A reply to Barilla

Is Barilla off the hook?

I have received a reply to my blog about Coles advertising barilla. This is it;

"We are not a homophobic company. Take a look at the steps we've taken since 2013 if you'd like."

Now we cant blame Barilla for the short response as they responded on Twitter. They included a link to this Pro-Barilla article:

Human Rights Campaign says Barilla has turned around its policies on LGBT

 Now I'm going to try my best to ignore the tone of that article, it comes off a 'little disrespectful' towards the LGBT community, its nothing outright, just the phrasing and word use. It certainly wouldn't be the article i would send out if i were trying to convey sincerity, but there may be something lost in the translation which is why I'm giving it a pass.

Basically The article is saying that 'Barilla has stopped discriminating against LGBTI workers', which is awesome, but it should have been the default from the beginning. It should be the default for all businesses anyway. I applaud any company that doesn't discriminate, but after what Barilla said they need to do more than just stop discriminating against their workers.

The article also mentions a 'donation to the Tyler Clementi Foundation' which looks like a good cause. I am all for stoping bullying and homophobia, any steps towards reducing youth suicide are good steps indeed.
I am uncertain if this was a one off donation, i had a lot of trouble finding what charity's Barilla donate to or are partnered with. After the reply from Barilla i went looking again and still came up empty handed.

Donating money to worthy causes is again admirable but it is expected that a large company will do this as part of their corporate responsibility program. It doesn't go far enough in countering the discrimination and harm caused by Barialla's offensive comments.

That is where the article i was sent to ended, i did find on a Barilla related website that in 2014 Barilla did a REVIEW OF THE CODE OF ETHICS AND MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

While i thank Barilla for sending me that link, i had actually read that information in another article, before writing my initial blog post. 

I want to clarify that when i was offended by the Barila advertisement i did check up on Barilla when i got back home. I looked for three things.

My criteria:

1. Has Barilla extensively used LGBTI family's in its TV advertisements?
    
2. Has Barilla joined the corporate support for marriage equality?
   
   
3. Is Barillas website or 'printed advertising' very inclusive of LGBTI family's?

 Findings:

1. I could find no Barilla tv advertisements that were LGBTI inclusive. This should have been a no-brainier, this is essential to counter the comments that the Barilla CEO made. Every single Barilla tv spot should have LGBTI family's, I found none. Without doing this,it makes everything else seem extremely disingenuous.
   
   
2. I could not find Barilla among the company's that have pledged corporate support for marriage equality.
   
   
3. The only family picture i could find on Barillas website was the one below (fair use/review). Now the family shown could be LGBTI i suppose, a very masculine woman in a lesbian couple, or a very effeminate man in a gay male couple, perhaps one or even both of the adults are trans? 
   
   

   

   
   
   But even so that's not good enough, the couple needs to be obviously LGBTI to show that Barilla now includes us in its definition of family. Out of the one picture of family i could find, Barilla has failed to be inclusive. That is a 100% failure rate, i mean really, if your going to only have one family make it obviously LGBTI.  
   
   
   There was another possible couple in a Barilla related site, but honestly i could not determine if they were meant to represent mother and son or a couple, so i exclude them, and if we do consider them a couple, that is two non LGBTI family's out of two.
   
   
   Their Facebook page was also lacking in any noticeable inclusiveness.
   
   

That is why i wrote the blog post, that is why i am still boycotting Barilla. It is not about if they are being homophobic to their workers, it is about makeing amends for the harm they have caused, about the company promoting diversity instead of discrimination, and about proving that their definition of family now includes their insulted, scorned and rejected LGBTI customers.

 Now if i am wrong and my 'google-foo' has failed me, please comment and 'link me up' so i can write a correction.

One also wonders why no apology was given, a simple 'we are sorry for the offense we caused, we are trying to make amends' would have served them better as a reply. 

Also why was the CEO's 'terrible apology' removed from Facebook? 

Correction: I was originally unable to find the "apology' on Facebook and after a few of the external links i found showed "page not available" messages i wrongly assumed that the "apology" had been take down, this is not the case you can find it here: "Facebook Apology" My apologies for providing incorrect information.

I remain unconvinced; if you are also unconvinced, you could do some or all of the following;

• Don’t like the Barilla Facebook page.
• Like the Boycott Barilla Facebook Page.
• Don’t buy Barilla products, take up their challenge and "eat someone else s pasta".
• Let Coles know you don’t support homophobia and bigotry. You can do this on the Coles Website (you will need a receipt) and on their Facebook.
• Let Status Quo know you don’t support homophobia and bigotry, on their own website and on their Facebook page.
  
  
  
  
  

  Thank you for supporting equality

   

  A friend said to me, and i have to agree.
  "Wouldn't it have been cool if Barilla took the opportunity to supply stand-ups of a gay couple with a child to Coles to replace their Status Quo ones?"

