Dear Editor,

In your 7/10/03 issue (#811), there is an article on Wal-Mart announcing its decision to extend its nondiscrimination policy to include gay and lesbian workers. A separate small article announces a Bourbon St. “thank you Wal-Mart” dollar-off sale, encouraging people to shop at Wal-Mart. Nicole’s column also praises Wal-Mart for their new “anti-discrimination policy” and urges all to shop at Wal-Mart.

Before everyone starts the celebrating and throwing their money at Wal-Mart, let me just interject some facts and information into all of this. Wal-Mart is presently the most sued company in American history for its practice of actively discriminating against all types of people. In fact, there is a lawsuit that has been filed in California, that if granted class-action status, will be the country’s largest sex discrimination suit EVER filed against a private employer.

A small list of reasons Wal-Mart is presently being sued include:

• Sex discrimination in pay, promotion and compensation

• Child labor law violations

• Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

• Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including pre-screening job applicants

• Sexual harassment charges

• “Sweatshop” violations

• Union busting, illegally discouraging workers from unionizing, firing pro-union workers and eliminating jobs once workers joined unions

• Forcing workers to work “off the books,” not paying overtime, preventing workers from taking lunch and rest breaks, locking workers in stores at night for hours until work is completed (without pay)

• Harassment and firing of an employee for informing the company that he was undergoing a sex-change operation

• Refusing to sell/dispense legal prescriptions, including Preven, the “morning-after pill”

• In-store harassment of customers who are people of color

In addition to these pending/settled lawsuits, Wal-Mart’s very own statistics show their abysmal percentage of women and people of color in management positions. Although women presently make up about 70 percent of total employees, less than 10 percent of its store managers are women.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) recently named Wal-Mart as a “Merchant of Shame,” pointing it out as one of the worst employers in this country. Along with NOW, unions and civil rights groups have been boycotting and picketing Wal-Mart. Although Wal-Mart is now saying that lesbian and gay people will not be discriminated against in their company, I urge everyone to take this with a VERY large grain of salt. Wal-Mart has included women (straight) and people of color (straight) in its “non-discrimination” policies for a long time and we have yet to see any real commitment to those policies.

I believe that the LGBT community must increase its awareness of what a company or government is doing overall to provide EVERYBODY their equal rights and dignity. We must work in coalition with other groups in order to win this fight. We must demand EVERYBODY’S rights. I hope that the editor of this newspaper, Bourbon St. owners and Nicole Murray Ramirez will all join the progressive groups and civil rights organizations that have called for a boycott of Wal-Mart as an official “Merchant of Shame.”

Thank you,

Maria Plasencia

CA NOW Board Member

Dear Editor,

We have so often over the years been impressed with the journalism of GLT. Many times your cover stories have been a mirror for the LGBT community to better understand and read about the important issues of our day. We applaud your editorial “Supreme Court ruling also important for LGBT San Diegans,” which questioned the muted LGBT community response to the Supreme Court striking down the Texas sodomy law and urging us to “enter the battle — and fight even harder” as well as “educate … friends, family and coworkers so that they realize the Court’s decision is a victory for the civil rights of all Americans.”

To see “2003 Summer Fashion Flash” as your cover story therefore, with a bottom page headline “Supreme Court strikes down ban on gay sex in historic ruling, pg. 26” is, at the very least, ironic. This event was headline news across the nation, the cover story of Newsweek and something our heterosexual friends and even some family members understood as a most significant milestone for everyone interested in adult, private consensual sex in our democratic society. To have your cover story NOT represent that fact is a journalistic contradiction that is very unexpected and disheartening to see.

You correctly state “now is not the time to rest on our laurels, now is the time to take stock of what we have gained and get to work.” Judging by your cover story, are we to conclude your paper may think “getting to work” means to go shopping? Had your newspaper chosen to feature this ruling as the cover article, imagine the powerful statement, both visually and journalistically, this would have made to our entire community.

We raise this apparent incongruous message between your editorial board and your feature article staff because, as psychotherapists, we have come to trust and believe that insights into personal and organizational contradiction can provide an opportunity to increase self-awareness and empowerment. It is this very process that lead the Supreme Court to reverse Bowers v. Hardwick 17 years later. For that they are respected and applauded. We ask you to consider the meaning of your own contradiction.

Doug Braun-Harvey, MFT, CGP

Al Killen-Harvey, LCSW

Dear Editor,

I’ve just returned to San Diego and read your last few issues. I am absolutely nauseated that Nicole insinuated that my friend Joseph Grienenberger is a Nazi based upon his Germanic surname.

You invite letters from the public; Joseph accepted your offer, and chastised you for the journalistic faux pas of allowing a staff writer to also utilize your letters section. His statement that Nicole is profoundly ego-driven was factual, considering the blathering egocentrism Nicole has had published in your paper for years; facts are facts, and Joseph’s observations were neither conjecture nor a minority opinion. Not having any facts about Joseph, however, Nicole further proved his/her/its idiocy by completely fabricating statements in Joseph’s letter (such as Joseph supposedly stating he had never even met Nicole, which was not mentioned in the letter), implying that Joseph is a bar denizen (which he is not), and challenging him to trumpet his efforts and accomplishments as Nicole does [conveniently ignoring Joseph’s statement that true acts of charity are done anonymously — I happen to know he has done plenty of pro bono work]. Such infantile, erroneous and ultimately impotent barbs are the trademarks of a person with woefully limited intellectual gifts. Nicole used the tired admonition to “grow up.” It sounds to me like a very long glance in the mirror is in order for His/Her/Its Most Imperial Majesty to reflect on an obvious lack of humanity.

Now to the real meat of the matter. That you approved Nicole’s racist diatribe for publication in the very same issue is appalling! Nicole is obviously more duplicitous than I previously thought, for calling Joseph “Herr Grienenberger” and mentioning the Third Reich was a blatantly racist act. I think at the very least that Nicole should be subjected to a temporary suspension of his Pulitzer-worthy column, so as to have the time to reflect on what I consider a malicious, despicable and downright evil act.

Joshua Schönberg

San Diego

Dear Editor,

As all people know, pets are wonderful companions that require proper care, such as regular vaccinations. Over the past few years I have seen pets being walked around the Pride parade area, up and down the street, and standing in the hot sun.

This is not good for these animals, especially puppies under a few months old and older dogs. It’s great that people want to show off their pets to others, but it’s not really good for the animal. There are times where it feels as if it’s just too hot for us to be outside. We have options to protect ourselves, such as suntan lotion, hats, sunglasses, etc. Unfortunately, our pets don’t have these same options. It is really hard for dogs to survive heatstroke or dehydration.

If you must take your pets with you to the parade, visit your local pet store and purchase items that can help protect them — sun visors or goggles for dogs called “Doggles.” And please make sure that your pets are current on their vaccines, including all rabies vaccinations. Dogs must have a license showing this. Just in case the heat does get to them, try to find some shade and give them water.

I’m not trying to be a busybody; I’m just concerned about animal health. Ultimately, Pride is for people, not their pets. By the way, the law does state that all dogs must be leashed and owners must pick-up after their pets.

Thank you for your time,

Lee Jackson