tired already by the people helping the needy

[barkley]

That is yet another reason to love Target. You get the occasional petitioner out front but people do not ask for money and they don't do it inside at the checkout either. I have been told by the managers of two different grocery store chains that the people out front get permits and there is nothing the stores can do about it. But somehow Target keeps them away. I'd love to know how.

i remember when we lived in california there was a big stink over target's policy and it got allot of news coverage. i can't remember the particulars but it had something to do with the stores being on private property and if target wanted to ban any they had to ban all. i know target does'nt own all the properties their stores are located on but given that they are often stand alone or the biggest retalier in their strip malls they may have somekind of edge in getting property owners who lease to them to allow them free reign in these decisions.

 

[shrubber]

Beliefs

Discrimination, not so much. I'm aware they are a private business. That is my concern. Any charitable organization should strive for higher ideals, not lobby to promote themselves to discriminate.

For that matter why did you quote the same thing twice...

It's an Evangelical Church! Their purpose is to promote themselves.....!

 

[shrubber]

Googling is free, quick and easy. You'll find most of the discussion on former salvation army officers boards like this one:

The current Salvation Army (USA) policy on allowances for married officers which provides for one allowance that is in the husband’s name is one that has been in place for many years, with varying impact upon Salvation Army families and individual officers, particularly married women officers, who make up approximately 45% of the officer corps. The common rationale for the current policy is that it maximizes the financial benefit for married officers in retirement, but the downside to that policy has implications that I believe outweigh any possible financial advantage. As a policy, it is built upon cultural assumptions regarding the roles of women that are not accurate in this century.

http://fsaof.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-11-12T13:53:00-05:00&max-results=10

But it certainly does pop up in the news from time to time:

Sometimes women outside the church raise their eyebrows when they learn that both husband and wife work full time, but only the man gets a paycheck, he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20090207_18_A9_Thenew499103

This has obvious consequences to SS compensation, credit history etc., its not acceptable to discriminate in this manner and its also tantamount to tax fraud.

I do not believe you understand the situation.
Salvation Army Couples in that context serve as a team in the ministry. The Church sends the team one paycheck, in the husbands name.
That's discriminitory?
You really are grasping at straws.

 

[Stacerita]

Back to the origional topic...this is one of the reason I LOVE shopping online or at Target, no solicitors. I can't go into Walmart (anytime of the year, not just now) without being accosted by someone hounding me to help the veterans, buy cookies, save the squirrels, whatever. We give generously all year too, our church, the CF Foundation, Susan G Koman Foundation, not to mention food drives and sponsoring people doing charity walks, etc. We cannot give to every cause and I refuse to feel guilty about it.

Keep your eye out in the Target parking lots though. They do keep them away from the store fronts and such, but at a few different Targets in the area, solicitors will roam the parking lots and try to hit you up there.

 

[merryweather20]

It's an Evangelical Church! Their purpose is to promote themselves.....!

Promotion

Promotion of biggotry

I do not believe you understand the situation.
Salvation Army Couples in that context serve as a team in the ministry. The Church sends the team one paycheck, in the husbands name.
That's discriminitory?
You really are grasping at straws.

How am I grasping at straws

It comes in the husbands name, not one for each officer, heck not even one for both officers. This is very plain discrimination, if they are serving as a team, why not get paid as a team. Its not only discrimination its tax fraud. Not to mention the plain and obvious consequences under disability, death or the breakdown of the marriage.

 

[DVC Sadie]

All I know is what I have seen the SA do for so many hurricane Katrina victims in both Louisiana and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. They arrived and set up way before the RC or Fema and stayed longer.

The SA arrived and was feeding 3 meals a day out of numerous trucks, driving around the hard hit areas basically going door to door to help feed and donate food.

I never heard them ask anyone in the long lines waiting for meals whether or not they were GLBT and they also gave the same quatities of food to both women and men.

Now back to the original topic. Yes, I have been spoken to rather rudely because I did not choose to donate to a particular cause that day or I didn't want to purchase raffle tickets, cookies or send a kid to camp.

 

[cheermom1]

It would be information that should not be revealed on a message board - due to the sources..

With some charities you can find all the info you need via the internet - with others, more info is revealed via the interworkings of the charity itself - people who are employed in various capacities - from the lowest rung to the highest..

If you're comfortable giving to the SA - or any other charitable organizations you might choose - that's the only thing that counts..

I'm sure everyone has their personal preferences - based on positive experiences or negative experiences..

I haven't read all the posts but C. Ann you are right about SA - a friend worked for them for a while and she told me a few things and when I was WAY younger and a single mom, I tried so very hard NOT to have to get help but sometimes I had to and I went there once, and he asked me several times if someone had been given money for any reason, just kept asking me over and over and I kept telling him no - i felt about 2" tall - i never donate to them now that I can i will go to the small places in my area where I know things are not like that and give to them...

