Disney Hassled By Pro-Ex-Gay Stockholder
That old PFOX is more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Ex-Gay Watch has a post up, linking to the latest caper by the so-called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). Seems they got somebody to introduce a resolution at a Walt Disney Company stockholders meeting, demanding that "ex-gays" be added to the company's nondiscrimination policy. Here's how PFOX's press release starts:
That "s" on the end of "shareholder" is a little over the top, don't you think?
Amanda Hess at the Washington City Paper has been searching for an ex-gay in the DC area, and can't find one. There are Christian crusaders who make a living speaking at churches and things, who claim to be "ex-gay," but other than that it is not known that such a group of people exists. There may be bisexual people who have settled down with an opposite-sex mate, I guess a celibate gay person who used to be sexually active could call themselves "ex-gay." But somebody who used to be gay and now is straight? I don't think so.
It is hard to discriminate against a group of people who might not even exist. Oh wait, I just played into PFOX's favorite self-pitying line -- they love to allege that people hate "ex-gays" so much that they even deny their existence. I will allow that there may be people out there who used to have same-sex lovers and now have opposite-sex ones, whatever, nobody cares. A "former homosexual," as PFOX likes to call them, would be a straight person, isn't that right? And who discriminates against straight people?
Hoo boy. We blogged about that court ruling a couple months ago. PFOX lost. But the judge decided that if the law says you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, that means you can't discriminate against "ex-gays," as well as gays and straight people. I guess what the ruling does is extends sexual orientation in time, so if someone discriminates against you because you were ever gay it is against the law. PFOX immediately announced a great victory, and now I guess they are going to try to get governments and companies to add "ex-gays" to their policies and laws. Good luck with that. The deal was, if it says "sexual orientation," in the District of Columbia that also means "former sexual orientation."
There is a kernel of truth to this. "Former homosexuals" who go around telling gay people they should stop being gay find themselves unwelcome in many situations. People who "used to be gay" are simply straight people, and are not ridiculed or hated for that. So you have a past, everybody does. There is discrimination against obnoxious people, and that's where these loudmouth "ex-gays" get in trouble.
Right. Not yet.
Ex-Gay Watch points out a PFOX document that states that there are twice as many "ex-gays" as gays. They don't explain how they arrived at that conclusion. I can guess, though, that if you took the number of adults who have had a same-sex sexual experience at some time in their life, and compared it to the number of adults who identify as gay, the first number might be twice as big. But if you counted up the number of people who used to identify as gay and now identify themselves as straight, I think you might find the number is very small..
This resolution was introduced by someone named "Bobbie Strobhar." The only Bobbie Strobhar that Google knows about is a female harp player in Ohio.
I'll tell you what the takeaway message is here for me. You can search the Internet far and wide and find hundreds of news articles and blog posts about this Disney resolution, and not one reporter or blogger bothered to call PFOX or the lady who submitted the resolution, not a single article went beyond the junk in the PFOX press release. They pretty up the quotes sometimes, as if this person actually "said" these words, but there is nothing added by anybody. Who is the stockholder who submitted this resolution and why did she do that? Does she know an "ex-gay" that has been discriminated against? How have the other stockholders reacted? You send out a press release and the media just paraphrase it and print it.
There's no way Disney is going to pass this thing. It is too dumb for words. Nobody discriminates against "ex-gays," if there are any, nobody cares if a gay guy takes a girlfriend, that just makes him a straight guy. PFOX is a pure example of the rightwing noise machine, they have no point to make other than to muddy the waters and promote bigotry against gay and lesbian people.
Burbank, Oct. 13 – Concerned Disney stockholders have submitted a shareholder resolution asking the Walt Disney Company to include the prohibition of discrimination based on ex-gay status in its sexual orientation policy and diversity training programs. “The resolution cites the need for diversity and equality in the workplace,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX).
The supporting statement for the resolution explains that, “Disney’s exclusion of ex-gays from its sexual orientation policy and programs reinforces the second-class status of ex-gays, and contributes to the negative perceptions and discrimination against former homosexuals.” Shareholders ask Walt Disney to Include Ex-Gays in Company’s Non-Discrimination Policies
That "s" on the end of "shareholder" is a little over the top, don't you think?
