June 17, 2010

Man Faces Retrial in Immigrant 'Hate Crime' Beating


Man Faces Retrial in Immigrant Beating

KEITH PHOENIX X390 (CBS) | ADVOCATE.COM
Keith Phoenix
Keith Phoenix (pictured) Tuesday began his second trial in the beating death of Jose Sucuzhanay, after the first resulted in a mistrial a month ago. One juror refused after three days to debate the case further. 
Phoenix and another man, Hakim Scott, were accused of beating Sucuzhanay with a bottle and bat and leaving him to bleed to death in 2008.
At the time of the attack, Sucuzhanay was walking down the street, leaning on his brother; they had been drinking. Phoenix and Scott reportedly assumed the men were gay because of the way they walked together.
Romel Sucuzhanay, the brother of the victim, was not injured.
Defense attorneys say the incident had more to do with poor decisions and drunkenness than bigotry.
Phoenix and Scott were both charged with murder as a hate crime and tried in the Brooklyn supreme court. The court found Scott guilty of manslaughter but acquitted him of the hate-crime charge; he faces up to 40 years in prison


KEITH PHOENIX X390 (CBS) | ADVOCATE.COM
Keith Phoenix
A New York man charged in the beating death of an Ecuadorian immigrant faces hate-crime charges for using antigay slurs before the attack, according to  the New York Daily News.
Keith Phoenix (pictured) Tuesday began his second trial in the beating death of Jose Sucuzhanay, after the first resulted in a mistrial a month ago. One juror refused after three days to debate the case further. 
Phoenix and another man, Hakim Scott, were accused of beating Sucuzhanay with a bottle and bat and leaving him to bleed to death in 2008.
At the time of the attack, Sucuzhanay was walking down the street, leaning on his brother; they had been drinking. Phoenix and Scott reportedly assumed the men were gay because of the way they walked together.
Romel Sucuzhanay, the brother of the victim, was not injured.
Defense attorneys say the incident had more to do with poor decisions and drunkenness than bigotry.
Phoenix and Scott were both charged with murder as a hate crime and tried in the Brooklyn supreme court. The court found Scott guilty of manslaughter but acquitted him of the hate-crime charge; he faces up to 40 years in prison. 

Bookmark and Share

Pics=1k Words: STONEWALL video


Bookmark and Share

Two Pics=2k Words: Newest Couple in Lima, Peru

AIDS Drug Funds Threatened By Tea Party Scare?

18 Gauge Steel Caskets

AIDS drug funds threatened by Tea Party scare?

