Perhaps as important (some would argue more so) then the legislative advancement of government-recognized spousal relationships (and accompanying government-provided benefits) are changes in the cultural sphere. And one undeniable signpost that's now been passed is this one, as reported by Reuters: Disney opens 'fairytale weddings' to gay couples:
The Walt Disney Co. has changed its policy to allow same-sex couples to have "fairytale weddings" at its U.S. resorts. Disney previously allowed gay couples to organize their own weddings or commitment ceremonies at rented meeting rooms at the resorts, but had barred them from purchasing its fairytale wedding package and holding the event at locations at Disneyland and Walt Disney World that are set aside specifically for weddings....
The "lavish wedding" option also includes a ride to the ceremony in the Cinderella coach, costumed trumpeters heralding the couple's arrival, and attendance by Mickey and Minnie Mouse characters dressed in formal attire.
Disney has come under fire from religious conservatives, including the Southern Baptist Convention, who have accused the company of promoting a gay agenda.
Chalk up another victory for capitalism as a force that quite rightly rejects discrimination as a detriment to an expanding profit base! But it's no joke: the more that the major nongovernmental institutions of civil society recognize gay unions as equivalent to marriages, the harder it becomes, in the long-run, for government (which is, clearly, not swayed by the profit motive but is responsive to organized reactionary voting blocs) to maintain its discriminatory policies.
21 Comments for “Embraced by Mickey, and the Profit Motive”
posted by Greg Capaldini on
I always liked Goofy as a kid, so now maybe I can have him as my best man.
posted by Bobby on
I’m glad Disney wasn’t forced to make this decision based on a lawsuit. I’m sick of lawsuits telling private companies what to do unless they do something really wrong like firing people for smoking outside.
posted by jomicur on
So now we have it in black and white. Bobby doesn’t believe that discriminating against gay people is “really wrong.” ‘Nuf said? It’s not that he hasn’t shown his true colors before, but he’s usually more subtle about it. (God, I just used the word “subtle” in a posting about Bobby. It must be an Easter miracle.)
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby doesn’t believe that discriminating against gay people is “really wrong.” ”
—Well, e-harmony.com doesn’t provide gays with dates, the owner admits he doesn’t understand same-sex dynamics, but what the hell, why don’t you sue him? He’s discriminating, we can’t have none of that.
posted by Audrey B on
Bobby, the owner of e-harmony.com is an evangelical Christan, and I think when he says he “doesn’t understand same-sex dynamics” he really means “I don’t like same-sex couples”. I could be wrong, and he certainly has every right to discriminate, however unfairly.
posted by Brian Miller on
Well, to be fair to both the right and the left, e-harmony’s not really looking for the business anyway.
And when you compare the small size of relationship-oriented gay sites like Lovetastic (not to mention the shrinkage of other ones like PlanetOut.com) to the overwhelming success and explosion of cruise-for-sex sites like Gay.com, I think the priorities of the “G” in “LGBT” are pretty clear!
posted by Brian Miller on
Sorry, truncated.
So gay marriage is an important priority to grass roots gay couples who were being completely ignored by the gay leadership and mainstream media — and it’s a cause that I subscribe to — but I suspect (through personal experience and the market success of gay sex sites) that the majority of gay men don’t. Or at the very least, they “go through a phase” involving mostly sex as self-expression first.
posted by Bobby on
Audrey, even if he was an evangelical, a lot of people don’t understand same-sex dynamics. Sometimes even gay people themselves don’t understand them. So I think his statement is fair.
Companies should not be forced to be gay friendly. If they want to embrace us, fine. But it should be their choice.
This is still a free country, goddammit!
posted by Craig2 on
I look forward to the inevitable influx of inbred Kansan Unspeakable Baptists of the Fred
Phelps variety with placards declaiming
GAAARD HATES TROUSERLESS DUCKS
/MICE WITH HIGH-PITCHED VOICES/
WHATEVER GOOFY IS…
Craig2
Wellington
New Zealand
posted by Alex on
Businesses like Walt Disney Corporation (with the exception of their public accomodation business) or E-Harmony are under no obligation to accept business from anyone at all. If they don’t want to provide services to gay people, black people, Christians, Muslims, Asians, dwarves, or anybody else they should not be required to by law or lawsuit.
Likewise friends and family of gay people, black people, Christians, Muslims, Asians, dwarves, or anybody else are more than welcome to highlight the moral shortcomings of the company and advocate taking business elsewhere.
A local christian printer refused a BGLT group’s business. I support that, because I also support a BGLT printer the right to refuse business from the Michigan chapter of American Family Association.
posted by ETJB on
“Businesses like Walt Disney Corporation (with the exception of their public accomodation business) or E-Harmony are under no obligation to accept business from anyone at all.”
Well, they certainly can not violate state and federal civil rights laws.
“A local christian printer refused a BGLT group’s business.”
