Hallmark Apologizes, Backtracks After Saying It Would Pull Ads with Lesbian Kiss

[trotsky]

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/12/16/hallmark-apologizes-backtracks-after-saying-it-would-pull-ads-with-lesbian-kiss/

After a weekend full of bad publicity for Hallmark, the company is reversing its position on airing an ad featuring a same-sex wedding.

The company, which owns the Hallmark Channel, said it would pull an ad from wedding planning site Zola after the conservative Christian hate group One Million Moms (Twitter count: 4187) whined about how the channel was “no longer allowing parents to be the primary educators when it comes to sex and sexual morality.”

...And now, after a weekend of people calling for boycotts of Hallmark — during the holiday season, no less — for caving in to an anti-LGBTQ Christian group, Hallmark’s CEO says the ads will be returning and the earlier decision was the wrong one. Here’s the statement from CEO Mike Perry:

"Earlier this week, a decision was made at Crown Media Family Networks to remove commercials featuring a same-sex couple. The Crown Media team has been agonizing over this decision as we’ve seen the hurt it has unintentionally caused. Said simply, they believe this was the wrong decision. Our mission is rooted in helping all people connect, celebrate traditions, and be inspired to capture meaningful moments in their lives. Anything that detracts for this purpose is not who we are. As the CEO of Hallmark, I am sorry for the hurt and disappointment this has caused."

It is a good feeling to know that the power of love and diversity is stronger than the power of religious bigotry.

[underpants]

1. Maybe we should send them a card or something

[PJMcK]

3. ! (n/t)

[Major Nikon]

5. Thoughts and prayers

[PJMcK]

2. Your analysis is very optimistic and I admire you for that

However, the cynic in me says that the corporation realized that One Million Moms wasn't that big a constituency (4187 Twitter followers?!) and that the broader public was more supportive of America's diversity. Accordingly, there is better business by being inclusive than being restrictive. It simply means that there's a bigger audience- and money- for doing the right thing.

Corporations do not like controversy because that diminishes their business prospects.

Regardless, kudos to Crown Media Family Networks for doing the right thing.

[d_r]

52. I don't think that

the conclusions that the two of you drew are necessarily incongruous

[Major Nikon]

4. I think it was the power of money

After the bad publicity, Halmark realized it would be in their best interest financially to reverse their decision.

The silver lining here is a network learned its a bad idea to cater to a Christian hate group. Hopefully others will notice.

[trotsky]

6. Oh it's definitely about the money, don't get me wrong.

But yes, as you note, there's now more money catering to tolerance than to religious bigotry.

[Major Nikon]

7. The fact that this is the Halmark channel makes the lining a little more silver

No longer do the religious bigots have exclusive rights to decide what is "family friendly".

[MineralMan]

8. For Hallmark, it was only a matter of counting.

The liars at One Million Moms said they had 26,000 signatures on a petition. Hallmark acted. Then, social media fired back at the decision. Clearly, vastly more people were publicly opposed to what Hallmark had done than supported it. So Hallmark reversed course.

Hallmark didn't do anything out of a desire to do what's right. They simply did a cost/benefits calculation, and acted accordingly.

Don't kid yourself.

[Cartoonist]

9. So what's next from 4000 Moms?

Do they turn this into a fundraiser?

[guillaumeb]

10. Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong among the least gay-friendly cities ranked in global survey

From the article:

China has performed poorly in a survey of the friendliest 100 cities around the world towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Beijing ranked last in the poll, with Shanghai taking 89th place and Hong Kong 83rd.
The survey was conducted by the Germany-based rented housing website Nestpick in 80 countries around the world.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2100349/china-ranked-low-global-poll-cities-friendly-gay-community

It is good to know that, in contrast to intolerant theists, the atheists in China are showing us all how tolerant people can be when they are freed from the shackles of theism.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. Not quite.

Here is the study.

There are 4,416 cities in the world, of which 80 were polled. None were in the Middle East, one was in Africa (South Africa, an outlier), and four were in Latin America.

Yes, Beijing is on that list. Riyadh is not. The manner in which you presented this story implies Beijing is comparable to Riyadh in its treatment of gays. It is not.

Please. Grow. Up.

[guillaumeb]

12. You can refute the article,

or acknowledge the truth of it.

And the truth is, China is very intolerant of theists, and LGBTQ people.

Part of the scientific method is realizing what is actually happening, rather than constructing a narrative and being selectively outraged.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. I can do both, actually.

[guillaumeb]

14. And the truth is, China is very intolerant of theists, and LGBTQ people. eom

[trotsky]

18. And what does that have to do with the Hallmark Channel rejecting bigotry?

Quit whatabouting. Set the example instead of lowering the bar. Show everyone that you are committed to dialog, and not vicious fighting. I have offered you many opportunities, and you just spit in my face again and again. What kind of Christian are you, g?

[guillaumeb]

21. The topic is intolerance for LGBTQ people.

So it fits very well. The difference is that the atheist controlled Chinese Government shows no intention on apologizing.

[trotsky]

23. Oh so YOU'RE allowed to veer off into any topic you want,

but no one else is.

No wonder no one takes you seriously.

[guillaumeb]

25. Ironic, given your own demonstrated behavior.

[trotsky]

28. So I deserve it?

Did Jesus teach you to turn the other cheek, or did he preach "eye for an eye"?

Which one is it, g?

[guillaumeb]

31. Do you deserve it?

Do you mean should people speak of your quite obvious tactics?

[trotsky]

33. I don't think I do.

But you have judged that I do, and you are dispensing "eye for an eye" justice.

Just like Jesus wants you to do, I guess.

You are truly a model Christian, g. Showing everyone what your religion is truly about.

[guillaumeb]

34. I believe that you feel this way.

However, that does not change the validity of my analysis. Or the demonstration of that validity that occurs on a very regular basis.

[trotsky]

36. That's fine. You can believe what you want.

But you are still judging me, and dispensing "eye for an eye" justice.

Is that behavior Jesus would approve of, in your opinion?

I wonder why you won't answer that question.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. Where in the Atheist Bible does Not-God command the persecution of theists and LGBTQ people?

I am having trouble locating the chapter and verse. Do I have a bad translation?

[Major Nikon]

26. With metaphor all things are possible

Jesus said that, metaphorically.

So you see, when the bible commands death for nonbelievers and LGBTQ, what He really means is love thy neighbor.

[trotsky]

15. #whataboutism

You've given up any pretense of wanting actual discussion now, haven't you?

Pathetic.

[guillaumeb]

16. If only you recognized how often you engage in it.

Discussion might be possible. But I understand that your narrative and agenda come first.

[trotsky]

17. #deflection and #projection

Keep going, you're only humiliating yourself more.

[guillaumeb]

20. Yes, you do engage in that as well.

And that, together with your demonstrated hostility for any positive posts about theism, makes actual discussion unlikely.

[trotsky]

22. So your excuse for behaving badly is that you think others are behaving badly.

Is that what Jesus did?

[guillaumeb]

24. I am employing the scientific method of observation and analysis.

And based on my years of observation, you attack every positive post about theism or theists. So my tentative analysis is that you are motivated to attack positive posts. If I see any behavior to the contrary, I will reserve the right to adjust my analysis.

[trotsky]

29. In other words, you judge others, and dispense "eye for an eye" justice.

That's just the kind of Christian you are.

[guillaumeb]

32. Sad that you reject the scientific method.

I thought that was the exclusive province of theists.

[trotsky]

35. Of course I don't. You are deflecting so you don't have to acknowledge your behavior.

Let's say I am guilty of everything you claim I am. You are still the one judging me, and you are the one dispensing "eye for an eye" justice. However horrible you think I am, that's STILL your behavior. Is it Christian?

It is very telling that you are desperately deflecting so you don't have to answer that.

What kind of a Christian are you, g?

[guillaumeb]

37. So if you are guilty,

is it wrong to point it out? I am not dispensing justice, merely pointing out behavior.

[trotsky]

39. Oh look, it's a variation on "I'm not judging you, the bible is!"

Rotten Christians always find a way to justify their behavior.

You judged me, and now you dispense eye-for-an-eye justice.

Tell me guillaumeb, did Jesus say "if your enemy does something you don't like, you can be a right jerk to them," or did he say "love your enemy as yourself"?

Did Jesus say "take revenge on those who you think deserve it," or did he say "turn the other cheek"?

