Wait, lemme guess. You're totally "tolerant" of "homosexual behavior," but you just don't think it should be "promoted" or "advocated."

Thank god you have saved the world from a clearly homosexual bank.

Did you ever think that the bank, being a business, might just have done the equation that losing a few homo-haters that might switch banks because of the dreaded rainbow flag is worth it, since the flags will attract gays and others happy to support a business that supports diversity? And that they figure they can make more money that way?

No, you're right, they probably just want to promote the gay agenda.

"however the document goes on to imply that unsupportive co-workers are homophobic and won't be tolerated."

No, it doesn't.

"The RBC newsletter quotes the standard (though entirely debunked) 10% figure

IF the number is less than 10%, what does it matter? So you believe in equality only when enough people qualify? I would think that only those who are out and proud would identify in a poll as gay, and since millions choose to not tell you their orientation or are in the closet, the actual number is going to be higher than ANY poll can find.

Boomcrachbaby: Yes, it does imply that. But because you've obviously been brainwashed by Received Liberal Wisdom, you don't recognize intimidation anymore. The brochure spends all of 3 pages talking about the evils of homophobia, equating those who don't support the gay agenda with Nazis (no doubt you agree), etc. then, in a single sentence, tells workers their participation in this asinine program is "voluntary". How reassuring.

The 10% number matters because it has been used by gay activists themselves since Kinsey's time to advocate for change. This number has been discredited: a) Kinsey used pedophiles and ex-cons as samples of "the general population" in order to fuel his progressive agenda, and b) a 2004 confidential survey by Statistics Canada, hardly a bastion of fascism, believe me, revealed the figure to be closer to 1%. If you consider how many lesbians are really bi, the number is even lower.

And no, I don't believe we should change our entire society around for the sake of 1% of the population, however much they bitch, whine and parade naked down Main Street. Colour me crazy that way!

Clubhouse: actually, I don't approve of homosexual behaviour, if you mean the rampant disease spreading promiscuity and drug use that characterizes gay life in urban centres. I lived in Toronto's Church & Wellesley "Boystown" for a dozen years, so have a bit of a right to speak on the subject.

Did you know that Palm Springs California is the syphillis center of America? Did you know that 40% of the population is gay, including the mayor? Do you think this is just an incredible coincidence?

If that's a lifestyle you feel is worthy of promoting, be my guest. However, do not coerce your employees into putting up rainbow flags, crosses, swastikas or anything else for that matter.

There is a lot of anti-Semitism in this world. Is there a Jewish Royal Bank Club? Are employees being asked to put up Stars of Davids at their desks? Of course not. Yet we must all bow down to the trendy gayness god to show how hip and "diverse" we are.

Companies like this are the same ones that forbid employees to say Merry Christmas, but you probably approve of that too. But when the great never-satisfied maw of gayness opens, down we all must bow.

"Diversity" and "tolerance" are just empty calorie concepts promoted by elitist whiners and professional pests.

Kathy, you frighten me.

I so appreciate those humane enough to wave the rainbow flag wide and high. It means diversity, it means that I don't have to fear, it means welcome -- or, in Canada, "bienvenue." What a breath of fresh air -- being welcomed is still a fairly new concept for people like me. I will remember the name of that bank and be sure to patronize it when I move north.

kathy:

wow....me thinks thou doth protest too much. if this really sticks in your crawl and bothers you, maybe you should move down here to america where you will not be subjected to such stickers in banks. here you can be an outspoken homophobe and get your own television show.

jack e. jett

Well, Natalie, go ahead, but be advised: Kathy says you get a free case of syphylis when you open a checking account.

Since sarcasm is often tough to discern on the net, may I state that the kinds of opinions expressed by the likes of this poster are icky and unfortunately very common.

"...a 2004 confidential survey by Statistics Canada, hardly a bastion of fascism, believe me, revealed the figure to be closer to 1%. If you consider how many lesbians are really bi, the number is even lower.

Actually, if you consider the fact that it's rather difficult to collect this type of information reliably due to the number of people who feel the need to keep their orientation secret, the number is likely to be higher than 1%. Which, as Boom has already pointed out, is totally beside the point.

Boomcrachbaby: Yes, it does imply that. But because you've obviously been brainwashed by Received Liberal Wisdom, you don't recognize intimidation anymore.

oh, is that it? It says "Voluntarily displaying this sticker shows gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered co-workers that they can feel safe with you, and shows unsupportive co-workers that you won't tolerate homophobia."

Nowhere does it say that if you don't have a sticker, you are intolerant. Point out where it implies that. Here in America, we have Safe Houses for kids. If a household puts a safe house sticker in their window, then when a child is walking home from school, if they are harassed, bullied, or approached by strangers, they can go to the safe house for help. That does NOT mean that a house without a sticker is intolerant to the needs of the child.

The brochure spends all of 3 pages talking about the evils of homophobia,

No it doesn't. Page 3 is a glossary and a list of board members. Page 2 describes what the sticker stands for and how people can get involved. Page 1 is the introduction. Your claim is baseless and ungrounded.

equating those who don't support the gay agenda with Nazis (no doubt you agree),

pinpoint where that claim is made. You are making baseless claims. If you have a beef, please substantiate it with fact. Open that .pdf file and do a search for 'nazi' (scan the whole three pages) and SHOW ME THE MONEY.

