I am not among the group which bashes Wal-Mart because they have been insanely successful in a difficult industry. Wal-Mart has made the most of a humble start, and has got where they are by sheer hard work. I also do not put much faith in the media blasting of Wal-Mart for wages and benifits, after-all if there where better jobs out there, people would take them. I have not see to many Wal-Mart employees complaining about the company they work for, and that speaks volumes.

I am, however, a bit concerned about the recent steps Wal-Mart has taken in support of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and they have committed to giving preferential treatment to suppliers who focus on a similar agenda. (reference, reference)

Though I do have a personal stand against Homosexuality, my concern here is much more basic. Similar to my comments on the recent drops at Ford, why would a company like Wal-Mart take such a public stand on such an emotive subject? It seem illogical to polarize your client base in such a way, especially when the larger group, those against, have shown themselves very ready and effective at staging large boycotts. A stance that promotes fair access and open arms to all customers seems much more reasonable. As FRC points out, Wal-Mart had its start in very conservative rural communities – a base that would be among the most offended.

And let me be clear, for the nay-sayers out there. This is not corporate responsibility; it is, at best, corporate activism.

I do not agree with the AFA and FRC that Wal-Mart simply caved into pressure from pro-homosexual lobby groups. I cannot imagine an effective pressure such lobbiest could bring against an organization who has never, to my knowledge, discriminated against homosexual employees or customers. That leaves me even more puzzled by Wal-Mart’s stance.

I hope Wal-Mart is not on the verge of a slide similar to Ford. I link items like this to poor judgment, and judgment issues in large organization are usually systemic.