August 17, 2009

Hateful Homophobe of the Day: Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan

If we were the praying sort, we’d pray for the day this hater is caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy:

Tweet This Post!

June 27, 2009

When They Call You A “One-Issue Voter”

It’s annoying enough to hear the “You’re just a one-issue voter!” line (what do they do, issue a list of talking points at Bigot Central?) from an openly hostile Anti-Gay, but when you’re on the receiving end of the same thing from someone who’s supposed to be LGBT, or an ally… it’s downright maddening.

That said, here’s an excellent response (particularly the first paragraph), by gayjaybird, overheard at Pam’s:

Tweet This Post!

June 21, 2009

City of Seattle Caves to Activist Homophobe

All you good citizens of the City of the Sky That Never Clears, are you going to march on City Hall in protest, or what?

Backstory:
Gay Witch Hunt in Seattle: “Christian” Demands Release of LGBT Employee Membership Roster, June 11, 2009

Citing law, city reluctantly argues for
release of gay employees’ names

… “The city sympathizes with the concerns that plaintiffs have expressed,” Assistant City Attorney Gary T. Smith said in court documents. “Nonetheless, the city believes that the Public Records Act obligates it to disclose the records at issue.” …

Arguing in support of his own request, Irvin offered the court an accounting of instances in which he perceives the city has discriminated against him because of his conservative views.

On several occasions, Irvin has attempted to join or become involved in numerous city-affiliated activities aimed at gay or minority employees. Among other allegations, he asserts in court filings that a dance for gay and lesbian youth was canceled when he volunteered to chaperon and was barred from attending a LGBT event when he attempted to attend with a formerly gay minister.

Describing himself as a civil-rights leader, Irvin said he sees himself as the victim of bigotry by the city and intends to form an employee group for former homosexuals.

“The city is organizing employees to march in the gay pride parade and I intend to march in it with the mayor,” Irvin said in an e-mail. “If I don’t demand equal treatment then I am accepting that (my) values about sex are inferior.” …

Evil.

P.S. to Phil Irvin: If there is a Hell, Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn are waiting for you in the Ninth Circle. Eagerly.

Tweet This Post!

June 19, 2009

Wockner Round-Up On Gay Anger

“You could fill 10 pages of a newspaper with stories and essays on how upset the gays have gotten with Barack Obama,” Rex writes — and he nearly does. Good read (as always), beginning with:

Where to start? What has he done that’s good? He issued a nice proclamation for pride month and he extended a few spousal benefits to federal employees’ same-sex partners — sick leave and long-term care insurance, for example, but not health coverage, which he said June 17 is not within his power. That’s the good news — all of it.

What hasn’t he done? Anything about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, anything about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), anything about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He’s done nothing about any of the stuff he promised the gays before they rushed to the polls en masse last November to make sure he won that election.

And, then, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department filed a brief June 11 in a federal same-sex marriage case that used nearly every nasty homophobic argument in the book to argue against letting gays get married. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back and unleashed a flood of harsh criticism from gay VIPs. …

Tweet This Post!

June 15, 2009

U.S. Mayors Do What POTUS Doesn’t Have the Guts to Do

NEW YORK, June 15, 2009 — The U.S. Conference of Mayors today passed a resolution in support of ending the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. The resolution, titled “Equality and Civil Rights for Gay and Lesbian Americans,” included support for the freedom to marry along with endorsement of federal bills such as Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Tweet This Post!

June 11, 2009

Gay Witch Hunt in Seattle: “Christian” Demands Release of LGBT Employee Membership Roster

Well, well, well… So, it’s a horrible invasion of privacy to publicize the names of people who donate to anti-gay ballot measures and sign anti-gay petitions — but it’s a righteous mission of truth and justice to publicize the membership of an LGBT employee organization, which was never publicly accessible in the first place?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Philip Irvin:

Tweet This Post!

May 20, 2009

How Much is Your Gay Tax?

Nancy Goldstein’s is $1,820 per year: “That’s the ‘gay tax’ we shell out for me to be on my wife’s health insurance plan, because her company must treat that benefit as additional taxable income.”

But that’s “a drop in the bucket compared with what love is costing Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez. They’ve been together for 32 years and have paid nearly $20,000 more in taxes since their 2004 marriage than if they had been able to file a joint federal return.”

Tweet This Post!

May 9, 2009

Fred Karger Nails Doug Manchester’s Plan of Attack: “Divide and Conquer”

Rex Wockner took this pic of
the word BOYCOTT projected
in light against the Manches-
ter Grand Hyatt hotel during
a pro-marriage equality rally
in San Diego this spring.
Click for the original story.

The good news is that Doug Manchester, the hotelier whose $125,000 donation against equal rights prompted a boycott of his properties, is starting to understand a wee bit of the indescribable pain he helped inflict on gay and lesbian Californians, to the point that he’s willing to spend money to try to lure us back into his hotels.

The bad news is that not all LGBTs recognize this lame gesture for what it is — a buy-off designed to pit gay against gay — which Fred Karger so rightly terms a “surprise attack” of “divide and conquer.”

Tweet This Post!

May 1, 2009

Obama Backtracking on LGBT Promises? (The Question Mark is a Very Generous Benefit-of-the-Doubt Concession)

John Aravosis (whose AMERICAblog has finally been remodeled from Web 1.0 — much nicer, John, much nicer) explains — albeit with a headline that barely scratches the surface:

Tweet This Post!

March 26, 2009

HRC to Support Inclusive-Only ENDA? When Did This Happen?

Nothing but this short statement, with no explanation — and it’s a far cry from the HRC’s past record on the issue:

HRC Board ENDA Policy

It’s the policy of HRC that the organization will only support an inclusive ENDA. In 2007 House leadership informed us that there were insufficient votes to pass an inclusive bill, so they decided to vote on a sexual orientation only bill. We made a one time exception to our policy in 2007 because we strongly believed that supporting this vote would do more to advance inclusive legislation. We will not support such a strategy again. We look forward to Congress sending President Obama a fully inclusive ENDA for his signature.