Some Democrats and Republicans in Congress who have long supported funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program are reluctant to back the struggling program this year because they fear the additional spending will jeopardize their chances of being re-elected, Capitol Hill observers and AIDS activists said this week.
William Arnold, executive director of the National ADAP Working Group, said intense pressure on members of Congress to curtail spending by the so-called Tea Party movement has made it difficult to line up support for an emergency supplemental appropriation measure.
Arnold and officials with other national AIDS and LGBT organizations say the program is facing a crisis never seen before, where a growing number of low income people with HIV or AIDS may be denied life-saving anti-retroviral drugs in at least 11 states this year because state ADAP affiliates have run out of money.
Due to a shortage of funds, the 11 states have been forced to put in place waiting lists for patients who otherwise would have received AIDS medication prescribed by their doctors.
“It’s ridiculous that people have to be wait-listed for medicine that they need to stay alive,” said Laurie Young, a policy analyst for the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.
ADAP was created in 1987 under the Ryan White Care Act to help pay for AIDS-related drugs for low-income people with HIV/AIDS, including those who don’t have health insurance coverage.
Advocacy groups familiar with the program say an emergency appropriation of at least $126 million is needed this year to provide AIDS drugs for all that need them. But they say the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress have yet to make a commitment to back such an appropriations measure.
Nearly 80 members of the House, including gay Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), signed a petition recently sent to the White House urging the president to back the emergency funding measure. All but one of the House members signing the petition were Democrats.
Baldwin said Tuesday that she and her colleagues who signed the petition have yet to receive a response from the White House.
In an e-mail Tuesday to the Blade, White House spokesperson Shin Inouye said the president “strongly supports the Ryan White Program and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program’s vital role in providing life-saving medications for people living with HIV and AIDS.”
Inouye noted that the current year’s funding for ADAP represents a $20 million increase over the fiscal year 2009 funding. He said President Obama has proposed an increase in ADAP funding for next year that will allow the program to “serve an additional 3,389 individuals.”
But Inouye didn’t say whether the administration would support the $126 million emergency supplemental appropriation for ADAP for this year, as AIDS groups have requested.
In response to a request for the White House’s position on the emergency funding proposal, Inouye said, “We are working to ensure that ADAP has the funds it needs so that waiting lists are not needed for this safety net program.”
Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders were reviewing the request.
“As she has every single year since the program was created, the speaker will push for increased funding for ADAP in the regular [fiscal year] 2011 Labor-[Health & Human Services]-Education appropriations bill,” he said.
Representatives of AIDS groups, including Arnold, said a funding increase in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill cited by Pelosi’s office would be helpful and could alleviate the ADAP crisis if the funding were large enough.
But they said that immediate relief is needed this year, noting that the 2011 measure would not take effect until July 1, 2011.
Baldwin told the Blade that she was certain that congressional Democrats would take steps to support the $126 million emergency appropriation. But she said Republicans in the House have followed a policy of opposing nearly all spending bills proposed by Democrats.
“I sense among the Democratic caucus, among the Democratic leadership, an absolute awareness of this” funding problem and a commitment to acting, she said. “And yet when we can’t rely on any bipartisanship to respond to this crisis, we can’t rely on a single Republican vote to help respond to the absolute needs of people we represent, it is extremely challenging.”
But Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, questioned Baldwin’s response, saying Democrats have yet to introduce a measure calling for the $126 million funding for ADAP.
“Why don’t they introduce a bill and call the Republicans’ bluff if they want to blame this on the Republicans?” Weinstein said.
He noted that Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced a bill last month that would take the $126 million needed for ADAP this year from the federal stimulus program, where there are millions of dollars in unobligated funds.
Sens. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) and George LeMieux (R-Fla.) also signed onto the bill, but no Democrats so far have agreed to become co-sponsors. Weinstein said Democratic sources in the Senate told him the bill would be “dead on arrival” when sent to a committee to consider it.
“This is partisan politics, with the well-being of people with AIDS the ones to suffer the consequences,” Weinstein said.
Weinstein also challenged Pelosi to immediately introduce an emergency funding measure to cover the needed funds for ADAP this year, saying her district in San Francisco has a large number of low-income people with HIV that rely on ADAP.
He acknowledged, though, that no other Republican senator, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have signed on to the Burr-Coburn bill. A similar bill has yet to be introduced in the House.
Baldwin said she would likely vote for such a bill if it were introduced in the House and became the only vehicle to allocate the ADAP funds. However, she noted that she would prefer not to take funds from the stimulus program.
In his e-mail to the Blade, Inouye said the White House opposes taking funds from the stimulus program “because those resources are needed by communities across the country to keep the economic recovery going and to stimulate job growth.”
Arnold said his group supports the Burr-Coburn bill on grounds that it could provide immediate help for ADAP and the funds are already incorporated in the federal budget, preventing the need for “more spending” to appropriate the funds.
He also noted that the Tea Party movement appears to have frightened both Republicans and Democrats from embracing new spending, even if they know it’s needed to help save lives.
Some Capitol Hill insiders have said the reluctance by lawmakers to back spending measures appears to have stopped a supplemental appropriations bill normally approved each year to pay for federal disaster relief efforts. AIDS activists were hoping a supportive committee member would seek to add the ADAP emergency appropriation to this bill.
That bill, which was before the House Appropriations Committee, was expected to come up for a committee vote last month, just before Memorial Day. But Arnold and other sources familiar with the measure said Committee Chair David Obey (D-Wis.) reportedly put the bill on “hold” because he couldn’t line up the votes among his fellow Democrats to pass it.
Moderate and conservative Blue Dog Democrats were among those reluctant to back the bill, said people familiar with the measure.
“The Blue Dog Democrats have been very opposed to spending money, period, because they’re worried about getting re-elected and they’re from swing districts where tea partiers might be challenging them,” Arnold said.
Obey reportedly has said he postponed committee consideration of the bill because too much business was taking place on the House floor and committee members didn’t have time to consider the bill, according a source familiar with the committee. The source said Obey indicated he would soon decide how and when to take up the bill.
Arnold said his and other AIDS groups have argued that turning down the ADAP spending measure would be “penny wise and pound foolish” because it saves the government large sums of money in the long run.
If people with AIDS are denied medication, they could end up in the hospital, and state and federal agencies could be forced into picking up the bill from patients without insurance coverage.Chibbaro Jr.