 

[shrubber]

Promotion

Promotion of biggotry

Actually, That sounds a lot like a bigoted remark

How am I grasping at straws

It comes in the husbands name, not one for each officer, heck not even one for both officers. This is very plain discrimination, if they are serving as a team, why not get paid as a team. Its not only discrimination its tax fraud. Not to mention the plain and obvious consequences under disability, death or the breakdown of the marriage.

Again, you do not understand. SA Married officers serve as a ministry team, a union by marriage. Just how is it that someone voluntarily joining a private organization is subjected to discrimination? If they felt that was the case, I would assume they would not join, no?

From salvation army
The policy relating to officer (clergy) marriage is related to the spiritual aspect of the Army and is almost as old as the organization itself. It is still in practice based on the fact that this singular focus of officer couples, each with the same calling to ministry and working together for the same purpose, directly contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of The Salvation Army’s service in the United States. Additionally, given the demanding nature of the work, we have found that couples are better able to support each other and their families when committed to joint ministry. Each officer "cadet" is made aware of this policy before attending one of The Salvation Army’s two-year, officer training schools.
Today, our organization serves an average of 30 million Americans in personal crisis each year and commits nearly 83 cents of every dollar received to direct service – a testament to the commitment of Salvation Army officers, employees, volunteers and donors.Are there other chartities you think are bigots? Or are you singleing them out?

 

[cheermom1]

Sorry but a "team" for the married couple??? what??? I understand what you are saying but i don't like it which is one of the reasons why i don't donate end of story ...

and this is sad and just not right for them to do this - not saying they don't have the right or I'm going to lobby against them just that I think it is wrong...

 

[merryweather20]

Again, you do not understand. SA Married officers serve as a ministry team, a union by marriage. Just how is it that someone voluntarily joining a private organization is subjected to discrimination? If they felt that was the case, I would assume they would not join, no?

From salvation army
The policy relating to officer (clergy) marriage is related to the spiritual aspect of the Army and is almost as old as the organization itself. It is still in practice based on the fact that this singular focus of officer couples, each with the same calling to ministry and working together for the same purpose, directly contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of The Salvation Army’s service in the United States. Additionally, given the demanding nature of the work, we have found that couples are better able to support each other and their families when committed to joint ministry. Each officer "cadet" is made aware of this policy before attending one of The Salvation Army’s two-year, officer training schools.
Today, our organization serves an average of 30 million Americans in personal crisis each year and commits nearly 83 cents of every dollar received to direct service – a testament to the commitment of Salvation Army officers, employees, volunteers and donors.Are there other chartities you think are bigots? Or are you singleing them out?

I appreciate they are not joining a private organization. That was my point. I was comparing the two. Why is it OK for the Salvation Army to be sexist?

Yes, I am singleing them out. This sort of blatant discrimination is rare, and scary, I checked and it is indeed 2009.

I always look into the charities to which I donate my time or money, its just a good idea.

I find it interesting that you quoted a whole article about the couple working as a team, but you don't think the woman should get paid approprately.

My church does not place those kind of demands on the minister's wife, she has no theology training, she signs no contracts with the church and my minister was free to marry someone who was not an anglican minister. She works as a physiotherapist, and they pay her.

My Grandma's church is very large. There are two ministers, and they pay them both.

Two people are doing equal work, the SA decided to be sexist and only pay the man.

Its sexist and its tax fraud.

 

[cheermom1]

i appreciate they are not joining a private organization. That was my point. I was comparing the two. Why is it ok for the salvation army to be sexist?

Yes, i am singleing them out. This sort of blatant discrimination is rare, and scary, i checked and it is indeed 2009.

I always look into the charities to which i donate my time or money, its just a good idea.

I find it interesting that you quoted a whole article about the couple working as a team, but you don't think the woman should get paid approprately.

My church does not place those kind of demands on the minister's wife, she has no theology training, she signs no contracts with the church and my minister was free to marry someone who was not an anglican minister. She works as a physiotherapist, and they pay her.

My grandma's church is very large. There are two ministers, and they pay them both.

Two people are doing equal work, the sa decided to be sexist and only pay the man.

Its sexist and its tax fraud.

ita!

 

[ilovepcot]

I have been on the DIS since 2001 or so and while it did take me some time to figure it out ( a little slow on the uptake - LOL), I have found that when some posters demand more information (or "specifics"), 9 times out of 10 they are looking for something to argue about or pick apart..

There is one thread in particular right now where I could demand or insist that a poster give me specifics and I can assure you the poster would not be willing to give that info - even though the poster is fully engaged in the topic of that thread..

