Hallmark channel pulls ads with lesbian kiss due to conservative complaints

[rjs330]

Tom Brady was a closeted gay.

I think we have a New England Patriotsphobe.

Oh I just saw the other post where you were talking about the Brady Bunch. But this is still funny anyway!

 

[Quartermaine]

Very few people hate gays.

on what planet?

Anti-gay hate is a palpable thing.
Do you think being called names like pervert, diseased, disordered, is anything but hate?
is the production and constant redistribution of junk science not hate?
How about fake claims about shorter life spans, domestic violence, child abuse, promiscuity?
Supporting legislation to deny equal rights and legal protections.
legislation that says medical professionals can refuse to care for homosexuals even emergency treatment.
millions donated to organizations that lobby foreign countries to make homosexuality punishable by imprisonment, torture, mutilation and death.
This is the tip of the iceberg of hate

 

[Quartermaine]

Well perhaps I misspoke. There probably are people who have an irrational fear of gays. I guess we humans can have an irrational fear of just about anything. I guess my real objection is that if you oppose the portrayal that homosexuality is perfectly in the norm and you must accept it as so including celebrating it then you are a homophobe. It's a fallacy.

if you oppose the portrayal that black individuals are perfectly in the norm doesn't that make you a racist?

 

[Quartermaine]

Why is this thread even still happening? Hallmark apparently went back on its original decision.

It kind of worries that people would think that this is 'acceptance' or 'support' (to the extent that they do). The fact that you can bully people into having to have your sexuality presented on their TV channel when the viewership apparently didn't want that is not a good thing.

When Christians or other religious people do the same (except for Muslims; Muslims are sacrosanct to the same political activists, and when they do or believe horrible things it's part of their culture and it would be imperialistic to judge them or whatever), it's "stop trying to force your lifestyle/morality/religion/belief/politics on everyone!"

Welllllll...?

apparently it's all right to bully people into refusing to even show members of a minority on their television channel

 

[dzheremi]

apparently it's all right to bully people into refusing to even show members of a minority on their television channel

You're missing the point: Everyone is some way in the wrong in this case. The LGBT advocates are essentially forcing Hallmark into making what may be a bad business decision for the sake of making a social decision they would've just rather not have stepped into (assuming it is true that Hallmark is a 'conservative space', as argued earlier in the thread), and the conservative group is wrong because aversion does not help a person become more tolerant.

But my point was that they're both still doing the same thing. Force it off or force it on, it's still a use of force (pure politicking), which it's just plain weird to have invade the Hallmark Channel of all places.

And as I've written before: if our standard is to be "too bad; it's legal whether they like it or not", then there is really no basis for anyone to attack Hallmark for having removed the ads before. It is not illegal to not feature homosexuals on your TV channel. That's not a moral value judgment, but a statement of fact.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

What you don't buy is that God has judged everyone deserves death. Everyone. You do, I do all people do. The thing you don't like is that those practicing homosexual sin are mentioned as people who deserve death. The Bible tells us that's why Jesus came, to save us from deserved death. But you and the rest of the world don't want to believe that. You want to believe that if God loves everyone, no one will be punished for rejecting his son. But God loved us and sent his son because he does. Jesus came to save us from death deserved. All of us. That is not hatred, that is love.

If someone is sentenced to death or prison without parole from a judge, do you say the judge hates the person? Or the jury that convicted him? No justice is served. But if the judge hands down the sentence and then says to the convicted, my son will take your place if you acknowledge your crimes and accept my son, then I will find him guilty in your place and you will go free and says he does it because he loves you and cares about you that should be acknowledged.

I know exactly what the Bible says. Following it was quarter century long mistake I made. What I don’t buy is that Christians don’t hate the LGBTQ community. Calling them diseased, perverted, demon possessed, and psychologically impaired. Running them out of employment, throwing them in prison, into conversion therapy, denying them housing, public accommodation, medical treatment, and equal rights and protection under the law. Working to codify those horrible positions into laws so the government themself are hating them. Ensuring they are never seen nor heard from on any media or public sphere. I don’t buy for one second that Christians don’t hate the LGBTQ community and I find it pathetic that they go running behind their deity when they are called out on it. I don’t see Christians doing this when they see an interfaith marriage (forbidden from being unequally yoked) or divorce or sleeping around. Just the LGBTQ community.

And I find vicarious atonement is a gross miscarriage of justice and I think someone would have to have low moral fiber to take advantage of it. I also find giving people infinite torture for finite transgressions is morally reprehensible.

 

[cow451]

Maybe we can just all chill and watch some Christmas movies.

 

[dzheremi]

Maybe we can just all chill and watch some Christmas movies.

Can I nominate National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation? Everyone, gay or straight, liberal of conservative, Hallmark viewer or not, can relate to at least some aspect of that movie. I too have redneck family members who have a trailer and leave it parked for months in the same spot; I too had a grandmother who would wrap up household objects as 'presents', etc. At least she never said the pledge of allegiance as a blessing over the turkey. (She was more of a "everyone leave me alone about having a beer with my yule log" grandmother.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

You're missing the point: Everyone is some way in the wrong in this case. The LGBT advocates are essentially forcing Hallmark into making what may be a bad business decision

Which LGBT advocates was that? Zola bought ads from Hallmark. No LGBT advocates involved.