 

 

The Jensens make the perfect argument FOR marriage equality.

We should thank the Jensens

The couple that threatened to divorce if marriage equality came to Australia have been getting a lot of flak for their illogical, homophobic and generally bigoted views. But I say we need to thank this couple, they have proven once and for all that opposition to marriage equality does not make sense, they have proven that it is not logical or rational. They have shown that only bigots and homophobes would oppose giving equal rights to all Australians. 

They have succeeded where years of protests and petitions have failed. They have ended the ‘debate’ over marriage equality in Australia. They have won the argument, in favor of marriage equality. From now on if a bigot starts being homophobic we can just say “The Jensens” and we win the argument, it’s over. 

For to long the bigots have hidden behind a religion, for to long they have gotten away with circular arguments. Each time a point (that often has nothing to do with marriage equality in the first place) is discounted, they change the argument to some other point, without admitting their wrongheadedness, this would go on a few times, until the original already disproved point is brought up again, thus starting the cycle again. But no more, these zombie points are no longer to be tolerated, two simple words stop the bigots argument dead; "The Jensens".

You’re still not sure, let’s examine what they said and how it ends the ‘debate’. We will give there story far more attention than it deserves, in the hopes we will never have to do it again. 

The original article was published in CityNews.

MY wife and I just celebrated our 10-year anniversary. But later this year, we may be getting a divorce.

So far so good, get a divorce, that’s sad for you but life goes on.

So, the decision to divorce is not one we’ve taken lightly. And certainly, it’s not one that many will readily understand. And that’s because it’s not a traditional divorce.

Non traditional divorce, well that rules out them claiming to want to uphold any traditions related to marriage. 

You see, after our divorce, we’ll continue to live together, hopefully for another 50 years. And, God willing, we’ll have more children. We’ll also continue to refer to each other as “husband” and “wife” and consider ourselves married by the Church and before God.

So there going to get a divorce, breaking their vows before the church, their god and family, then they’re going to live in sin, have sex out of wedlock, and lie about their marital status to each other. And they think they can pull a fast one on their god, that he won’t notice they have had a divorce, interesting.
I should note here it seems they realise there is a difference between legal marriage and their interpretation of their religions current definition of marriage.

The reason, however, is that, as Christians, we believe marriage is not a human invention.

OK, well that’s alright we don’t know exactly where marriage began in history, many cultures and religions have mythology’s about the gods giving technology or knowledge as gifts, we could extrapolate from that that one or more pagan deities did indeed bring marriage to his or her worshipers. 

Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation. Part of God’s intimate story for human history. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before a community in the sight of God. And the marriage of any couple is important to God regardless of whether that couple recognises God’s involvement or authority in it.

Well they are entitled to their view of marriage. But no their god, and knowing they identify as Christian I’m going to assume they are talking about the Christian god, has no business in other religions marriages, in atheist marriages, or in marriages sanctioned by other gods. Their views on what marriage is should only apply to their own marriage. It should be noted that marriage is very old, and most probably predates Christianity, but they are entitled to hold those views even if their wrong.

My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples.

Oh my, careful your homophobia is showing. That is kind of like, refusing to buy milkshakes because you don’t like banana milkshakes.

In Wales, for example, a couple would jump over a broomstick in the doorway of their new home to be married, and jump back across it to divorce.

This otherwise odd move of the State into marriage was ultimately permitted as long as it was seen as upholding a pre-existing societal good.

Oh my not only homophobic but also religiously bigoted. He is referring here to the Pagan marriage ceremony that sometimes included, but was not limited to the symbolic jumping over the broom. He notes how marriage has changed over the years and how government became involved. Then he makes some assumptions about conditions put upon the government in relation to its involvement in marriage. I have no idea where he is pulling this from, I’m not a historian and no sources are given. Due to their wobbly interpretation of the facts so far, I’m inclined to just move on.

Societal good, well then he should be for equal rights, he should be against homophobia, for freedom of religion, he should be for separation of church and state…should be.

If our federal parliament votes to change the timeless and organic definition of marriage later on this year, it will have moved against the fundamental and foundational building block of Australian society and, indeed, human culture everywhere.

One could argue that marriage is a fundamental building block of our modern society, I can’t agree that recognising same sex couples (who love each other and are married in all but governmental recognition anyway), could possibly undermine the society on which it is based. In face the opposite would be true; it would only further strengthen marriage, and our society.  Legal equality can only be a good thing.

Wait just one minute here buddy, human culture everywhere? I realise that this couple is ignorant, but that comment an outright falsehood, marriage equality exists in The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Brazil, France, Uruguay, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Luxemburg, Finland, Iceland, and Ireland.

This is why we are willing to divorce. By changing the definition of marriage, “marriage” will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose.

The definition of marriage has been changing through the ages of human history; in fact in Australia the definition of marriage was changed in 2004 to exclude same sex couples. Which means this couple should be fighting that ruling. The ancient Egyptians, ancient Romans, old African, Northern India during Mughal rule, Ancient China, Ancient Japan, Mayan culture, and Ancient Greece, all had various definitions of marriage and all those noted accepted same sex marriages.

When we signed that official-looking marriage certificate 10 years ago at Tuggeranong Baptist Church, we understood that the state was endorsing marriage, as currently defined, as the fundamental social institution – with all that this implied.

Wow how romantic…really? Is that really what went through your mind as you married the person you loved?

Marriage is sacred and what is truly “marriage” will only ever be what it has always been.

Here he muddles the difference between his religions definition of marriage and Australia’s legal definition.  I agree that my marriage will be sacred, as I declare my love before the gods, but I will also one day hope to get legal recognition of my holy union.
As I have already demonstrated, their interpretation of their particular religions current definition of marriage shouldn’t be relevant to the law, we actually have a constitution that is supposed to prevent that kind of thing. Their religions definition of marriage has changed a lot, not sure why they would sin (bearing false witness) by saying it has always been the same definition. A Christian should know this; that the biblical definition of marriage is not the same as legal marriage in Australia and that’s a good thing.

Many Christians, like my wife and me, as well as people of other faiths, will simply reject the need for the State to recognise their marriage. Instead they will look to the authority of their church, mosque or temple.

But there are broader implications for everyone, not just people of faith, to consider on this issue; for example, children’s rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and the broader fundamental rights of conscience and association. With our media’s relentless push to get this “over the line”, these issues have barely been noticed so far in the national debate.

I am a people of ‘other faith’ and I will support marriage equality.  But what they are saying is fine, weather they get married or not only affects them and their family. It does not harm me at all.

Now I initially though he was arguing what will happen if people stop being legally married, (arguing equality’s case for us) but I think he has gone off on a tangent. Let’s look at his points quickly;

Children’s rights- The legal age of marriage will not change, nor will surrogacy or adoption laws. Children of same sex couple would have the same protections and stability that legal marriage provides. The Marriage equality laws will not specifically effect children.

Religious Freedom- No religions practitioner is going to be forced to perform marriage that they don’t want to, they can continue to discriminate and hold their bigoted ways. The constitution of Australia prevents laws that limit religious freedom, the current marriage laws are thus unconstitutional, and so the religious freedom argument should be for marriage equality.

Freedom of Speech- Freedom of speech should stop where it becomes hate speech or incites violence or discrimination against another. Marriage equality however will not affect ‘freedom of speech’ laws in Australia at all.

Rights of conscience and association- Not sure what they are getting at? It seems maybe that they don’t want to be associated with marriage if it allows gay people to be in it. Well too bad, I don’t want bigots to call themselves Australian, and I am sure a lot of Christians would rather he weren’t claiming to be one of them, but we have freedom of association (mostly) in Australia. The marriage laws won’t change that.

This has been a big decision for my wife and I. Some will accuse of us being bigoted or too hateful to share. But this couldn’t be further from our intentions.

No accusations are necessary, this couples actions and disingenuous diatribe prove that they are bigoted, intentionally or not. If the couple don't want to be identified as bigots they need to lobby for the definition of bigotry to be changed or stop being bigoted.

The truth is, “marriage” is simply too important. It is a sacred institution, ordained by God. It has always been understood to be that exclusive relationship where one man and one woman become “one flesh”. Any attempt to change the definition of marriage by law is not something in which we are able to partake.

That is not the truth, They again make the mistake of thinking all marriages are somehow the property of their god. They lie about marriage always being the same thing, I say they lie because anyone googling marriage history can find the truth. Well they are currently partaking in changed marriage, it was changed in 2004, but I’m guessing that change was alright, because it enabled and was in line with their homophobia.

---

I should also mention that, divorce is not a part of Christian marriage, and that you can’t legally get divorced while living together in Australia.

Nick Jensen is the director of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, which helps develop leaders in public policy and is reputably involved in the Australia ‘Christian’ lobby hate group.

So there you have it, these two bigots have shown in no uncertain terms that there is no valid argument against marriage equality.

Also ill just leave this here, as it seems a certain couple missed it when they read the christian bible.

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked

plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

—Proverbs 6:16–19

The Ghost of Phil Robertson

Sometimes bigots say non bigoted things.

The meme below keeps appearing in my Facebook timeline. It was difficult to know if those posting it were bigots or didn't realised who was on the meme and what it was being used for. Now days there are a lot less bigots on my Facebook, standing up against homophobia will do that, i think those still posting it don't realise its history. I keep explaining it but it wont go away, its like the ghost of Phil Robertson's bigotry is haunting my news feed.
 So today we are going to take a look at the man, Phil Robertson (pictured), what he stands for, and why the meme was created.

