« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
11/17/2008
Rogers that: Mike sets sights (and site) on new subject
In these gay activist waters, some folks are reluctant to make waves. 
Activist Mike Rogers, however, has created enough to submerge the entire eastern seaboard!
Mike's latest endeavor? Well here, let him tell ya:
I was reading through the Human Rights Campaign's list of companies that gave to Yes on 8, the California referendum that removed marriage equality from the state's constitution. When I saw a franchisee of an international company gave $2,500 to opponents of equality, I immediately knew I would require someone at the company's world HQ to address this. Or, I would.
So, after a few discussions, I informed the company's spokesperson that they had until today to take the following three actions:
1) Repudiate the franchisee's gift
2) Make a gift in the same amount to an organization fighting for true equality
3) Immediately add sexual orientation and gender identity to the corporation's non-discrimination policy.
Hey, I'm willing to give them a break... [Blogactive]
Speak softly and carry a big stick? More like scream from the rooftops and carry an entire tree! That's our Mikey.
**UPDATE: International food chain responds to blogger's demands, franchisee retracts gift, job protections added [P1Q
Your thoughts
Is this opening us up for the same criticism we gave the Yes campaign when they tried to black-mail a company, pre-election?
I mean, is it not better to just call them out for their donation?
Posted by: zortnac | Nov 17, 2008 12:07:47 PM
Zortnac: At this point I'm merely watching and observing what Mike's doing. Not sure exactly what he has planned yet.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 17, 2008 12:09:15 PM
I understand that you're just passing the news along. But I also agree with zortnac that this, at least at this point, seems to be very similar to what Yes on 8 tired to do.
There is one exception which I do believe is notable. He's being quite open and public about it (except for the company's name), while they tried to keep it waaaay below the radar.
However, at the same time, can a big company be expected to watch and control every operation of franchisees? I mean, isn't that the point of franchising--that it's a somewhat separated, decentralized model?
That also said, I do think it is reasonable to ask a company to disavow the franchisee's donation as the actions of that franchisee as opposed to the company as a whole.
Posted by: PSUdain | Nov 17, 2008 2:38:18 PM
comments powered by Disqus