Amanda Hess at the Washington City Paper has been searching for an ex-gay in the DC area, and can't find one. There are Christian crusaders who make a living speaking at churches and things, who claim to be "ex-gay," but other than that it is not known that such a group of people exists. There may be bisexual people who have settled down with an opposite-sex mate, I guess a celibate gay person who used to be sexually active could call themselves "ex-gay." But somebody who used to be gay and now is straight? I don't think so.
It is hard to discriminate against a group of people who might not even exist. Oh wait, I just played into PFOX's favorite self-pitying line -- they love to allege that people hate "ex-gays" so much that they even deny their existence. I will allow that there may be people out there who used to have same-sex lovers and now have opposite-sex ones, whatever, nobody cares. A "former homosexual," as PFOX likes to call them, would be a straight person, isn't that right? And who discriminates against straight people?
The resolution also cites a recent judicial decision issued for the Nation’s Capital by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In that case, brought by PFOX, the Court ruled that former homosexuals are a protected class that must be recognized under sexual orientation non-discrimination laws. The Court held that, under the D.C. Human Rights Act, sexual orientation does not require immutable characteristics.
Hoo boy. We blogged about that court ruling a couple months ago. PFOX lost. But the judge decided that if the law says you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, that means you can't discriminate against "ex-gays," as well as gays and straight people. I guess what the ruling does is extends sexual orientation in time, so if someone discriminates against you because you were ever gay it is against the law. PFOX immediately announced a great victory, and now I guess they are going to try to get governments and companies to add "ex-gays" to their policies and laws. Good luck with that. The deal was, if it says "sexual orientation," in the District of Columbia that also means "former sexual orientation."
“We agree with the Disney resolution that former homosexuals remain closeted because of other’s negative reactions or disapproval,” said Griggs. “As the resolution states, ex-gay employees are uncomfortable being open about their sexual orientation with their colleagues because they fear discrimination or unfair treatment in the workplace.”
“Former homosexuals who come out publicly are commonly targeted for ridicule and hate,” explained Griggs. “We need more of these resolutions nationwide to assure tolerance and safety in the workplace for the ex-gay community and their supporters.”
There is a kernel of truth to this. "Former homosexuals" who go around telling gay people they should stop being gay find themselves unwelcome in many situations. People who "used to be gay" are simply straight people, and are not ridiculed or hated for that. So you have a past, everybody does. There is discrimination against obnoxious people, and that's where these loudmouth "ex-gays" get in trouble.
“It is about time Disney treated ex-gays with the respect they deserve,” said Bobbie Strobhar, the stockholder who submitted the shareholder resolution. “Former homosexuals are true models of courage who have been vilified by gay activists."
Disney has not yet acted upon the resolution.
Right. Not yet.
Ex-Gay Watch points out a PFOX document that states that there are twice as many "ex-gays" as gays. They don't explain how they arrived at that conclusion. I can guess, though, that if you took the number of adults who have had a same-sex sexual experience at some time in their life, and compared it to the number of adults who identify as gay, the first number might be twice as big. But if you counted up the number of people who used to identify as gay and now identify themselves as straight, I think you might find the number is very small..
This resolution was introduced by someone named "Bobbie Strobhar." The only Bobbie Strobhar that Google knows about is a female harp player in Ohio.
I'll tell you what the takeaway message is here for me. You can search the Internet far and wide and find hundreds of news articles and blog posts about this Disney resolution, and not one reporter or blogger bothered to call PFOX or the lady who submitted the resolution, not a single article went beyond the junk in the PFOX press release. They pretty up the quotes sometimes, as if this person actually "said" these words, but there is nothing added by anybody. Who is the stockholder who submitted this resolution and why did she do that? Does she know an "ex-gay" that has been discriminated against? How have the other stockholders reacted? You send out a press release and the media just paraphrase it and print it.
There's no way Disney is going to pass this thing. It is too dumb for words. Nobody discriminates against "ex-gays," if there are any, nobody cares if a gay guy takes a girlfriend, that just makes him a straight guy. PFOX is a pure example of the rightwing noise machine, they have no point to make other than to muddy the waters and promote bigotry against gay and lesbian people.
posted by JimK at 9:51 AM
35 Comments:
Did you guys know that global warming hasn't increased in the last decade?
It's was freezing last week in Wisconsin when Al Gore went to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. It was ackward:
The keynote speaker was former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Gore warned mankind faces catastrophe if drastic steps aren't taken immediately to slash our emissions of carbon dioxide.
Mr. Gore is someone only a liberal could regard as an expert on climate change. He took exactly two science courses as an undergraduate at Yale, scoring a D in Natural Sciences 6, and a C in Natural Sciences 118.
Mr. Gore's paucity of qualifications may be why he refuses to debate scientists who challenge his thesis. And he rarely answers questions after giving one of his alarmist speeches. Mr. Gore did so in Madison, perhaps because he assumed the audience was friendly.
But in the audience was Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer, who asked him about a 2007 finding by a British judge that "An Inconvenient Truth" is riddled with scientific errors.
Justice Michael Burton had to rule on the veracity of Mr. Gore's claims because a parent objected to having the film shown in schools. He found nine "significant errors" made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration." Screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom, Justice Burton said.
When Mr. McAleer asked Mr. Gore what he was doing to correct the errors Justice Burton identified, Mr. Gore, after much stammering, said: "the ruling was in favor of showing the movie in schools."
That response was technically true, but evasive. Justice Burton said "An Inconvenient Truth" could be shown, but only if Mr. Gore's "one-sided" views were balanced.
When Mr. McAleer pressed Mr. Gore on his evasion, the Society of Environmental Journalists cut off his microphone and escorted him away.
There was a time when journalists applauded when one of their own spoke truth to power. But in the Society of Environmental Journalists, relevant facts must be suppressed if they clash with the party line.
But reality is making it more difficult for journalists to protect Mr. Gore and other alarmists from scrutiny, and there are defections from the Praetorian Guard. As the Society of Environmental Journalists was silencing Mr. McAleer, Paul Hudson, climate correspondent for the once firmly alarmist BBC, was asking "What happened to global warming?"
The warmest year on record, Mr. Hudson noted, was 1998, 11 years ago. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing, but temperatures have not. This is something the computer models on which Mr. Gore and other alarmists rely said was impossible.
Satellite data indicate the planet cooled significantly from 2007 to 2008, said Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. This winter figures to be the coldest in decades, says the Farmer's Almanac. The ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic are getting thicker. Dr. Mojib Latif, a scientist on whom the UN relied heavily for its original alarmist forecasts, now says the planet will cool for the next 20 years.
As the evidence moves decisively against them, alarmists are escalating their rhetoric. Britain's Prince Charles -- whose academic credentials are even weaker than Al Gore's -- told business leaders in Brazil we have less than 100 months to avert climate catastrophe.
But opinion polls in Australia, Britain and here indicate people no longer are buying what they're selling. The Society of Environmental Journalists may not notice, but ordinary people can tell when it's cold outside."
"There is discrimination against obnoxious people, and that's where these loudmouth "ex-gays" get in trouble."
Yes, we know Jim, you don't believe there are "ex-gays".
You can't find any but, somehow, these non-existent entities manage to be "loudmouthed".
Of course, when one does find an ex-gay, the knock you guys put on them is that they were just bi.
The truth is that most gays are bi.
Very few gays can't function sexually with a member of the opposite gender.
Those who can't are merely mentally ill.
It's not that ex-gays don't exist.
Complete gays, who are mentally balanced and can't function with a partner of the opposite sex don't exist.
Anonymous seems to 'know' a lot about queer people. Maybe he's an expert on astrology too.
PFOX has also joined the right-wing witch hunt, led by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, CWFA, FRC, etc. to vilify Kevin Jennings, and get him fired. They just can't stand any lgbt people getting ahead, god'lmighty, what would happen then?
The largest ex-gay group, Exodus International, published commentary by its VP, Randy Thomas, disagreeing gently with PFOX: PFOX vs. Disney:
I don’t understand PFOX’s recent actions and reasoning behind wanting to create an ex-gay protected class but I do appreciate their, and this shareholder’s desire to protect us from persecution. That said, I don’t want to adopt tactics from the gay activist playbook that affirm identity politics in public or corporate policy.
Robert,
the head?
were you or were you not dropped on it as a child?
