39

Blame Canada, says event organizer

Furor over anti-gay marriage sponsorship “is an issue only north of the border”


 

According to the National Organization for Marriage’s Rhode Island regional organizer, Tim Hortons’ decision to pull the plug on its offer to provide free coffee to an anti-gay marriage lobby group had nothing to do with mollifying its growing American customer base. “They rescinded the offer today as a direct result of the hubbub in Canada,” Christopher Plante told CanWest News. “This is an issue only north of the border.” The determinedly iconic Canadian doughnut chain awoke to a public relations crisis yesterday morning after word started to spread that a Rhode Island restaurant had signed on to sponsor the state’s first “Marriage Day Celebration”, organized by NOM. Within hours, the company had announced that the Rhode Island event did not meet its sponsorship guidelines, and, as such, would not be receiving its support. In a subsequent interview, however, Plante pointed out that the event in question advertised itself as nonpartisan and open to all. “They’ve decided what makes better sense for them value-wise … Corporations need to do that, so we respect that.”

Montreal Gazette


 
Filed under:

Blame Canada, says event organizer

  1. I'm kinda wondering exactly how the promoters pitched this event to Tim's. I am pretty sure they didn't walk up to the counter and say "we're a gay hate group, care to spot us some joe?" That's an odd and unsavvy response by the manager, though.

    • I liked the manager's response…which part did you find odd and unsavvy?

      • Unless its a partial quote, they really really needed to play up the "we didn't know they were an anti-gay group, they just said they were having a family oriented event" angle." In business, when dealing with the public, when you find you've been put in bed with the loonies, you run far, fast and visibly.

        • There is a comment down a few pixels that might be relevant; ie who is who and who said what……now it makes a bit more sense.

          Live and learn.

  2. Perhaps they said "We're a group that wants to keep marriage the way it is, care to spot us some joe?"
    And perhaps the manager said "yeah, I kinda like marriage the way it is too. Sure."

    Just a thought.

    • Exactly. hate groups. Kinda like saying "I really liked it when blacks couldn't vote. Why won't you respect my opinion as valid?"

      • Or perhaps more like saying "I really like that we all have the same marriage rights, gay or straight: to marry one person of the opposite sex with whom we're not directly related."

      • Or perhaps more like saying "I really like that we all have the same marriage rights, gay or straight: to marry one person of the opposite sex with whom we're not directly related. Why are you suggesting that this is bigoted?"

      • Or perhaps more like saying "I really like that we all have the same marriage rights, gay or straight: to marry one person of the opposite sex to whom we're not directly related. Why are you suggesting that this is bigoted?"

        • Because it is.

          • Hear hear!

        • But it's extremely unlikely a person could be stupid enought to genuinely believe that and hold a job where they need to deal with the public.

          • Ah yes. Now he's bigoted and stupid.

            I love the tolerant, open-minded left. Really. I do.

          • And I like the fact that you are suggesting that only heteros should have the right to marry isn't bigotted at all.

          • I didn't suggest that. Don't put words in my mouth.

            Believing that everyone, gay or straight, should have restrictions on whom they can legally marry is not bigoted. One can debate whether those restrictions should include gender, number, age, or familial relation. This is generally a good debate, when taken with an open mind.

            What is quite unacceptable (and quite common on the Left) is to casually equate anyone who wants those restrictions (for all, not just a subset of the population) to a racist.

          • I didn't suggest that. Don't put words in my mouth.

            Believing that everyone, gay or straight, should have restrictions on whom they can legally marry is not bigoted. One can debate whether those restrictions should include gender, number, age, or familial relation. This is generally a good debate, when taken with an open mind.

            What is quite unacceptable (and quite common on the Left) is casually to equate anyone who wants those restrictions (for all, not just a subset of the population) to a racist.

          • Poljunkie is bang on, kiddo. You aren't having a "good debate" here, your trying to lend legitimacy to a position which hasn't found anything worthwhile to support itself since the issue came to public prominence within the last decade or so.

            You want to argue stuff like whether gays should be equal or women should vote within your own extremist set, go right ahead. Don't pretend like your contributing to public discourse with rational humans though.

          • "You aren't having a "good debate" here….Don't pretend like your contributing to public discourse with rational humans though."

            Perhaps you're right on this at least. I think I'll stop.

          • "Don't pretend like your contributing to public discourse with rational humans though."

            Perhaps you're right on this at least. I think I'll stop.

          • dude, when only stupidity or hate can lead you to saying something, there's a really really good chance the person saying it is motivated by stupidity or hatred. I ain't gonna treat your ridiculous opinion as valid just because you learned how to type.

          • "dude, when only stupidity or hate can lead you to saying something,"

            Ah. Good news! I think I've found the problem – that false premise. It is possible to say "I think everyone, gay or straight, should be limited in whom they can legally marry with respect to gender, age, family relations, and number of spouses," without being motivated by hatred or stupidity.

            In fact, it's not a whole lot different from saying "I think everyone, gay or straight, should be limited in whom they can legally marry with respect to age, family relations, and number of spouses." I'll bet that's a statement you might even make, without being motivated by hatred or stupidity.

          • "dude, when only stupidity or hate can lead you to saying something,"

            Ah. Good news! I think I've found the problem – that false premise. It is possible to say "I think everyone, gay or straight, should be limited in whom they can legally marry with respect to gender, age, family relations, and number of spouses," without being motivated by hatred or stupidity.

            In fact, it's not a whole lot different from saying "I think everyone, gay or straight, should be limited in whom they can legally marry with respect to age, family relations, and number of spouses." I'll bet that's a statement you might even make, without being motivated by hatred or stupidity.

          • Clumsy linguistic feinting aside, what's you're ever so clear-headed, non-stupid, non-bigoted and reasonable reason why gays should be denied the right to marry?

  3. I am often in downtown Providence and I have no intention now of ever going into Tim Hortons.

  4. I wonder where Christopher Plante's next posting will be?

  5. Tim Horton's now giving away Tidbits with little burning crosses at KKK rallies!! Get them today!

    • That would be Timbits, amigo. Clearly you've never been to a Tim Horton's. Poor soul.

    • That would be Timbits, amigo. Clearly you've never been to a Tim Horton's.

  6. Christopher Plante works at the National Organization for Marriage not Tim Hortons.

    • Thanks for the info…that was helpful

    • Oh, hey you're right. The way they set up the first two sentences really makes it look like they're describing him that way.

      I wonder what Tim's official line was, in fact? probably just "please remove us from your event NOW".

  7. we are all better people for your wise and thoughtful course of action in this instance.

  8. How about no one is allowed to get married?

    Then everyone can have the same deprivation and we can all be happy knowing this debate has been resolved.

    • sounds good. we'd put a good number of lawyers out of divorce lawyers out of work, but that might not be a bad thing either.

  9. Typical AmeriKKKan bigotry. I am proud to be a Canadian!

  10. Yup, cus there are no gay people in the US, don't you know. Plante is a bigot who is just bitter that Tim's, and most Canadians, have morals. I am not sorry that NOM, or even Americans, are mad at Canada or Tim's. Standing up for what is right is rarely easy to do, but in the end it is always right.

  11. The real funny part about all this is that despite NOM's dissmissive attitude toward Canada, they failed to learn the lesson of Canada's gay marriage fight. Mainly that it's a non-issue and threatens no one. Last I checked the sky is still blue up here and the Earth still goes around the sun.

    • …and we have not started to marry our pets.
      Don't understand why some people think marriage between two loving people will start a flood crazy behavior.
      I am so glad I am a Canadian!!!!!!!!!

Sign in to comment.