Tim Hortons Pulls Sponsorship from Anti-LGBT Event!
Published August 10, 2009 @ 11:49AM PT
Folks, this is huge. In the past 17 hours, we've had more than 1,600 folks send letters to Tim Hortons, asking why a franchise in Rhode Island was sponsoring an anti-LGBT festival hosted by the National Organization for Marriage. Well, guess what? Tim Hortons has answered our emails, loud and clear. Here's the message that just came in from their company headquarters.
Tim Hortons responds to inquiries about Rhode Island event sponsorship
Recently, Tim Hortons was approached in Rhode Island to provide free coffee and products for a local event, as we do thousands of times a year across Canada and the United States.
For 45 years, Tim Hortons and its store owners have practiced a philosophy of giving back to the communities in which we operate. As a company, our primary focus is on helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.
For this reason, Tim Hortons has not sponsored those representing religious groups, political affiliates or lobby groups.
It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines. As such, Tim Hortons can not provide support at the event.
Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.
Now that's the power of social media and social action! Please consider thanking the company in the comments section of this post. This is great news, folks, and thanks again for taking action.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Urge Tim Hortons to Stop Supporting Anti-LGBT Group
-
Uniting Gay Rights and Labor for One of the Best Boycotts Around
-
Iowa's Gay Marriage Tourism Boost
Comments (104)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michael is the Communications Director for the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, and previously was Communications Director for Pax Christi USA, a progressive Catholic human rights organization.
Featured Gay Rights Actions
-
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
12552 People
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
-
Great work Mike, and everyone who signed the petition. Are you able to disable the previous "action?" So they don't get anymore e-mail from that one?
We don't want them to continue getting the other action letter.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 08/10/2009 @ 11:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yeah - on it, Dave. We'll disable that other action and put an update at the top.
Thanks!
Posted by Ben Rattray on 08/10/2009 @ 11:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Welcome back Ben! We haven't heard from you in a while!
Posted by Dave Hershey on 08/10/2009 @ 12:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm forwarding this story to all of my friends who say online petitions don't work.
Posted by Martele Banks on 08/10/2009 @ 12:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Tim Hortons has done the correct thing by revoking their support for an intolerant organization against LGBT equality. Since Tim Hortons is a company which gives back to communities, it's good to see that they have a guideline on which and not to support. The power of internet social activism has done good. With Tim Hortons doing the correct thing, I give thanks for the coffee chain on enforcing their guideline against intolerance.
Posted by Edwin Bonilla on 08/10/2009 @ 12:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Wahhhhhhhhhhh...Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh
Thats right mr. croft...You just keep whining and bitching because we aint gonna stop fighting for equality no matter what you goddess forsaken homohaters say or do.
:P:P:P:P:P:P:P
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 08/11/2009 @ 10:49PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Booyah to you mr. croft. Tim Hortons is showing some common decency by sticking to their policy and not supporting small minded bigots. Good on them!
Posted by Jeanne Lee on 08/12/2009 @ 12:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
RE: Owen Croft wrote: "Shame on you b*m bangers!!"
I hear that "b*m b*nging" is a current trend and, apparently, is all the rage in the straight community!?
Is this true, Owen?
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 11:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Could it be considered time to start the same type of action for another sponsor - Blount Fine Foods who also repackage their soups for retail under the name Legal Sea Foods?
On Blount Fine Foods website, their "in the news section" they state, "Blount Fine Foods continues to make news through its culinary expertise. From food service to retail, the Blount brand is synonymous with premium quality."
Unfortunately for them, their brand can now be synonymous with premium bigotry.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 08/10/2009 @ 12:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I definately think a similar action is called for with Blount Fine Foods. Why give them a pass. NOM is soliciting a $10 donation while trumpeting "Free food!"
Effectively, Blount is donating their goods for retail toward Gallagher's fight to quash equality.
No free pass for Blount either.
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/10/2009 @ 07:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Congrats Mike! Amazing work yet again!
Posted by Amanda Kloer on 08/10/2009 @ 12:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you Tim Horton's and the gang at Change.org. Well Done. I am a big Tim Horton's coffee drinker and I thought for a minute I would have to give up Tim's coffee. What a relief :)
Posted by Manson Osmond on 08/10/2009 @ 02:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I just knew Tim Horton's would reconsider. I can't imagine what it would have been like to stop having my daily Timmys.
Thanks for the work change.org
Posted by Ricky Barnes on 08/10/2009 @ 02:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you for organizing this, and thank you to Tim Horton's for acknowledging the error and rectifying the situation. A job well done!
Posted by Estelle Weyl on 08/10/2009 @ 03:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you, Tim Hortons, for doing the right thing!!! I'm on my way RIGHT NOW to buy donuts ...
Posted by Marjorie Osterhout on 08/10/2009 @ 03:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is good news indeed....BUT. I think it doesn't address the damage already done (logos on fliers, etc. that are out.) My response to the company's response:
I have seen your response to the sponsorship in Rhode Island and I want to personally thank you for quickly responding to this situation.
While this says a great deal about Tim Horton's, I am disappointed that the response focused entirely on the sponsorship's lack of adherence to policy and failed to reiterate the company's non-discrimination policy.
It's my belief that this error in judgement by whomever initially approved this sponsorship is not only contrary to the sponsorship policy, but your non-discrimination policy as well. I would appreciate a response on this matter.
I also believe that it's imperative that a news release be distributed to the Rhode Island media disclosing the sponsorship error. Failure to do so allows the sponsorship to remain in place until that is done. As such, my purchase decisions will not include Tim Horton's until this happens.
Thank you.