What kind of Christian are you, guillaumeb?

Think about that, and then respond to me like you think Jesus would.

[guillaumeb]

40. You must judge yourself.

And it helps if, under the guise of asking questions such as you asked, you would refrain from making the "questions" thinly disguised attacks.

[trotsky]

41. Continued deflection.

Why do you think you need to do everything you accuse me of? Why won't you obey Jesus and forgive, and turn the other cheek? Why do you continue to judge and dispense justice as you see fit? Is that Christian behavior? Is that what Jesus wants you to do?

[guillaumeb]

42. Yes, it is.

Only you can decide how you will treat others with whom you disagree.

Only you can decide to attack positive posts about theism and/or theists.

Do not blame others.

[trotsky]

47. Let the record show I gave you yet another chance to get out of the muck.

Instead, you flung more at me. I am allowed to criticize posts in this group. I am allowed to criticize theism and religion in this group. Those things do not give you the right to act the way you do. Do not blame others indeed.

Hope you had a good Christmas, g.

[Major Nikon]

27. Not to mention the best defense for Whataboutism is more Whataboutism

Funny how that works.

[trotsky]

30. Just say that it's warranted because the person you disagree with does it.

Which is extra awesome when you show that you have no idea what whataboutism really is.

He just enjoys humiliating himself, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. The Chinese have no religous basis for discrimination. It's cultural.

The nice thing is, we can debate and discuss the merits of such cultural issues without some inscrutable and conveniently unavailable supernatural god's dogma being used as an excuse to avoid that discussion.

Take the mandates of a supernatural god off the table, and now individuals have to justify their biases and prejudices with secular tools.

That's a winnable fight. I'll take that all day every day over BECAUSE MY GOD SAYS SO.

(Edit: we've discussed before that communism is indistinguishable from a theocracy, but you pretend not to understand, so I'm not even going to bother this time.)

[guillaumeb]

44. It makes no difference to the victims.

Absolutely no difference.

The issue is behavior, not the proclaimed or assumed motivation for the behavior. And in the case of China, and N. Korea, removing religion from the equation did nothing to stop the behavior.

So any contention one might make about "moving beyond" religion into a new era of tolerance has no basis in actual fact or actual observable behavior.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. You don't seem to understand how humans work.

When you substitute one power structure with another that relies upon the same coercive mechanisms, it's not surprising that they maintain the same targets of that power.

But we can out-compete and out-reason communism in the long run, which means another opportunity to flush those targeting artifacts as well.

That's not something that comes around for discussion with theocracies. It comes with the END of a theocracy.

[guillaumeb]

46. We agree that authoritarians will behave as authoritarians.

If we reach a point where coercion and authoritarianism and tribalism do not exist, our descendants will discuss how it happened.

But considering all of actual history, I would argue that I do understand exactly how humans behave.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. If you understand humans, why do you keep banging that 'atheist' drum about China, when it

is a political theocracy?

[guillaumeb]

49. If it is a political theocracy,

does that make these Chinese atheists actually political theists?

No, it simply shows how intolerance manifests everywhere.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Which explains why you keep banging on about China and only China.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-most-tolerant-countries/

China is the single nation in the top 20 'Least Tolerant' countries list, that can be described as secular or atheistic.

Look at the top 20 MOST tolerant nations and lo and behold, 13 of the 20 score better than 50% on the WIN-Gallup International Association (WIN/GIA) poll results for "not a religious person" and "a convinced atheist" combined.

14 countries if we include Iceland's 49% score.


China is an aberration on this issue. Pick fewer cherries and look at the whole picture.

"intolerance manifests everywhere." Bullshit.

Edit, go look at the entire list of LGBT friendly cities from the survey referenced in your own article and the corresponding nations with religiosity on Wikipedia, and the picture you are doggedly trying to present for everyone here becomes clearly a lie. Stop lying for religion. It is not becoming.

https://www.nestpick.com/best-lgbt-cities/

[guillaumeb]

54. You missed the point.

Intolerance is a human characteristic. It needs no religion. If it did, no country that is majority atheist would have an issue with intolerance,

And that intolerance can be expressed in the many countries that have laws that target the burqa.
Or the wearing of religious symbols.
Or swimming while wearing non-revealing clothing.
Or a ban on minarets.