The 10% number matters

So, I take it, you believe in mob rule.

I don't believe we should change our entire society around for the sake of 1% of the population, however much they bitch, whine and parade naked down Main Street. Colour me crazy that way!

How about I don't color you crazy, but ask you what you mean by your entire society being changed around. Will you be forced to divorce or something?

I don't approve of homosexual behaviour, if you mean the rampant disease spreading promiscuity and drug use that characterizes gay life in urban centres. I lived in Toronto's Church & Wellesley "Boystown" for a dozen years, so have a bit of a right to speak on the subject.

Living near a gay ghetto does not enlighten you to the gay community any more than living in posh Beverly Hills clues someone into how straight people in the heartland really live. It clues you into that ghetto, that's all.

Did you know that Palm Springs California is the syphillis center of America? Did you know that 40% of the population is gay, including the mayor? Do you think this is just an incredible coincidence? If that's a lifestyle you feel is worthy of promoting, be my guest.

Kathy, is that what your problem is? You feel that endorsing gay people is endorsing promiscuity and sexual disease? Los Angeles and New York have large communities of straight people who are very promisicuous, do you condemn the heterosexual lifestyle because of them? Did you stop to think that with gay people not being able to be married and facing such discrimination, often from their own families for their relationships, that many might feel compelled to a life of promiscuity and the inablity to settle down?

I am a 40 year old gay man. I have a partner of 19 years. That beats EVERY heterosexual couple we know of. We have a daughter. To think that we will settle for second class citizenship and not fight for the recognition of our daughter's family and all the protections and benefits that the government provides, because YOU have a problem with some bimbo in Boystown being loose is a downright ignorant thought process.

Yet we must all bow down to the trendy gayness god to show how hip and "diverse" we are.

Kudos to the ROYAL Bank for treating it's employees like Queens.

Here's the thing: even though I completely support gay rights, including the right to get married and the right not to be discriminated against for a job or anything else because of sexual orientation, I think the RB has overstepped its bounds. There is no reason for an employer to ever ask its employees to make what is essentially a political statement at work. Employers should leave individual employees alone with their personal political views, even if the company itself wants to espouse a particular view in public.

So, for example, something like this seems like the better approach:

Almost five years ago the Royal Bank's Vice-President announced that RBC was taking the lead on such issues as the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. In 1999 VP Edmee Metivier said, "You don't always do sponsorship for the rewards, you do it for a good cause. We respect the right of our customers to reject this idea," Metivier added. "But we see ourselves as leaders."

I think the bank's focus on doing what is right over doing nothing, even if it means they'll lose customers and/or money, is so incredibly encouraging and brave, not to mention practically non-existent elsewhere. I think their participation in events and causes like this is fantastic.

But I draw the line at my company recommending to me that I put up any kind of sign, poster, whatever, that has a political tinge to it, especially if the company is telling me what the content of that sign should be! I want to and should be able to come to work and do my job and go home without feeling like my boss and colleagues will look at me diferently if I don't conform and put up the rainbow sticker.

I'm not a flag-waver on any issue. I don't put bumper stickers on my car or political signs on my lawn. I won't even put one of those "my kid is really, really great in school" bumper stickers on my car, should either of my kids ever get one. I just don't like to do that kind of thing, and I should never be asked to at work.

So even though I fully support the bank's open and tolerant views, I wouldn't want to put the sticker up in my office/cube. But I would feel pressured to put it up so that it didn't hurt my career, and that's for a cause I actually agree with.

Like it or not, when a company asks employees to show their support of a particular non-work issue, they are absolutely putting pressure on them to show that they conform to the company's ideals. You really can't honestly say that the people who don't put the stickers up won't be seen differently or in a negative light. The absence of the sticker will absolutely be associated with the presence of homophobia. It's forced groupthink, and it's attached to someone's career and paycheck. And that's wrong.

If you don't think so, what would you be saying if the company had taken the opposite view on gay rights and asked all its employees to put up a sign that advocates only straight marriage, for example? I'm sure then you might not be so supportive because it's really the message you agree with and not the tactic itself.

How sad that so many of you are content to hide behind noms d'Internet instead of posting with your real names.

Reading your responses merely confirms my beliefs about liberals. When they talk about "tolerance" and "diversity" they really mean enforced group think.

Do any of you truly "tolerate" Southern Baptists, pro-lifers, suburban WalMart shoppers? USA Today readers? Readers of romance novels?

Is a "diversity" that looks down on such people true diversity?

About the 10% stat: Kinsey asked pedophiles and ex-cons, face to face, in the repressive old 1950s whether they'd ever had sex with a man, ten percent said yes. So I'm to believe that in the out-and-proud 21st century, in ultra liberal Canada, no more than 1% of those surveyed anonymously were willing to say they were gay??

Explain, please. Explain how people have no compulsion about parading around naked on Pride Day, being captured by tv crews, but won't say "I'm gay" on a confidential survey.

No need to grace us with your presence, Natalie. We have enough "diversity" flakes. Knowing that I frighten somebody like you makes my day.