Well, glad to hear the HRC “will not support such a strategy again” — although I wouldn’t wager a penny on another policy shift at any moment. I haven’t trusted the HRC in a lot of years, and it’s going to take the gay, white, East-Coast cocktail set a lot of hard work, and consistency, before I’d ever dream of trusting them again.

Still, it’s something. I won’t deny them credit. Or, to replay a scene from The Boys in the Band, with the HRC as Michael, and myself as Harold:

Michael: “I bought a bottle of Pouilly Fuissy just for you, kiddo.”

Harold: “Pussycat. All is forgiven. You can stay. No… You can stay, but not all is forgiven.”

Tweet This Post!

February 24, 2009

Jonathan Rauch: Conspiratorial Sell-Out, Or Just a Self-Defeating Wimp?

“A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage,” co-written for the New York Times by anti-gay activist David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values (rule: beware any organization that uses the word “values” in its name) — who had the rest of the anti-gays spraying their pants over his “I’m a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage” snowjob op/ed last September — is the biggest steaming pile I’ve seen since… well, since Blankenhorn wrote his “I’m a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage” snowjob op/ed last September. On the surface, it’s just more baby spew from the anti-equality brigades, and something I would have dismissed as such without bringing it to your attention, except for one thing: Jonathan Rauch’s name as co-author on the byline.

Rauch, a longtime writer for Independent Gay Forum (which is where I discovered him, in the days when there were about three of us using the Internet), has always been too conservative for my comfort; while he wrote the book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, he also has a strong tendency to fall right into the trap of allowing the anti-gays to frame the debate — beginning with the idea that marriage equality should even be debated in the first place — and gives up far too much ground in his willingness to leave it — “it” being marriage equality, abortion, or whatever else is bothering him — “to the states” (i.e., the old separate but equal canard). Sometimes openly, and sometimes furtively (but probably unknowingly), Rauch extends “respect” to the promotion of blatant anti-gay bigotry, as if it were a legitimate alternative point of view. (Hint: It’s not.) “Let States Lead” is typical of his constant compulsion to capitulate.

Which brings us to the Blankenhorn-Rauch NYT op/ed, the basic thrust of which is: Let’s “compromise” on marriage equality.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage.

Hey, guys, guess what? That’s exactly what Barack Obama proposes to do (whether he does or not, or whether he can or not, is another story), so it’s not like you came up with a revolutionary new idea. The difference is that Obama’s plan would give us all the privileges of marriage, not some or “most.” (Christ, I can’t believe I’m practically defending Obama when I don’t believe a word our new president says about the issue; that’s how boneheaded Blankenhorn and Rauch’s “idea” is by comparison.)

But wait — it gets stupider:

But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

How can I say this nicely? I know: You dopes. Religious organizations are ALREADY PROTECTED in their “right” to discriminate against anyone they want, on the federal level. Ever hear of a thing called the First Amendment, boys? Specifically that little business about “free exercise”?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Word to the wise, boys: Don’t give up your day jobs to become constitutional scholars.

But wait — it gets even worse:

Further sharpening the conflict is the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws. The First Amendment may make it unlikely that a church, say, would ever be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary. But religious organizations are also involved in many activities outside the sanctuary. What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status? What if a faith-based nonprofit is told it will lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow a same-sex wedding on its property?

Rauch, you put your name on this crap? After these baseless bogeymen have been debunked countless times? Never mind that you grant that’s it’s “unlikely” a church “would ever be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites” — you just planted that seed in the mind of the reader: “It’s unlikely, but it could happen!” Planting doubt while feigning reassurance is the oldest trick in the book (and I’m convinced this cagily-crafted phrasing is Blankenhorn’s contribution).

Let’s set everybody (including the authors) straight, so to speak, on the unfounded junk in this paragraph. Apparently, Dave-O and Jonny, nobody sent you my “Six Big Lies the Freedom-Haters Are Spreading About Proposition 8.” Read it now, and pay special attention to Big Lie #2 — “Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries” — and to my response, the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of which is this:

• Churches cannot be forced to perform marriages for anyone. For this to change, you’d have to gut the “free exercise” clause from the First Amendment.

• If church-owned facilities are already open to the public, then yes, the owner could be sued for refusing to allow access to same-sex couples. The solution: Keep the facilities private.

As for “What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status?” I’ll you exactly what, via Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic (yes, the liberal magazine) in his article, “Charitable Choice & Hiring Practices“:

At the end of January—

—in the year 2001—

—President Bush signed an executive order removing impediments to charitable choice, which allows religious as well as secular organizations to administer federal social service programs.

…Bush proposes to exempt religious organizations that receive government funds from federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. “Faith-Based Prescription for Discrimination,” shrieks the ACLU’s website. “Under the Bush initiative, for example, a Catholic church receiving public funds for literacy programs could fire a teacher for getting pregnant outside of marriage.”

As of February, 2009, President Obama has not rescinded this order.

In his most irritating (but enlightening) defense of allowing churches to discriminate freely on your tax dollar, Rosen continues:

It may seem that religious organizations are asking for special treatment when they demand the right to engage in discrimination with public money, accepting public funds but not the restrictions that usually accompany them. But it’s obvious, on reflection, that without the ability to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring and firing staff, religious organizations lose the right to define their organizational mission enjoyed by secular organizations that receive public funds. As Ira C. Lupu of George Washington University Law School has argued, Planned Parenthood may refuse to hire those who don’t share its views about abortion; equal treatment requires that churches, mosques, and synagogues have the same right to discriminate on ideological grounds. The Supreme Court accepted this reasoning in 1988, when it upheld religious nonprofits’ exemption from the federal law prohibiting religious discrimination.

