tired already by the people helping the needy

[NatashaDisneyCM]

yes, I know this feeling. where I work, we are doing a toy drive and food for the homeless. I go out of my way to give to the ones from work. I do the whole monthly thing, not just for the holiday. and I hate how the ones at the stores kind of look at you if you do not give!
I do a lot!!! they should not judge!

 

[rotlex]

Wow, some of the responses in this thread are simply astounding. My God, if the worse thing you have to deal with this Christmas season is an overly pushy donation requester, you should probably count your blessings, smile at them, and go back home, to your home, your family, and whatever other material possessions you own that the someone else may not. If you are in fact someone in need, may you be able to obtain what it is you need, and live happily.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I've never had SA bell ringers get rude with me, but I have had numerous occasions where cashiers have when they'll ask for donation to whatever cause. I've had them ask "are you sure?" or "it's a good cause" or "don't you want to help the needy???" all said with a snide tone. Most recent was Barnes & Noble. They're collecting books and I WORK for a non-profit organization that gives books to needy families, so I would give THEM the books if I were donating. Each time I've explained it, the cashier was understanding, but the last time I was there, the clerk asked, "Why wouldn't you want to donate to both?"

I didn't say it but I was thinking, "Um, because I work for a non-profit and don't make much money" But yeah, I've definitely gotten attitude from people.

I don't know if this is fortunate or unfortunate, but I believe the level of aggression from charities in stores around Michigan has gone down considerably in the past few years.

In the 90's and early 2000's, I frequently experienced the kind of snideness the OP was talking about. Rude cashiers (don't you WANT to help the children?), bell-ringers and other collectors outside of stores asking you why you weren't donating, etc.

It seems that when everyone gets to the level of becoming eligible to be a recipient rather than a donator, the people with their hands out learn to take a step back. When the old stand by, "Would a dollar kill you?" is answered with, "I'm sorry, but we needed milk this week" or sometimes "Yes, a dollar would kill me - 4 of them and I can buy the perscription medicine I need", you begin to see these people backing down a bit on their attempts to guilt you into giving.

 

[DawnM]

You all are reminding me why most of my Christmas shopping will be ONLINE this year!

I am giving to a few charities through the mail, through scouting, and through my church, but I never, EVER give to soliciters or phone requests. Just a policy I have because of all the fraud, particularly from soliciters like the "police fund." I always tell them (if I answer the phone) that I would be happy to come to my local police station and meet them in person and donate. They usually get off the phone quickly.

Dawn

 

[wdwfan16]

Because this thread would have the potential to turn very ugly if that became the topic of it. It is easy enough to do an internet search and figure out the reason why some choose not to support the SA

If you did not give because of the SA's religious connection or the GLBT thing, that makes complete sense. To make statements that imply they do illegal things and that is why they do not give but not back it up with facts serves no value. The ones who give want to make sure they are getting the most help for the money they give. Googling SA shows them to be honest and with low overhead. I do this before giving. There are many charities I do not give to and mostly because I do not have enough to give to all.

 

[wdwfan16]

Because there are certain things that should not be broadcast on a large message boards such as this (for a variety of reasons); there are certain things that aren't allowed on this particular message board; and there is no "full disclosure" rule in the DIS guidelines that requires anyone to divulge more than what is appropriate and/or acceptable..

No one is telling anyone else who to donate to, so I don't see what the issue is.. If anyone has questions about any charity that they contribute to (or are considering contributing to), it's up to that individual to research it to the fullest, stay in touch with the workings of that charity in your local area, and then make ones own decision..

Why all the hostility? Nobody would have even asked unless you brought it up first. When I don't want to tell something I know I never bring up the subject or reply if the subject is brought up by another.

 

[mrsklamc]

I think it's entirely possible to answer the SA question without being political at all- just stating facts without taking sides. They hold what would be considered by most to be a 'Conservative Christian' viewpoint. Should be fairly easy for the average Dis'er to figure out how that would translate to the Gay/Lesbian community and whether or not they agree or disagree.
If not, they can google it.
No need for religious or political discussion here.

 

[C.Ann]

Why all the hostility? Nobody would have even asked unless you brought it up first. When I don't want to tell something I know I never bring up the subject or reply if the subject is brought up by another.

What "hostility"? You wanted a further explanation and I gave it - in a very polite manner..

