Some CEO's and their views and donations on Gay Issues.

In light of the Chik Fil A situation, here is an article on some other CEO's and their views and donations on gay issues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/executives-same-sex-marriage_n_1756707.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices#comments

Here are Ann Coulters words two days after the Lewinsky Scandal broke.

""On Friday, 1/23, two days after the Lewinsky story broke. Ann Coulter, a regular panelist on the CNBC show "Rivera, Live!" was asked by Geraldo Rivera if she thought it was "sleazy" that Monica Lewinsky was detained by the prosecutors for "eight to nine hours without an attorney present." She responded it was not as bad as "the President of the United States using her to service him, along with four other interns."""

Yet here is how Coulter reacted to harrassment allegations against a republican candidate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM1KbjMWcgs

So her immediate response with Clinton was to believe the worst of the scandal yet with Cain it is supposedly outrageous that this is even being talked about and is akin to a lynching.

THE TOP TEN REASONS TO MAKE GAY MARRIAGE ILLEGAL

This one is for the Mormon and Catholic churches for broadcast at the next sermon.

THE TOP TEN REASONS TO MAKE GAY MARRIAGE ILLEGAL

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed, like many of the principles on which this great country was founded: women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour, just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, because our orphanages aren’t full yet and the world will implode without more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society, and we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Other Religious Leaders Call Out The Catholic Church

After threatening to discontinue their social services through Catholic Charities because of the same-sex marriage bill in Washington D.C, other religious leaders are calling out the Catholic church for their disgraceful actions.Reverend Dr. Dennis W. Wiley, Pastor of the Covenant Baptist Church just released the following statement:
“Yesterday, the leadership of the Catholic Church made clear that they are choosing a cynical political ploy over their call to serve the neediest among the community.
"Members of the Church hierarchy announced that they will prohibit Catholic Charities from providing services to D.C. residents if the D.C. City Council decides to recognize all married couples as equal under law. If it indeed takes this step, the leadership of the Catholic Church will be turning their backs on thousands of D.C. Catholics and other D.C. residents who embrace all of our neighbors and seek to provide for them in times of need.
“The Catholic Church hierarchy is at a crossroads: they must decide whether they are in the charity business for charity's sake, or if imposing their will on the D.C. City Council and the citizens of the District is their primary interest.”

Is SkyWest Airlines Discriminating Against Gay Employees … Because of Mormon Rules?

Is SkyWest Airlines Discriminating Against Gay Employees … Because of Mormon Rules?



Gilbert Caldwell and David Farrell are one of those rare species: a legally married couple under California state law. (Together they represent 0.0055556 percent of their kind.) Together for three years and domestic partners since 2002, they wed in June 2008, before Prop 8 shut things down a year ago this week. So how come Cadwell, 56, isn't able to offer Farrell, 72, free flights on the airline SkyWest, his employer that offers that very perk to hetero married couples?

Good question! And it's one this duo want answered, since state law requires legally married gay couples and domestic partnerships to be treated the same as hetero married couples in things like housing, insurance, and, yep, employment.

Working for SkyWest since 2004, Caldwell, a baggage agent based in Palm Springs, is only able to score discounted flights for Farrell, but not free ones like he'd be able to if Farrell were his bride. Which has the couple weighing a discrimination lawsuit against the airline if it doesn't change its policy.


SkyWest, meanwhile, maintains that Farrell is Cladwell's "travel companion." You know, like carry-on baggage or a small dog. The airline also argues that its regional partner, Delta, refuses to grant equal benefits to gay spouses. (Caldwell sent both airlines letters asking for clarification.) Though as the Cladwell's Lambda Legal attorney Tara Borelli notes (and the SF Chronicle paraphrases), "SkyWest's explanation is hard to believe because Delta has a policy of treating its own gay and lesbian employees equally."

Now, it's a complete coincidence that SkyWest, which flies to more than 150 cities in North America, is based in the Mormon state of Utah, right? And that SkyWest's chief executive, Jerry Atkin, is a LDS member himself? Not that we're insinuating all Mormons hate the gays, but a top businessman dubbed a "famous Mormon" would, seemingly, subscribe to the church's anti-gay marriage stance.


