Via Joe.My.God
The American Family Association routinely announces boycotts of corporations that have made gay-friendly advertising, employment, or charity decisions. And about a year later, when the boycott remains virtually unnoticed by the American consumer, the AFA fabricates the concession of the company in question and announces the triumphant end to their boycott.

In a few months, expect the AFA to victoriously announce the tumbled revenues of PepsiCo, followed a few months later by the AFA claim that Pepsi has agreed to abandon gay-friendly policies. Lying makes the Baby Jeebus cry, y’all.

The AFA said the following:

PepsiCo has refused a request by AFA to remain neutral in the culture war. The company indicated that it will continue major financial support of homosexual organizations. AFA wrote Pepsi two times (on October 14 and October 29) requesting a meeting to discuss Pepsi’s neutrality in the culture war. On November 17, AFA received a condescending letter (dated Nov. 7) from Paul Boykas, director, public policy, in which he refused to address Pepsi’s support of the homosexual agenda.

In the last two years, Pepsi has given $500,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and $500,000 to the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). The $1,000,000 was to be used to help promote homosexuality in the workplace. Pepsi refuses to give money to any pro-family organization that opposes the homosexual agenda. Plus, every homosexual organization we know of is overwhelmingly pro-abortion. Both HRC and PFLAG supported efforts in California to defeat Proposition 8 which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. HRC, the homosexual group financially supported by Pepsi, gave $2.3 million to defeat Prop 8. Pepsi forces all employees to attend sexual orientation and gender identity diversity training where they are taught to accept homosexuality.

In a letter (pdf) to the Subway franchisee in Merced, Calif., the company wrote: “While we understand that as an individual you have a right to your personal beliefs and freedom of association, when you use the Subway trademark it reflects on the entire Subway brand. … Further [the franchise agreement] states that you agree to ‘not use the Trademark in a manner that degrades, diminishes, or detracts from the goodwill of the business associated with the Trademark’ and ‘to promptly change the manner of such use if requested to do so by us.’”

Subway got wind of the franchise agreement violation last Friday from a gay blogger, who found the contribution on a list of ‘Yes on 8’ contributors compiled by the Human Rights Campaign. Mike Rogers, 45, of Blogactive.com threatened to rally a major boycott of Subway sub-shops if his demands weren’t addressed: repudiating the gift, adding ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ to the company’s nondiscrimination policy and giving an equal gift to the other side.

The franchisee, Subway says, has asked for a refund of the $2,500 contribution. A person at the Subway shop in Merced Mall said the manager isn’t available today and will be back tomorrow. Subway has also updated its nondiscrimination policy to include the ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ clause. Mr. Rogers dropped the last demand for a quid-pro-quo contribution.

In a phone interview, he says he was quite surprised by Subway’s quick response. “I thought it was great. It was amazing.”

He adds, “The time for complacency is over. With the power of the Web, corporations will be brought to the table or suffer the consequences of ignoring the call for justice and equality.”

Subway, which generated $8.2 billion in the U.S. last year, says it has sent a letter to all of its franchisees that it is a violation to use the Subway name when making political and/or controversial topic donations.

“We offer our apologies if you were offended by this action and hope you will view our quick response to this as a sign that we will not tolerate discrimination, of any type, in our system,” the company says in a statement.

Via The WSJ

Levi Strauss & Co. is putting its famous pockets behind defeating a ballot initiative that would outlaw same-sex marriage in California.

The San Francisco-based jeans maker said Thursday it will co-chair with Pacific Gas & Electric a group trying to drum up opposition to Proposition 8 in the business community.

Chief Executive Officer John Anderson said the move is consistent with Levi’s long history of supporting civil rights causes.

The company ended racial segregation of its California factories in the 1940s and was the first Fortune 500 company to offer health benefits to the domestic partners of its unmarried employees.

[...]

Levi Strauss has pledged $25,000 to Equality for All, the coalition leading the No on 8 campaign, says company spokesman E.J. Bernacki. Robert Haas, the company’s chairman emeritus, and his wife have given $100,000, Bernacki said.

via Forbes

Thanks Levi’s!

Via an HRC press release:

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, learned today that Mars Inc. will pull a controversial television advertisement for Snickers following communication between the HRC Workplace Project and Mars, the parent company. The ad features a man whose appearance and actions – speed walking in an exaggerated manner – conjure up stereotypes of gay men. The man is then ridiculed by Mr. T who appears shooting Snickers bars out of a gun and admonishing the jogger to be a “real man.”

Statement from HRC Workplace Director Daryl Herrschaft:

“Following conversations between the Human Rights Campaign and senior Mars representatives, the company has agreed to pull its most recent ad using stereotypes of gay men to sell its Snickers product line. HRC applauds Mars for taking swift and appropriate action.

In 2007, another distasteful Snickers advertisement was aired during Super Bowl XLI. The company subsequently pulled the ad. Following that, HRC began a constructive dialogue with Mars on workplace inclusion for GLBT employees. We were of course surprised to see the company return to the same practice it had just recently rejected.

These kinds of ads perpetuate the notion that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community is a group of second class citizens and that violence against GLBT people is not only acceptable, but humorous.

We are hopeful that Mars will make the necessary changes in their organization to ensure this does not happen yet again.”

The commercial is below: