Our bottom line is equality. Businesses can decide if ours benefits or threatens their own

In light of the whole Chick-Fil-A brouhaha of this past week, we keep getting the same note from the company’s defenders. Whether in email or in forums, both on this site and elsewhere, there’s this idea that by simply making note of an announced sponsorship or united advocacy campaign, we on the pro-LGBT side were acting like big, bad meanies. That’s a compelling claim, if you consider the basic facts.

In order to start controversy, all this site had to do was simply make note of The Pennsylvania Family Institute’s announced sponsorship with Chick-Fil-A. That’s it. We simply had to repost a flyer that PFI had already created! From there, others weighed in, PFI abruptly scrubbed the flyer (without noting their action), and Chick-Fil-A Corporate tweeted its own interest in the matter (before issuing a carefully parsed statement two days later)

Now, If Chick-Fil-A was proud of the support and its public illumination, then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM ON THEIR END. That’s the way it is with any number of pro-equality corporations, who quite proudly support LGBT events, pride marches, conferences, etc. Pro-equality companies tend to embrace diversity, progress, and inclusion, as well as those who advocate for it. I’ve consumed enough corporate-donated food and stashed away enough corporate-branded swag to know this to be true.

So that’s what’s so darn telling about these kinds of corporate developments. When we highlight them, more often than not, the company (be it privately or publicly held) tends to back away, demand their name be scrubbed, renounce support, etc. Whereas the reaction, both from Chick-Fil-A and PFI could’ve been “So what?” or “Yeah, we’re proud to support each other on ‘protect marriage’ causes,” we instead got walk backs, disavowals, convenient explanations, shot-messengers, and scrubbed flyers. And this is how it plays out almost every time.

That corporate reality is not on us, our movement, or the canard that “militant” gays wield a mutant power of intimidation. Everyone — consumers, business owner, stock holders, advocacy groups — has their own outlooks, choices, and free will. In America’s marketplace, equality is the outlook that seems to be winning, with “pro-family” outreach an increasing liability.

***

*Oh, and this also goes for our more recent revelations about Chick-Fil-A/WinShape’s connections to the larger marriage movement. If they are proud of this fight, then they should like our bringing it to light.




Good As You

—  admin

Sen. Corker threatens START over DADT and DREAM

Yep, the GOP games have begun in earnest.

This afternoon, Senator Corker basically threatened to walk away from the START Treaty over “more campaign promise types of issues.” Corker claims the votes on DADT and DREAM are “poisoning the well” and he basically threatened to stop movement on the START Treaty.

Via the ever vigilant Igor Volsky:

As Igor notes:

Corker’s description of DADT as “partisan” is surprising in light of the increasing Republican support for the measure. Republican Senators Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Scott Brown (MA) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) have pledged to vote for the stand-alone repeal bill.

Corker said he hopes saner minds prevail. Yeah, we’re hoping that saner minds prevail.

Will Collins, Snowe, Brown and Murkowski play along with Corker or still vote for the standalone DADT bill.

Greg Sargent has more:

This isn’t really a threat on Corker’s part. Rather, he’s saying — in a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger way — that his GOP colleagues will be less likely to support START unless Reid drops his plan for DADT and DREAM votes right away.




AMERICAblog Gay

—  admin

Gays threaten security, says he whose very comment threatens every gay’s security

If they can’t beat us in the courts, then the social conservatives will just paint us LGBT folk as a cancer waiting to eat away at the heart of American security. Hit it, Cliff Kincaid:

“We’ve got evidence from those who have written about this problem going back many, many years that homosexuals are notorious security risks because of their personality and mental problems,” Kincaid points out.



CliffkincaidHe adds that homosexuals have been a target for recruitment as foreign agents in the past.

“The reason the Soviets looked at homosexuals as possible agents was because they had personality problems and they could be exploited,” the conservative activist explains. “And this is what happened in the [Private First Class Bradley Manning] case. There are some indications he was part of a network of secret homosexuals in the armed forces.

Homosexuals a military security risk, says activist [ONN]

And if you should encounter bank fraud? Blame a gay.

Facebook account get hacked? A gay.

Condom break? Surely it’s a ‘mosexual’s fault.

Make the wrong accusation in Clue, thus letting a muderous Miss Scarlett run free? Look to someone LGBT!

It must be easy having a scapegoat. But we wouldn’t know — we’re too busy putting a shield up to the whip to even consider finding our own place towards which we can carelessly and callously project the world’s burdens.




Good As You

—  John Wright