This means that the state/city where he/she was at does not include sexual orientation in its civil rights code or its exempts; religious groups or small businesses.
posted by Brian Miller on
How far the self-appointed “leaders” of the gay rights movement has fallen when, as their Democratic Party allies launched a frontal assault on gay marriage equality in 2004 to appeal to the right wing, they’re left with little more than passionate arguments in favor of a gay guy’s “right” to force a bigoted printer to print his wedding invitations.
posted by Fitz on
Companies like Disney (Ford, Wall-Mart Ect) don?t fear Boycotts.. What they fear is the press and elite opinion. Focus on the Family can boycott anything they want and no one will really notice. But GLAAD or some other interest group on the left launches a charge that X or Y company is ?discriminatory? and the whole media lights up.
These companies aren?t exactly eager to give away prohibitively expensive ?partner benefits? even to legitimately married men & woman. Yet years back most of them bent over backwards to offer them to homosexual couples. The ?why exactly? of that story is one you wont be seeing on 60 minutes.
posted by Brian Miller on
These companies aren?t exactly eager to give away prohibitively expensive ?partner benefits? even to legitimately married men & woman. Yet years back most of them bent over backwards to offer them to homosexual couples. The ?why exactly? of that story is one you wont be seeing on 60 minutes.
Rather than engage in dark conspiracy theories (a favorite of the lunatic left and the revenant right alike), why not just recognize the fact that companies compete aggressively for talent?
Companies offer benefits and salaries to garner the best possible employees and gain a competitive edge — making them more successful and more profitable.
To that end, ALL compensation — benefits, salary, and other perks — are designed to lure the best employees.
The reason why companies like Apple led the marketplace in offering DP benefits was simple — lots of very talented gay employees were out there on the market, and Apple wanted them to work for Apple. By offering DP benefits, they landed quite a few of them and had an advantage over other groups that didn’t offer them.
Viewing DP benefits as “different” from salary (or especially murmuring dark conspiracy theory lines about “you won’t see that on 60 Minutes”) is just plain stupid. Companies pay more — in salary, benefits, and health care — to get better employees and be perceived as a better place to work by a larger subsection of the talented workforce they need to succeed.
DP benefits assure that employers are competitive with the 10% or so of the workforce who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender — and arguably *over*represented in the echelons of high achievement.
It’s a smart business move, just like Disney’s recognition of the GLBT marriage opportunity is a smart business move.
You’d think that “conservatives” lecturing us on the economy would understand this! 😉
posted by Fitz on
Such arguments (the cultivation of talent) always seemed rather lacking. Would not any company also risk loosing a segment of the Christian or Traditionalist ?talent? that out there? As both I can attest that my time at Ford motor company was strained due to the P.C. atmosphere on such issues.
I don?t know what to make of the express & implied gay superiority inherent in such arguments especially concerning ?creative? industries.
As I state above, my argument hinges on the media and elite?s and the environment they create around such issues.
They say: ?It?s not whether elites rule, but which elites.?
I?m not talking about a conspiracy; I?m talking about a consensus.
This is all the ?proof? I feel necessary to ground my contention that: ?What they fear is the press and elite opinion.?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63
There are any numbers of advocacy groups that want fortune 500 companies to meet this or that demand. (the list is endless) They fear the press & elite opinion and the power of government.
posted by Brian Miller on
Such arguments (the cultivation of talent) always seemed rather lacking.
Whenever anybody makes this declaration, I invite them to come work in my style, in my industry, doing what I do. Hop on a plane around the world at a moment’s notice, go to business meetings, be away from home for weeks at a time, spend 20 hours a day working some days, and spend the wee hours staring blearily at a computer screen to get something out to a client on deadline long after caffeine has kicked out.
Lots of employers want employees who do those sorts of things — and have the capability to do at least a passable job in delivering a finished product.
Few employees are willing to do those things.
Thus, as one who delivers an acceptable standard of work and regularly does those things, I’m a valuable asset.
You want me? Then you’ll offer benefits like health care for my family (including my partner), flex-time, telecommuting when I’m on the road, a paid cell phone, etc.
If you don’t want to offer those things, that’s your choice — I’ll see you on the other side of a bid as an employee of your competitor, and your competitor will win the project because they can staff it and you no longer can.
Wonderful things, these free markets. They give you far more power than government ever could — and despite the best efforts of Democrats and Republicans to crush them to meet their ideological fantasies, they ALWAYS win in the end. 😉
posted by Brian Miller on
There are any numbers of advocacy groups that want fortune 500 companies to meet this or that demand
And business reacts to those demands in a way to maximize profits. In a tough professional job market, where there’s less talent than there is demand for professional services, they’ll do what it takes to meet the needs and wants of potential employees.
Different competitors have different approaches, and they can ignore various groups if they want to. Just like ExxonMobil ignored their gay employees (by revoking health benefits) and lost talent, Ford can tell the AFA to stop trying to micromanage its gay marketing efforts.
