Matt Hill writes about a Winston-Salem ad firm that refused an ad from a gay group because the subject matter is "controversial."

Right on cue, a commenter declares that Graffiti ads has the right to refuse ads. Of course they do. And Matt has the right to discuss it in public.

UPDATE: Sue publishes an email from a Graffiti employee who is gay, and says, "Let’s put this one to rest."

Comments

[Joekillian]

And, as I wrote on my blog, I have the right to go through their client list, find gay and gay-friendly business owners I know personally on the list, and shoot them an e-mail letting them know about the company's decision. Let the market do it's job this time.

There are so many gay friendly and gay dominated businesses on that list that it's ridiculous. I'd love to see these people explain to Skybar, for instance, that they think gay youth groups are too controversial to do business with...but they'd still like to make money using the club as a distribution point.

[Sue]

This ad isn't about gay "youth," despite what a commenter on my blog seems to think. And whether or not a company gets to "choose" who it wants to do biz with isn't the issue. The issue here is that they are exercising their choice with a 501c3 nonprofit based on their lifestyle choice yet have no trouble doing business with companies who owners or workers or patrons are members of this nonprofit.

Boggles the mind that this happens in GSO in 2006. I'm glad they're in Winston.

[Joe Killian]

Good point, Sue...and I have a hard time imagining anyone with basic cable who is paying attention to the larger culture is really confused about what a gay youth group is or really thinks it's in some way malicious.

To me the most amusing part of their turning down this ad is how many gay owned and dominated businesses now do business with them and in how many of their bathrooms the heterosexually-sexed up advertising now hangs. Who on a list of businesses like that do they think they're going to offend with this tame an advertisement?

At least one gay business owner has already decided not to advertise with them in the future - and I think we'll see more in the coming days.

[Chip Atkinson]

To say this ad is not contraversial is wrong. The title of the group, Queer College and Youth... is particularly in your face. And the name implies that youth refers to minors.

Matt is wrongly claiming that the company is homophobic.

[Joe Killian]

The name is "in your face" if you're afraid of any of the following words:

Queer.

College.

Youth.

It is demonstrably true that there are youth - college and high school students - who are gay. There will be youth who are gay whether or not this group exists.

Arguing that this group shouldn't exist or that people should deny them service on priciple you have to either believe that they should not be gay, that they should not identify themselves as gay (and in the larger culture gay men and women self-identifying as "queer" was controversial perhaps two decades ago) or that they should not associate with one another in an organized group.

I've known a lot of gay high school students - when I myself was a high school student, throughout my college career and now. These kids are statistically at a huge risk for suicide precisely because they have so few places and times where and when they can be themselves - go out and see a movie without having to pretend tobe something they're not, see movies and encounter art and literature with which they can relate.

I think it's absurd and indefensible for someone to argue that opposition to something that simple and benign isn't rooted in homophobia.

[Gate]

They have the right to refuse. Matt has the right to talk about it. Everyone has the right to express their opinion. If they don't want to accept advertising that is fine. If someone does not want to advertise with them for that, that is fine. Let the market sort ifself out on its own before starting vendettas.

[Joe Killian]

Ed - glad you referenced Sue's post and I'm glad she posted it. But...

I can understand where Zimmer's coming from - but his letter doesn't really move me.

I don't think there's anything honorable or defensible about a business' decision to cave to pressure from people who are offended by the very mention of gay people (gasp!) gathering in groups. We're talking about a business whose policy is to ignore the mention of homosexuality not because they oppose it on principle but because they think they'd make less money if people who ARE homophobic saw this advertisement above a urinal at their favorite restaurant. In a way I think it would be more ethically defensible if they simply thought homosexuality was an abomonation and wouldn't support groups like this for that reason. But cowering from something this benign because it might hurt the bottom line? That's shameful.