Mason Byrne
Toronto, ON
Posted by Mason Byrne on 08/10/2009 @ 04:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A wise move by Tim Hortons, though I agree to what Mason mentions above. They must address the local media.
Posted by Gabriel Almada on 08/10/2009 @ 06:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Congrats all! The issue — and this website as well as its comments page (see link below) — made this evening's CBC NATIONAL NEWS.
Hope you didn't mind as several comments and/or names flashed up on the TV screen!
Cheers!
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/urge_tim_hortons_to_stop_supporting_anti-lgbt_group
Posted by David July on 08/10/2009 @ 07:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks David for bringing that to our attention. Here is the link for the online 'print' version of the story, http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/08/10/tim-hortons-marriage023.html
Posted by Dave Hershey on 08/10/2009 @ 08:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Way to go!!! :D
Posted by Moi Bloggg on 08/10/2009 @ 08:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Blount Fine Foods has withdrawn its support, though their withdrawal has not been publicized through their normal channels yet.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/blount-fine-foods-no-longer-feeding-r-i-anti-equality-rally/
Posted by Michael Airhart on 08/10/2009 @ 09:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
GREAT, GREAT work Michael, keep up the good work. And for any of you who agree that
FAUX aka FOX News is not Fair and Balanced see if you don't want to join this action too! I love it!
http://tinyurl.com/myylgw
Posted by Lee Dorsey on 08/10/2009 @ 09:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As a fan of their coffee and donuts, and as a former employee, I'm glad they did the right thing, even if it was only because they did so in compliance with their own policies.
Posted by Karen Clow on 08/10/2009 @ 10:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This decision by Tim Horton's is fine. They have customers on both sides of this debate to please and it is good business sense to stay out of it. I only hope the LGBT community isn't hypocritical and now go looking in the future for Tim Horton's to support one of their events. Shame on them if they do.
Posted by D Smythe on 08/11/2009 @ 04:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
RE: D Smythe wrote: "Shame on them if they do."
Obviously bigoted. What is wrong with some people? You see, it IS ALRIGHT for an organization to support pro-gay initiatives, but it is NOT ALRIGHT to support anti-gay movements because only the latter consists of discrimination, hatred, hate-speech, hate propaganda, etc., while the former does not. In fact, the former only wishes to put a stop to the goals of the latter.
It's crazy how some leave comments and are seemingly unaware, unconscious, or in denial about their blatant biases and obvious intolerance. That is scary!
Posted by David July on 08/11/2009 @ 05:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with you david BUT since tim hortons policy is to not cater to ANY political group then they would be hypocritical if they did support a political group...It wouldnt matter if that group was good or bad.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 08/11/2009 @ 11:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
So then what about a pro-straight rally? Would that be ok?
What about all that white pride stuff? And what about discrimination against people who discriminate?
This is why I lobbied against Catholic schools getting public funding years ago... either there's one public funded school system where religion has NO part except as a subject of study, or there's funding for ANY and ALL religious groups to have their own school system.
Apparently, logic just didn't seem to be part of the public's reasoning.
Posted by Miguel Augusta on 08/12/2009 @ 03:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Good news!
David july it's ok to support anti-gay initiatives because this is the United States Of America, after all we even let the Nazi' speak their mind...
But that doesn't mean the majority of sane people are going to sit by and let them run their bigotted and hatred filled agendas to succeed. Why don't we introduce a new save American Marriage bill, one that somehow keeps all the straight couples that get divorces together, otherwise it's really just a sham of a "movement".
Posted by Alex Montagna on 08/11/2009 @ 06:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
RE: Alex Montagna wrote "It's ok to support anti-gay initiatives because this is the United States Of America..."
Please note that we here in Canada also have, and believe in, FREE SPEECH -- unless it seriously affects the rights of others. Sadly, and in this area, your country is really lagging behind.
As I've said before, please note the following, something which you should aspire to (and believe me, it's inevitably coming your way!) ...
The Canadian Criminal Code, as amended, NOW INCLUDES the following provisions:
319.* (1) Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred of persons on the basis of sexual orientation where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two (2) years..."
More@ http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=127438949746
Posted by David July on 08/11/2009 @ 06:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thats all well and good mr. july but why limit it to just sexual orientation ?
Why not include transgenderism, race and all the other things that tend to get bigots riled up ?
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 08/11/2009 @ 11:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It does! The act was "ammended" to INCLUDE sexual orientation:
"In May 2004, the House of Commons and the Senate passed Bill C-250:
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), popularly known as Bill C-250, added penalties to the Criminal Code of Canada for inciting the hatred of persons on the basis of sexual orientation.
Prior to this amendment, the section protected only race, religion, ethnic origin, and colour, gender and disability. As with all Canadian legislation, this act has equal force in French in which it is called 'La Loi modifiant le Code criminel (propagande haineuse).'"
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 11:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Congratulations change.org- and thanks Tim Hortons !!!!!
Posted by Donna Patterson on 08/11/2009 @ 08:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Good on ya, Tims! For keeping Canadian morals in check. There's too much discrimination and hate groups in America. Thanks for NOT being a part of it.
Posted by T Fin on 08/11/2009 @ 09:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am heterosexual and I am also ver pro-gay. I would never deny any civil rights to a gay couple, having say that, I also think that marriage is between a man and a woman, and a christmas tree is a christmas tree, not a holiday tree. watering down our own concepts does not do anything for inclusion. Gay couples can have exactly the same rights in civil or religious unions than married couples, just call it something else, because it is something else.
Furthermore, I do not see why promoting these people's values is anti gay, i can promote christian values and my family values and not be antigay, can't I?
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/11/2009 @ 09:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
First of all mr. berlanga...Your talking out of both sides of your mouth here and it shows.
