslims refusing to show private parts in public (they always showered in shorts and changed with a towel around their waist).

    Anyway, it's more than a Muslim thing as I have more than a few Christian and non-religious friends who were very uncomfortable showering in public.

    I like the stalls as I never liked looking at the barf-inducing bodies of the crusty old men.

  • Rhywun||

    Good. I would wager that half of all people don't want to parade around in public but are too chicken to admit it.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    Individual stalls are anti-air-dryist.

  • thrakkorzog||

    I have a suggestion for all the socons out there that be much more effective than boycotting businesses. Just go into the ladies room and pee on the toilet seats. A few weeks of that and all the ladies across the political spectrum will be demanding to keep people with penises out of the ladies room.

  • John||

    So you think they should be forced to shop there? It is there money, what gives you or anyone else the power to force them to spend it at Target?

  • John||

    I am not pissed. I think you are a fucking moron who doesn't even know the meaning of the buzz words you spout.

  • John||

    You are an idiot Michael. You are not a Christian because sadly made you too stupid to be one. Maybe Calvin had a point about Predestination.

  • Satyrical||

    No surprise here. "Small government" conservatives love Big Government just as much as anyone else as long as it acts as THEIR bully, enforcing THEIR agenda. They only respect the free choices of private entities when those choices are identical to the ones they'd make themselves.

  • John||

    The law makes it very clear that private businesses and companies are free to establish whatever policies they choose on how to accommodate transgender customers and workers. And that's exactly what Target has done.

    That is the irrational thing I have read in a long time. The NC law allows businesses to choose what they want. It doesn't require them to let trannies in whatever bathroom they want. The people boycotting object to that and won't frequent any store that does it. Supporting the North Carolina law that allows stores to do this doesn't somehow preclude people from objecting to Target. Why the hell would it?

    When gay mafia went after Mozilla and got them to fire their CEO, you and reason were all about "hey that is the free market working". Now the other side does it and you are making this absurd non sequiter trying to discredit what they are doing.

    There is nothing wrong with this boycott. It is not even a political boycott. They are not boycotting because Target supports the position. They are refusing to frequent a business that has a policy concerning their services they find objectionable. They don't want to buy things from a store where they might have to use a dressing room or bathroom with a transvetite of the opposite sex. You of course think that is horrible but tough shit Scott. It is their money and they can spend it at places that provide the service they want.

  • John||

    They can be crazy and you can be a tiresome fanatic. No one owes you acceptance. If you hate yourself so much that feel that you must spend y our life pretending you are someone else, life is going to be hard and even harder if you think you have a right to demand everyone else go along with your fantasy.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    "No one owes you acceptance" coffee mug-worthy

  • Josh The Radio Dude||

    Actually, it's not at all true that HB 2 only limits transgender bathroom use public property. The language is "public accommodation," which means any private business with a facility open to the public. So the social conservatives are angry because Target is disobeying the law. Target is in the right, of course, but to say that the law only covers public property is a complete misunderstanding of HB 2.

  • Eeyore||

    I am going to be really pissed when I can't piss anywhere in public, because businesses decide the only safe course of action is to remove all of the public bathrooms. This is why we can't have more nice things.

  • Michael Wayne||

    The boycott is not about N.C., but rather Target's bathroom policy. Which allows anyone (not just transsexuals) to use the bathroom they choose. So, it doesn't matter what the law is in one state. The petition is nothing more then a pledge to not shop there. Whether or not they do; only time will tell. No one is forcing Target to do anything. In the end the company will do as they see fit. The Libertarian view is supposed to be leave it to the people and let the market figure it out. Truth is that's all I see...the market sorting things out. In theory If you don't agree, then you don't shop there. That is all a boycott is. People deciding not to use services. It's that simple, nothing Anti Libertarian about this. You may disagree with this form of boycott, but it cannot be called force. As for consistency... Where's the article on the Target's support of The Equality Act? Which will force business policies from a Federal level.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online