And by extending this exemption to religious groups that receive government funds, the charitable-choice law is careful to insist that these groups can discriminate in the hiring of staff but not in the treatment of beneficiaries. In other words, a Baptist church may refuse to hire Jews as drug counselors, but it may not refuse to serve Jews who ask for drug counseling. Under charitable choice, the requirements of anti-discrimination law extend not to providers but to beneficiaries.

It’s not hard to understand why faith-based organizations need to discriminate on the basis of religion to maintain their essentially religious character. A Jewish organization forced to hire Baptists soon ceases to be Jewish at all. … If you want to work in a Baptist soup kitchen, all you have to do is become a Baptist.

While Rosen worries about churches retaining the right to discriminate based on gender and against people who, as he puts it, “refuse to conform to traditional gender roles” (as if it were a choice), he admits that the Supreme Court of the United States “refused to prevent the [Boy Scouts of America] from discriminating against a gay scoutmaster,” and opines that, to “protect the integrity of their religious message, faith-based organizations, too, should be able to refuse to hire drug counselors whose lifestyles conflict with their traditional beliefs — that single women should remain chaste before marriage, for example, or shouldn’t work without their fathers’ consent. The Boy Scouts case suggests that religious and nonreligious private associations should receive exemptions from sex discrimination laws whenever necessary to preserve their distinctive character.”

And:

In recent cases, some churches have taken the disingenuous position that they don’t discriminate on the basis of sex but should be spared the requirement to defend their hiring and firing practices in court because the First Amendment gives them a blanket exemption from having to answer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In the spirit of the Boy Scouts case, faith-based organizations should be free to discriminate only if they are willing to take the political heat.

They should be willing to take the political heat, and forfeit all public funding, including tax exemptions. Oh, I’m sure David Blankenhorn and his ilk will scream like little girls at that, but that’s the trade-off: I’ll support your right to discriminate against me in your private religious organization, as long as you don’t get a penny of my money to fund your discriminatory practices. (You want “compromise,” righties? Well, “compromise” means neither of us can have it one way — and yet while you have free reign to do whatever you want, I’m being forced to fund you. But we’ll come back to LGBTs’ ongoing taxation without representation another day).

Still (and unfortunately), for the time being, churches have every right to discriminate against LGBTs. So cut the crap, Blankenhorn — and Rauch.

Back to the NYT piece. Our feckless fearmongerers continue:

Yes, most gays are opposed to the idea that religious organizations could openly treat same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples differently, without fear of being penalized by the government. But we believe that gays can live with such exemptions without much difficulty. Why? Because most state laws that protect gays from discrimination already include some religious exemptions, and those provisions are for the most part uncontroversial, even among gays.

If you admit “most state laws that protect gays from discrimination already include some religious exemptions,” then why did you just waste all that ink fretting about “the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws”? You just shot down your own bogeyman about churches being “coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites” and all the rest of the nonsense in the same paragraph.

Jiminy Christmas, boys, if you’re going to spew anti-equality rhetoric, at least try to make it sound as if you’re following something remotely resembling a logical train of thought. You’re making it way too easy to show your “ideas” up as the half-baked malarkey they are.

A successful template already exists: laws that protect religious conscience in matters pertaining to abortion. These statutes allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, for example.

Uh… Duh! I just finished explaining that — churches have the right to discriminate, in accordance with their deeply held bigotry beliefs.

There’s more cringemaking capitulation (and condescension) at the link, if you can stomach it. The piece ends with a confirmation of what I read into it, from the very first reading, from the very first line: Blankenhorn and Rauch each think he’s on the losing side of the marriage equality battle, and, rather than stand strong for his principles, right or wrong, each figures he’d better cave, at least partway, before losing the entire war. (That, or both are incurable narcissists who probably have some bright ideas for achieving peace in the Middle East overnight, too.)

Most telling, however, is the very first sentence:

In politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road.

“Avert a major conflict down the road”? Avert? Down the road? Boys, have you been sharing a coma a deux for the past nine months? We are in the midst of a major conflict, and you can’t “avert” something that’s already in progress.

Rant, for now, off.

Addendum: My lovely wife informs me she has just posted her take on this piece. I haven’t read her post yet, and won’t until after I post this; I’m curious to see how our views compare, but I have a hunch we’ll be very much on the same page, as it were — although Buffy will, undoubtedly, as always, make her points with far more clarity, precision, and beautiful brevity than I ever could.

Tweet This Post!

January 13, 2009

Labor Unions Come Through for Us Again with Friend of Court Brief to Overturn 8

We support labor because it’s the right thing to do (well, that, and because we both come from working-class backgrounds ourselves). And the unions have historically recognized and fought for equality for everyone.

Today, true to form, they came through again — and, again, made us even more proud to stand side by side with the American worker:

Big labor urges court to invalidate Prop. 8

A coalition of more than 50 labor organizations representing more than two million Californians filed a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday urging the state Supreme Court to overturn the voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The labor groups’ brief argues that “any change to the California Constitution that takes away fundamental rights or that divides citizens into suspect classes must be accomplished by a ‘revision’ of the Constitution, and not the simple ‘amendment’ employed in Proposition 8.”

“If a simple majority of voters can take away one fundamental right, it can take away another,” the brief states.

“We believe Prop. 8 is improper and it’s immoral and it’s also legally invalid,” Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, told reporters Tuesday. “We have an interest not only in defending the rights of our members, but we have an interest in defending the constitution of California.”

Agreed UHW-West President Sal Rosselli, “Us defending the right of gay people to marry, us defending this civil right is fundamentally important because … there’s a slippery slope and wealthy bigoted people could organize votes of the electorate to take away other civil rights.” …

More at the link.