For example...How can you claim to be for civil rights for the homosexual community and not be for marital equality ?
No sir...It aint something else.
Marriage is marriage is marriage.
How do you consider promoting christian values sir ?
Why not just live as your christ has exhorted you to live rather than being like the pharisees and the scribes ?
Jesus would never have gone around trying to push his beliefs onto others and in fact, he clearly told his followers that if folks dont wanna hear it then the preachers needed to just walk away.
He would never have even considered trying to legislate it.
So...Again...How do you see yourself promoting your christian values ?
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 08/11/2009 @ 11:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks Dave for all your work on this.
Posted by Martin Martinez on 08/11/2009 @ 09:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This controversy that Tim Hortons found itself in was obviously the result of a local franchisee, not paying attention to the corporate guidelines out of Toronto. It also shows that the US is still mired in a 50's timewarp when it comes to social issues, Canada, Britian, Belgium, and the Netherlands have all moved towards equal rights to all their citizens, unlike the states, our societies have not suffered the wrath of god, which so many misinformed Americans think will happen if you allow gay marriage. Its odd I can remember back in the 80's gay rights in the states was so far ahead of Canada, now sadly we have left you in our dust.
Posted by Darrell Bateman on 08/11/2009 @ 11:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"just call it something else"
Why? Why, what compelling reason should our secular gov't have for having two terms to describe exactly the same situation, domestic partnership contracts?
"because it is something else."
No, it is really not, not at all. It is two people, decided to committ to creating a family unit that is, personally and financially interdependent. It is a contract, just a civil contract.
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/11/2009 @ 11:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dear Scott, two people decided to committ to creating a family unit interdependent is not a marriage, here in Canada you can do that with your mother, your auntie, your brother, to have benefits in case one dies and leave the other person alone (e.g. a niece living and taking care of her auntie, and at the same time depending on her financially), I just think that the case of calling a gay union a marriage is just demanding for the sake of demanding. I have as friend at least four gay couples, two are guys, two are gals, and none see a point on calling their civil union marriage, since they also see the need of respect the concept for heterosexual. Remember that for us, who see gay unions as something beautiful, also want respect for our own unions. I read the website of the organisation that promote marriage and I cannot see bigotry there, I can see why people may feel attacked but I do not think that is the intention of that organisation (I may be wrong), so I do not see why promoting the marriage is anti-gay, that is all.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/11/2009 @ 12:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Really mr. berlanga ?
Have you been to every christian site that speaks out against homosexuality and/or same sex marriage ?
If so then I know your lying...
Even so sir...Your beliefs about homosexuality and marriage are no longer in the majority and are becomming less so even as I type this.
Getting married aint just for the purpose of procreation or of having a family.
If it was then logicaly, a woman wouldnt be able to get pregnant outside of marriage and men wouldnt be able to sire children outside of it so we know right there that marriage aint just for that purpose.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 08/11/2009 @ 11:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Manuel Berlanga says "I just think that the case of calling a gay union a marriage is just demanding for the sake of demanding". I assume you are heterosexual?
So if you were to go & register for your own (heterosexual) wedding and are told, "no, asking for marriage is just too demanding, so you can have a straight union instead" you'd be okay with that, right? Hardly. You & your fiance would probably be incensed - and take as far as you could legally.
Posted by Jeff S on 08/12/2009 @ 10:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Or how about...
"I'm sorry, sir, people with a name like 'Manuel Berlanga' can only get a 'straight-union' in this country, but cannot get married. Please have some respect for teh integrity of people who aren't named 'Manuel Berlanga!'"
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 11:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
He he he, yes, I see your point, but, what about if I want to participate in Pride Day promoting heterosexual values? It is not the venue, some venues are for gay people, some for heterosexual people (bars, magazines). So, tell me, then, what definition of marriage would make homosexuals happy? a real definition, a real concept, that should be a good start.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 11:17AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What definition of marriage would make homosexuals happy? Easy. Look to Canada: "Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others." Not too complicated. Not too radical. Just, marriage.
Posted by Jeff S on 08/13/2009 @ 12:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The definition does not include words like love and partnership, tecnically, I can marry a friend for tax purposes according to that definition. Fortunately the word lawful excludes people marring their daughters and minors.
I am also glad they include the word Civil Purposes, that makes ME happy.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/13/2009 @ 05:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
1. We're discussing American laws, so I don't see how Canandian laws are relevant.
2. How is the religious right not demanding for the sake of demanding when they (apparently you included) demand secular, gov't contracts respect THEIR wishes about what terminolgy is used?
3. "also want respect for our own unions."
No, what you want it PRIVILEGE. You want the PRIVILEGED of owning the word marriage. You want others to have something else. Something everyone understands to be inferior, so yours is afforded more "respect."
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/11/2009 @ 12:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said mr. wooledge.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 08/11/2009 @ 11:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dear Scott,
Here in Canada, two gay persons can now *marry* in the very same way that straight people do, and I don't mean "creating a family unit," as Manuel Berlanga suggested above.
In fact, his entire paragraph conveys exactly what we have been trying to fight against, and can be summed up in one word—discrimination.
David July
Posted by David July on 08/11/2009 @ 12:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Are we discussing laws or the sponsorship of an even perceived as anti gay? I think you cannot call my attitude discriminating since I do not see the problem with same sex unions, and I think that we seculars also need to respect religious views. Marriage has been defined and we want to change the definition, is not a fight for a word, is changing the definition of a word. If Scott thinks that is inferior then that is not what I said but you are assuming that, as well as you assume that I want a "privilege". No everybody who disagree with us is a bigot or is attacking us, and I ask you do not declare I am discriminating for defending a concept I believe in. Why is OK to accept gay marriage but not OK to wanting to call it something else? Even if you do not agree with me, I think I am being very reasonable in stating my point. I had volunteer in the pride day in Toronto and in Gay rights in Mexico, and I still do not see the need to agree with everything, as you shouldn't 8)
Peace.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/11/2009 @ 12:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The only folks who have ever defined marriage was you fundemental christians...