China is not an aberration. When the USSR was officially atheistic, it was ferociously intolerant. N. Korea is intolerant.

This is not a defense of religion, nor is it an attack on atheists. It is an observation about human behavior.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. And yet you keep citing communist nations.

Funny that. It's almost like YOU willfully missed a point again.

France wasn't one of the 13 nations (14 if we count Iceland) in the tolerant list, so that doesn't disprove my point at all. (Making a presumption about your 'targeting the burqa'.)

Humans have intolerances and prejudices, and even bigotry, sure. Everyone has something. But you've been attacking the abstraction of a society based upon many people of a particular theistic/atheistic nature. That's a VERY different thing than the individual, and we can fairly objectively measure it.

Your 'best' examples of atheistic nations rife with intolerance (one of which doesn't even exist anymore) are political entities that supplanted and replaced religious theocracies. They aren't actually 'atheistic' if they are elevating the state/party to a religious status.

But clearly all of this is lost on you, or you are just fully unwilling to let go of your one flawed talking point.

[guillaumeb]

56. So you are using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy

to attack my observations.

Perhaps you should explain this point to the Uighurs, or the millions who were killed in the USSR and N. Korea.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Uh no, I specified 13 (nearly 14) other nations above the 50% mark on population atheism.

All of which are massively tolerant, especially on the question of LGBT rights, and most of which host the most recommended tourist destinations for LGBT individuals. Because they are safe, and tolerant.

It's not a 'no true scotsman' fallacy to point out Communists played a simple substitution of State/Party for Religion/God, and continue to behave as a theocracy. All the examples that exist today, on the most tolerant list, simply do not behave anything like a communist nation, even with high degrees of socialism. Socialism and Communism aren't the same things.

The only 'atheistic' nations on the intolerant top 20 list, JUST HAPPEN to be communist.

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).

For me to perform that fallacy, I would have to show those two 'atheistic' nations aren't somehow atheistic, by changing the defintion. But if they are political theocracies, I don't have to change anything. They can call themselves atheistic all they want. They can officially promote atheism as a personal theological belief all day long, it doesn't change the fact that they are communist, and thus have deified the state, and maintain to this very day a political theocracy.

I don't have to do any re-definition at all. They did it for me with their basic nature. China isn't an example of atheistic intolerance of LGBT issues. It's a political theocracy, with a long standing religiously-sourced hostility to LGBT rights.

From Wikipedia:

Homosexuality and homoeroticism in China have been documented since ancient times. According to certain studies by the University of London,[2] homosexuality was regarded as a normal facet of life in China, prior to Western influence from 1840 onwards.[3] Several early Chinese emperors are speculated to have had homosexual relationships accompanied by heterosexual ones.[4] Opposition to homosexuality, according to these same studies, did not become firmly established in China until the 19th and 20th centuries, through the Westernization efforts of the late Qing dynasty and the early Chinese Republic.[5]

The religious bigotries of the West caused this. The Communists took over and ran with the ball. They're ebbing, and so too is the hostility towards LGBT rights.

Your example is, and always has been, bullshit.

[guillaumeb]

58. You said:

Your 'best' examples of atheistic nations rife with intolerance (one of which doesn't even exist anymore) are political entities that supplanted and replaced religious theocracies. They aren't actually 'atheistic' if they are elevating the state/party to a religious status.

And thus you did indeed employ the no true Scotsman fallacy in an attempt to refute my observations.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. You know what Theistic means right?

Just checking.

I'm not modifying the definition of 'atheistic' to suit my rhetorical point and exclude 2 live and one dead communist countries from the list of atheistic countries. The three communist examples are literally theocracies in practice and function, and exclude themselves from the venn circle of 'Atheistic', whatever they may claim to be.

It does not matter that they say they are atheistic. They are political theocracies. If you did simple word substitution of their political language with say, the monarchic language of England/the Anglican Church, they would be pretty much indistinguishable. They've elevated a political theory to a metaphysical religious status.

Words have meaning. You don't get to sling 'no true Scotsman' without knowing what it means.



Edit: I am kind of curious what the text at the bottom of that image says, but the imagery seems clear to me, and is common.