Tweet This Post!

Kalamazoo Goes to Kalamahell: City Council Caves to Radical Religionists, Overturns Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

We keep telling you: They have no intention of stopping until they’ve stripped us of all our rights, everywhere.

Memo to all you revoltingly lily-livered cowards on the city council: When it comes to civil rights, there is no such thing as “compromise.” Either you’re on the side of right, or you’re on the side of wrong. You are on the side of wrong.

May you all spend the rest of your lives wracked with shame over your cowardice:

City repeals gay-rights ordinance; commissioners hope compromise can be found

The Kalamazoo City Commission voted unanimously Monday night to repeal its new anti-discrimination ordinance, stopping a citywide referendum on creating a protected class for gay, lesbian and transgender individuals.

Commissioners talked individually over the past week, saying Monday they hoped a cooling-off period would allow for talks to negotiate a middle ground.

Monday’s vote means there will be no citywide referendum scheduled on whether to keep the ordinance that banned gender-orientation discrimination in city housing, public accommodations and employment.

But Mayor Bobby Hopewell said he expects another ordinance will be offered. …

Meanwhile, Kalamazoo County Treasurer Mary Balkema, an opponent of the ordinance, said she was unsure whether a compromise could be reached. …

Meghan Fenner, 42, of Plainwell, said she had no problem finding jobs and housing when she was a man. Now a transgender woman, she said that has changed. …

It remains unclear whether the Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality, which proposed the measure, and the American Family Association of Michigan, which spearheaded the opposition, would meet for talks.

“This will have to be a private dialogue because no one wants to be the public target of yelling and screaming,” Balkema said, citing e-mails she received promising political retribution for her stance. …

Our hearts bleed for you, Balkema… not. Just like Proposition 8 donors trying to hide in the shadows, you can’t destroy the rights — the most basic rights — of your fellow Americans and keep your hateful bigotry in the closet.

More at the link.

Tweet This Post!

November 28, 2008

Prop 8: “new generation of Queer community leaders rejecting the ’safe’ strategies of their elders”

I always thought I was born too late — these days, I’ve been thinking I was born too soon. Or maybe I was just born in-between two great, revolutionary generations. (Well, “kids,” this feisty old dyke is with you, if you’ll have me.)

Proposition 8 Battle Energizes Queer Community

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign emphasized change, and unexpectedly the November 4 election also sparked a major, nationwide change in the Queer [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender] community.

It is electrified, with new young, grass-roots firebrand leaders unexpectedly replacing the tame, tired “Gay professionals,” who “have been too long been in charge,” said one Gay union leader.

Weekly Proposition 8 protest demonstrations are set for 11 a.m. every Monday at the Manchester Grand Hyatt hotel downtown.

The battle opposing Proposition 8 on the ballot created by “Gay professionals” was tame, timid and grossly ineffective — statewide and locally.

So now a young grass-roots movement of new non-professional leadership is emerging. They show new energy and are using the Internet extensively (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, JoinTheImpact.org and QueerToday) to recruit the troops, according to baby-faced Tony Cochran, 21, of L.A.

He is a union man (Hotel Workers’ Union) who largely organized the continuing rallies at the Manchester Grand Hyatt downtown, adjacent to Seaport Village. “We want to hold the rallies every Monday at 11 a.m.,” he said in an interview.

Cochran worked closely with another young union leader, fiery Carlos Marquez, 28, the Gay-Latino chair of Pride-at-Work. For years, it has been the growing Gay segment of the local, union movement. But, its leadership has changed and Maequez is now in charge. …

More at the link.

I didn’t know about the weekly demos at the Manchester Hyatt — but then, I can’t figure out Facebook to save my life. (I can write you a retail cash-register system in COBOL, from scratch, but I can’t figure out Facebook. *sigh*)

Tweet This Post!

November 24, 2008

While You Boycott the Bigots, Remember to Support Our Allies!

This should probably go without saying (we always “give precedence to companies that support LGBT rights,” always have done, and always will), but just in case…

Gays told to remember gay-friendly merchants this holiday season

With a month left for Christmas shopping, gay and lesbian consumers are being told they should give precedence to companies that support LGBT rights.

The Human Rights Campaign on Monday released its 2009 “Buying for Equality” to help consumers identify hundreds of businesses and brands that support equality and fairness in the workplace for the LGBT community.

The guide includes listings from a record 260 companies that received a perfect 100 percent score on HRC’s 2009 Corporate Equality Index, an annual report on company policies related to diversity & inclusion training, non-discrimination policies and access to healthcare for LGBT employees and their families.

“With this year’s economy, we need to make sure every dollar we spend goes to businesses that have earned the right to call you a customer,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

“Every day, we make choices that send a powerful message about our values, our principles and our ideals. We do it every time we make decisions on how to clothe and feed our families or what investments to make. Where we spend and invest our dollars has remarkable potential to positively affect the LGBT community because it reinforces what many companies know: fairness is good business.” …

More at the link.

Oh, and by the way, in case you were wondering why the Radical Wrongies are in such a tizzy over our boycotting the bigots who chose to take away our civil rights, this is why:

According to a Witeck-Combs/Market Research.com study, the buying power of the LGBT community is estimated to be $759 billion in 2009.

So, really exercise that buying power, this season and every day after, to support the companies that support fairness and equality — especially, as Solmonese reminds us, during the current economic climate. With times as tough as these, you’d better believe every dollar you spend — or not — makes a real, measurable impact.

Tweet This Post!

November 23, 2008

Meet Cinemark’s Token Auntie Tom, Bob Shimmin

First read the op/ed by Cinemark’s groveling Token Fag, then make sure to read the comments, which start at the bottom of this page (they appear in reverse chronological order).