And that definition is fine...For you.
BUT you have no right to force that definition onto those of us who dont define it that way just as you have no right to force your religious beliefs onto us non-believers.
One other thing sir...Not all of the christian churches agree with you on this defintion of marriage.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 08/11/2009 @ 11:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
One other thing I forgot to mention sir is that "seperate but equal" will never be equal.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 08/11/2009 @ 11:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Marriage has been defined and we want to change the definition, is not a fight for a word, is changing the definition of a word."
yes it is and why not? Marriage has been continually defined and redefined throughout the ages. Anyone who can't see that as a plain fact really needs to educate themselves more befored inserting themselves into a marriage debate. There was a time polygamy was common, but we have defined that out in America and most countries. There was a time when it was illegal for different ethnicities to marry. That required a fundamental definition change.
When you said this: " Remember that for us, who see gay unions as something beautiful, also want respect for our own unions."
It brought me to assume your perspective is one of defending privilege.
Perhaps I misread you. But I really don't understand how gay people getting married in some way undermines respect people would pay to heterosexual marriages.
The very concept presumes that homosexuals reaching parity with heterosexuals somehose "lessens" heterosexuals (by affiliation?).
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/11/2009 @ 01:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Timmy's is Canadian -where gay marriage has been legal for a long time and no discrimination on the basis of sexual identity has been enshrined by the Supreme court of Canada to be in the Chareter of Rights and Freedoms-- they have been good Canadian corporate citizens for a long time--committed to multiculturalism and equality--the just stepped in US poo poo by inexperience.
Posted by Eric Mendelsohn on 08/11/2009 @ 02:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you Tim Hortons for sticking to your policy.
I have religious and political interests which I do not and will not expect you to support.
People who are accusing you of being pro-gay are totally missing the point. Your policy makes sense in a business where all are welcome.
Individual employees and franchisees are free to support whatever they wish as private citizens but may not use the company name.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Birney-Smith - Dundas, Ontario
Posted by Richard Birney-Smith on 08/11/2009 @ 02:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Here come the Canadians! Maybe we should send more of our organizations down south...
I do not believe that Tim's had any choice in the matter. Even though the event is to be held in the U.S., Tim's is a Canadian organization, and accountable to the Canadian legal system, which dictates:
"The courts have accepted that section 15 is to be interpreted broadly, and that 'analogous' grounds, i.e., personal characteristics other than those listed, may also form the basis for discrimination against a group or an individual (Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia). In 1995, the view that sexual orientation is such an 'analogous' ground, and therefore a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Charter, was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan decision, discussed below [see link] under the heading 'Same-Sex Spouses.'" (http://parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/921-e.htm#adiscrimination)
and
"In May 2004, the House of Commons and the Senate passed Bill C-250: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), popularly known as Bill C-250, added penalties [including terms of imprisonment] to the Criminal Code of Canada for inciting the hatred of persons on the basis of sexual orientation. Prior to this amendment, the section protected only race, religion, ethnic origin, and colour, gender and disability."
Unless I were willing to be thrown in jail, I'd be apologizing too if I were Tim!
David July
Posted by David July on 08/11/2009 @ 04:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hooray for Tim Hortons, and hooray to you for quarterbacking this! The story showed up in my teeny small-town newspaper today, which is how I found your Web site.
There was a quote in the article by Chris Plante of the Rhode Island chapter of the intolerant "pro-marriage" organization, saying that it was wrong for a "small and vocal minority to stir up such outrage to (sic) an event on private property that is not inherently political or religions." What utter nonsense, and by the way, if it is a private event, they have no business soliciting fundraising donations posing as a non-profit charity...
Just for the record, I'm a straight, married mother of a 15- year-old boy, and I'm sick of these hate groups using these sorts of comnmunity "celebrations" as a beard for spreading their vicious bile.
Posted by Nancy Thompson on 08/11/2009 @ 05:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Nancy baby! I couldn't have said it any better myself!
Posted by David July on 08/11/2009 @ 05:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you Tim Hortons. We'll spend money at your stores next time we're back east.
I hope that you know how much this means to our community.
Thank You,
Michael C. McKeon
Los Angeles
Posted by Michael McKeon on 08/11/2009 @ 07:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you tim hortons.
Posted by Thomas McHugh on 08/11/2009 @ 11:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Bravo Timmys for sticking to your policy, and for having that policy in the first place! I was seriously considering switching from Timmys to Second Cup for good. now i don't have to! ;)
Posted by Jeanne Lee on 08/12/2009 @ 12:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am sad to see the intolerance of some members of the Gay community when somebody that is pro gay does not support 100% their point of view, and I do not understand why somebody should support everything that any organization says.
Mr McHugh is assuming that I am Christian when I am not, then he rambles about women procreating outside marriage which has nothing to do with the tread (Getting married aint just for the purpose of procreation or of having a family is a definition that you offered, not me), and say that I speak out of both sides of my mouth because, even that I support equal rights from gay couples I do not accept the term marriage for them. He tell me not to push my beliefs whilst he is pushing his. I haven't been in every Christian site, Mr. McHugh, I went to the site in debate and I did not find fault, by the way, if you been in that site you will discover is not talking about Christian values, just about faith, but I guess you just need to ramble against me. Separate but equal? When did I said that, Mr McHugh?