Boomer: the word Nazi appears under the Rainbow Triangle section on Page 2. Ka-ching! You are only seeing what you want to see.

Boomer: the word Nazi appears under the Rainbow Triangle section on Page 2. Ka-ching! You are only seeing what you want to see.

Yes, I saw that. It tells you how the rainbow came to be. It tells you that the Nazi regime labeled the gay community with a pink triangle and from that we have gotten our triangle of pride. It is a HISTORY of the triangle.

And from that you conclude "that it is equating those who don't support the gay agenda with Nazis". Did you make this connection before or after the cow jumped over the moon? Ba-Da-Bing.

How sad that so many of you are content to hide behind noms d'Internet instead of posting with your real names.

Yes it is sad, isn't it? Perhaps if the internet didn't give me people who have tried to assault me for my views, and get wierdo housewifes who hire private investigators to stalk me, then I could tell you my name. Till then, we'll both have to agree it's just sad.

Explain, please. Explain how people have no compulsion about parading around naked on Pride Day, being captured by tv crews, but won't say "I'm gay" on a confidential survey.

As for Pride Day, it's about Pride. It's about taking that moment to celebrate that part of you that society condemns, I don't expect you to understand. Most people at Pride events are clothed. A lot of people will dress in drag, leather, or practically nothing at all because the parade is about celebrating their sexuality, their diversity. The majority go in casual street clothes. Some bring kids in strollers. There's more that goes on than what the cameras want to show for ratings.

I don't have all the answers. I'm not claiming any percentage. You are the one that clings to actual numbers. You should logically know it cannot be accurately determined. This last census America had was the first time ever I was counted and I've lived here for 4 decades. Was the Canadian one a census or a survey? Was the survey an accurate sampling of the community? I don't know and I don't care because it doesn't matter to me if it's one percent or 99, inequality is inequality period.

Knowing that I frighten somebody like you makes my day.

And here you are worried about being perceived as intolerant.

Wow Kathy, way to paint everyone with the same brush! Not all gay people parade around naked on Pride Day, no more than all straight women flash their bare boobies at Mardi Gras or turn up in "Girls Gone Wild" videos. The vast majority of the gay people I know personally are hard-working, middle-class tax-paying citizens just like myself who are raising their families and trying to get by in life. And yes, some of them are, or have been in the past, careful about who they come out to, and some of them are hesitant to have their orientation known in their workplace. I think that's just plain wrong. I keep photos of my husband and son on my desk -- I would hate to think that any of my gay co-workers would feel uncomfortable exhibiting their family photos. I think bhw makes a good point about the way in which this particular business is promoting diversity, but I sure think that promoting diversity in general is a good thing, not a bad thing. And I have been known, on occasion, to shop at Wal-Mart and read a trashy novel. I find it odd that someone who accuses "liberals" of groupthink manages to stuff all of us into the same cubbyhole.

what would you be saying if the company had taken the opposite view on gay rights and asked all its employees to put up a sign that advocates only straight marriage, for example? I'm sure then you might not be so supportive because it's really the message you agree with and not the tactic itself

bhw, I never stated what I thought of the practice, I have been solely focused on her reaction to it. I can't relate to your analogy because signs that advocate the political view of straight marriage are not the same as signs that say 'if you need help, I'm here'.

So let me try and put your analogy to something more accurate, if I may. :-)
Let's say our employer asked us to put up signs in our cubicle (voluntarily) stating that we are 'an understanding ear' to coworkers who are harassed or intimidated because of their weight, their skin color, etc.

*shrugging* I would have a sign up and have no problem. My cubicle would be open to all. Bring a pizza and let's chat.

That's how I see it anyway. I don't see the coercion there. If an employee of that bank does feel coerced then they should definitely talk to the group responsible for the newsletter/activity. Work it out within the company. Isn't that what they are trying to do?

Hopefully in this ever increasingly polarized and political society, there isn't the assumption that to be tolerant and compassionate to someone in need doesn't mean you have to endorse their political views.

The imagery of the gay community, the equal sign, the rainbow, the triangle, etc. are not intended to be so much a political statement (though they can be used that way for convenience) as they are meant to be what Natalie saw them as in comment 4. As a way to say 'relax, you are among friends'.

If you truly feel coerced into displaying a triangle, then by all means you should not display one, because that then defeats it's purpose.

If someone "needs help" they need to talk to their union rep or HR, not some fellow employee. I don't want people wandering over to my cubicle to chat about the hockey pool, let along their sexuality.

Boomcrashbaby: "weirdo housewives are hiring private investigators to stalk you"? Okaaaaaay. That is the best excuse for cowardice I've heard this week.

And when did I say I was ever afraid of being perceived as intolerant?? I love being intolerant. It's fun. I'm intolerant of all kinds of unpleasant folks, like anti-Semites, Islamic extremists, Neil Diamond fans, etc. No one is really "tolerant", they just pretend to be 'cause it is the socially acceptable thing to be (or pretend to be). Again, you are reading what you want to read.

If all of you were as honest and ballsy as I am, you'd admit that you're as intolerant as I am, and hate "diversity" as much as I do, unless its your brand of "diversity". And you'd all sign your own names.