As for the original post by the OP, others responded in a similar manner - about their choice not to support the SA - and yet you chose to single out only my responses to question further.. (Seems to me I recall this happening on another thread as well..) If you have a personal issue with me - and/or my responses and/or threads - feel free to skip over them - or place me on your ignore list.. I don't have any desire to argue with you - nor do I feel the need to explain to anyone my choices in regards to what I will or won't post in any given thread.. That's not "hostility" - it's simply a personal choice..

 

[KAMLEM]

i'm sorry if you are going to go around bad mouthing a charity you should back up your claims and not cop out saying oh i don't have to there no rules saying i have to or it's aganist the dis rules when you could simply pm people.

mte

 

[happygirl]

What "hostility"? You wanted a further explanation and I gave it - in a very polite manner..

As for the original post by the OP, others responded in a similar manner - about their choice not to support the SA - and yet you chose to single out only my responses to question further.. (Seems to me I recall this happening on another thread as well..) If you have a personal issue with me - and/or my responses and/or threads - feel free to skip over them - or place me on your ignore list.. I don't have any desire to argue with you - nor do I feel the need to explain to anyone my choices in regards to what I will or won't post in any given thread.. That's not "hostility" - it's simply a personal choice..

Yes, you have the right not to give to SA but don't go around bad mouthing them and not give reason why you are bad mouthing them. It like someone telling a story and leaving out a whole chapter of the story.

 

[wdwfan16]

I think it's entirely possible to answer the SA question without being political at all- just stating facts without taking sides. They hold what would be considered by most to be a 'Conservative Christian' viewpoint. Should be fairly easy for the average Dis'er to figure out how that would translate to the Gay/Lesbian community and whether or not they agree or disagree.
If not, they can google it.
No need for religious or political discussion here.

I completely understood the objection from the GLBT point of view. As I stated that is a valide reason not go give to them. The others are implying there is something much more than that.

What "hostility"? You wanted a further explanation and I gave it - in a very polite manner..

As for the original post by the OP, others responded in a similar manner - about their choice not to support the SA - and yet you chose to single out only my responses to question further.. (Seems to me I recall this happening on another thread as well..) If you have a personal issue with me - and/or my responses and/or threads - feel free to skip over them - or place me on your ignore list.. I don't have any desire to argue with you - nor do I feel the need to explain to anyone my choices in regards to what I will or won't post in any given thread.. That's not "hostility" - it's simply a personal choice..

You were the first and I asked then. You love to pry but keep your curtains closed.

I did reply to others and then YOU had to reply in a hostile way to me. Seems you need a good look in the mirror.

 

[shrubber]

I think it's entirely possible to answer the SA question without being political at all- just stating facts without taking sides. They hold what would be considered by most to be a 'Conservative Christian' viewpoint. Should be fairly easy for the average Dis'er to figure out how that would translate to the Gay/Lesbian community and whether or not they agree or disagree.
If not, they can google it.
No need for religious or political discussion here.

Salvation Army DOES NOT discriminate in any way for recipients of charity based on their sexual orientation
The services of The Salvation Army are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation.
http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-local/Home

There, that should clear things up....

 

[shrubber]

I never give to SA because they are not LGBT friendly.

I would never say so under normal circumstances, I would just smile and pass on by, but I also encountered an overbearing bell-ringer this past weekend and I did tell her why I wouldn't give.

Maybe because of the economic conditions the higher ups at SA have told the bell-ringers to be more aggressive.

It is a shame that you do not support diversity

 

[ogreenlee]

Taken from Wikipedia

United States
[edit] Opposition to hiring homosexuals

The Salvation Army in the U.S. has been the topic of some controversial discussions about discrimination against homosexuals in their hiring practices.[22] According to lesbian/gay newsmagazine The Advocate, in 2001, the Bush administration was "willing to do whatever it takes to perpetuate, support, and defend discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals" in exchange for The Salvation Army's lobby support for Faith-Based Initiatives, in what the publication described as a "secret arrangement."[23] The New York Times reported that the Salvation Army believed it had a firm commitment from the White House to issue a regulation that would override local antidiscrimination laws. A disclosure of The Salvation Army's request "outraged some civil rights groups and lawmakers," and resulted in an immediate reversal of a previous promise to honor the request. The Salvation Army maintains that they were "not trying to get permission to discriminate against hiring gays and lesbians for the majority of its roughly 55,000 jobs and merely wanted a federal regulation that made clear that the charity did not have to ordain sexually active gay ministers and did not have to provide medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees. [24]

The Salvation Army's position is that because it is a church, Section VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly guarantees its right to discriminate on the basis of its religious beliefs in its hiring. To reinforce its position, it threatened to close all soup kitchens in New York City when the city government proposed legislation that would require all organizations doing business with it to provide equal benefits to unmarried domestic partners.[25]
[edit] Financial accountability

Although the Salvation Army is undoubtedly an international charity organization, with funds comparable to a billion-dollar organization, Trent Stamp of Charity Navigator has questioned the Salvation Army's religious exemption from Form 990 (a financial accountability report filed by most relief organisations).[26]



And I didn't sense any hostility from C.Ann's post.