Mr Woodlegde says that I want a privilege and he put words in my mouth by stating "The very concept presumes that homosexuals reaching parity with heterosexuals somehose "lessens" heterosexuals (by affiliation?)", no my friend, that is not what I assume, that is what you assumed, I do not want a privilege, I think I want a distinction, and the gay community has very distinct icons, why the word marriage could not be a distinction of the heterosexuals as "pride day" one from the gay community? Is really that bad? You said that I need to educate myself but you do not offer a definition of marriage that would be acceptable for you.
I think homosexual couples deserve the same rights as married couples, I also think that common-law couples deserve the same rights than married couples (Protection to a financial dependable partner, decision on medical situations, etc). I also think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is that bad? After reading the site of the organization that Tim's was going to sponsor, I do not see any anti-gay literature, if only, an opposition to use the word "marriage" for gay couples. If Tim would take his sponsorship back from an organization that support gay marriage, who here would be happy? It would be still an action dictated by their policy, but it lays in the "political correct" part of the spectrum so nobody would make any noise.
Now, if somebody points to something that actually shows this organisation as a hate, anti gay (no anti gay marriage, anti gay), I would take everything back.
A sane debate has a exchange of ideas, not personal attacks to people who think different than us. I may be wrong to my ideas, but I do not attack a person, just a concept.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 06:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
K, Manuel, Maggie Gallagher and her group, NOM cannot debate this issue without spreading lies. Go directly to her own site and you'll see she is a liar:
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm
"“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
LIE
“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”
LIE
“If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”
JUST ABSURD
“High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”
JUST ABSURD.
And for the record, I fully support NOM's right to have an event, and to tell these egregious and absurd lies. I really do, I really wish them well.
At the same time, if Blount Foods and Timothy Horton want to donate food that NOM will turn around and sell for $10, I am making it clear to them, I won't be buying anything from them. I see no compelling reason I should add to the profit margin of a company that supports liars who are fighting my right to equality. I am under no obligation to patronize those places, it is my own freedom to choose not to, and freedom to tell them why not.
And I did just that, and so did many others. Apparently, the message got heard, because they decided not to support the event.
All perfectly reasonable, civil and democratic, and with in the realm of perfect tolerance.
And--how about this--without lying?
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/12/2009 @ 07:57AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
""Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
LIE - I actually agree with them, you can see how I am treated just because I do not endorse gay marriage while I have participated supporting gay unions in Canada and Mexico and as a volunteer in Pride Day in Toronto in 2001, 2002, and 2003.
"Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids."
LIE - I do think kids need mom and dad, I am a divorced dad with a 4 years son, and I can see her mom cannot replace me, neither I can replace her, we are complimentary. Does a same sex couple can fit the two roles? maybe, I do not know enough, but for my experience I see men and women are different and needed roles models, I may be wrong.
"If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists."
JUST ABSURD - Really? Why then everybody is slamming at me because I think so?
"High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it."
-That I agree is Absurd.
You do not agree with them, but l wouldn't call them lies. Yes, you can oppose the ideas and boycott them, but then when a real bigot like that Croft wants to boycott some organization that support gay marriage, then you should be fine too.
By the way, it is a lie that they want to sell the coffee for $10.
I agree with the main message that "People have a right to live as they choose, they don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us", does that make me a bigot? I hope not, my gay cousin wouldwhack me in the face, same from my gay friends whom I like very and who are stable couples, more than I can said about myself. In any case is a difference of opinions, and I like to think that i can express my views in this forum without being attacked personally (you can still whack my ideas, that is perfectly fine)
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 08:17AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh, I forgot to add that I think that the weakest point in NOM's position is that gay marriage is a threat to marriage. I think is not, and I agree that all the religious wording should be removed, then again, you can support a cause without agreeing 100% on all that everybody says.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 08:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
""Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
LIE - I actually agree with them
And as my own senator once famously said:
"You have the right to your own opinion. You do not have the right to your own facts" -Daniel Patrick Moynihan ...
You may agree with it, But that statement is factually untrue, absolutely, demonstrably a lie. And I support your right to agree with it, absolutely. You can also agree with people who think the world is flat and the tooth fairy will give you a dollar for every tooth you put under your pillow. That is absolutely your right to express that opinion.
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/12/2009 @ 08:49AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage." LIE - I actually agree with them, you can see how I am treated just because I do not endorse gay marriage
Then you agree with their lie. Because it is a flat out lie. No, Churches would not be forced to endorse gay marriage or lose their tax exempt priveledges, or be forced out of public parks.
Has that transpired in Canada since gay marriage became legal?
And spare me your "see how I'm treated?" martyr complex. You've been engaged in debates, and your opinions have been challenged, and your facts corrected. How you have be treated badly? Oh my god, someone suggested you were discriminating?! That's about the harshest treatment I've seen you endure.
And you can stop with the I have gay friends lines. No one cares.
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/12/2009 @ 08:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Good point about no one caring, you are right that I should not point that out. But you assumed I want privileges and told me I need to educate myself, and somebody else called me a fundamental christian, but that is ok because I know I am not. My opinions have been challenged but I do not see my facts corrected, and sarcarsm is also a wat to attack. Anyway, I made my point, if you do not buy it or disagree that is ok, I gladly answer in private for now on so I do not look like a martyr wannabe.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 08:50AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You said some pretty offensive things, you shouldn't be surprise people if you get push back. Most offensive to was the point you never explained how legalizing gay marriage would somehow disrespect heterosexual marriage:
You wrote:
"Remember that for us, who see gay unions as something beautiful, also want respect for our own unions."
I don't know how or why you have the idea gay people don't respect your unions.
