We are changing ... why do I always catch it after the fact? ;)

I know that it wasn't Penney's intention, but when Million Mom group launched their boycott of Penney's when they announced Ellen as their spokesperson, it really focused attention on Penney's and their support of Ellen, who is now a very popular celebrity. It really made Penney's look like the good guys, sticking up for her.

And I forgot to mention, something that Jon Stewart said on the Daily Show - that conservative pundits are accusing Obama of supporting gay marriage because it is now a popular position. That wouldn't have been (wasn't) the case 4 years ago.

Well, thank goodness for the changes!

And thank you President Obama! Of course that's what the conservative pundits would say. What else are they going to say? They can't admit that they are on the wrong side of history. Again!

I was never a fan of Starbucks coffee, but after that group (Defense of Marriage (DOM), I think?) started a boycott of them for supporting gay marriage, I started going again. And discovered I really like their new blonde brew. So thanks DOM for allowing me to find a new coffee I like while supporting gay marriage.

I remember the Ellen episode that caused so much controversy. It was one of my favorite shows...ever! I love Ellen.

I am very glad that many corporations (and people) are evolving. I am so happy for many of my friends and family who are directly impacted by this in such a positive way.

I'm not sure where I heard this. Maybe David Brooks? He said that the switch in public opinion almost always goes from opposing gay marriage to supporting it. Rarely does someone support gay marriage and then decide to oppose it.

I really like this definition of Evolution from Merriam-Webster;

c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance

And I'm thankful there are people like Ellen who gently, often unintentionally, nudge the world forward.

As for Ellen, I have always loved her and it never mattered to me she was gay. Now, as for Rosie O'Donnell, cannot take that woman! Way too pushy and turns some people off!

Although, I am more of the "live and let live" type, I don't really see how living in America is really being "free". We have these famous people make a stand against companies that have their own religious freedom values also, and if they don't agree with them, then they cause an outroar, trying to influence people not to do business with your company. What is wrong with HUGE companies having their own beliefs like the rest of us do? So, are you really not going to buy anything from these stores if they don't conform to your values? Religious or not?

Love this thread, and doesn't that definition of evolution fit perfectly.

olliesmom, I think the answer to your question about buying from stores whose beliefs don't conform with yours is buried in your post. I bet you wouldn't buy a book written by Rosie, and rightly so, since you are free to have your opinions. It is the same thing when a company promotes a belief that affronts me. It is just a natural consequence that some people will take their business elsewhere. It isn't really much different than my expressing my beliefs, and in doing so, some might take their friendship elsewhere. The part of the equation that people seem to forget about is the consequences. We have many freedoms, but most of them have consequences. And if we want the freedom, we have to accept the consequence, right?

Can I 'Like' this thread?

Olliesmom, you have a point that I hadn't considered. But when it comes to human rights, I tend to go against most religious dogma and don't feel it belongs in the public eye. Issues such as prayer in public, or whether or not it should be Santa or the birth of Jesus...agree, corporations should publicly support what they want. But expect to have backlash by consumers who don't agree, as we DO live in a Nation that allows us to make choices.

I admire people who do make conscious decisions to support or not support based on their values. I know those who won't shop at Home Depot and now JC Penneys.
One reason I like Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil- A, their decision to remain closed on Sundays.

BB, if that includes you hope you don't wear Nikes or use Microsoft products.

I don't understand what is changing in our culture.... The Supreme Court in the Loving v. Virginia (1967) stated that marriage was an individual's liberty which can not be infringed upon by the State.....

....Evolution happens to Liberals but it's referred to as flip flopping when Conservatives do the same thing!

I don't understand your point texask.

BB, I also love that about HL. I love that they state it is so their employees can spend time with their families. If a family has children in school and they work evenings and weekends they would have very little time to see their children. I think it is a great thing.

I also think that it is great when people shop with their values in mind. It can go so many ways, free-trade pricing, organic, the benefits given to employees, their business model, unionized employees, whatever. I, however, often find these "campaigns" to discredit companies ridiculous. An information campaign is one thing, but one of the unintended consequences is often that more people who do not share your beliefs will shop there.

Terrik,
More simply....
In 1967 (approximately 45 years ago) American's highest court ruled that all Americans, regardless of their race or sexual orientation, have the freedom to marry.....

See the parallel?

The ad was a bold move, and I admire Penneys for stepping out of the closet, so to speak.

Loving vs. Virginia overturned state bans on interracial marriage not same sex.

Natal,
....True Loving v. Virginia was about an interracial marriage; however that would be such a narrow interruption of the Court's ruling. As I stated previously, the Court stated that marriage was an individual's right; this would apply to all individuals since they used the 14th Amendment of our Constitution (adopted in 1868... 144 years ago) to justify their ruling.

Don't be ridiculous. In no way did it apply to sexual orientation.

From the Loving v. Virginia decision:

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Natal,
If so ridiculous than ask yourself why in July of 1996 the United State's House of Representatives proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment that would limit marriage in the US to unions of one MAN and one WOMEN!

The reason is the Loving v. Virginia (1967, 45 years ago) decision made marriage an individual's freedom (regardless of one's race, sex, or religion) and the State could not infringe upon this freedom!

In those days wasn't the behavior a crime?

My supposition would be that the HOR took that action to circumvent states passing laws allowing same-sex marriage. Just a guess on my part, but I feel safe in that guess. If Loving v. Virginia had already allowed marriage to be a completely individual freedom there would be no debate currently.