The overall competitive dynamic will trend towards what makes the business community the most money — or delivers the highest returns. In a dynamic and competitive free market economy, with a competitive labor force, offering more benefits to employees (along with other compensation boosts) is a great way to differentiate oneself and most organizations that choose to do that improve their standing in the marketplace.
In contrast, pressure groups like the Republican-controlled AFA, who demand Ford abandon a key segment of their consumer base, tend to fail. Ford, Disney, American Airlines and other companies targeted by those groups do the math and figure out that losing the business of a few thousand gay middle-class drivers, theme park visitors and travelers is far more devastating than losing the business of 50,000 trailer-park sorts who will honor the AFA’s boycott. Those trailer-park sorts tend to drive used cars, don’t go to Disney, and fly Southwest (if they fly at all) and thus aren’t an important segment.
This is by no means limited to the right. Left-wing groups agitating for “social justice” often lose out as well, since their proposals demand that companies place themselves at a competitive disadvantage in order to meet a socialist ideological imperative that’s usually as financially suicidal as an ideologically conservative one.
And that, my friend, is why libertarianism endures as a vital part of the American psyche and economy through the centuries even as conservatives continue efforts to “redefine” themselves and leftists mourn the passing of ancient government institutions. 😉
posted by ETJB on
Ah Libertarinaism; let businesses do whatever they want, let rich people do what every they want and let the poor people feed their babies to the rich.
I remember asking a notable American libertarian about voting and election law. This person replied that voting really wouuld not be important in a Libertarian state and that perhaps it would be limited to people who owned property.
posted by Fitz on
This is very telling. First Brian Miller intentionally missies the point that the decisive factor in honoring this or that pressure group (gays or traditionalists) hinge not on numbers but on reaction from the press & elite opinion. (those with the biggest and most influential megaphone) (I demonstrate my point with a link by the public editor of America?s most influential paper.
“In contrast, pressure groups like the Republican-controlled AFA, who demand Ford abandon a key segment of their consumer base, tend to fail. Ford, Disney, American Airlines and other companies targeted by those groups do the math and figure out that losing the business of a few thousand gay middle-class drivers, theme park visitors and travelers is far more devastating than losing the business of 50,000 trailer-park sorts who will honor the AFA’s boycott. Those trailer-park sorts tend to drive used cars, don’t go to Disney, and fly Southwest (if they fly at all) and thus aren’t an important segment.”
This is total rubbish, no one can point me to any evidence that any company has that has been ?targeted by those groups do the math and figure out that?.? It number one reeks of gay superiority, & some strange yuppie ascendancy.
(this should be filed under)
Things gay rights supporters tell themselves to make themselves feel superior culturally & intellectually.
?losing the business of a few thousand gay middle-class drivers, theme park visitors and travelers is far more devastating than losing the business of 50,000 trailer-park sorts who will honor the AFA’s boycott.?
The Disney policy change effects an institution called ?marriage? ? The following is a list of how powerful and well dispersed those ?50,000 trailer-park sorts? must be. {talk about a conspiracy!!!}
57-43 = Oregon
59-41 = Michigan
62-38 = California
62-38 = Ohio
66-34 = Utah
67-33 = Montana
71-29 = Kansas
71-29 = Missouri
73-27 = North Dakota
75-25 = Arkansas
75-25 = Kentucky
76-24 = Georgia
76-24 = Oklahoma
78-22 = Louisiana
86-14 = Mississippi
56-44 = Colorado
63?37 = Idaho
74-26 = South Carolina
52-49 = South Dakota
82-19 = Tennessee
57-43 = Virginia
60-40 = Wisconsin
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t know what’s more satisfying to me as a Libertarian — the knowledge of the fact that the left wing and the right wing join forces to attack my party because it’s shining the spotlight on their dismal record of failure; or the amusement I get when a self-described “liberal” happily joins forces with a homophobic conservative “opponent” to keep the uppity Lib-fags down with tiresome “they want to feed babies to the dogs” platitudes that “someone once told him.”
As I’ve noted earlier, the anti-gay marriage laws weren’t passed by a majority, they were passed by a slim majority of the people who turned out to vote. Since average turnout was well under 65% in the average ballot race, the anti-gay referenda represent the views of about 1/3rd of (rapidly declining) theocrats and statists.
And yes, if they were an important market, Disney would be out of business along with American Airlines, Apple and other companies who have ignored the right wing’s bullying. Voting isn’t linked to economics, nor is it a sign of intelligence (as the electoral success of the parties that ETJB and Fitz represent clearly demonstrates!) 😉
posted by Brian Miller on
By the way, little boys, there’s nothing stopping you from competing with me in the free market other than your victimhood schtick (and laziness).
ETJB, you can move from the greater Fargo area (ahhh, the power of Google!) and try to pursue a career in an area where gay people are respected and where jobs pay well.
Fitz, you’re welcome to start a Christian international research company and turn down gay markey work and not hire a single gay employee — and then compete with me in the open market.
Neither one of you will, because you’re both looking for excuses for your own shortcomings and blaming everyone but the person responsible for that shortcoming — the person in the mirror.q