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/12/2009 @ 09:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I just want to think as marriage as the union of a man and a woman, that is all, and I think the word has a lot of emotional baggage for a lot of us. What offensive things did I said? I see marriage as a heterosexual institution, quite imperfect but still an institution, and I think is fair to say so, even when marriage has so many defects like forced marriage, polygamy, and child marriage in some cultures, and those are different issues to attend. If I offend somebody by stating that, that is not my intention.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 09:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I find it interesting, and I'm sorry to say, hypocritical (I know you'll consider that an insult, but it's how I see it) that upthread you said: "I just think that the case of calling a gay union a marriage is just demanding for the sake of demanding."
But when challenged on why the secular laws of the United States should not be changed, you can only state because these laws should respect YOUR personal and religious beliefs, regardless of how those laws affect others who do not share your personal and religious beliefs.
"Separate but equal" never is. We can point to that as an empirical fact, in our own country and many others.
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/12/2009 @ 10:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Is not my personal belief, is the status quo, and the current law, is not my personal preference.
And I wonder why you think I am religious when I am actually not.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 11:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Inevitably, this will all boil down to religion--as usual!
The reason gay marriage is a problem for Christians and Catholics (among others) is because "the gays" are a problem for Christians and Catholics -- in spite of those who say otherwise -- and who, incidentally, have been shown to have a lower I.Q. than your average American (sorry Americans)!
Religion is THE problem, and so many people are finally coming to terms with this. In Canada, freedom "of" religion is analogous to freedom "from" religion. Thus, the ability for the religious to press upon others their views is actually more limited than you might think.
The number of practicing Christians and Catholics is regrettably, and negatively, correlated to the advancement of gay rights, and is very obvious.
As a reminder, note that many people now know that "Christianity, a [delusional] mind-virus long given privileged and undeserved immunity against criticism, subverts science, fosters fanaticism, encourages bigotry, and is a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence."
Just sayin',
David July
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 09:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Note: Where I said, "... and who, incidentally," I meant to say " ... who, incidentally...."
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 10:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Manuel Berlanga's posts come down to one thing. He wants to discriminate. Marriage will always be wrong for Gays as it will make him feel less of a married person if is or should marry someone.
That's hardly a rational thought. The same argument allowed for Blacks to sit at the back of a bus, use separate bathrooms and swimming pools. It seemed to make some white people feel better and above someone, namely black people.
I'm not suggesting this person is racist, just pointing out that there is always a way to be irrational when it comes to recognizing someone else's attempt to exercise of their rights.
The other arguments he has posted are straw men. The idea that if Gays are permitted to marry then clergy will be forced to marry them comes from those in conservative religious circles as an attempt to inflame peoples passions.
No clergy or religion in Canada is compelled to perform marriages to anyone, let alone same-sex marriages. The Canadian law ensures that clergy or religions opposed to same-sex marriage for any reason can not be compelled to provide them.
Same-sex Marriages in Canada have been happening for several years now and guess what. No clergy or religion has performed a wedding for a same-sex couple or anyone else for that matter, that they did not want to perform.
Posted by Ricky Barnes on 08/12/2009 @ 11:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If for you discrimination and distinction are the same, and preventing two people to sit together in a bus is just as bad as not wanting to change the meaning or a word, then I have nothing more to comment.
I did not touch the fact of clergy marrying anybody, I talked about supporting, not performing, even I know the difference.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 11:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've noticed Manuel, your replies in this thread have consistently focused on picayune details, ignoring your points have been obliterated.
Canada has experience no examples of clery being compelled to support gay marriage. It's a red herring you and the National Organization of Marriage are happy to repeat.
It's akin to fearing the Catholic Church is vulnerable to being persecuted for not performing Jewish ceremonies.
It hasn't happen and ain't gonna happen.
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/12/2009 @ 02:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am sorry, since English is my third language, I am not sure what you meant by picayune and obliterated, but I never mentioned churches needing to perform gay ceremonies, actually, I have not mention religion at all, and I think anybody that can read English can see that.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 06:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Manuel,
Didn't you earlier send me a private message asking me to...
"Get your Oxford, look for the word 'prejudice', then look for the word 'distinction' and then 'custom'. I like the definition of marriage as it is..."
Well, in case you've lost your copy, here you go:
O·blit·er·ate
(transitive verb)
Definition:
1. destroy utterly: to destroy something so that nothing remains
2. erase or obscure: to erase or obscure something completely, leaving no trace
Pic·a·yune
(adjective)
Definition:
1. trifling: of very little importance
2. small-minded: tending to fuss about unimportant things and to be childishly spiteful
Cheers!
David July
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 08:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Manuel,
Coincidentally, isn't it interesting to note that each of the words above can have two (2) possible meanings?
What is it you were saying about the meaning(s) of marriage?
David July
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 11:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, that is what I understood, but since my original statement was quite simple and you started to point to meaningless facts and taking NOM's FAQs out of context, I though that you wanted to go into picayune details, that is why I went there; another reason is that somebody told that I was a fundamental christian (forgetting that other religions hang up gay people from cranes) when I am not.
The meaning from marriage in Oxford is
marriage
• noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.
- PHRASES marriage of convenience a marriage concluded primarily to achieve a practical purpose.
- ORIGIN Old French mariage, from marier ‘marry'
But if you want to go to second definition, you can marry an object, and of course is used as synonymous of pairing, like pairing a cup and a dish.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/13/2009 @ 05:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The point, Manuel, is that words can have multiple meanings, and that meanings can change over time (as they do), and/or sometimes a third or fourth meaning (or more) is added.
David
Posted by David July on 08/13/2009 @ 07:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Here's the definition that I found in my CANADIAN dictionary:
Marriage
(noun)
Definition:
1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
2. specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse
They have a happy marriage.