Bookmark and Share

Soccer Is The First Spandex-Free Sport to Come Out

Soccer Is The First Spandex-Free Sport to Come Out
 
After World Cup stars starting unveiling their abs on the global stage, it was only a matter of time before soccer came out of the closet.
Beating Bryan Safi's Final Cut Pro skills to the punch, The Onion announces in this exclusive report that soccer is gay. The revelation of the sport's sexuality shouldn't surprise many: Most of the world has long embraced soccer, while the United States continues to shun it, just like other famous gays.
The news comes on the heels of swimming and diving announcing they are in a long-term gay relationship, and speculation that equestrianism is about to make a major coming out announcement.


Bookmark and Share

HRC Blasts Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson For Voting Against DADT Repeal. Except, Uh, She Didn't


 
Will any heads roll at the Human Rights Campaign for an email blast — to their 750,000 "members"? — claiming Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, the Texas Democrat, voted against repealing DADT, when in fact she voted for it?
Yesterday in one of HRC's form emails, signed by President Joe Solmonese, members are asked to "send a quick note to express your disappointment in Rep. Johnson for voting AGAINST repealing 'Don't Ask Don't Tell.'" Except she voted FOR it. Not only that, HRC has rated her 100 percent on its little scorecard thingy.
HRC spokesman Fred Sainz says a "technological glitch" is to blame for the mix up, and says Solmonese has tried calling Johnson to apologize. An correction email went out afterward, saying:
Due to an error in our email system, the message we sent you this morning incorrectly stated that Rep. Eddie Johnson voted not to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In fact, Rep. Johnson voted FOR equality by supporting the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
We apologize deeply for this inexcusable error. Rep. Johnson has been a staunch and courageous ally in support of LGBT equality and should be commended for voting to allow lesbian and gay service members to serve their country openly.
The message you SHOULD have received is below. I hope you’ll read it and thank Rep. Johnson for standing up for equality. Once again, our sincere apologies for this mixup.
But that's not good enough for a one James Nowlin, who is on Johnson's re-election steering committee. HRC's original email "kicked a true ally," he says, adding, "Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has been a consistent voice for human rights. She has asked for nothing in return for her leadership in human rights. Simply stated, she works for human rights because she believes in equality for all. Unfortunately, HRC’s email erroneously accusing her of voting against the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell kicked a true ally. She has been on the right side of equality issues throughout her career. She understands the importance of a united, diverse America and that rights should not just be provided for the privileged few. … HRC’s goal should be to win and keep allies, not to mistakenly sully their reputations."
Was it an innocent mistake? Without a doubt. It's been suggested the Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson's name was included where Illinois' Rep. Tim Johnson should've been; he did vote against repealing DADT. But whoever is crafting HRC's emails has plenty of apologetic tidings to deliver.
And I can only imagine Brad Luna and Trevor Thomas, who both fled HRC's communications department, are enjoying a silent giggle.

Bookmark and Share

Consensual Sex Convictions Expunged in the UK


Consensual Sex Convictions Expunged in the UK


Consensual Sex Convictions Expunged in the UK
According to the UK newspaper The Telegraph, BP minister Theresa Maysays gay men who were convicted of having consensual sex with those over the age of 16 will have their criminal records expunged. Not only will this news be a surprise to many who have long advocated that since the legal age for consensual sex was lowered to 16 in 2000, thus gay men should not be charged when the sex is consensual, but because May is a Conservative who has supported expunging the records and will be retroactive.
The move as reported is part of the Coalition’s new cross-government program which tackles discrimination against LGBTs. Those who have advocated the change have said those who have been charged in the past would not be charged nor prosecuted today as consensual law now stands and has for now eleven years.
May told The Telegraph, “It’s not fair that a man can be branded a criminal because 30 years ago he had consensual sex with another man.”
“As a Government we have made clear our determination to take concerted action to tear down barriers to equal opportunities and to build a fairer society.”
On other topics, May discussed ending homphobic bullying in schools and start work to allow same-sex couples to register their relationships in a religious setting.
May said: “It’s not fair that too many children still suffer at the hands of homophobic bullies because schools lack the support they need to tackle it.”
May also said there will be a first ever action plan targeted to improve the lives of transgendered people.
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of campaign group Stonewall told The Telegraph: “This program of work includes some of the most pressing areas where action is required in order to continue to secure equality for gay people in Britain.”
Contributed by Lyndon Evans and cross-posted at: Focus On The Rainbow – Opine!


Bookmark and Share

Why is it the Religious Right and GOP are Tight?


