McDonald?s Caves In To AFA

[E.J.]

McDonald?s Caves In To Anti-Gay Group Demands

By 365gay Newscenter Staff

LINK

(New York City) The American Family Association is calling off a boycott of McDonald?s after the fast-food giant agreed to end its support for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

In addition, a company employee appointed to the chamber?s board of directors has resigned.

McDonald?s incurred the wrath of the AFA after it made a $20,000 donation to the chamber, and Richard Ellis, who until last month was vice president of communications for the chain, was named to the chamber?s

board of directors.

The company at first resisted AFA?s demands that it sever ties with the chamber. In a July response to the conservative group that fights LGBT issues nationwide, McDonald?s Global Chief Diversity Officer Pat Harris said: "We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share our belief that every person has the right to live and work in their community free of discrimination."

But now in an e-mailed memo to franchise holders, the company said it has dropped ties with the chamber.

"It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald?s remains neutral on same-sex marriage or any ?homosexual agenda? as defined by the American Family Association."

Richard Ellis is no longer with corporate headquarters. He is now with the company?s Canadian operation.

The e-mail said that Ellis stepped down from the chamber?s board "voluntarily."

"We appreciate the decision by McDonald?s to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations," the AFA said in a statement to its members calling off the boycott.

The AFA previously boycotted Disney for several year?s over its support for Gay Days at Disney World, although the company was not an official sponsor of the event.

It boycotted Cincinnati-based Proctor and Gamble over the company?s support for the repeal of a city charter amendment that prevented Cincinnati city council from enacting any laws that would recognize gays and lesbians.

The group boycotted Kraft for its support of the Chicago Gay Games and threatened to boycott Wal-Mart over its involvement with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

The boycotts resulted in little impact on the companies.

The AFA boycott of Ford was heralded as a success by the organization which noted that it had resulted in a drop in sales and share value. But most financial analysts said that Ford?s problems were really the result of vehicle designs that failed to impress the public.

The conservative Christian group launched a nationwide boycott of Ford in 2005 over the automaker?s support for LGBT issues, briefly put it on hold, and then reinstated it.

The AFA claimed victory when Ford began pulling its ads from LGBT publications, but industry observers and the company said the ad pullout was part of a downsizing of expenses.

[colinian]

Effectively immediately, Doug, Chris, Steve, and I will boycott McDonald's.

Colin

[Richard Norway]

Effectively immediately, Doug, Chris, Steve, and I will boycott McDonald's.

Colin

That's good Colin, on two fronts. The first is obvious, but the second is that McDonald's is not good for your figure anyway.

[DesDownunder]

It is against my Hippiness religion to eat at McD, KFC or other such franchises.

After the McLibel case I vowed never to go near their like again.

To see why I get upset I suggest you watch the DVD McLibel as well as the DVD called Wal-Mart, not to mention, Supersize Me. and The Corporation. These documentaries are expos?s of the franchise excursion into inhuman business practices. The fact they are so popular should shame us all.

My knowledge of these franchises is first hand. I resigned from Hoyt's cinemas in Australia because of their treatment of both staff and patrons. They told the staff that they wanted to run their cinemas the same way that McD ran their business.

Not everyone agrees with my view of them being inherently evil, but I now seek out genuine independent small eateries and other businesses wherever I can or wait till I get home and cook up something, usually in the bedroom, but I also have been known to cook in the kitchen.

I need a drink. (pity I don't drink anymore.)

[Tanuki Racoon]

Effectively immediately, Doug, Chris, Steve, and I will boycott McDonald's.

Since I never eat there unless I have no choice*, I will gladly join you.

* Like stuck behind security at an airport. And a 8 hour flight in my face. And even then after seriously considering....

[TalonRider]

About the only time I eat there anymore is when I'm traveling.

[rick]

Bye, bye, McDonalds (not that I do much business with you saturated fat merchants anyway).

Rick

[colinian]

What I've bought at McDonald's is their shake-it-up salad, and I put like 25% of the dressing on it. It's probably the healthiest thing they have on their menu. But no more for us. Boo, McDonald's!

Colin

[The Pecman]

Remind me to go to Burger King instead.

Bigoted bastards.

[colinian]

Remind me to go to Burger King instead.

Burger King burgers and fries are nasty. I prefer good quality (but more expensive) burgers and fries, like those at Fat Apple's in Berkeley and at Counter Burger and Fuddruckers. Pecman, there's a Fuddruckers in Sherman Oaks, not too far from Chatsworth.

Colin

[Tanuki Racoon]

Burger King burgers and fries are nasty. I prefer good quality (but more expensive) burgers and fries, like those at Fat Apple's in Berkeley and at Counter Burger and Fuddruckers. Pecman, there's a Fuddruckers in Sherman Oaks, not too far from Chatsworth.