UPDATE: Queerty checked the database of Prop 8 donors, and what'd we find? A $5,000 contribution from a an attorney named J. Ralph Atkin from St. George, Utah, where SkyWest is based. (The donation to ProtectMarriage.com was recorded Oct. 28, 2008.) And just who is J. Ralph Atkin? Oh, just the founder of a little airline company called … SkyWest. He retired as CEO in 1991; the company was taken over by Ralph's nephew. His name is, oh, right, Jerry Atkin. Ah, it all makes sense now. (To be clear, Jerry's own name didn't turn up in the donors database.)

http://www.queerty.com/is-skywest-airlines-discriminating-against-gay-employees-because-of-mormon-rules-20091102/

Logo gets it's first show really worth watching

Ok, so you're tired of waiting for Project Runway to come back, and you're sick of the untalented lumbering mental cases on America's Next Top Model? Well Problem solved.....check out "Ru Paul's Drag Race" on Logo. It's the competitaveness of Project Runway combined with a bit of the CRAZY from Top Model and on the bright side, you don't have Tyra Banks or either of those Jay's. What you have is Ru Paul playing both Tyra and Tim Gun, give it a look.

Or better yet, check out Tom and Lorenzo's blog, add their bitchy judgement to an already bitchy and judgemental show.

http://tomandlorenzo.blogspot.com/

GM, we don't want to spend less, just don't let anybody know!

OK, so GM still wants their CEO to use the corporte jet at $40,000 a trip, they just don't want anybody to know about it.

Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., criticized by U.S. lawmakers for its use of corporate jets, asked aviation regulators to block the public’s ability to track a plane it uses.

“We availed ourselves of the option as others do to have the aircraft removed” from a Federal Aviation Administration tracking service, a GM spokesman, Greg Martin, said yesterday in an interview. He declined to discuss why GM made the request.

Hollywood homophobia has it's costs.

After donating $1,500 to the Yes on 8 Campaign, Film Independent's Richard Raddon has stepped down as director of the L.A. Film Festival.
Raddon had previously tendered his resignation and the board unanimously refused to accept it, but that bit of political theatre failed to mollify the gay community and the threat of a massive gay boycott turned out to be enough to pressure Raddon to resign for real this time.
A-List gay Hollywood was divided on the issue, according to Queerty, with older directors like Bill Condon arguing that those who donated to Prop. 8 saw it "not as a civil rights issue but a religious one. That is their right. And it is not, in and of itself, proof of bigotry" and younger, indie filmmakers like Gregg Araki countering:
"The bottom line is if he contributed money to a hateful campaign against black people, or against Jewish people, or any other minority group, there would be much less excusing of him. The terrible irony is that he runs a film festival that is intended to promote tolerance and equality."
While conservatives will undoubtedly argue that the threat of boycott's (they'll probably term it something like "angry gay mob forces director from post") will have a chilling effect on those who would speak up with their voices or wallets against marriage equality, our rejoinder is, "Yes, that's the point."
People have a right to speak up and say what they want or donate to a cause, but with that right comes the responsibility to live up to the consequences of their actions. If publicly donating to a cause that stripped the civil rights of many of the people you work with and for makes those people not want to support you or the organization you run, that choice was yours, not theirs. It was Raddon, not the gay community, that put the L.A. Film Festival at risk of a boycott and so, today's resignation was his decision and nobody else's.

Unlikely? More likely because she was a lesbian.

If you read part of this Newsweek profile on Rachel Maddow, it's interesting that somebody with her background would ever have been called an "Unlikely" candidate for TV....more likely they never thought she would suceed due to being unwilling to hide the fact of her lesbianism.


The greatest media-created cliché about Maddow has been that her "meteoric rise" has been almost accidental, that the truck-driving, yard-clearing, erstwhile activist became an "unlikely" star once the MSNBC heads recognized her potential. That's clearly a fiction.
Her résumé is impressive: she studied public policy at Stanford before winning a Rhodes scholarship to undertake a Ph.D. in political science. While completing her thesis, Maddow worked odd jobs—unloading trucks, landscaping, stamping coffee packets—before entering a competition on local radio. She was offered a job that day. In 2004, she got her own show on Air America, which still airs nightly. Before long, the cable-TV networks anointed her as one of their favorite leftist pundits, and not long after that, MSNBC star Keith Olbermann pressured his bosses to give Maddow her own show. Maddow's partner, artist Susan Mikula, believes the "unlikely" label is just code for lesbian: "She goes from Stanford to Oxford to activism to radio, then TV? What's so unusual about that? Is it because she is a gay lady?"