In case you can’t guess, we agree with 99% of the comments.

Nice try, Bob, but you leave us with nothing but disgust and an even stronger reserve never to patronize the Cinemark chain again — nor to be associated with a Vichy Faggot like you.

You’re an embarrassment, Bob, to LGBTs and to yourself. May you someday cultivate a sense of self-respect, which you’ve obviously traded for that big paycheck you’re getting to be Cinemark’s token House Negro.

Related:

SF MovieBears: Boycott Century, CinéArts, Tinseltown Theater Chains
November 13, 2008

No “Milk” For Cinemark: “If You Have A Choice, Go Somewhere Else”
November 17, 2008

Tweet This Post!

November 21, 2008

Don’t Worry, There’ll Be Plenty of Jobs After They Drive Teh Gays Out

Unemployment jumps to 8.2 percent

California’s economic climate continues to deteriorate as the unemployment rate in the state jumped another one-half of a percentage point to 8.2 percent in October, according to the state’s unemployment division. …

Tweet This Post!

Home Depot Just Lost Our Business

…until we learn that the company’s anti-union co-founder — who thinks retailers who do not support the GOP should be shot — no longer has any financial interest in the company.

On the issue of the Employee Free Choice Act, “a.k.a. ‘card check,’ the legislation that will make it easier for workers to form a union by signing cards instead of by secret ballot in the workplace,” co-sponsored by Barack Obama, who “has vowed to sign it when it is finally passed by the incoming Congress”:

“This is the demise of a civilization,” moaned Bernie Marcus, cofounder and former CEO of The Home Depot, during an Oct. 17 conference call about card check. “This is how a civilization disappears. I’m sitting here as an elder statesman, and I’m watching this happen, and I don’t believe it.”

Mr. Marcus sketched out the doomsday scenario for his listeners, with unions going after what he called the “low hanging fruit” and proceeding to organize workers in industry after industry. He had taken it upon himself to notify the nation’s CEOs of the danger, but they were not yet grabbing their guns. “This is as important as anything that’s ever happened to these companies. And they’re not reacting, and they’re not fighting. The old time fighters are gone.”

But in the class war, as in the real deal, there are always ways of motivating the yellow. “If a retailer has not gotten involved with this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to Norm Coleman and these other guys,” Mr. Marcus said, apparently referring to Republican senators facing tough re-election fights, then those retailers “should be shot; should be thrown out of their goddamn jobs.”

Wall Street Journal
November 18, 2008

Tweet This Post!

November 20, 2008

Big Excitement on Obama Commitment to LGBT Equality

Big excitement at Kos, that is. I’m not holding my breath (and I don’t want any goddamn separate-but-equal crap, and if you’re offering “legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples,” then bloody well CALL it MARRIAGE, religious bigots be damned!):

One more thing: Why is Obama compelled to slap HIV/AIDS onto every freaking discussion of LGBT rights? Gayness and HIV do NOT go hand in hand, and continuing to operate in this 1985 mindset not only fuels homophobia (GAY = Got AIDS Yet? GAY = Got AIDS Yet? GAY = Got AIDS Yet? …) is homophobic in itself.

Tweet This Post!

November 18, 2008

300 Members of National Communication Association Boycott Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel

The good news: Three hundred members of the National Communication Association (a national scholars’ organization, founded in 1914) are boycotting the NTA’s annual convention, which is being held November 20-24 at the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Diego.

The Grand Hyatt is, of course, one of the holdings of Doug Manchester, the developer who donated $125,000 to Proposition H8 (and who remains utterly clueless as to why gay people don’t want to give him any more money that he can turn around and use against us).

The bad news is that the NCA is still holding its convention there.

Why?

The long answer can be found on the NCA’s Web site, which has devoted an entire page (and several linked PDF files, here, here, and here) to explaining its position, which basically boils down to: “We oppose discrimination of all kinds, including this horrible Proposition 8 business, but we’re still going to hold our convention at Manchester’s hotel, and we’re going to try to make up for it by hosting some panel discussions about the controversy.”

The real reason, however, seems to be: “We can’t get out of our contract with Manchester.” Per The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Betsy W. Bach, a professor of communication studies at the University of Montana who planned the annual meeting’s program, said the association signed a contract with the Hyatt in 2001 and would lose nearly $750,000 if it moved the meeting out of the hotel.

“It would just be too much of a hit on our organization,” she said. However, the association has moved to another hotel the sessions for its division and caucus on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and queer concerns.

Well, why didn’t the NCA just say that in the first place?

Not that that makes everything all right; something else on the NCA site is bothering us:

There is no strike or work stoppage at the Manchester Grand Hyatt and there is no expectation that the workers at this hotel have any future intention to organize as a union or to strike in a pro-union demonstration. In the absence of a strike or work stoppage, NCA has a responsibility to its members as a whole to hold the meeting its many volunteers and member leaders have planned.

So, does that mean if there were a workers’ strike, NCA would take the hit and back out of the Manchester contract?

Mind you, we ourselves would never cross a picket line either, no matter what the cost — but it sounds to us like the NCA is saying that labor issues trump civil rights. (We don’t think either trumps the other; when it comes to issues that impact the very quality of life for real human beings, we don’t have a list of priorities, or play the “our suffering is worse than your suffering” game, and — unlike the legions of so-called “allies” who keep telling us it’s never the right time for LGBT equality — we’re capable of multitasking, and working for fairness and equality for all people at the same time.)

We can’t know what prompted the NCA to cite workers’ rights as an issue in its own defense, but we find it curious in light of some very real labor issues concerning the Manchester hotels. In July, Unite Here Local 30, representing 4,500 San Diego-area hotel and restaurant workers, called for a boycott of Manchester (which is still in effect) — and the 300 NCA members boycotting the convention aren’t doing it just for LGBTs, either, but also cite labor issues. Again from The Chronicle of Higher Education:

The group of protesting scholars also says it is conducting the boycott in solidarity with workers and union organizers who have accused the Hyatt Hotel of unfair labor practices. Instead of attending the communication-association meeting, the protesters are holding an “UNconvention” with 120 panel presentations at other hotels, parks, and alternative sites in the city.