October 16 2008
When a heterosexual Italian couple booked their cruise vacation, they were not notified that they would be setting sail with a crowd of 1,500 gay men on Italy's first gay cruise.
According to an October 16th report by the Daily Mail, the Italian couple arrived at port to find news crews surrounding the cruise vessel. At first, the couple thought someone famous was onboard—but they soon realized the media was in a frenzy to capture Italy's first all-homosexual cruise.
Even more surprising was the couple's embarrassment when they spotted acquaintances that they had not known were gay onboard the ship.
After witnessing three days of gay-centric parties and activities while the ship sailed from a port near Rome, Italy to Barcelona, Spain and back again, the couple is suing the cruise line for reimbursement of their fare: around $4,500.
The couple, who has not been named, denies that their actions are homophobic. Their lawyer, Antonio Francesconi, told the Daily Mail that the lawsuit "is not a question of discrimination but one of lost satisfaction because no-one had told them their holiday was at the same time as the gay cruise."
Francesconi also said that "[his] clients were also left embarrassed because among the passengers were people they knew and had no idea that were gay, which was uncomfortable for all parties."
The cruise—called Revuelta—was organized by Gay.it, the largest gay and lesbian Italian website. According to the Revuelta website, the cruise featured "the best of the Italian gay scene for shows and entertainment." The itinerary included themed entertainment such as a "Hawaiian Party" with special guest Mama Mia star Regina Miami. Tickets were also included for a "GayDay Party" at a club in Barcelona, which featured internationally-known disc jockey Hector Fonseca.
The Daily Mail reported that organizers insisted the cruise "featured no scenes of excess." One of the cruise organizers, Alessio De Giorgio, told the news outlet:
As I said on the other thread, yes. What are you saying? Are you trying to polite and complimentary, or perhaps understanding and sympathetic? It's so very much your style. God bless good-hearted trolls.
WTOP reports that the FDA has approved the use of Gardisil in boys to vaccinate against Human Papilloma Virus.
To be more detailed, I have a fairly extensive history of head injuries. Is there anything wrong with that?
“Concerned Disney stockholders have submitted a shareholder resolution asking the Walt Disney Company to include the prohibition of discrimination based on ex-gay status”
That’s just Goofy.
Of course, any anti-discrimination clause to protect gays is Dopey.
Hate to be Grumpy but who wants to have a homosexual walking around Fantasyland in a Happy costume and hugging small children?
That can't be good.
Well, the gay guys will probably sue if they don't get to wear the Snow White outfit.
As in the similar goofy contention put forth by the so-called CRGers about the "threat" of transgender people, there have been no known cases of discrimination against "ex-gsys" (sic.).
The challenge to these looney ignoramuses and bigots: prove your allegations that women have been molested in rest rooms by transgendered women; prove your allegations that so-called "ex-gays" (sic.) (otherwise known as bisexual or heterosexual individuals) have been discriminated against because of their sexual confusion.
Aphrodite
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
"prove your allegations that so-called "ex-gays" (sic.) (otherwise known as bisexual or heterosexual individuals) have been discriminated against because of their sexual confusion"
Jim admitted in his post that gays feel threatened by someone saying they have been delivered from homosexual impulses. It messes up all there arguments and they will persecute, in any way they can, someone who threatens their world view.
btw, yesterday's temperature at National was six degrees below the record lowest high temperature for Oct 16. A friend sent me a picture of several inches of snow in back yard in New York.
Al Gore should return the 1.4 million dollar Nobel Prize.
But, he probably already spent it on a jet to add to his hypocritically large carbon footprint.
I don't feel threatened by someone saying they are no longer gay. Rather, I deplore the recruitment of children to these harmful and degrading therapies.
The ex-gay movement is bad for lgbt people on an individual basis, because it encourages a sense of self-despite.
And I deplore the fact that often it is the parents who are "recruited" and end up forcing their minor aged children to attend these self-hate inducing "therapies," many of which claim to be based on Scripture.
It reminds me of the Neumann's who let their daughter die "of complications from undiagnosed diabetes on the floor of the family's home while people around her prayed."
Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc.
spoken like a true loonie-bird, anon-B
a gold star for consistent idiocy
“Hate to be Grumpy but who wants to have a homosexual walking around Fantasyland in a Happy costume and hugging small children? That can't be good.”