3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people
4. marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock
5. union of two things: a close union, blend, or mixture of two things
Civilization is based on the marriage of tradition and innovation.
6. card games king and queen of same suit: in card games such as pinochle and bezique, a combination of the king and queen of the same suit.
[13th century. < French mariage]
Posted by David July on 08/13/2009 @ 07:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Note that there are six (6) meanings above.
Clearly, card games such as Pinochle and Bezique are prejudiced and bigoted, respectfully, and it is expected soon that an amendment will be made to include a combination of the king and king, and queen and queen, of the same suit. (I'm just joking!!!)
Laughing,
David
Posted by David July on 08/13/2009 @ 07:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And J and J!!! 8)
or J and K... he he he
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/13/2009 @ 08:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Manuel Berlanga wrote: "[If] preventing two people to sit together in a bus is just as bad as not wanting to change the meaning of a word, then I have nothing more to comment."
If you prevent two people from sitting together on a bus because you are discriminating, and if you do not want to change the meaning of a word because you are discriminating, THEN OF COURSE BOTH ARE JUST AS BAD! HELLO!?
Manuel is unaware of the fact that he is prejudiced, something that happens a lot, and scares the hell out of me!
Have you heard of Harvard's free, online implicit association tests? I suggest that many should google it, and start learning more about yourselves: Prejudice, in varying degrees, is something that we all have, and should work to minimize. Moreover, internalized homophobia and/or homo-hatred in gays is also quite common. Tell that to your "gay friends," Manuel.
Sincerely,
David July
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 01:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"This IAT requires the ability to distinguish words and symbols representing gay and straight people. It often reveals an automatic preference for straight people relative to gay people."
at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/canada/selectatest.jsp
Being straigh, I think I will prefer straigh symbols, I do not see the news there, is that what you meant?
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 01:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The key word here is "implicit," and "automatic preference" is not referring to "sexual preference," which isn't a preference at all, by the way—hence, "sexual orientation."
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 02:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What I am trying to subtly tell you is that, according to Harvard's IAT, if your result were "NEUTRAL" or "NO PREFERENCE," then you are probably not prejudiced.
However, if your result were "SLIGHT," "MODERATE," or "STRONG" preference for straight people, then...
GUESS WHAT, BUDDY?
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 03:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I got neutral, but wow, the test takes forever!
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 06:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Cheater! ;)
How many times did you perform the test? I believe that you're only supposed to do it once (over a certain period of time) and/or very fast (i.e., "as fast as you can"), or risk manipulating the results!
In addition, I wasn't there to supervise the taking of the test either, and given your previous statements and apparent discrimination, do you expect that I should take your word for it!?
I made the suggestion earlier to help you learn a bit about yourself because you seem unaware of obvious discrimination you displayed in other posts.
For now, congratulations (LOL), good luck addressing your other suspicious points, and all the best!
David July
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 07:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, you think I am discriminating, I think not agreen 100% with the gay movement is not, and I also think that Bush was wrong when he said "either with us or against us". Remember, not because some people do not agree with you that make you a prejudice, I could say the same from anybody that does not agree with me, and of course that is just silly
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/13/2009 @ 05:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ok I dont want anyone to get me wrong here, but if the lesbian and gay and bi community were to host and event and wanted Tim Hortons (example) to sponsor it, would you then say they were being discriminatory if they said no? or if they did say yes and then the anti-gay marriage people complained and they pulled out of your event would you be so happy. I'm all for equal rights between homo and hetero groups but sometimes I think the groups who are fighting for the rights, forget what we all have a right to our own opinions. Just because I agree with gay marriage and equality doesn't mean that everyone should have to agree with me. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything, and all opinions should be considered.
Posted by Heather Gallacher on 08/12/2009 @ 01:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Heather,
In Canada, people do not have a right to their own opinions if they are expressed and they affect the rights of others (see my posts above). Tim's is a Canadian organization, and is accountable to the Canadian legal system.
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 02:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
So are you saying gay people don't have the right to tell Tim Horton's they will stop buying TH's products if TH wants to make in-kind donations to groups that are fighting our rights?
As far as your hypothetical goes, we're pretty used to companies turning down our requests for sponsorship. I don't begrudge any business the right to decline sponsoring a politcal activity. Most consumer goods and services have policies against it. As TM actually does (they violated their own sponsorship policy by signing on to this event, which is why they pulled out).
Posted by Scott Wooledge on 08/12/2009 @ 02:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
David, Tim Horton's is incorporated in the USA as a separate entity, (and this is my field of expertise), so, Tim Horton's in USA has to follow not Canadian, but USA's laws.
By the way, Tim Horton's is owned by Wendy's.
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 06:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Manuel, "In June, the company filed a plan with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to become a subsidiary of a firm incorporated in Canada."
So one way or another, support of anti-gay initiatives is a problem for Tim Hortons. Further, we now know that the U.S.-based, state-wide or "regional representative" who authorized the sponsorship violated Tim's own policy against it.
Posted by David July on 08/12/2009 @ 07:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm sorry boys and girls, but Manuel isn't as bad as y'all think he is.
I honestly couldn't care less what they call the institution, since it's failing miserably at that. What it is, and ALL it is, is a public show/party and business agreement/treaty signing ceremony, representative of what should ALREADY be FELT in the HEARTS of those two people.
And speaking of two people... how about this? Would y'all be ok with sayyy... me getting married to 2 or 3 girls? I mean, if they're bi and love each other and me and I love all of them... well you'd be all for that right? And it should be called 'marriage' too right?