Tweet This Post!

November 13, 2008

Gosh, Those Poor Mormons Just Can’t Get A Break, Can They?

Maybe if they stopped practicing discrimination far and wide…

November 10, 2008, press release from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX TO PAY $1,875,000 FOR RELIGIOUS BIAS AGAINST NON-MORMONS

EEOC Settles Suit on Behalf of Class of Enrollment Counselors in Online Division

PHOENIX — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Federal District Court Judge Mary H. Murguia has entered a consent decree for nearly $2 million and significant remedial relief to resolve a class religious discrimination lawsuit against the University of Phoenix, Inc., and its parent corporation, Apollo Group, Inc.

Apollo Group and the University of Phoenix are one of the largest employers in the Phoenix metropolitan area. In its lawsuit, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (EEOC v. University of Phoenix, Inc., and Apollo Group, Inc., CV 06-2303-PHX-ROS), the EEOC charged that the University of Phoenix engaged in a widespread practice of discriminating against non-Mormon employees who worked as enrollment counselors in the University’s Online Division. Enrollment counselors at the University of Phoenix are responsible for recruiting students and are largely evaluated based on the number of students they recruit. At present, the University of Phoenix has over 2,000 employees working in online enrollment.

Robert Lein, who filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC that resulted in the lawsuit, said, “I am very pleased with the outcome of this case and I thank the EEOC staff for their work. I am happy to hear that the University of Phoenix is making significant changes to its environment to prevent what happened to me and many of my colleagues from happening again in the future.”

Testimony of witnesses in the case revealed that managers in the Online Enrollment Department at the University of Phoenix discriminated against non-Mormon employees, and favored Mormon employees, in several ways, including: (1) providing the Mormon employees better leads on potential students; (2) disciplining non-Mormon employees for conduct for which Mormon employees were not disciplined; (3) promoting lesser-qualified or unqualified Mormon enrollment counselors to management positions while repeatedly denying such promotions to non-Mormon enrollment counselors; and (4) denying tuition waivers to non-Mormon employees for failing to meet registration goals, while granting the waivers to Mormon employees.

“We are pleased that University of Phoenix is going to stop condoning such favoritism toward Mormon employees and the resultant discrimination against non-Mormon employees,” said EEOC Phoenix Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “It is the EEOC’s belief that, for many years, the University of Phoenix condoned an environment in which Mormon managers felt free to engage in favoritism toward their Mormon employees, and did so by providing the Mormon employees things such as strong leads on potential students. Given that evaluations are based largely on recruitment numbers, this disproportionate assignment of leads affected a whole host of matters for employees, including compensation, access to tuition waivers, and ability to be promoted.”

The consent decree entered into by the EEOC, the University of Phoenix, and Apollo Group provides monetary relief of $1,875,000 for 52 individuals. The amount of relief provided to any individual is based on the nature of the discrimination he or she experienced. The consent decree also contains several strong provisions designed to stop further religious discrimination and prevent it from recurring, including:

• Dissemination of a Zero Tolerance Policy to all employees in the University of Phoenix Online Enrollment Department, stating that the company has zero tolerance for religious discrimination and that any violation of the policy will result in termination;

• Training for managers and non-managers on the issue of religious discrimination;

• Creating a system to include in managers’ evaluations an assessment of their compliance with equal employment opportunity laws; and

• Hiring a Diversity Officer, and the staff necessary, at the University of Phoenix to monitor compliance with the terms of the consent decree.

EEOC’s Phoenix District Director Chester Bailey said, “We hope this settlement sends a message to all employers to be vigilant in ensuring a fair and equitable work environment for all employees regardless of their religion. The relief the EEOC obtained will require this large employer to change discriminatory business practices that already have affected potentially hundreds of non-Mormon employees at the University of Phoenix Online.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.

Tweet This Post!

October 1, 2008

How Stupid Is John Cain? He Wants Us Chickens to Consider Voting for Colonel Sanders

Unbelievable interview in the Washington Blade:

‘I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me’

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, sorry, couldn’t help that. Let’s do go on.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Blade in an exclusive written interview this week that he appreciates the Log Cabin Republicans’ decision to endorse him, and he hopes “gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me.” …

BWAHAHAH—! Damn. Sorry.

McCain reiterated his long-held position that he would leave it up to military leaders to decide whether the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law should be retained or repealed. …

Yeah, and he said he’d leave marriage to the states, too — until he realized he needed to suck James Dobson’s Bible bookmark a lot harder to win over the evangelamentals.

Washington Blade: What personal experiences or friendships in your life have shaped how you view gay issues?

I can answer that! Your North Vietnamese captors were “pretty damned sadistic” homosexuals who seemed to get a “big bang” out of torturing you.

John McCain: I have known former Congressman Jim Kolbe for 25 years.

That punk?! Mr. Forced-Out-of-the-Closet, who won’t even co-sponsor the UAFA because he’s got the connections to keep his Panamanian lover in the U.S. as long as he wants? That Jim Kolbe?

Don’t make me laugh — Jim Kolbe isn’t gay — he’s just a homosexual. And he’d still be a Larry Craig-style homosexual if he hadn’t been outed by Kurt Wolfe.

… When he came out in 1996…

Was forced out.

…there was no question that I would stand by him. He’s a friend and a patriot and has been an admirable public servant, and a good example of why someone’s sexuality should not be relevant in public life.

Yeah, you wouldn’t want your screwing around on your first wife or the Vicki Iseman story to be made “relevant in public life,” would you, Johnny?