There are many, many posters on here who prefer not to go into every minute detail of every one of their opinions; personal situations (thus the posting under an "alias" for a sensitive subject that they don't care to be ripped apart for); ethics; morals; religious beliefs; political beliefs; style of parenting; announcing their annual income; etc.. Questions can be answered in a satisfactory manner - without having to write a "tell all" - if one so chooses.. If others have a problem with that, it's best to just skip over those posts/threads or put those posters who won't give in to their demands on "ignore".. It's really not worth getting upset about.. It does often seem as though some people are just itching for a fight..

Beautifully written post, C.Ann!

 

[Planogirl]

I don't agree with the Salvation Army's beliefs at all. However I give a little to them because I see them do good things for a variety of people and that's why I donate to begin with. I support every business' right to their beliefs and I would not donate if they seemed to become involved in politics to further those beliefs. If the Salvation Army has done so I am not aware of it.

If people don't agree with me I respect that but I also have no interest in arguing.

 

[FireDancer]

Its sexist and its tax fraud.

It is definitely tax avoidance but I don't know if it is tax fraud. It reminds me of the way the Amish here in Ohio get around paying income taxes. They do their work and instead of billing the customer directly they have their church bill them, collect the fee, and then distribute it back to the worker. Since the church is collecting the fee it isn't income and they do not have to pay income tax. I am not sure of what the exact criteria is but my cousin owns a framing company and when he has Amish sub contractors he is billed by their church, not them.

If the payroll practices of the SA are known to the DIS I'm pretty sure they are known to the IRS and would be investigated if they were indeed fraud.

I find the practices of the SA a bit strange and don't really agree with them but no one if forced to join them so it isn't something I spend a lot of time worrying about.

 

[momx2]

I'm sorry you feel like that. How do you think people should help the needy

They shouldn't harass people who don't/can't give. That should not be allowed and the people doing that should be barred from working at that store again.

I give, but how does the man ringing the bell at Kroger know I just didn't give to the man ringing the bell at WalMart.

 

[merryweather20]

It is definitely tax avoidance but I don't know if it is tax fraud. It reminds me of the way the Amish here in Ohio get around paying income taxes. They do their work and instead of billing the customer directly they have their church bill them, collect the fee, and then distribute it back to the worker. Since the church is collecting the fee it isn't income and they do not have to pay income tax. I am not sure of what the exact criteria is but my cousin owns a framing company and when he has Amish sub contractors he is billed by their church, not them.

If the payroll practices of the SA are known to the DIS I'm pretty sure they are known to the IRS and would be investigated if they were indeed fraud.

I find the practices of the SA a bit strange and don't really agree with them but no one if forced to join them so it isn't something I spend a lot of time worrying about.

The Amish pay plenty of tax. They do get certain exemptions because they do not draw on certain types of social assisstance. but they're not sliding anything under the door in the situation you described.

What the does SA is perfectly "legal" they have certain exemptions as a specifc kind of charity that allow them to discriminate. Whether they should even consider discriminating so blatantly in 2009 based on sex, nevermind that they actively lobby for the right...probably not.

SS rules are set up the way they are for a reason. They exempt the Amish because the Amish will never draw, the community picks up the slack. If a woman needs to draw, the SA do nothing. There may be cases of an Amish sueing somewhere, for their community to replace their SS benefits, but I've never seen them. I have seen many cases of former SA officers, who hit dire straights, and the SA just turned their backs on them.

Yep those former SA went in willingly, but circumstances change, and nothing can gloss over how blatant the discrimination is.

 

[FireDancer]

In the end I wouldn't join an organization that discriminates against me. Regardless of what you or I think of them, and I do agree with you about their practices being discriminatory, they can do what they want. They aren't hiding it so no one can claim ignorance of the policy. I don't give to them nor would I join them but I don't want to impose my beliefs on them anymore than I want their's imposed on me. There are plenty of religions that discriminate against groups but they have the religious right to do so. Would we ban the Islamic religion because some factors of it don't allow women the same rights as men? I'm in favor of allowing same sex marriage at the governmental level but don't think a religion should be forced to marry them if it is against their doctrine.

It is unfortunate but we can't pick and choose which religious freedoms we allow, within reason of course. We can just choose for ourselves which groups we join. I don't want speech I don't like banned or groups I don't agree with to not be allowed the freedom of assembly. One of the side effects of freedom in this country is that sometimes the freedom is for things we don't personally agree with. Private entities, especially religious ones, have different legal responsibilities than public ones and in this case the private SA are allowed to do things a public entity can not. I don't agree with them but they are legally entitled to them.

If people in the SA want to fight the policy it is up to them to do so. If they have a valid legal argument the courts will rule in their favor. If the courts have already ruled then they are a matter of public record and can be researched before deciding if someone wants to be affiliated.

I want to clarify I'm not condoning them, I do find the actions discriminatory, but I support their right to their beliefs anyway. I'll just take my money and time elsewhere.