You asked me to find the word Nazi. I found it, without using Adobe's search function. The obvious point being made is "Nazis killed homosexuals, and you aren't a Nazi, are you??"

One minute you are talking about how it's SO obvious this sticker would be voluntary; then you're acting like workplaces are places of co-ercsion and abuse ("getting harrassed because of their skin colour"). Which is it? What happens if gay co-workers harrass me for not putting up the sticker? Do I look for a someone with another freakin' sticker?? And why come to me with your drama queen problems anyway unless I'm your supervisor? Sheesh, some of us are trying to work here.

Frankly, I am glad you aren't my supervisor, Kathy. Truth is, plenty of people welcome you: Jerry Falwell, pat Robertson, etc. For me to find support, I need to visual clues, and the stickers help. Sorry they annoy you.

Kathy, honey, did we wake up on the wrong side of the Canadian bed this morning? Wowza. You're one angry woman.

But, hey, that's okay. I'm sure nothing anyone here says will sway your opinion about liberals or gays one way or the other, since you seem to have such logical, reasoned evidence for your negative stereotypes and sweeping generalizations. So you just keep swinging for the fences, okay?

If someone "needs help" they need to talk to their union rep or HR, not some fellow employee. I don't want people wandering over to my cubicle to chat about the hockey pool, let along their sexuality.

I kind of suspect that most people would get that vibe from you and probably wouldn't approach you anyway. Suffice it to say that it is common for workplaces to also be social places, where coworkers gab and share gossip all the time. Coworkers sometimes marry, they ask each other, over the water cooler, how their families are doing, etc. Just because you might not socialize doesn't mean others don't.

Boomcrashbaby: "weirdo housewives are hiring private investigators to stalk you"? Okaaaaaay. That is the best excuse for cowardice I've heard this week.

One did, but that was enough.

If all of you were as honest and ballsy as I am, you'd admit that you're as intolerant as I am, and hate "diversity" as much as I do, unless its your brand of "diversity". And you'd all sign your own names.

Giving you my name would not change your opinion of anything.

You asked me to find the word Nazi.

No. You made the claim that the newsletter said that if you aren't tolerant of gay issues then you are a Nazi. I asked you to substantiate that claim. You could not.

The obvious point being made is "Nazis killed homosexuals, and you aren't a Nazi, are you??"

I should point out to you that that is not the point of the triangle. A gay pride symbol is not an accusatory finger pointing at those who do not have one.

What happens if gay co-workers harrass me for not putting up the sticker?

Then you should have a recourse to go to. A supervisor or something. The purpose of the sticker is to provide a place free from harassment, not cause it, and if a gay coworker harasses you, that is wrong and they need to be reprimanded.

Do I look for a someone with another freakin' sticker??

Look for a little fish with latin written on his belly.

And why come to me with your drama queen problems anyway unless I'm your supervisor? Sheesh, some of us are trying to work here.

I gather from your post that you are not an employee of the bank, so I'm not sure why you worry so about a situation that isn't likely to present itself to you.

Boom, I basically agree with you and Natalie about the message the rainbow sticker sends to gays and lesbians, which is one of tolerance and compassion. I just don't think that most homophobes see it that way; they see it as an endorsement of a so-called lifestyle that they find offensive. Or at least that's what I think Kathy is trying to say!

To me, the request is coercive because the company is "asking" employees to decorate their cubes in a particular way to show solidarity for a particular point of view or cause. Again, I happen to agree with the point of view/cause, but I don't like that the company is sticking its nose into people's cubes.

I am a complete minimalist when it comes to employer solidarity, though. I think companies coerce employees to behave in certain ways all the time. For example, I don't want to go to company picnics (unless they're giving out free beer), wear company t-shirts, show company spirit by representing my company at fundraising events/walks for life, etc., but the not-so-subtle implication is that I *should* do those things and that if I don't, I'm not committed to the company or I'm not a team player. I just want to come to work, do my job, gather my paycheck, and go home. And when I skip out on those company events, people notice. The quality of my work isn't enough for them: I'm supposed to show my value to the company by being some sort of cheerleader, too. I can't stand that crap.

In any case, I look forward to the day when we don't need to put up rainbow stickers or any other signs of tolerance to show people they will be treated equally and with respect in the workplace. Here's hoping it happens during our lifetime.

Look for a little fish with latin written on his belly.

Bwahahahaha!

Well, we have another supporter of the far Right at Blogcritics. At least she can write a literate entry. That's progress around here. I may not agree with Kathy's viewpoint, but being able to read a far Right diatribe without tearing my hair out is a relief.

As someone who has worked on employment discrimination cases, I am going to guess that the bank under discussion has had a problem with hostile environments toward gays. To compensate, probably under advice from its lawyers, a commission or a court order, it has decided to be proactive in rejecting discrimination in regard to sexual preference. People seldom go that extra mile unless there is a stick.

My advice to a client would have been to address the hostile environment issue more directly, making it clear that typical abuses such as taunting, ostracism, trashing the employee's work space, etc., will not be tolerated. (I am curious to know if Kathy believes that such behavior is acceptable. Is it the something extra, i.e., the stickers, she is opposed to, or equality in the workplace overall?)

