It's not really a rights issue, more of a cultural bias issue. They're just asking her employer to fire her, not try to make a law so she can't work. That said, it's not going to work anyway, which should say something more positive than them making the effort does. And I guarantee there's not really a million of them, that just the hot number of people to say you have these days.

"It's not really a rights issue, more of a cultural bias issue. They're just asking her employer to fire her, not try to make a law so she can't work."

That sort of seems like an end-around sort of a statement...

I get what your saying, but still--

If I pass a law so you can't work, I'v effectively found a way to get your employer to drop you, haven't I?

And doesn't a cultural bias count as a rights issue?

I mean, what right do they have to say "This store is to be represented by Culture X and not Y, when both cultures X and Y shop here?"

Freedom of speech would be that right.

But. Freedom of speech doesn't mean JCP needs to listen to them. and they won't.

They have every right to protest. They also hav e every right to be bigoted fucking morons. And JCP has every right to say to the protesters "We don't care what you think."

Every time ya' turn around today somebody is protesting something or someone. The 99% idiots who protest the fact they haven't figured out ow to break into the top 50% much less the top 1%. The "moral majority"/extreme right who thinks they have a right to enforce their "morality" on everyone else. The extreme left who envision themselves some kind of modern day Robin Hood and think they can force everyone to see to the needs of the whole world. Doesn't matter what extreme group, the media gives them a voice and so the media is, when it comes down to it, in large part to blame for us having to listen to the shit.

Just once I wish a news director would say "enough" and only report on these whack jobs from both sides when someone like the Hell's Angels stand up to Westboro Baptist Church and keep them from picketing a soldier's funeral or something. If the media stopped giving the whack jobs a platform to stand on (free speech does not obligate the media to air your fucking concerns, asswipes!) then they would fade into the woodwork.

*reads article*

In other news, haters be hatin'. JC Penny doesn't appear interested in capitulating, and this whole "controversy" will probably drive sales up.

One Million Moms appears to be a subgroup of the American Family Association. Who are these people?

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147516803

This one's even better:

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147516834

The headline is "Obamas (sic) Tax The Rich Scheme Does NOT Coincide With Jesus Teaching"

In it, they argue that taxing the rich to give to the poor is theft, despite what Obama's breakfast speech says. Which is funny, because Obama's breakfast speech was about taxing the rich to pay for health care and foreign aid. That money's going to hospitals and governments, not poor people. So I'm not sure if it still counts as theft.

Sure it's 'theft,' the object of it being changed doesn't change the thing itself here.

And understand that I'm not here to argue 'taxation is theft' (I think it is, but it's again not something I'm going to argue here), only that if you accept that it is (as these people seem to do) that it still logically follows as theft even if the recipient of the stolen goods changes from another person/group of people to institutions.

on-topic: If their intention really did happen to be 'staying neutral in the culture war,' then their objection, I guess, has merit, at least superficially. Problem is that unless they find an uber-rare example of the hetero person who is 100% asexual *and* essentially expresses no emotional desire for a member of the opposite sex, they can't stay neutral. By default, straight people are 'openly' straight. The objection makes superficial sense, in that DeGeneres is a very open icon of the LGBT community, and that staying neutral on a political issue is good business - but good luck finding a truly 'neutral' person. And if they can't, as is the case, then there's no reason why not to market DeGeneres: she's an incredibly popular and well-liked individual who probably carries extremely high marketability.

...but more importantly, it's obvious that this is not a genuine desire to 'stay neutral in the culture war.' I just feel compelled to act as though they really are genuine, and defeat their argument on those grounds, so that they have no logical appeal at all.

(Also worthy of note... I should clarify that the hetero person described above probably isn't even really hetero. Just saying. And I'm really not sure what famous person [the pool from which they obviously wanted to pull people for marketing] could truthfully claim that they are neither 'openly' gay nor 'openly' straight. Seems like everyone that's recognizable these days is openly something, whether for scandalous reasons or simply because s/he is quietly and happily married.

So, with that in mind, I further argue that they cannot hope to 'stay neutral,' and if they can't, then they should just ignore it altogether and market whomever they think is the most marketable. Obviously they think DeGeneres is, and I would be very hard-pressed to object along any meaningful grounds. Hence even from the stance of 'you shouldn't make a political statement on issue x,' and EVEN going so far to assume taking DeGeneres on is a 'political statement' [rather tendentious in itself], their objection is senseless.)

I love it when my contribution to an interesting discussion is effectively covered by someone else.

^+10 Draugnar.

Does anyone else find it a tad ironic that there is a growing trend for using the word 'haters' as a derogatory term for groups of people who hold opinions you hate?

@Eden - staying neutral on this issue doesn't mean picking a neuter spokesperson, it means picking the person they feel reaches the biggest total audience and not letting the issue cloud that decision. They are staying neutral in that regard because Ellen is very popular amongst not only the alternate lifestyle community, but a large portion of the traditional lifestyle community. There wasa a time when she was a polarizing personality, but she has embraced her sexuality in a non-militant way and has fun with it so that the hip crowd, straight or gay, finds her adorable and much of typical middle-class America has been falling in love with her too.

In fact, I think she is the first openly gay spokesperson for Covergirl or any makeup company for that matter. Funny thing that the Million Mom's didn't protest her as the Covergirl spokesperson. I guess they realize their husbands wouldn't touch them if they didn't cake on all the makeup to hide their scowl lines from years of disapproval.

Remember that I'm trying to work within the rather ridiculously twisted logic of the protesting group in question, not under what common decency would prescribe. If we were dealing with the latter, then there wouldn't be a protest.

For this group, "staying neutral" essentially demands a neuter representative, because apparently any "open" person is not adequately neutral.

I love when The American Family Association and other idiots like that get all worked up about Ellen Degeneres as though she's some radical, anti-family militant lesbian type. If Ellen gets them this mad, how do they react to less reserved, less wholesome gay icons?

Ah! Gotcha, PE. Maybe everyone should use castrated monks as their spokespeople.

Or Tom Cruise. He's a closet gay after all (tries to hard to look straight and couldn't satisfy Nichole Kidman).

I dunno, man, castrated monks have feelings too.

Maybe the AFA would like JC Penney to use RoboCop as a spokes...person...?. Now THERE's a muddafucka who couldn't be mistaken for a partisan in the "culture war." He just runs around fucking up bad guys and doesnt afraid of anything

It would be different if Ellen was a big bull dyke, but she's a pretty normal person, as far as anybody can tell. Aside from the fact that she enjoys scissoring with B list movie stars.

JC Penney ought to hire Dan Savage to pitch its products, if for nothing else than shock value. Plus, he could get searches for "Macy's" to pop up as "crusty semen residue that collects in the tonsils of homosexuals".

Hahahahahaha I was trying to see how to work in Dan Savage here.
But what if Ellen was a big bull dyke? Would that mean Million Mom March would be justified in their protest. Homosexual spokespeople are OK only so long as their public persona is fairly asexual?

Also "crusty semen residue that collects in the tonsils of homosexuals"? Why is it that everyone seems to think that only gay men have oral sex? Is that a thing straight women don't do or something?

"...if Ellen was a big bull dyke, but she's a pretty normal person"

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/popcorn_2.gif

@ PE - Relevant!

I'm just expecting that comment to start a shitstorm, so I figured I'd get front-row seats and a bag of popcorn and watch the fireworks

Well, I guess I didn't disappoint. We'll see where this goes.

I may have misspoke. I meant to characterize Ellen as a fairly inoffensive person, homosexuality aside, in comparison to outspoken gay advocates like Dan Savage. As far as the oral sex comment goes, I was only referring to Savage's redefinition of "santorum."

http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/052011/small_my%20bad.jpg

Fair enough. I figured it was just innocent thoughtlessness. But watch your language use in future dude.
Also I got that, but why specifically the tonsils of homosexuals, why not just tonsils in general? You'll notice the redefinition of Santorum does not refer to people or couples of any particular gender or sexual orientation.

Aw, dammit, I even got the best seat in the house. Oh well. Mature discussions are better anyway.