I really liked you Colin, until you made this post. I think we just became mortal enemies.

How fucking DARE you compare Fat Apple's and Fudrucker's in the same sentence. It's not even close: Fat Apple's by a thousand furlongs....

[rick]

Now Wibby, temper, temper, temper....

Remember, he's still a youngun...

Rick

[Cole Parker]

I've never had Fat Apples, never heard of them in fact, so cannot hold an intelligent discourse on this, but when has that ever stopped me before?

Granted hamburgers are quite fatty, but being so proud of the fat that you include it in your name suggests they use extra fat to make their fatty Fat Apple burgers. I have had Fudruckers, once, and didn't detect the slightest bit of added fat. They got by with what was there intrinsically.

So, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils, and Wibby can sue me if he doesn't have a heart attack first, either from anger over someone disparaging his favorite fat vessel, or someone dissing his opinion on the matter, or from all the fat he's ingesting whenever he visits the Corpulent Pomme.

C

[Trab]

I haven't been able to eat anything in McD's for over 10 years. No idea why, but I get violently ill. Most others suck big time, but A&W has hot dogs that don't kill me (at least not quickly) and Arby's has nice roast beef, even if it is reconstituted. I only speak about these as they don't make me immediately ill.

[DesDownunder]

For me, any "food" that comes out of a franchised food operation is unacceptable because it is a franchise.

In Australia we still have independently owned businesses that make and sell their own hamburgers, pizzas and fries from scratch.

But why eat fatty food when the local Asian and Indian restaurants makes such fine food for less money than a Big Mac?

I have to subsist on $50 a week for food, so I can't afford to damage my wallet with fast food prices or my health with fast fat, let alone pay someone to fast franchise their staff into team slavery.

[colinian]

I really liked you Colin, until you made this post. I think we just became mortal enemies.

How fucking DARE you compare Fat Apple's and Fudrucker's in the same sentence. It's not even close: Fat Apple's by a thousand furlongs....

I agree with you. But consider the geographic location! You have to realize that Pecman wouldn't travel from Chatsworth to Berkeley or El Cerrito to eat at a Fat Apple's, though it would be a wondrous excursion. I had to consider what was available in the L.A. area, and I at least listed Counter Burger first. But the only place I could think of that's anywhere near Chatsworth with at least marginally edible burgers was Fuddruckers. I have relatives who live near Chatsworth, so I know that culinary desert moderately well.

Colin

[Jason Rimbaud]

I have to subsist on $50 a week for food, so I can't afford to damage my wallet with fast food prices or my health with fast fat, let alone pay someone to fast franchise their staff into team slavery.

Umm, 50 dollars a week? I don't know what kind of prices they have way over down there, but here in California, it wouldn't be possible to scrape by on 50 dollars a week. I get free food from my restaurant and I still can't get my grocery bill under a hundred a week. And I live by myself.

And so this topic won't be off, I haven't eaten a fast food restaurant in ten years. I try to support local business and abhor chain corporate places. I do go to Applebee's sometimes after work, but this is for very cold tap Foster's Beer and not for the food.

Jason

[The Pecman]

Burger King burgers and fries are nasty. I prefer good quality (but more expensive) burgers and fries, like those at Fat Apple's in Berkeley and at Counter Burger and Fuddruckers.

I allow myself one, maybe two burgers a week, tops. My preference is usually for Tommy's (a local LA mainstay), or the infamous In & Out Burger (1/2 mile from my house), but Wendy's is good, too. The french fries at In & Out are heinous, and I agree, the BK fries are inedible as well. Almost nothing is good at Carls' Jr., but I confess to trying a $6 burger once in awhile. The nearest Fudruckers that I know is about ten miles south, over at Universal Studios. A BK Whopper ain't bad. And even if I hate the company, McDonald's french fries are the best in the world.

The fast food I do about three times a week is Subway -- usually a tuna, or a ham & cheese, or a chicken sandwich are good for lunch. But I try to keep my calories under 2000 a day, except for the occasional protein shake. (And by that I mean MetRx, as opposed to anything natural.) I only do two meals a day, and go for dinner salads at least twice a week.

[JamesSavik]

McDonald's food is nasty. Haven't eaten there, except for breakfast, for years.

Now I'll write it off completely and let the Aryan Families Association have the damned place- may their black hearts fill with unsaturated fats and cholesterol goo.

May the raccoon of happiness get explosive diarrhea in their car and difficult to find places in their house.

[Tanuki Racoon]

May the raccoon of happiness get explosive diarrhea in their car and difficult to find places in their house.

You made me laugh.

PS: Check your shoes before you put 'em on next time, bud.