You smell like a Flower.
spoken like a true loonie-bird, anon-B
a gold star for consistent idiocy
Wow! Thanks for your cogent reply, Sybil. How long did it take you to research those personal insults?
your loonie statement actually required absolutely no research to dismiss
how much research did you do before making your inane comment?
Talk about loonie and inane...you are a pig, deluxe (just a small sample from your own bag of insults!)
"Talk about loonie and inane"
OK. Those are two of the many characters residing in anon-B's mind.
They think helping a kid inflicted with same gender attraction is the equivalent of not treating them for diabetes.
It's positively Orwellian, man.
Treating for a disease is the same as not treating for another disease in this double-think world.
Craaazzeee, man!
When parents force ridiculous religious notions like prayer alone can cure a failed pancreas that causes diabetes or self-hate inducing "therapy" can cure sexual orientation, which is not a disease, onto their own children, that's craaaaaaaaaaaazzeee IMHO.
"self-hate inducing "therapy" can cure sexual orientation, which is not a disease,"
Whether mis-orientation of sex desire is a disease depends on one's view of ease.
Homosexuality is not a state of ease.
What you're saying is that homosexuality, despite its dangers, is given by God and shouldn't be treated.
Your position is similar to those who would say diabetes should only be treated directly by God.
You've sided with the loonies again, anon-B.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth.
Where did I mention what "is given by God?" Nowhere.
What I'm saying is that even with the right to practice their own religion of choice, parents have no right to endanger the lives of their children.
Here's how the US Supreme Court put it:
"Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."
oh, I agree with the Supreme Court
but being cured is not a sacrifice, it's a cure
being delivered from homosexuality doesn't make you a martyr
by your "logic", the parents would have no right to treat the diabetes if they were Presbyterians and the child was part of some faith healing cult
Bea,
You're under some misconception that religious people don't like healthcare. This is true for a very fringe minority.
In reality, religious people are the biggest users of healthcare, maybe because they believe that God gives us the ability to help ourselves.
Look at all the Catholic hospitals.
"In reality, religious people are the biggest users of healthcare, maybe because they believe that God gives us the ability to help ourselves."
Not just users but providers.
How many hospitals across America have Catholic, Presbyterian, Adventist, et al attached to their name?
Jesus alleviated suffering wherever he went.
Christians follow by doing the same, using whatever tools God provides.
that's true
how often have you seen a Homosexual General Hospital or a Unitarian General Hospital?
Anon, are you implying that there are no secular hospitals?
no, just not many started by private liberal groups
liberals tend to be more self-focused, which is why they want the Federal government to take over charitable concerns- so they won't have to be involved
You're under some misconception that religious people don't like healthcare.
That's your misconception made by sweeping generalization. I never said any such thing.
I've spoken about parents who believe that prayer will cure diabetes and also about parents who would rather risk their own kids' suicide by forcing them into ex-gay therapy than accept their LGB orientation.
The Supreme Court's comment reflects my thinking. If you want to martyr yourself based on your beliefs, go ahead, but if you want to martyr your minor children based on your beliefs, that's murder.
"rather risk their own kids' suicide by forcing them into ex-gay therapy than accept their LGB orientation"
there's more risk allowing kids to pursue a homosexual lifestyle
if they can be dissuaded, even if only for a few years, their chances of survival are enhanced
if some liberal schmiberal lunatic parents simply turn the other way while their kid gets into gay relationships so they can make themselves feel enlightened and open-minded and the kid contracts AIDS, that's murder
Straight couples have a much higher incidence of HIV/AIDS transmission than lesbian couples do so. In fact the CDC reported as of June 2006 "To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database."
So using the logic that groups have the lowest incidence of HIV/AIDS are the safest for sexual partners, *if some conservative schmonservative lunatic parents simply turn the other way while their daughters get into heterosexual relationships so they can make themselves feel superior and closed-minded and the daughters contract AIDS, that's murder*
The enlightened approach would be to teach the kid how to avoid infection by following the CDC's recommendations and remembering:
"...sexual identity does not necessarily predict behavior and that some women who identify themselves as WSW or lesbian may be at risk for HIV infection through unprotected sex with men.
Post a Comment
<< Home