[guillaumeb]

60. A nice try, and I could ask the same question of you.

So again here, you are employing the no true Scotsman fallacy but denying it by inventing your own definitions. Similar to the misuse of the whataboutism fallacy that some here persist in doing when it suits their own arguments.

Why not simply accept that intolerance seems to be inextricably linked to the human condition? If one could magically remove the theistic element, the intolerance would remain because it is linked to, and is a component of, tribalism.

Your argument would never work in any actual debate class.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. I didn't invent my own definitions. I observed what the subject nations ARE.

Then I looked for WHY THEY ARE THAT WAY.

There's nothing in atheism that suggests or demands intolerance of LGBT rights. There was, in western religious dogma, in the timeperiod I specified where the West was working to influence Asia/Pacific nations, and China was looking to modernize like the West.

They literally adopted religiously mandated intolerances, that were part and parcel of western religious dogma. Those intolerances were translated into Communist political theology, and maintained by COMMUNISTS.

China/NK/Soviet Union did not behave like atheistic nations.
They were not theistic nations tolerant of LGBT rights that became atheistic AND intolerant of LGBT rights.
They were not atheistic nations that generated new intolerances of LGBT rights.

At the end of the day, they weren't atheistic nations at all. Which is why they are (of the two that survive at all) not ANYTHING like any other atheistic nations in the world today, with regards to human rights, and specifically LGBT rights.


They will catch up though, because the communistic political theocracy is waning.

You have improperly asserted no true Scotsman, and I wouldn't be making any claims WRT debate class/debate stage outcomes here, if I were you. China defines itself two ways; what they say they are, and what they DO. I have simply observed what they do, and they defined themselves OUT of the 'atheistic' venn diagram circle, precisely by what they do. Countries may call themselves whatever they like. There is no shortage of 'democratic republics' that are neither democracies, nor republics, nor anything inbetween. To observe that they aren't, when they say they are, isn't an NTS fallacy.

[guillaumeb]

62. Allow me to ask a related question.

When the first primates walked upright, were they theists?

Did the first primates demonstrate tribal behavior?

My contention is that, if theism were absent, we would see the same intolerance. It is human behavior. To ignore that fact is certainly not logical, nor can it be scientific.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I don't see how it's related, but I'm sure you know, that is unknown.

Tribal behavior can be demonstrated to a degree, for some time periods. But at some point going backwards, meaning or intent is beyond the reach of anthropology. Same for theism. Humans seem predisposed to faith, and there is likely an social evolutionary reason for it, but the chicken/egg problem leaves it likely un-answerable as to which came first. For instance, Proto-faith May have been the mechanism that led to tribalism. Or perhaps the other way around. The best we can do here is observe remaining un-contacted tribes, but even that is pretty much contaminated at this point, and almost extinct.

That said, Tribal behavior need not be intolerant, nor theistic/non-theistic in nature.

Can you elaborate on what you are getting at here, as your supporting argument? I certainly disagree that intolerance is ‘human nature’, actually regardless of theism/non-theism. It’s certainly not universally so.

My point is more that of theism and a-theism at the society level, we can observe one more tolerant than the other in current world affairs. (With two exceptions that I argue aren’t exceptions at all)

[guillaumeb]

64. If anyone points to a society that apepars to be free of intolerance,

that society will be small, and insular.

And this trait that we call intolerance is actually a protective reaction of the tribe when it is confronted by the other.

We agree that humans, as far as we can document, seem predisposed to theism, and the contemplation of what might exist apart from humans.

And we might agree that the rich, or the 1%, need a certain level of division to generate fear in their own group. This division can be used to distract the mass of the tribe from what the rich are doing.

[Mariana]

38. ...agonizing over this decision as we've seen the hurt it has unintentionally caused.

What a disgusting lie. They were perfectly willing to hurt the LGBTQ community, in order to appease the Christians. But they badly misjudged the number of people who would object to their hateful and bigoted action. That's the only thing they are "agonizing" about.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. The 'hurt' was to their pocketbook estimates. Hallmark is a corporation selling things.

[mr_lebowski]

53. Extremely profitable (high-margin) things I would add ... that can RATHER easily be done without ...

And for which there's considerable competition.

They need to watch their asses in the court of public opinion or their little gravy train could crash down quickly, and they know it.