 

[Kim&Chris]

It is a shame that you do not support diversity

She said she doesn't support them because they are NOT lbgt friendly.

 

[shrubber]

Taken from Wikipedia

United States
[edit] Opposition to hiring homosexuals

The Salvation Army in the U.S. has been the topic of some controversial discussions about discrimination against homosexuals in their hiring practices.[22] According to lesbian/gay newsmagazine The Advocate, in 2001, the Bush administration was "willing to do whatever it takes to perpetuate, support, and defend discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals" in exchange for The Salvation Army's lobby support for Faith-Based Initiatives, in what the publication described as a "secret arrangement."[23] The New York Times reported that the Salvation Army believed it had a firm commitment from the White House to issue a regulation that would override local antidiscrimination laws. A disclosure of The Salvation Army's request "outraged some civil rights groups and lawmakers," and resulted in an immediate reversal of a previous promise to honor the request. The Salvation Army maintains that they were "not trying to get permission to discriminate against hiring gays and lesbians for the majority of its roughly 55,000 jobs and merely wanted a federal regulation that made clear that the charity did not have to ordain sexually active gay ministers and did not have to provide medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees. [24]

The Salvation Army's position is that because it is a church, Section VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly guarantees its right to discriminate on the basis of its religious beliefs in its hiring. To reinforce its position, it threatened to close all soup kitchens in New York City when the city government proposed legislation that would require all organizations doing business with it to provide equal benefits to unmarried domestic partners.[25]
[edit] Financial accountability

Although the Salvation Army is undoubtedly an international charity organization, with funds comparable to a billion-dollar organization, Trent Stamp of Charity Navigator has questioned the Salvation Army's religious exemption from Form 990 (a financial accountability report filed by most relief organisations).[26]



And I didn't sense any hostility from C.Ann's post.

A qoute from the Advocate? Srsly?

 

[Stacerita]

It is a shame that you do not support diversity

Im confused. How is that poster not supporting diversity?

 

[Kim&Chris]

OP - I'm sorry your thread has gotten way off-topic.

FWIW, I totally understand where you're coming from. It can be overwhelming at this time of year.

 

[luvmy3]

I'm sorry if you are going to go around bad mouthing a charity you should back up your claims and not cop out saying Oh I don't have to there no rules saying I have to or it's aganist the Dis rules when you could simply Pm people.

Why, because YOU want to know why some people choose to not donate. You obviously have internet service, go and research the SA and figure it out for yourself. Nobody here is under an obligation to you, or anyone else here to disclose why they are choosing not to donate, and nobody here is telling YOU not to.
Oh and BTW the PM works both ways, if you want to ask the question feel free to ask it in a PM, like some of the other posters did

If you did not give because of the SA's religious connection or the GLBT thing, that makes complete sense. To make statements that imply they do illegal things and that is why they do not give but not back it up with facts serves no value. The ones who give want to make sure they are getting the most help for the money they give. Googling SA shows them to be honest and with low overhead. I do this before giving. There are many charities I do not give to and mostly because I do not have enough to give to all.

Please point out where I said or implied they do anything illegal.
All I said is that I don't donate and probably for the same reasons as others, and yes for me its about the GLBT thing

 

[happygirl]

Why, because YOU want to know why some people choose to not donate. You obviously have internet service, go and research the SA and figure it out for yourself. Nobody here is under an obligation to you, or anyone else here to disclose why they are choosing not to donate, and nobody here is telling YOU not to.
Oh and BTW the PM works both ways, if you want to ask the question feel free to ask it in a PM, like some of the other posters did



Please point out where I said or implied they do anything illegal.
All I said is that I don't donate and probably for the same reasons as others, and yes for me its about the GLBT thing

If you aren't willing to talk about something then don't bring it up END OF STORY!