Phil Robertson

He was born on born April 24, 1946, he kills animals for a living,has a business based on hunting and reality television actor on Duck Dynasty.He was suspended from the A&E program after he revealed his bigeted views, but a backlash from bigoted views caused A&E to reinstate him to the show. If you think that is unacceptable you can contact A&E here.

What he said:

• "gay men were sent by the devil to tempt us all with their magnificent anuses"

•  "picking cotton was so fun, black people just couldn't stop singing"

•  "You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16,"

•  "Two guys break into an atheist's home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him.Then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them, and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him and then they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don't have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now, is it dude? Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say,  Wouldn't it be something if there was something wrong with this? But you're the one who says there is no God, there's no right, there's no wrong, so we're just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day."

• “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once,” he said. “Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field … They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” (this was in relation to the African American civil rights movement).
•  “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there, Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
•   “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

What happened:

A&E suspended Phil for his bigoted comments but due to a huge outpouring of bigots claiming free speech and freedom of religion. A&E reinstated the bigot after only nine days. The bigoted protesters seems to ignore that fact that in America at the time you could be fired for being born gay, they don't seem to be protesting about that at all.

That is when this meme surfaced, while it seems innocent enough, what it is really saying is that Phil's comments are acceptable and even compassionate! I am sure that those who post this meme on my Facebook do not agree with his comments, or that they are in any way acceptable.

We should always remember that your religion should dictate how you behave. Freedom of religion allows others to dictate how they behave based on their religion or moral code. Your religion or beliefs should not not trump anothers rights to freedom or equality. 

So would you still post that meme on your Facebook, would you do it if you had gay, vegan, religious or African American friends on Facebook?

More consequences of changing marriage

A look at the 'arguments' against equality.

In this series we are going to have a look at The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), a political anti-gay group, as with a vote on equality looming, they are exploding with nonsensical vitriol and hate speech.

Andrew Hinge - Thursday, 28 May 2015

Wow this one has so many slights, such a hateful rant, its sad really.
 *"changing the definition of marriage" he makes it sound like a bad thing, this is about making marriage laws equal for all Australians.
*"protections for freedom of conscience" Not too sure what he is getting at here, he is probably still supporting protection for those who wish to continue to discriminate, and indeed that will be included in the legislation, no one will be forced to perform any marriage.
*'(Include protection for the) rights of children" What seriously? The legislation will not change the legal age to marry, children will not be getting married. 

"ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton expressed disappointment at the apparent capitulation in the Parliament to the same-sex political agenda"

Just to be clear the so called "homosexual agenda" is equal rights under the law. That is it, noting more than these bigots already have.

So he goes on more about wanting protection for bigots, and children getting married, argues that bigots might get ostracised (he is apparently against ostracising bigots), he goes on and on about protecting the rights of homophobes.

If the laws pass he seems to want the right to lie to his children about what marriage is, I am sure there was something about not committing falsehoods in Christianity, but I think it’s currently legal to lie to your children, I don’t think this legislation will address that, it’s about marriage equality not parental responsibility.
Or he could simply tell the truth to his children, explain how he defines his marriage, and how other religions define marriage, how his religions definition of marriage has changed over the years and how Australian law defines marriage.

 Mr Shelton said a law redefining marriage would pave the way for commercial surrogacy to be legalised in Australia.
No, again the legislation has nothing to do with surrogacy, and we do not allow commercial surrogacy in Australia, this bill will not change that.

“So called ‘marriage equality’ cannot be provided for two ‘married men’ without lifting the ban on commercial surrogacy."

So called marriage equality? That is what it’s called because that is what it is. What? No, it can indeed; the legislation has nothing to do with surrogacy, commercial or otherwise.

“If two men with ‘marriage equality’ are to have access to babies, they need unfettered access to donor eggs from women and carrier wombs."
No they don’t, access to babies, or surrogacy, has nothing to do with weddings, I don’t know what kind of wedding ceremonies this guy is going to but damn, just no.

“Perhaps the parliament will attach a ban on commercial surrogacy to its gay marriage bill.”

We already ‘ban’ commercial surrogacy in Australia; marriage equality will not change that.

He goes on further about surrogacy, expanding into
donor anonymity for some unknown reason; as I said marriage equality laws won’t change any of that.

So we just have more misdirection and some outright false claims. if this is the basis of the opposition to marriage equality it’s  ridiculous. 

I have to assume none of their objections have anything to do with the actual issue because there are no logical objections, but we are not done yet…

More consequences of changing marriage?

None that i can see, other than the legal definition of marriage being non-discriminatory.