I have also known former Tempe Mayor [Neil] Giuliano for many years.

A Log Cabinette. A Jew for Hitler.

He headed Mayors for McCain in our 2000 campaign. …

Like I said, a Jew for Hitler.

Blade: Do you have any role models who are openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?

McCain: I had the humbling experience of speaking at Mark Bingham’s funeral after the attacks on Sept. 11. Mark had supported me during the 2000 campaign.

That’s sad to hear.

Unfortunately, I barely knew him, but our country learned about him after 9-11. He was one of the heroes on 9-11 who tried to retake control of United Flight 93. His efforts along with the other brave patriots could have saved hundreds of lives. I honor and respect Mark. …

What, a queer has to die saving his country before you can “honor and respect” him? You sure don’t “honor and respect” those of us still alive and living with your party’s vile attacks on us every day of the week.

Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice, cabinet member or other appointed position just because the person is openly gay?

McCain: I have always hired the most qualified and competent people — regardless of their political party, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice or cabinet member who had a history of anti-gay rulings?

McCain: I will nominate judges who interpret the Constitution, not judges who legislate from the bench. Legislators pass laws; judges interpret them. Unfortunately, too many judges have become confused [about] their role. …

Just the answer I expected: a non-answer.

Translation: “I’m gonna pack SCOTUS with all the Scalias and Thomases I can dig up, and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it, so kiss your ‘rights’ goodbye, pansies.”

Then he pats himself on the back for supporting PEPFAR, and then he avoids the question of whether he’d have a LGBT liaison in the White House:

I have already publicly stated that there will be no White House Office of Political Affairs in my administration — professional politics should be at the party committees, where it has a rightful place, not in the White House. I intend to be a President for all Americans. …

Except gay ones.

He also won’t give a straight answer on ENDA or DADT (you expected him to?).

Blade: Would a McCain administration be willing to meet with and work with gay leaders to discuss matters of interest to the gay community?

McCain: I have met with leaders of Log Cabin Republicans in my campaigns. I am always willing to listen to all viewpoints and that will continue if I become President.

Dog whistle: “I’m only willing to meet with fag— er, Uncle Tom— er, Republican homos. The rest of you can bite me.”

Next, he says he appreciates the endorsement of the Log Cabinettes, and then delivers the punch line:

I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me. The stakes are high in this election. I will have an inclusive administration and I will be a president for all Americans.

My Aunt Fanny you will.

Next, he goes back to paying lip service to “states’ rights” and marriage equality, driving his homophobia home for the benefit of the religious extremists:

However, at the same time, my own view is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. That’s what I supported in Arizona. I realize this is a controversial issue and we must conduct this debate in a way that respects the dignity of every person.

There’s no “debate” on equal rights — you’re either for equality, or you’re against it. It’s clear where you stand, McCain.

And you wouldn’t recognize the “dignity of every person” if it bit you in the ass. (Tell me, have you stopped using the word “gooks”? And do you still stand by “I will hate them as long as I live”?)

He then points out that he voted against the FMA, because “this should be a state matter, and not one for the federal government — as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state’s standard.”

Next, the Blade corners him on his opposition to LGBT adoption:

Blade: Regarding adoption by same-sex couples, you have been quoted as saying you don’t believe it’s appropriate. Can you elaborate?

McCain: I hope my comments are not misinterpreted. I respect the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian people who are doing their best to raise the children they have adopted. As someone who adopted a child, Cindy and I know better than most couples the amazing satisfaction that comes from providing love to an unwanted child. I believe a child is best raised by a mother and father because of the unique contributions that they make together to the development of a child. …

Taking your talking points from Maggie Gallagher then, are you?

As I did in my home state of Arizona, I support the effort in California to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, the people of California will ultimately decide this issue, and I’ll of course respect the decision of the voters.

Homophobic little jerk.

Lots more of the same, and then:

Blade: Del Martin died on Aug. 27. She and Phyllis Lyon, her partner of 55 years, got married in the first legal gay union in California in June —affording Phyllis many of the basic protections and rights granted to married couples, such as hospital visitation and estate planning issues. Do you envision a time when all GLBT citizens will have similar basic rights? During your administration?

McCain: I respect that Del and Phyllis spent a lifetime together. As I stated earlier, however, I believe that issues regarding marriage and family laws are best decided by the states and not the federal government.

Never mind that Del and Phyllis were far more successful at marriage than you could ever hope to be, McCain. Jealous much?

Next, he tries (and fails) to justify voting against the Matthew Shepard Act, and finally dodges a Boy Scouts question.

Now, all you homos and ‘phobes voting for McCain, raise your hands — I want to know who you are so I can avoid getting the stink of you on me.

Tweet This Post!

September 27, 2008

WaMu Collapse: Blame the Blacks, the Latinos, and the Gays

You’re not going to believe how far right-wing bigots (oops, redundant phrase) will go to demonize non-whites and non-heterosexuals — or maybe you will.

Media Matters reports:

In a blog post on National Review Online, Mark Krikorian asked if diversity policies touted by Washington Mutual, which was seized by federal regulators and sold to another bank on September 25, were the “[c]ause” of the bank’s collapse.

My initial thought: “They must mean ‘diversity’ in the financial sense (e.g., diversified assets), not the ‘racial, ethnic, and/or gay’ sense.”

Was I ever wrong:

As Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald noted, in a September 26 blog post on National Review Online’s The Corner titled “Cause and Effect?” Mark Krikorian reproduced part of a press release by Washington Mutual bank — which on September 25 was seized by federal regulators and sold to another bank — touting its diversity policies and programs. Crediting a blog post by Steve Sailer, Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote: “I really thought this was a joke, but it’s not. WaMu’s final press release, before it sank beneath the waves.” The release that Krikorian partially reproduced was headlined “WaMu Recognized as Top Diverse Employer—Again” and included the subhead, “Company ranks in top ten of Hispanic Business’ Diversity Elite and earns perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index.”