Since this situation occurred in Canada, there may be better legal mechanisms for bringing about compliance. In the U.S., considering how embedded discrimination usually is, some heads would have to roll to get results. People are largely followers. If they have gotten the message to harass gays from leaders for years, it will be difficult to counteract.

"Explain how people have no compulsion about parading around naked on Pride Day, being captured by tv crews, but won't say 'I'm gay' on a confidential survey."

What a dumbass statement. Only a few people -- a small minority -- parade around naked on Pride Day. There are many more who are GLBT. And not every queer person attends Pride events -- and for many of those folks, it's because of people like you.

"No need to grace us with your presence, Natalie. We have enough 'diversity' flakes. Knowing that I frighten somebody like you makes my day."

Not a surprise. I will keep you in my prayers.

BHW, you actually make a very good point about the stickers. But I am still a fan of Royal Bank for its courage. Imagine a firm putting principle and people before profit -- that is so amazing.

I understand their intent, and I would not feel coerced, but if others do, then they should say so and the human resources group should rethink their strategy, because the intent is not to coerce.

If I were in human resources, and it were my job to successfully integrate and educate about diversity within a company, I can't say that I would have chosen this method. If it works for them great, if not, then it should be overhauled or done away with.

Yeah, I agree, Natalie. The real story isn't the sticker issue, it's the fact that the company has "gone public" with its support of equality even though they know it might piss off some customers.

Boom, I agree with you, too. I don't think the company intended to coerce, given their overall stance on inclusion, and probably didn't realize that some employees might feel that way.

Kathy, are you still contributing to this thread? Considering that you are new to Blogcritics, I think it would be a good idea if you clarified what your beliefs are in regard to this issue. Right now, this is the only impression we have of you. Are you saying you oppose the right of gay people to work without being harassed? Or, is your objection to what you perceive as coercion to support gay co-workers only? Would you feel the same way if employees were being told to be inclusive toward some other group? (Plug in 'disabled' for gay, for example.) How about what I said about proactiveness as a remedy? If there was discrimination, are anti-discrimination measures a proper response? Perhaps you have underestimated the complexity of the topic you have taken on.

How could my beliefs be less clear, Mac? Are you really saying: Tell us you really really love diversity and tolerance or else?

Your impression of me doesn't matter. This isn't high school. I stated very clearly in my original post that I object to anything "good for you" coercive in the workplace (what part of "The Make a Wish Foundation" don't you understand) but especially if it has a political angle. And these days, the homosexual is political.

If you are really leaping from "don't make me put up a sticker" to "let's beat up gays" that says a lot about your sensibility, not mine.

We have laws on the books against "uttering death threats" and vandalism. But I forgot: some groups are more equal than others so we need "hate crime" laws too. If someone trashes someone's work station (man, you guys must work in some weird joints) then call the freakin' cops and fire his butt.

Gay Pride Day: in my old apt building in boy's town, I met plenty of gay men who didn't go to Pride Day. They said it was because of... the naked drunken men, who they said gave gays a bad name. But why believe what they say? They obviously need some consciousness raising, anger management and diversity.sensitivity training.

Natalie: if you need a sticker to feel comfortable, you have my sympathies. Say hi to the Goddess for me...

By the way: someone mentioned hatefull talk radio hosts in the States. Do you mean Jeanne Garafolo, who called a black guy a N***** on her show? Just askin'...

When anorexics insist that their body doesn't look right, we don't "support" and "empower" them by helping them starve. When someone wants to voluntarily amputate a limb other than his penis, we say he is crazy (most of us; no doubt there are some supporters of the wanna-be amputee community around here too; "Hey, they aren't hurting anybody..."). But if someone wants to cut off their penis then we need to "support" them?

I've attended mandatory "diversity" and "sensitivity" sessions at other workplaces. It is really fascinating watching the devout Jews, Christians, Hindus and Muslims struggle with their feelings as the facilitator tells us we have to "empower" and "encourage" people who we believe are doing wrong. We don't want to hurt them (hurting people is wrong too, obviously) but we don't want to be told that we will be fired unless we embrace their practices.

But religious people aren't "privileged" and this week, gay's are, so the dozens of religous people in the room have to hold their tongue so Raoul won't cry. Nice

And boomer: you told me to do a search for the word Nazi and said I wouldn't find the word. I found the word. You are now, as they say, moving the cheese.

You didn't see the coersion inherent in the mention of the loaded word Nazi in a workplace brochure, but believe me, other people will. Not everyone is as hip and enlightened as you are...

No one has responded to my question about why men who'd had sex with men were more willing to say so in 1950 than 2004.

The word homophobe is just as empty an insult as racist and sexist. Do you really need this tired liberal jargon to express yourselves?

PS: Falwell and Robertson. Golly, how 80s. Is that "Union of the Snake" I hear playing in the background...? So if I were to say, Oh, go run off with Siegfried and Roy, that wouldn't be a thoughtless stereotype. I quite dislike Falwell and Robertson, and they'd hate me as an uppity, trash talking Catholic female. At least come up with more contemporary straw men.

Look for the little fish... Yep, just as I thought: sratch a tolerant liberal lover of diversity, find a bigot.

They said it was because of... the naked drunken men, who they said gave gays a bad name.