Why is it the Religious Right and GOP are Tight?

If you think about it, Republicans are always shouting about how they want smaller government, yet the religious right is always shouting how they want laws that prevent marriage equality and a woman’s freedom of choice which are laws that delve into the very depths of one’s person life.  So why is it the two groups appear to be so strongly connected?
According to a post at AlterNet:
Of course, the rrr and the Republican party do have one thing in common: the leaders of the rrr are filthy rich and the leaders of the Republican party are also filthy rich. Maybe there’s a connection?
Makes perfect sense to me. It’s about money, it’s about control and it’s about controlling peoples money. The Republican party has picked up on the fact that many people’s lives are ruled by their fears. It’s an easy way for the Republican party to maintain control, again, what are they interested in controlling? Other people’s money!
Jerry Fawell used his ministry to instill fear into his white following of all the bad things that would happen if the country became desegregated. People literally bought into it. They sent him money to help fight desegregation and save them all from the evils of Black America. Along comes gay rights, same scenario. The GOP has it down and so does the religious right. A world without fear would be a world without either the GOP or religious right. Unfortunately fear is a product of ignorance and I don’t see to many that identify with the religious right or GOP for that matter picking up any books other than the Bible. 


Bookmark and Share

This Soccer Star Loves His Gay Gossip


This Soccer Star Loves His Gay Gossip

This Soccer Star Loves His Gay Gossip
He added that rumors about his sexual orientation are a “compliment” to him, saying that gay people have “amazing style.” The 33 year old footie legend used to play here in England for Arsenal but now play in American for a Seattle based team.
He recently told gay mag Out magazine that he felt “honored” that Calvin Klein recruited him to be the face of its underwear line. “Mostly, I was honored to be asked by Calvin Klein. I was worried about how being on a billboard in Times Square for several months would affect my image. But the impact has been overwhelmingly positive” Having seen pictures of him, it’s not surprising the reaction is positive.
He’s been down to my home time of Brighton a fair few times, and sometimes stays a a boutique hotel on the seafront in Brighton’s trendy gay area of Kemp town.
“The most unusual response” he says, in relation to his being the face and ‘packet’ of Calvin’s undercrackers “is probably that people are always asking me to sign their underwear for them.”
I wonder if they are wearing them at the time?  I’m sure I’d think of something else for him to get his hands on and sign his name upon if I bump in to him again when he’s next in Brighton!
Jason Shaw
UK Correspondent for gayagenda.com
Jason’s daily blog The Seafront Diaries,   it’s a fast ride in a slow taxi into the mind of a 40 year old kooky gay guy coming to terms with getting older, getting a paunch,  thinning hair and a passion for cheesecake!   Fun, laughter and maybe the odd splash of red wine!