OH yes... and please, PUH-LEEZE stop acting as though gays/lesbians/et al don't ever discriminate. I was one of the FIRST people at the FIRST parade in my little burg and it was incredible. BUT... in the years since I've heard ENDLESS complaints about how Pride was so much cooler before 'straights' started hanging out at the parade/events. On top of the fact that more than a few don't want me going in to 'their' bars with a few friends be they gay or straight (interestingly, they're more ok if the straights are female than if they're male... on top of everything, gender discrimination!!! lol).
I have on more than a few occasions actually, honestly (I'm putting the emphasis because at the time I was simply stunned at the hypocrisy) heard gay people, some whom I knew and others I didn't, RAIL against bisexuals saying it was all bullshit, they're just sluts etc etc etc.
Boils down to this folks.... everybody discriminates. EVERYBODY. But y'know what? If it's just you calling me names under your breath to your friends, what the fuck do I care? Now, you want to screw with my rights regarding life, health, family or livelihood? Then we're gonna have a problem.
SO... don't wanna call my MFFF hookup a marriage? Short response is fine, GFY and LOL. As long as I'm afforded the same rights as the rest of the married folk, call it what you will, WE will call it whatever WE want too. And if some people try and make whatever name THEY assign to it a derogatory term that makes its way into the lexicon... well... it speaks more to their character than anything else.
The whole idea that the definition of 'marriage' or 'family' is so rigid and set in stone and that we're all gonna eventually have to figure out a unilateral meaning... c'mon guys... everybody has their own reality and as long as it's *mostly* common, we can stumble and debate over the details while sharing a drink and a smile, don'tcha think?
I mean as long as nobody gets shot or some shit, can't we all just relax a bit?
OH yeah... well done Tim Horton's. Making mistakes happens all the time but it's the REAL men and women who sit up when they do notice and admit they fucked up and then try and set things right asap.
Posted by Miguel Augusta on 08/12/2009 @ 03:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
LOL Miguel. Nice rant! But I do understand the frustration and agree with much of what you stated.
As to your question And speaking of two people... how about this? Would y'all be ok with sayyy... me getting married to 2 or 3 girls? I mean, if they're bi and love each other and me and I love all of them... well you'd be all for that right? And it should be called 'marriage' too right? I say go for it. HOWEVER, there are very real consequences in a polygamous relationship.
For example, suppose one of the spouses is injured to the extent that medical decisions need to be made, who of the other 3 would make those decisions? Democracy rules I guess?
If offspring is produced by all three females, then shared custody (upon a potential divorce) could come into question as those children would know all four individuals as their parents.
Tax benefits would likely be restricted to one set of spouses, not multiple - therefore you'd have an entirely different set of legislation that would need to be enacted to represent your family unit.
These are just a few examples of legal problems that may be introduced if we were to pursue polygamous marriage in this country.
I'm sorry that you have had such a rough time with the LGBT community as I haven't seen many problems here in San Diego, but when I do see discriminatory behavior I try to end it as quickly as possible. You are right though, we all discriminate, we are human, there is no way around that beyond altering the behavior itself.
Everyone on here knows which group I discriminate against the most. However, people I have met on here (among other places) have helped me become more tolerant. I do know however that it will take me a long time to get over that prejudice because every time I think I'm getting better about it, some new story comes out, gets my tail-feathers all riled up, and then I revert back to my original perspective (at least until I calm down.)
Anyway, yes THs AND Blounts Fine Foods deserve kudos for pulling their support.
Oh and yeah, most of us CAN discuss and debate over a drink and a smile. :)
Posted by Dave Hershey on 08/12/2009 @ 03:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
OH yes... and the reason the idea about people who believe kids need moms and dads being treated like bigots and racists is absurd is only because they didn't need any kind of legal stuff to happen to start doing it. It happens already.
I think Manuel was actually responding to that and not the crap about the denial of parkland etc.
And the real truth is it's all just about lack of communication and listening skills. What people mean to say (and they're right) is that kids need strong positive male and female influences. It's only logical. That provides balance. MUST it be a mom and a dad? Christ you better hope not or we're all in big trouble down the road.
It used to be that the community raised the child. We should probably spend more time working on that concept than debating the moral or emotional definition of a word that really should only be debated on it's legal effects.
Posted by Miguel Augusta on 08/12/2009 @ 03:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh, I should have mentioned that I don't see Manuel as rigid as others think he is.
Do I agree with his view that marriage should not be expanded to include same-sex couples who wish to enter into the institution of marriage? Absolutely not!
My question would be, why set up a completely separate CIVIL institution which would cause our government to become even more inefficient than it already is?
By creating a second institution, all subsequent measures that alter one, would require another measure to alter the other. For that matter, what would prevent a new administration from coming in and saying okay, we are going to extend a new benefit to marriage but not civil unions? By having two separate institutions, there is nothing that could prevent that from happening.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 08/12/2009 @ 03:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with Dave, there is a real danger with two separate institutions when new legislation is being introduced, that only fact makes me rethink my position, given the fact that Governments in Mexico, USA, and Canada are quite inefficient already...
Posted by Manuel Berlanga on 08/12/2009 @ 06:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks Manuel.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 08/12/2009 @ 06:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As a gay Californian married to a Canadian (pretty sure he's gay too), and spending 6 months a year here in Canada between Toronto and Bancroft, we buy a LOT of Tim Horton's coffee and snacks when in route and about town. We will continue our patronage and we both thank you for doing the right thing.
Posted by Steve Ryan on 08/16/2009 @ 07:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is great news.... And online petitions does work.... As long as people do not give up on fighting for the correct cause.
Peace
Posted by Lara Nunes on 08/29/2009 @ 11:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.