I was very pleased with JCP's decision to stand by Ellen while the Million Moms protested. And I took my support into their store (for the first time in 20 years) and was pleasantly surprised by the value and variety. So good business for Penney --

I'd also like to add some public kudos for Costco. I read a post on a message board for parents of children with Childhood Apraxia of Speech, an uncommon and very difficult to treat speech disorder in children. The mom worked as an hourly sales associate for Costco, and her medical insurance, like most policies, specifically excluded speech therapy (ST) for children for developmental issues, for which, treatment is very expensive. She asked Costco to cover her child's ST anyway. Instead of agreeing to cover a few sessions as a goodwill gesture, Costco broadened their policies for ALL employees and dependents to cover treatment for developmental speech problems. And this mom was NOT high up on the corporate totem pole. I was so impressed -- and have continued to be impressed by Costco.

For what it's worth, Costco never did anything to get PR credit for their move. It was only through the message board (my son has Apraxia) that I even found out about it.

Our Constitution....
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

.....a very, very, long time ago, embedded in it's wisdom, protecting equal rights for all people, including people who want to marry a person of their same gender.

Sorry Federal Marriage Act was proposed in 2006 not 1996. Think about it, why would Congress need an Amendment to our Constitution, if marriage was already restricted between one man and one women?

Tishtoshnm, maybe it's currently in the news due to California's Proposition 8 (2008, Strauss v. Horton and Perry v. Schwarzenegger) court battles, or maybe for political reasons to draw attention away from economical issues (focus instead on social issues).

So texask, is it legal in your state for gay couples to marry?

As a Christian I can tell you that all you hear from other so called Christians does not pertain to all of us. I'm very conservative, but live by what I was taught in the Bible including John 13:34-35 (New International Version) in the words of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...

34. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

There are actions by others that I don't personally agree with, but because of my faith, I try hard not judge them. I certainly don't persecute them publicly. Even for those such as Saddam Hussein and his sons and followers. Though I condemned what they did, I still prayed for their salvation.

I'll add that by what I know of Ellen, she's a very dear and loving person that shows love for others in amazing ways. And she's funny. I adore her. My grandson learned to "dance" while we watched her show. He was still an infant when in his swing in front of the TV he'd wiggle his tiny body while she danced on the screen. He was soon out like a light tuckered from all the "dancing".

Texask, it was never allowed, it's not in the Constitution.

Texask, It is very clear that you and I have very different opinions on the reasons behind the political maneuvers. I think it is in the news because there are people who want to get married and are being denied that opportunity. I certainly will not hold my breath for all legislators to smack their heads and say, DUH! This was taken care of 45 years ago, let's move on to something else. I think Congress was proposing an amendment to the constitution to circumvent the states and that those proposing the amendments have no desire to keep the economy out of the news as they want to blame it all on the party currently in power. That is just my take and you are of course entitled to your own views. Of course, all it would take is one suave lawyer to argue that point, which of course would be apealed and the Supreme Court could weigh in on whether the aforementioned case really did include sexual orientation.

It doesn't matter where one lives in the United States because ALSO in our Constitution....Federal law trumps State law. The US Constitution is the Law of our Land.

Natal,
In a more recent Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas (2003) Justice Kennedy stated "constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education." "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of the liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State"...... ...
(closing) "persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexuals do."

Still doesn't mean that same sex couples can go to any courthouse in any city in any state in the country and get a marriage license, even though you clearly think that they should be able to.

Loving merely invalidated a state statute barring interracial marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not address same-sex marriage and thus did not make same-sex marriage legal. However, in a legal challenge pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex marriage proponents can certainly use the case to try and persuade the court. Similarly, Lawrence v. Texas invalidated a sodomy law, but has no legal effect on same-sex marriage. But, like Loving, it could be used persuasively in a legal challenge.

Marriage has traditionally been a state issue, and DOMA (by defining "marriage") was passed to prevent state courts from finding that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution.

And there you have it!

Goldgirl, congrats on graduation and good luck with the bar!

Can you tell I'm reviewing Constitutional Law for the Bar exam right now ;) Sorry - I just couldn't resist!

Thanks so much goldgirl.... I forgot about the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, signed into law by Clinton in 1996 (defined marriage, man/woman)..... The issue lies with the definition of MARRIAGE. However I think that DOMA is unconstitutional.

I believe our current Supreme Court will rule in favor of same sex marriage due to precedence (and our Constitution). Kennedy is usually considered the "swing vote", note his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Goldgirl break a leg!

Once again Bravo! And shame on OMM!

Come on, OMM, aren't there some hungry children to feed or some homeless to shelter? Isn't it time to stop wasting so much time and energy over who someone loves? After all, if this really is about God, he is about love. And I don't think he'd be thrilled with your hateful behavior.

Besides, this is setting a terrible example for your children. Since it's them you claim to protect, shouldn't you be teaching them that everyone is equal and God loves all his little children? The time to come together is now. This stuff is a foolish diversion.

Here is a link that might be useful: Penney's Father's Day ad

Wow, yeah, good for JCP.

Looks like Macy's is joining in too.

Here is a link that might be useful: Macy's Ad

Good for Macy's. I got goose bumps over the ad, Natal.

I think I will open up a credit card account with Macy's.

beautiful ad, I'm not a Macy's fan myself as far as shopping goes, but I love that they are sending such a great message.

Wow, these are both terrific. So tired of bullying in all its forms.

JCPenny's decision was breaking new ground. But Macy's doing it now makes Macy's look like they're trying to capitalize on the same good will. To me it looks more like an effort to co-opt the moment for PR benefits. Sorry if that's cynical -- I was in marketing and advertising for 15+ years and have sat in on meetings where decisions like this are were discussed almost solely in terms of positioning and branding and corporate identity...and dollars.

Actually, Macy's has a history of supporting Gay Pride parades and Gay Pride Month, and it has supported benefits rights for all its employees. So it's not really jumping on the Penney's/Ellen bandwagon.