Excellent point. These neighbors of yours believed that the rowdy ones at the parade became symbols for the entire population of gay men in other people's eyes. Their point of view seems to suggest that most gay men don't get drunk and naked at parades, but lead normal, everyday lives, and that the vocal, naked minority gets all the attention. Their concerns were well founded, it seems, since you have indeed bought into the stereotype that these men were afraid you would. Instead of making generalizations about the gay community based on these unnaked, undrunk guys, you choose to make generalizations about the ones at the parade. Why is that?

When someone wants to voluntarily amputate a limb other than his penis, we say he is crazy (most of us; no doubt there are some supporters of the wanna-be amputee community around here too; "Hey, they aren't hurting anybody..."). But if someone wants to cut off their penis then we need to "support" them?

I'm confused. Are you saying that gay men are going around cutting off their dicks? I haven't heard that. Besides, you'd think they'd be more likely to stitch an extra one on than cut theirs off.

It is really fascinating watching the devout Jews, Christians, Hindus and Muslims struggle with their feelings as the facilitator tells us we have to "empower" and "encourage" people who we believe are doing wrong.

And I'm so sure that if, say, Catholics had been discriminated against or othewise not tolerated by fellow employees at work, you would have the same problem with the company holding meetings to explain to employees that their behavior was unacceptable and what the accepted standard was? Right.

so the dozens of religous people in the room have to hold their tongue so Raoul won't cry

Yes, they do. Their religious beliefs are not relevant to the company policy of how fellow employees are to be treated. If they have a problem working for a company that values all employees, then they should change jobs and find one where they are free to not tolerate anyone they want.

No one has responded to my question about why men who'd had sex with men were more willing to say so in 1950 than 2004

I don't think anyone is responding because we don't have information about the surveys and their validity. I'm not about to venture a guess as to why those surveys showed different trends.

Look for the little fish... Yep, just as I thought: sratch a tolerant liberal lover of diversity, find a bigot.

Not that I should speak for Boom, but I think his point was that you probably wouldn't be as frothy over a religious sticker in someone's cube as you are a rainbow sticker. But thanks for another sweeping generalization about liberals!

Kathy, you say that you're opposed to the bank's policy in general, and that you would oppose it even if the show of support was for the Make a Wish Foundation. But why do I doubt that you'd attack the Make a Wish Foundation the same way you're attacking gays? With your littany of gay stereotypes and stream of anti-gay comments, it's hard for me to see that you're really opposed to the tactic the bank implemented and not to the beneficiaries of that tactic. If you spent half as much time explaining why you abhor the policy you say you abhor as you do showing how much you actually abhor gays, then maybe it would be easier to see that you're actually just upset about the policy itself.

Kathy,

Not all gay men are promiscuous, drug addicted hedonists. Those that are give us a bad name.

Not all conservative Catholic single women are screwing men who are married in the eyes of the Church. Those that do make give conservative Catholic women a bad name-- even when they post Jimmy-Swaggart-style tearful confessions of how they have sinned and then go on to slander 5-10% of the human race.

HTH.

Workplace programmes of this type are coercive and suck! Kathy's absolutely correct, as well, about the mental state of so-called Liberals.

Many here supporting this instance of corporate "diversity" wouldn't hesitate an instant to denounce the abuses of 'turbo-capitalism' attributed to the same institutions!

Let's see....stick a rainbow on your desk and The Royal Bank becomes a 'social programme' akin to free healthcare or subsidised breakfasts for tots! Are open-minded and tolerant liberals really that shallow and superficial? Yes they are!!

It's corporate pimping folks, and it's the type of corporate pimping anchored in the abuse and perversion of values and sentiments. To assault employees with the Nazi canard is manipulative overkill designed to intimidate innocent and often overworked people into conformity. We're witnessing here a cynical and abusive exploitation of working people, but since this exploitation concerns 'gaydom' it,s dismissed as diversity and tolerance.

Hypocrites!

I'm gay and as far as I'm concerned The Royal Bank can take their "wainbow".....and get bent!

Think of Judy Garland! Shortly before her death she gave a concert at which someone asked her to sing "Over the Rainbow". Now, Judy had been tippling.....so she stopped dead in her tracks, scowled and yelled: "HONEY, I'VE GOT RAINBOWS UP MY ASS"!

Ain't it the truth! Ain't it the truuuuuth!

Sensitivity training is abusive to those made to undergo it and patronizing to the subjects of that training. Having put up with brainwashing from Kathy's church, I've no desire to imitate it's sins.

The only thing a company needs to say about the subject is that gays and lesbians, Christians, moselms, etc must be treated equally and with professionalism.

And boomer: you told me to do a search for the word Nazi and said I wouldn't find the word. I found the word. You are now, as they say, moving the cheese.

Here is the entire 'thread':

In comment 3, Kathy says:

"The brochure spends all of 3 pages talking about the evils of homophobia, equating those who don't support the gay agenda with Nazis (no doubt you agree), etc. then, in a single sentence, tells workers their participation in this asinine program is "voluntary"."

After I clearly pointed out that the brochure does NOT spend 'all of three pages talking about the evils of homophobia, I then in comment 8 said "pinpoint where that claim is made." (in reference to the Nazi claim). It's there, unchanged, I do not have the ability to edit posted comments. I never asked for THE WORD. I asked you to substantiate your claim, you still cannot do so.

The .pdf file, which is available on the original blog Kathy posted, says this "During the Nazi regime, a pink triangle was used to label gay men, and a black triangle was used to label lesbians or other "anti-socials".

And from that Kathy concludes that it says it equates those who don't support the gay agenda with Nazis.

It is going to be very difficult to continue a conversation with a blogger who won't engage in a debate properly.

And boomer: you told me to do a search for the word Nazi and said I wouldn't find the word. I found the word.

Can you tell me in which comment I said that? If you are going to be a blogcritic, you are going to need to do more than just throw out rhetoric and tell people in a thread they are saying one thing when all people have to do is scroll up and see otherwise. You're not going to be very credible in any conversation with this tactic.

in a single sentence, tells workers their participation in this asinine program is "voluntary"."

Oh, and I also did a search for the word voluntary, and came up with three instances where it says the program is voluntary, not one.

You didn't see the coersion inherent in the mention of the loaded word Nazi in a workplace brochure, but believe me, other people will. Not everyone is as hip and enlightened as you are..

Well, clearly. I still don't see the coersion. If someone is going to talk about where the triangle comes from, they aren't going to control how you interpret their words. When someone says 'the triangle comes from Nazis', and you interpret that as them calling you a Nazi if you don't display a triangle, still sounds asinine to me.

Look for the little fish... Yep, just as I thought: sratch a tolerant liberal lover of diversity, find a bigot.

I think I found the problem. Apparently in Kathy's workplace, ANY mention of religion, homosexuality, German History or anything else is a direct personal attack on the woman.

bhw says: Not that I should speak for Boom, but I think his point was that you probably wouldn't be as frothy over a religious sticker in someone's cube as you are a rainbow sticker.

Actually, that's a good point and clearly 100% right on the money in her case, but what I am referring to is the basic principle of the whole sticker. Christians drive around in their SUV's with the fish symbol on their car. Businesses display the fish symbol displaying the faith of the business (at least here they do). Gay people display pride symbols. There is a purpose behind the signs, that purpose has been there for hundreds of years. People look for those signs for a reason. In the case of Royal Bank, it sounds like they wanted to use the signs as a way to signify a safe place.

She asked (sarcastically) where she could go if she was being harassed for her views, I suggested someone sympathetic to her views, and that makes ME a bigot. Good God, the poor woman has been 'forced' to sit through sensitivity training classes and clearly has gained nothing from it.

But religious people aren't "privileged" and this week, gay's are, so the dozens of religous people in the room have to hold their tongue so Raoul won't cry.

Here's what Kathy doesn't comprehend:
Religious people are free to practice their beliefs, but it is not unlimited. You cannot practice your belief at the expense of another human beings liberties and freedoms. Discriminating and harassing another coworker is violating their liberties and freedoms. My being gay and expecting to be free from harassment and discrimination in the workforce does not trample on a religious person's liberties and freedoms.

I did say that I wouldn't have used this method, and I actually agree with the last sentence of comment 31.

What Bhw said.

Kathy, you say that you're opposed to the bank's policy in general, and that you would oppose it even if the show of support was for the Make a Wish Foundation. But why do I doubt that you'd attack the Make a Wish Foundation the same way you're attacking gays? With your littany of gay stereotypes and stream of anti-gay comments, it's hard for me to see that you're really opposed to the tactic the bank implemented and not to the beneficiaries of that tactic. If you spent half as much time explaining why you abhor the policy you say you abhor as you do showing how much you actually abhor gays, then maybe it would be easier to see that you're actually just upset about the policy itself.


I see the house you've built, Kathy. I asked those questions because I wanted to see the process of how you built it. There is a difference between opposing coercion qua coercion and opposing coercion because you dislike the people you believe it favors. In law, the latter is called results oriented thinking. I really wish you had been cooperative enough to try plugging in another minority group for a comparative hypothetical. Then we could see the process of how you raised your edifice. Let's try again. Choose one of these answers.

~ I don't like the bank's policy because it favors a group that engages in behavior I consider immoral. By doing so, I believe the bank is endorsing that behavior.

~ I don't like the bank's policy because I believe it coerces people to express an opinion publicly. The content of that opinion doesn't matter. People should be able to keep their opinions to themselves.

If you can swallow your bile for a moment, I would also like to revisit the idea of using the disabled as a stand-in for gays. Do you also oppose changes in the workplace, such as lowered water fountains and sinks? How about having an enlarged restroom set aside for wheelchair users? Or, an elevator where most people are expected to climb stairs?

I was having a hard time believing John Palubiski (comment #31) was gay.

And then he quoted Judy Garland.

Oops, make that "comment #32" in my most recent comment.

On a fairly related note, Wainwright Bank in Boston is committed to numerous social and community development issues. (And you don't have to be in Boston - I do all banking by snail mail and internet.)

And how is this related to this discussion? Wainwright employees in any kind of exclusive domestic partnership receive equal benefits.

From their "Culture/Human Resources Practices" page:

Domestic Partner Benefits

Wainwright defines domestic partner as - a person of the same or opposite sex as the eligible employee with whom that employee has entered into an exclusive domestic partnership.