Also - I'd like to be the first to take Mr. Zimmer's dare and raise my hand to say that I wouldn't be offended by a religious movie night. I have a lot of good friends who are deeply religious, a lot of friends who are gay and a few who are both. The suggestion that anyone who supports a gay youth group would lose their minds if religious people were advertising their gatherings seems a little simplistic to me. I've BEEN to comparable Christian gatherings and occasionally helped to promote them. Some advertising company denying a Christian gathering as "too controversial" would be equally ridiculous - and if their defense was not that they opposed the group's views but were afraid other MIGHT it would be equally offensive.

[Gate]

People talk about caving in to those who don't like the ad, but what about caving in to those that do? Both sides are exerting the same type of pressure. Neither of which seem right. It sounds like a no win situation to us for the company.

[Joe Killian]

As I read the letter from the Graffitti Ads LLC employee on Sue's blog the company says it isn't homophobic. If that's true running the ad wouldn't be "caving" - it would be asserting that homosexuality is not inherently wrong or something of which people should be ashamed in the face of people who might feel differently.

Deciding not to run the ad not because of some principle that opposes homosexuality but because of the potential of pressure from those who are prejudiced - those with whom, according to your employees, you do not agree - I'm struggling to see how that can be characterized as anything but cowardice couched in a concern for commerce.

Making an unethical decision in order to make more money isn't more honorable than making it because of homophobia. And denying somoene service because of their sexuality - or how their sexuality may be percieved by people your own employees characterize as "ignorant and homophobic" - is unethical.

When my grandmother ran a bar in Greenport, Long Island in the 60s and 70s she didn't let people in her bar hassle black or hispanic customers. She served them because their money was green and they were people too. If someone leaned on her to kick out the niggers and spics and asked her if she wanted people to think she ran "that kind of bar" she told them to walk. It was her place and morons with money weren't going to push her around, force her to be the kind of person she hated.

Same principle, as I see it.

[Mr. Sun]

What if they had turned away an "Abortion is Murder" ad, preferring to stay out of the debate?

[Joe Killian]

You don't see a pretty big difference between the level of public reaction you can expect from "Abortion is Murder" and a bunch of gay kids getting together to watch movies?

[Roch101]

"Abortion is murder" advocates a position on a divicive issue. What position is Outgreensboro.com advocating?

[Joe Killian]

I think the sort of people Zimmer (the company employee who wrote the letter to Sue) would call "ignorant homophobes" would say acknowledging their presence and advertising it equals endorsing "the gay agenda" - which, presumably, includes normalizing what they consider to be an abomination.

But, you know, they're ignorant homophobes. Who really cares?

[Mr. Sun]

Joe - What I see is that the basic truth here is that the company trying to opt out of highly polarized issues. They probably need to rethink the details of that strategy, but the way bloggers instantaneously piled on to call them "homophopes," their actions "stunning, outrageous, and indefensible," and mobilize to go after their client list seems motivated more by a love of actitism than actual impact.

[Eddie]

This is all so typical. Gay advocacy group wants complete acceptance everywhere. Private business decides not to do business with them, and is instantly branded homophobic. There is no constitutional right or clause in the Uniform Commercial Code to be liked or accepted by everyone. Does anyone think one refusal from one ad agency will ultimately prevent this group from getting its message out? Stop whining and find another ad agency. Everyone now knows this agency find GLBT accounts dicey and the market will make it's own decision.

[Roch101]

"What I see is that the basic truth here is that the company trying to opt out of highly polarized issues."

I'll ask again, what polarized issue is OutGreensboro.com advocating?

[Joe Killian]

It took me maybe five minutes to draw up a letter to the gay business owners I know in Greensboro to let them know about this policy. I simply included the letters themselves and a link to relevent posts. The market, as Eddie said (and as I said something like 13 posts ago) is now doing its thing.