[colinian]

I detest all those right wing, so-called-Christian, bigots. These people are dangerous and all they say and do is perpetrated in the name of religion. Most of our troubles are religion orientated in one way or another. They should all be shot with sh*t.

When you also take into account the rabid rantings of that Kern freak I wonder just how many gay deaths will or have resulted from these hate mongers and their diatribe.

I admire your bill of rights etc but as I've stated in the past, if that happened here (England), the perpetrators would be prosecuted under our equal rights act. Its a shame that a similar law couldn't be enshrined within your constitution. It doesn't stop hate crime but it certainly puts a lid on that sort of crap being spouted publicly.

("End of rant")

Rick

Rick,

IMO, there's a four-letter word that perfectly defines what these anti-christian people do: hate. They proclaim their love of God, but hate anything that they don't agree with or understand.

Colin

[Trab]

I don't know that it is fair to blame the English (Victorian) for this. It is so obviously the Italians under the influence of the Vatican. (Just kidding...it is much more universal than that, but I still can't think why.)

[JamesSavik]

I've expressed this opinion before but I cannot for the life of me believe that it is exclusively 10% of human kind who are gay.

It's not. Some of those very same AFA gomers spend their weekends getting smashed on whiskey and servicing truckers at rest stops. It makes them sing louder in choir on Sunday morning and lash out at the part of them self that hate later in the week.

If you look at our worst political enemies like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, they are trashy trolls that no self respecting gay would be seen with.

[DesDownunder]

I don't know that it is fair to blame the English (Victorian) for this. It is so obviously the Italians under the influence of the Vatican. (Just kidding...it is much more universal than that, but I still can't think why.)

The core of hatred that manifests itself in attempts to control and have power over others is a result of not learning to love oneself.

You could say trust oneself or even have faith in oneself, but for most people these are phrases with connotations of selfishness or unfounded reality. (Those are a more extended discussion.)

This is where the problem arises, for while it is correct for people to have the freedom to believe what they want, if that belief is in a thought, then such thought must be open to question. But I hear you ask, isn't all belief, a thought?

Well no it isn't. You can have a belief in what you have been told; the thoughts of others, or you can trust that your own perceptions of reality might be valid, might be open to scrutiny and to question your senses of objectivity and also humility. In short, your own experience, but you do have to be careful it really is your own.

People in certain parts of the world are taught to not allow their own self capacity to grow, reason, or to learn how to be objective, or how to be humble (without being meek). Objectivity and humility are the prerequisites for self respect and thus to be able to love. Without self respect the individual is open to being persuaded that the thoughts of others are sacrosanct, and if those others have accepted power over people as an acceptable alternative to love, then hate and not love will be regarded as the cultural standard that needs to be worshipped. (Power and love are mutually exclusive.)

Of course power like money, can be used for good, but so often they are sought for their own ends.

I am obviously not talking about the schmaltzy Hollywood love here, but of the love that comes with the maturity that is part of the natural growth of every human being's self respect.

Unfortunately many societies and groups have made the discovery of the love that respects oneself and thus respects others, as being a cultural taboo; or if you like, a wrong thought, a sin. They extend the thought that such love is an impossibility because hate is the normal domain of the human condition, when in fact it is hate that cannot coexist in the presence of love.

It is one of the confounding issues that people are taught by these power-mongers, that only hate provides self-respect, when in fact it is really a refuge in self loathing.

The test of any thought is to be found in asking if it will allow you to be free to respect yourself and thus be able to love.

Further reading: The Art of Loving, by Erich Fromm.

[The Pecman]

I've expressed this opinion before but I cannot for the life of me believe that it is exclusively 10% of human kind who are gay. I prefer to believe that if you accept that as a fact then its fairly obvious to any right thinking individual that there must only be 10% at the other end of the scale who are totally straight.

Kinsey and Masters & Johnson researched this for years. The usual thing I've read is that people can be classified if they're straight or gay based mostly on what they fantasize about while having sex (either with themselves or with other people).

By this definition, if a married guy is fantasizing about guys while having sex with his wife, then he's pretty much gay -- even if he's not actually having physical sex with men.

Sixty years ago (!), Kinsey defined sexual orientation on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being exclusively straight and 6 being exclusively gay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

I don't remember the specific breakdown, but the problem with trying to assign a specific number to people's sexuality is that I think the number changes depending on age and circumstances. I know of guys who were very much bisexual in their teens, and then became 99% straight as adults.

My argument is always, "in a desert island situation, I think 75% of most people would become bisexual if they had to." Even though I'm not into women, I have no problem believing that, if I connected to a woman psychologically, I could have sex with her if we didn't have a lot of other options (end of the world, desert island, etc.).

So to me, it's a moving target. I don't think there are necessarily a lot of "3's" out there. I'd say I'm a "5" on that scale, but could easily slip to a 4 or 3 under the right circumstances.