 

[dzheremi]

Which LGBT advocates was that? Zola bought ads from Hallmark. No LGBT advocates involved.

The advocates who complained and criticized Hallmark for pulling the ad in response to complaints from the conservative group claiming to represent people of that political orientation in their viewership (which seems like it's the majority of their viewership, if the earlier supporting link about Hallmark viewers' political orientation is correct). The ones who Hallmark responded to by reversing its policy.

(Some people on Twitter, from all I've seen. It seems like every conflict flares up via Twitter now.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

The advocates who complained...
(Some people on Twitter, from all I've seen. It seems like every conflict flares up via Twitter now.)

Some mean tweets forced a network to make a bad business decision? I don't think so.

Ooh, but the best tweet was probably Netflix: "Titles Featuring Lesbians Joyfully Existing And Also It’s Christmas

Let It Snow
Merry Happy Whatever"

 

[zippy2006]

Which LGBT advocates was that? Zola bought ads from Hallmark. No LGBT advocates involved.

Like it or not, this is LGBT advocacy:

“All kisses, couples and marriages are equal celebrations of love and we will no longer be advertising on Hallmark,” Chi said.

So: Zola or whoever convinced them to take up the LGBT flag. Your nitpicking in this thread is becoming strange.

Some mean tweets forced a network to make a bad business decision? I don't think so.

Yeah... that would never happen.

 

[dzheremi]

Some mean tweets forced a network to make a bad business decision? I don't think so.

Socially, yes.

I'm not saying that a bunch of LGBT rights advocates showed up at Hallmark HQ with weapons or something. If you want to pretend like there's no such thing as the social pull from various platforms (e.g., Twitter leaning left; there's no "anti-LGBT tweet platform" or whatever, but I guess individual websites like Breitbart would be a platform for that), then you are either in denial that this stuff happens despite this very situation being evidence of it, or you've never seen any of the many, many, many other examples of people being strong-armed (again, socially, i.e., via social media 'mobs' of this type or that type, which sometimes materialize as real mobs when they feel there is cause to block other people's access to viewpoints they don't like, e.g., on some college campuses) into expressing the correct opinion on whatever issue, and hence cannot recognize it.

Though I am willing to guess that you would recognize the conservative group that originally wanted the ad gone as doing that... (I hope I'm wrong; not because they didn't do that, because they very much did, but because it would mean you are understanding the point I'm making, but you just don't like that it can be made about everyone in this case, which is...understandable, I suppose.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Like it or not, this is LGBT advocacy:

In reaction to the actual events of the OP.

dzheremi's post starts with the LGBT advocates, but that's not the actual timeline.

Dhzeremi says the conservative group was wrong, but apparently it's also wrong for anyone to point that out afterwards. That's the strange thing in my book.

 

[zippy2006]

In reaction to the actual events of the OP.

dzheremi's post starts with the LGBT advocates, but that's not the actual timeline.

When a company tries to sell ads with gay persons kissing and then issues that statement in response to their ad being censored, it's not at all clear whether the initial act was also advocacy.

If you look at the big picture here, you have three realities coming together: the Hallmark business, liberal advocacy, and conservative advocacy. Even aside from the fact that we can't reliably construct the sequence of events and motives, the chronology isn't that interesting.

Dhzeremi says the conservative group was wrong, but apparently it's also wrong for anyone to point that out afterwards. That's the strange thing in my book.

I think he is just saying that it's not as simple as Quartermaine makes it out to be.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

It is funny, websites have made millions with the subject matter…

 

[dzheremi]

In reaction to the actual events of the OP.

dzheremi's post starts with the LGBT advocates, but that's not the actual timeline.

No, I very much recognized the actual timeline: "The conservative group that originally wanted the ad gone..."

Dhzeremi says the conservative group was wrong, but apparently it's also wrong for anyone to point that out afterwards. That's the strange thing in my book.

What? Why would I think it's wrong for anyone to point out that the conservative group was wrong if I pointed that out myself? Of course I think they're wrong; my point is that everyone is wrong, because if the principle is "Don't try to force your values on me/on the TV station/etc.", then both sides run afoul of that, because both sides did so.

Wherever you got your mind-reading degree from, I would ask for a refund. It's not working.

 

[dzheremi]

I think he is just saying that it's not as simple as Quartermaine makes it out to be.

My point is that when both sides are trying to 'force' their values on each other (via the Hallmark Channel, I guess), then both should shut up about the other side behaving exactly as they themselves also behave.

The conservatives wanted it gone, the LGBT advocates didn't, and the LGBT advocates ultimately won. The end. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Ken-1122]

There is, however, an apparent denial of one having an irrational fear of gay people.

What do you base this on? How do you know this?

 

[ruthiesea]

Liberals claim the right to force their morality on everyone else, but when a conservative refrains from allowing that to happen they are instantaneously attacked. What silliness.

Don’t conservatives claim the right to force their morality (and religions beliefs) on everyone else?