Bookmark and Share

Social Security, Jobs & More At Risk


Social Security and Jobs at Risk 

Social Security and Jobs at Risk while Financial Reform Makes Headway
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium blogger
Two critical Wall Street reforms, once declared dead by U.S. megabanks, are suddenly close to Congressional approval. As the House and Senate iron out the differences between their financial overhauls, it now appears that lawmakers are finally willing to ban banks from gambling with taxpayer money by implementing a strong Volcker Rule, and to end taxpayer subsidies for risky derivatives operations.
These reforms will help stabilize the U.S. economy by clamping down on the naked speculation the drove financial markets off a cliff in 2008. But while lawmakers are finally waking up to the economic and political necessity of strong Wall Street reforms, conservatives have blocked key efforts to ease unemployment. President Barack Obama also appears ready to surrender to an assault on Social Security later this year.
Derivative of what?
Lawmakers now have the political momentum to end taxpayer subsidies for the trading of derivatives, as I emphasize for AlterNet. These risky businesses helped sink big banks and jeopardize the broader economy in 2008. These reforms would be a giant step towards reclaiming the U.S. economy for ordinary citizens, and they would fly in the face of opposition from both Wall Street and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Derivatives are the infamous financial weapons of mass destruction that brought down AIG and Enron. Many of the biggest scandals arising from the current financial crisis were derivatives operations, from Lehman Brothers’ accounting gimmicks to the SEC’s fraud suit against Goldman Sachs. By allowing traditional commercial banks to sell derivatives, the U.S. government actually subsidizes the entire market, encouraging speculation and ramping up risks across the economy.
Wall Street’s political clout stems from its derivatives machinations and its “proprietary trading,” otherwise known as gambling for their own accounts. Both provide big, easy profits that banks convert to bonuses, lobbying and political contributions.
Ending the subsidies for derivatives, and implementing a strong Volcker Rule to ban outright bank gambling would be the first major blow to Wall Street’s total dominance on economic policy, one with lasting implications for the enforcement of other new regulations, including stronger protections for consumers.
Debtors’ Prisons
Plenty of economic battles will remain after this year’s Congressional contest over Wall Street. As Annie Lowrey emphasizes for The Washington Independent, authorities in several states are actually throwing people in jail for failing to pay off credit cards and other debts. Lowrey highlights a story and study by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune which reveals that, as the recession has deepened, judges have been ramping up arrest warrants for people who don’t pay their debts. In Minnesota alone, 845 people were arrested for being in debt in 2009, up 60 percent from four years ago.
As Lowrey notes, it’s not a crime to be in debt or fail to pay it off. But debt collection agencies have still been able to persuade judges to put borrowers behind bars until they make minimum payments. This is a total abuse of the justice system and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Sometimes borrowers just can’t pay—that’s the dominant risk involved in banking, and being able to figure out who can pay and who can’t is the job of a banker, not a police officer. Debt collectors, by contrast, purchase debts at a discount, precisely because it is unlikely that borrowers will be able to pony up. If they can’t, that isn’t the business of a criminal court. It’s the risk inherent in a business model based on scavenging.
Slashing Social Security
Other items on the economic policy agenda are looking similarly ominous. As Robert Kuttner emphasizes for The American Prospect, Wall Street tycoon Pete Peterson appears to have found an ally in the Obama administration for his lifelong quest to slash Social Security. The plan is to pull back support for seniors in the name of balanced budgets. These cuts will be totally counterproductive economically, as would the corresponding middle-class tax hike and domestic spending freeze that Peterson is pushing for.
The real fight over Social Security is still a few months away, but asGRITtv’s Laura Flanders notes in an interview with Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), deficit hysteria has already infiltrated contemporary policies. Republicans and conservative Democrats are using the deficit as an excuse to deny people the most basic social services, like unemployment benefits and health care payment assistance for the unemployed.

More on the deficit “problem”
As the editors of The Nation note, there is no short-term U.S. budget deficit problem. Interest rates on U.S. Treasury bonds are at record lows. Anybody who claims to be worried about the deficit is really worried about the longer-term implications, and those longer-term issues have big-picture, long-term solutions.
The single most critical variable in budget calculations in the increasing rate of health care costs, but the bloated defense budget and low tax rates for big corporations and wealthy individuals are also a target. Skimping on unemployment benefits, or refusing federal aid to hire teachers and cops doesn’t help those long-term issues one bit.
Cutting government spending and social services during a recession seriously threatens economic recovery. When everybody is broke, the government is the only reliable source for the spending needed to support growth and employment, and it has to keep spending until things really turn around. Obama’s 2009 stimulus kept the unemployment rate from reaching 12 percent or 13 percent, but it was just too small to really turn the economy around. With unemployment at 10 percent, we need more federal support for jobs, not less.
The recent progress on Wall Street reform shows that Congress finally understands that they need votes more than campaign contributions. Lawmakers who leaves those citizens out to dry by refusing to back a jobs bill or allowing unemployment benefits to expire will be in trouble come November.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint.  This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets. 


Bookmark and Share

McDonald's is Only Gay Friendly When it Doesn't Risk Hurting Sales?


McDonald's is Only Gay Friendly When it Doesn't Risk Hurting Sales?


McDonald's is Only Gay Friendly When it Doesn't Risk Hurting Sales?
Remember the McDonald's ad from a couple of weeks ago that showed a gay teenager who is perhaps about to come out to his father? Here it is:



 The ad is part of a French campaign called "Come As You Are" wherein McDonald's is targeting different segments of society and encouraging them to eat at McDonald's with the message that the company is a diverse and welcoming brand.

This ad, along with other ads in the series, appear to mark a departure from the fast food giant's reliance on marketing to the nuclear family. It would also seem to be in keeping with the company's treatment of its own people as, according to the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, McDonald's 
scores an 85 out of a possible 100 for its gay friendly policies (McDonald's does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression though).

However, Chief Operating Officer (COO) of McDonald's, Don Thompson,has caused some controversy this week when, in an interview for theChicago Tribune, he said that while McDonald's stands for certain "core values" it will not air the ad in America because its marketing is based on the "cultural norm" of the region:

Tribune: A French TV ad featuring a gay teen and his father has stirred some controversy — not there, but here. Can you talk about that?
Thompson: It is an example that markets, cultures are very different around the world. (For instance), I’ve never shied away from the fact that I’m a Christian. I have my own personal beliefs and I don’t impose those on anybody else. I’ve been in countries where the majority of the people in the country don’t believe in a deity or they may be atheist. Or the majority of the country is Muslim. Or it may be the majority is much younger skewed. So when you look at all these differences, it’s not that I’m to be the judge or the jury relative to right or wrong. Having said that, at McDonald’s, there are core values we stand for and the world is getting much closer. So we have a lot of conversations. We’re going to make some mistakes at times. (We talk) about things that may have an implication in one part of the world and may be the cultural norm in another part of the world. And those are things that, yes, we’re going to learn from. But, you’re right, that commercial won’t show in the United States.
Is this a fair assessment though? The content of the ad is hardly boundary pushing and doesn't even depict a teenager lip-locked with a same sex beau. It's sweet, subtle and benign. Would America accept this? I think so. In a recent Gallup poll, the "moral acceptability" of "gay relations" crossed the fifty-percent threshold for the first time in the poll's history and an upward trend in acceptance of gays and lesbians occurred across the board. It's not really whether America would accept this advertisement, but rather if McDonald's is prepared to ride the storm when anti-gay religious conservatives kick up a fuss.
And they've already started. From Edge Boston:
Although there are no plans to air the ad in the United States, anti-gay American pundits have jumped on the ad, with online conservative news site CNS reporting on the ad on June 4. The article said that CNS had contacted McDonald’s to demand an explanation, and received the response that the ad is part of a series of themed spots ("Come As You Are"). The article then relayed commentary from the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg, who said of the ad, "It struck me as strange. Did homosexuals not feel welcomed at McDonald’s in France already?" Added Sprigg, "It’s sort of a gratuitous effort to ingratiate themselves with homosexual activists and, in that sense, it’s saddening and disheartening for those of us who hold to traditional values."
For another example, the American Family Association infamously besieged Heinz for running a commercial in Britain that showed a same-sex kiss. They also boycotted McDonald's in 2008 over its perceived "promotion" of homosexuality because of its connection to the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), but while they, and others like them, are certainly a vocal group, their view point does not necessarily reflect the wider public sentiment in America today.
Regardless, what is most disagreeable here is that McDonald's is going to great lengths to promote itself in France as a diverse brand that is supportive and even encouraging of minorities, particularly gay youth, but won't risk including gay people in its American campaigns. You either stand for tolerance and diversity or you do not. You can not use such a message as a selling point and then pick and choose where you apply it. To do so cheapens the entire concept and is actually quite insulting.

Interestingly, the aforementioned National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) has sent a letter to James Skinner, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at McDonald's, taking issue with the French advertisement because of this exact complaint. The letter also announces that NGLCC will be severing all ties with McDonald's. An excerpt from the letter reads:
The French TV ad has truly been the last straw and left us with no option but to write you directly. To allow people to believe that McDonald’s is the kind of partner portrayed in this ad would be a complete failure on our part to serve as an honest and trusted resource for LGBT people and our families to help make informed decisions in the marketplace.
We strongly believe that McDonald’s plan to distance itself from LGBT and other diverse business segments, coupled with the release of the French TV ad, is ill advised and counter to the spirit of good business and sound ethics. We sincerely hope that McDonald’s will reconsider its position and that the company will again show its support for LGBT people, our families and our businesses -- not just where it is politically expedient, but around the globe.
Barring a significant change in policy on the part of McDonald’s, please consider this letter as official notice that the NGLCC will not accept future support or membership by McDonald’s or any of its subsidiaries.
McDonald's has yet to respond to this latest wave of criticism, but it seems that the company will only promote diversity so long as it doesn't risk harming sales or raising the ire of religious conservatives. Marketing itself as an inclusive and affirming brand feels rather deceptive in light of this, and while such an attitude is not necessarily surprising, it is disappointing given the praise that McDonald's received for creating this ad. 

Bookmark and Share

SEARCH This BLOG

Loading...

Amazon SearchBox/ Most Things You buy through here will give us a few cents

Popular Posts

The Forest Needs help

ONE

ONE
Relief World Hunger

Save The Lungs of The Earth

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest

Love is Sharing

Pride Shack

Gay Male Pride Items #1 (Vertical Banner)

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Young Love Collection

CDC

SiGn ThE PeTiTiOn

DVD's

HIV Army

Blog Archive