I think Mr. Sun is right that some people jumped right to accusations of homophobia. It's more complicated than that, but not too much. The business seems, by its own statements, to be asserting that it is not homophobic (that it is, in fact, very anti-homophobic) but simultaneously affirming that it values the business of people who are homophobic more than the business of homosexuals and the idea of conducting business by its own ideals rather than according to the potential prejudices of others. Given their client list I do have to wonder who, exactly, they think they're going to offend by taking this ad. The Green Bean? The Melting Pot? Skybar? Gimme a break.

All that said - mentioning the whole thing on a blog and taking five minutes to make sure gay business owners and gay friendly business owners who now or may in the future spend money with the company doesn't seem to me like overreaction based on a fetish for activism. It seems to me like efficient, responsible activisim as an expression of responsible citizenship.

[Mr. Sun]

Roch -- If you can't accept that homosexuality is a polarizing issue at face value, then we disagree, period. You can be oh-so-clever without me.

[Joe Killian]

Mr. Sun: I don't think anyone would deny that there are plenty of people who are against the very existence of homosexuality and homosexuals. They certainly don't want them gathering in groups, even if it's just to go to the movies.

But deciding that the fact that these people don't want to accept the reality of the existence of homosexuality and their desire to get together and relate to one another now and then is enough to make you decide you don't do business with them...that's the sort of cowardice that's on an ethical level with actual homophobia.

Making businesses aware of this sort of policy and allowing them to decide whether they want to spend money with them or allow their advertising into their businesses seems logical. But then, I'm proceeding from the assumption that, because there are, always have been and always will be homosexuals homophobia is bad for society and it's a gigantic step backward for our businesses to cater to homophobes at the expense of others.

[Mr. Sun]

Joe - Sure, fine. I said in my post the policy needed rethinking. But, within two hours of Matt's post which he TIME STAMPED and treated like some kind of WORLD EXCLUSIVE, and which will surely go up on his PRESS PAGE, everyone was piling on with the name calling and threats. Matt is on the Board of a 501(c)(3) which seeks to bring about greater acceptance and tolerance. How about stop clipping your press notices and work on that a little? Here you have a business that for all appearance seems to want to do the right thing but has lost its way. This is a chance to act like leaders -- show you understand their point of view, explain yours, and bridge the gap between the two of you. Instead, let me be clear: it seems like people are in love with the ruckus they've created. "It' not over," Matt warns Sue. I'm sure it isn't. Lots more press clippings to amass.

[Joe Killian]

Plenty of activism falls victim to that. And I think Matt probably felt personally insulted. Others were outraged - and I think for good reason. But you're right that dialogue's always preferable to conflict.

I can only speak for me, but I've tried to make everything I've said and done regarding this issue sane, respectful and with as little hyperbole as possible. But, stripped to its basic elements and without embellishment, I still think it's at best ridiculous and at worst shameful.

I'd like to believe that the company made a mistake - that it's possible they'd see that and rethink their policy. But, so far, the only communication from the company is from an employee who defends the policy, saying offending homophobes by standing on principle would be bad for business.

[Roch101]

Mr. Sun, you see OutGreensboro.com as promoting homosexuality? Really? I think you're reaching and you're too smart for that. OutGreensboro.com is promoting social activities for homosexuals. If you want to label that as polarizing, then you join those who would marginalize a segment of the population because of their sexual identity just because they simply attempt to do the same things that others in modern society do -- an acceptable behavior when it comes to homosexuals, unfortunatley, but one that I find detestible and that is indefensible without distorting and misrepresenting the situation.

[Joe Killian]

I see the homophobic argument clearly. I get it.

"Why are we telling gay kids to get together with other gay kids, go to movies that tell them it's all right to be gay or show gay characters in sympathetic ways. We should be trying to save these kids. Most of them are probably just confused. They should be going to a church youth group rather than a gay one. If homosexuality is an abomination it's especially evil to involve youth in it, to normalize it -- which is what you're doing if you have anything to do with a group like this."

I can see how, proceeding from that mindset, they would get to that argument.

I just don't agree with it and I think that largely, as a society, we've moved past it. The proof is all over the larger culture.