Target Sues Gay Rights Group

[Pryderi]

Do corporations now own public sidewalks?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134845091

Target Corp. is suing a San Diego pro-gay marriage group to get it to stop canvassing outside its San Diego County stores, alleging its activists are driving away customers.

Rights advocates say the trial between Target and Canvass For A Cause that begins Friday could further strain relations with the gay and lesbian community after controversy over its $150,000 donation to a business group backing a Minnesota Republican candidate opposed to gay marriage.

Minnesota-based Target insists it remains committed to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and its lawsuit has nothing to do with the political agenda of the organization.

"Our legal action was in no way related to the cause of the organization and was done so to be consistent with our long-standing policy of providing a distraction-free shopping experience by not permitting solicitors at our stores," the company said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

[msongs]

1. Nobody solicits outside Target stores. compared to Walmart which endorses religion

[damntexdem]

2. Presumably they can stop canvassing on Target property, but ...

it certainly seems that they will lose more customers with this action.

I already boycott Target, so I can't start doing so over this, but it certainly reinforces my intent to boycott.

[FreeState]

4. Not in California - if its part of a shopping mall or multi-store complex

Law in California dictates anyone can solicit signatures and engage in political speech in those areas because its a public area. Almost all the Targets here in San Diego are either attached to a shopping mall or part of a multi-store shopping area. Target will lose this in court - its already been ruled on by the state Supreme Court several times.

[Yo_Mama]

3. They have a no-kettle policy

They enforce it outside of all stores, I believe.

[FreeState]

6. Yep - because its not political speech, which is protected in CA n/t

[Yo_Mama]

7. It's protected everywhere.

First Amendment. It also has practical limitations if the time and space deprive others of their constitutional rights.

In CA, the CA SC decided in a 4-3 decision in 2007 that malls were public spaces:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/us/25mall.html?_r=1&em&ex=1198731600&en=4dcf2519f621c8e8&ei=5087%0A

Which would seem to end the matter, but if you look at the above link, Moreno also said that:

Justice Moreno said shopping malls were entitled to enact and enforce “reasonable regulations of the time, place and manner of such free expression,” to avoid a disruption of business.

“But they may not prohibit certain types of speech based upon its content,” he wrote, like speech urging a boycott of stores.

Therefore since Target has always enforced a content neutral ban against this type of activity it may win the case.

[FreeState]

9. But Target hasn't always enforced a content neutral ban - infact Salvation Army is given a donation

From Target in exchange for not ringing bells there. Girl Scouts sell cookies there as well.

[justiceischeap]

5. Why does Target hate the gays? nt

[zbdent]

8. because there's a bunch of people who are told by their religous (father figure) leader

that gays are evil, and that they should not spend their $$$ at Target if they allow teh gays to survive ...

however, there's plenty more non-psychotic people out there than there are religious fanatics, but you don't want God to bring his wrath upon you ...