Glenn Greenwald puts it much more clearly:

National Review asks:
Did WaMu fail because it employed minorities?

National Review’s Mark Krikorian notes that (1) Washington Mutual became the largest bank to fail in American history yesterday and (2) its last press release touted the fact that it was named one of America’s most diverse employers, having been “honored specifically for its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees, reach out to Hispanic consumers and support Hispanic communities and organizations”; for being “named [one of] the top 60 companies for Hispanics”; for “attaining equal rights for GLBT employees and consumers”; for having “earned points for competitive diversity policies and programs, including the recently established Latino, African American and GLBT employee network groups”; and for being “named one of 25 Noteworthy Companies by Diversity Inc magazine and one of the Top 50 Corporations for Supplier Diversity by Hispanic Enterprise magazine.”

While juxtaposing these two facts — (1) WaMu has a racially and ethnically diverse workforce and (2) WaMu collapsed yesterday — the National Review writer headlined his post: “Cause and Effect?” He apparently believes that the reason Washington Mutual failed may be because it employed and was too accommodating to large numbers of Hispanics, African-Americans and gays. Is that why Lehman Brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns and so many others also failed — too racially diverse of a workforce? …

More at the link, including Digby’s take on “the Right’s strategy … to blame minorities for the financial crisis” (in which Filipino-American uber-hypocrite and race traitor Michelle Maglalang — or, if you prefer, the Anglicized “Michelle Malkin” — leads the pack), and Greenwald’s conclusion:

Trying to blame it on the fact that home loans were made to racial minorities — or, worse, that these institutions employed too many racial minorities, as National Review’s Krikorian did — is demagoguery so vile and reckless that it defies description.

Indeed.

I say, the Wrong Wing is really showing its true colors (pun very much intended) today.

Tweet This Post!

September 2, 2008

Everyone’s Favorite Gay Carmaker Aces 2009 HRC Corporate Equality Index

CHERRY HILL, NJ — September 2 — Subaru of America, Inc., proudly announced that it has earned the top rating of 100 percent in the 2009 Corporate Equality Index (CEI), an annual survey administered by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Subaru joins the ranks of 259 other major U.S. businesses which get top marks for their treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees and consumers.

“We are very proud to accept this recognition. Due to the diverse insights, talents and perspectives our employees contribute, we have built a culture that is cohesive in operation, strong at heart and a company where our employees work with pride,” said Tomohiko Ikeda, chairman, president and CEO, Subaru of America, Inc. “Together we hope to create a reputation of distinction, service and respect.”

The CEI rated 583 businesses in total, evaluating LGBT-related policies and practices including non-discrimination policies, transgender health benefits and domestic partner benefits. Subaru’s efforts in ensuring LGBT equality in each of the survey’s main criterion earned it the prestigious 100 percent ranking.

About Subaru of America, Inc.

Subaru of America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. of Japan. Headquartered in Cherry Hill, N.J., the company markets and distributes Subaru Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive vehicles, parts and accessories through a network of nearly 600 dealers across the United States. Subaru makes the best-selling All-Wheel Drive car sold in America based on R.L. Polk & Co. new vehicle retail registration statistics calendar year-end 2007. In addition, Subaru boasts the most fuel efficient line-up of all-wheel drive products sold in the market today based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fuel economy standards. All Subaru products are manufactured in zero-landfill production plants and Subaru of Indiana Automotive Inc. is the only U.S. automobile production plant to be designated a backyard wildlife Habitat by the National Wildlife Federation. For additional information visit http://www.subaru.com.

For more information on the 2009 Corporate Equality Index, or to download a free copy of the report, visit http://www.hrc.org/cei.

Tweet This Post!

August 21, 2008

Louisiana Families Urge Governor Jindal to Renew Anti-Discrimination Order

“There is nothing ‘pro-family’ about rolling back protections for some families,” says PFLAG

New Orleans — August 21 — Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) is urging Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to rescind his pledge to allow a state anti-discrimination order to expire on Friday. The order, originally signed into law by former Governor Kathleen Blanco, bars state agencies and contractors from harassment and discrimination on the basis race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, political affiliation or disabilities. Jindal has said he will refuse to renew the order, in part, out of fear that it would hinder faith-based organizations’ ability to contract with the state.

“Governor Jindal is proposing an unacceptable step backwards for Louisiana,” said Julie Thompson, president of PFLAG’s New Orleans chapter. “Our state’s proud history of ‘Union, Justice, Confidence’ is undermined when our public leaders strip our families of basic protections we should all enjoy. There is nothing ‘pro-family’ about rolling back protections for some families.”

Jindal, who has been mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential running mate for presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, has wrongly insinuated that other state and federal laws would protect workers and contractors, saying that discrimination is prohibited under other statutes. No such laws, however, protect gay Louisiana workers from discrimination.

“Allowing Louisiana’s anti-discrimination order to expire would mean the end of any legal protection for gay citizens in the state,” said PFLAG executive director Jody M. Huckaby, a native of the state. “By not renewing this critically important measure, Governor Jindal would remove the welcome mat from Louisiana’s front door. It is imperative, and urgent, that the Governor not allow the state’s commitment to non-discrimination to expire.”

The Louisiana executive order has been in effect since December, 2004.

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) promotes the health and well-being of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, their families and friends through: support, to cope with an adverse society; education, to enlighten an ill-informed public; and advocacy, to end discrimination and to secure equal civil rights. PFLAG provides opportunity for dialogue about sexual orientation and gender identity, and acts to create a society that is healthy and respectful of human diversity.

Tweet This Post!