In 1992 Wainwright Bank offered both same-sex and opposite sex internal benefits to employees.

Same sex health and dental benefits were secured in 1994, which resulted in the entire Massachusetts Bankers Association being able to offer the same benefits to member banks (approximately 160 banks with 9,000 employees).

In 1996 the Bank was able to offer opposite sex health and dental benefits, and again the entire Massachusetts Bankers Association was able to offer the same to member banks.

In 1996 the Bank, along with Lotus Development Corporation and Apple Computer, was featured in a Balance Sheets newsletter regarding Domestic Partner Benefits. In December, 1996 the Bank was invited to participate in a New England Work & Family Association (NEWFA) conference on Domestic Partner Benefits Insights from Organizations. As a member of the roundtable, along with Lotus and Polaroid, the Bank shared its experiences and success in obtaining domestic partner benefits.

Yeah well bhw, that,s what things have come to. You didn't believe I was gay until I quoted some dead, drunken, drug-addicted Diva. Why do so many Gay men identify with them? Why is it that practically ALL our poster-girls are people who've died early? Just what form of thanatos does that point to?

The gay constituency is a wealthy one, and the RBC wants in on a piece of the action. Cute. Anything for a buck couched in the vocabulary of 'progressivism'.

Can't ya just wait until they start an "I kiss Muslim butt week". All the tellers will be in burkas. Bank of Kabul! And Hey! If ya don't like it you'll be classed 'bigot' and 'insensitive'......two of crony capitalism's biggest ideological tools

MacDiva wonders if Kathy is against lowering waterfountains and sinks as pertains to the handicapped. Probably not, although raising the floor could be considered an alternate option for those who are wheelchair-bound.....if you're thinking progressively

The people I'm really concerned about and sensistive to, though, are the monstrously obese...like over 600 pounds. They have to eat too, ya know!

Shouldn't the RBC be contemplating a programme of doorway enlargement? Shouldn't ramps, stairways and such undergo structural re-inforcements?
Then there's the oh-so-sensitive issue of snack-foods at your workstation. Should we allow only those munchies that are soft and gooey, or should we, equally and in fairness to all, allow things that are hard and crunchy, as well?

Now these may sound like silly questions, but the monstrously obese, despite their disordered appetites, have an equal right to work just like the rest of us. And they have the right to do so in an atmosphere free from any bigoted references to exercise, vegetables or stomach stapling.

There! Don't ever tell me I'm insensitive

The fish thing: It's Greek, not Latin.

Yeah, John must not really be gay because he isn't a liberal. Love that diversity and tolerance. To gloss on a previous comment: that kind of brainwashing (I mean, diversity and tolerance) I can do without.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do oppose any private company being forced to renovate its facilities to accomodate the handicapped or face a fine.

Here in Toronto, one of the oldest and loveliest movie theatres was torn down last summer. Why? Because a single wheelchair bound individual complained that he couldn't access the facilities. The theatre was very oddly laid out (you had to be there) and decided to close rather than spend the huge sums it would cost to renovate.

In the midst of the demolition, an accident occured, causing the building next door to collapse. So now, thanks to one meddling pest, even more people are now in wheelchairs! I do hope he's happy.

And of course, dozens of folks are out of work and one of the last downtown movie houses (a Festival lynchpin) is gone.

The construction of new buildings is another thing (possibly, depending on how libertarian I'm feeling the day I think about it). But people should be able to do pretty much what they like with their own property.

I was asked earlier: Do I believe in mob rule? No, but I don't believe in identity politics and minority rule, either. I don't like whiny, lawsuit weilding professional victims of any stripe. The building you're trying to access doesn't have wheelchair access? Well, maybe that's because they built it before you got crippled. How dare they?! Sorry but life is difficult and not all about you!

There are a small number of disabled people in the world. I was one of them for 3 years thanks to lupus. It was next to impossible for me to open doorknobs, climb stairs, etc. (On the days I could actually get out of bed). And that was NOBODY else's problem but my own. It is not "society's" responsiblity to tear down 100 year old buildings for the one day out of the year I just may have to go in there.

To be blunt: it simply isn't cost effective to renovate the world to accomodate a minority. It is fine to say, Let's support this or that. But liberals have a bad habit of not asking, How much and who will pay?

And as for the Make A Wish Foundation: it is a shallow, sentimental exercise in smarm. I'll bet their admin ratio is less than impressive. But at least they're a private foundation and not tax-sponsored sinkhole.

You didn't believe I was gay until I quoted some dead, drunken, drug-addicted Diva.

She was humorously quoting on a stereotype. I get it.

I swear since the advent of the internet, it's like the entire world has been hit with some Tower of Babel Syndrome. Not just on the topic of equality, but on Iraq, religion, conservativism vs. liberalism, capitalism, etc. on everything, it's like the ability to communicate has gone out the window.

Why do so many Gay men identify with them?

Strong-willed, feminine (female), overcoming adversity from tragic, often abusive life situations, drugs as an escape, you really don't get why some men identify with that?

John, I have a question for you. Putting aside the sticker scenario for a moment. Let's pretend you are out at work. You are walking into a room and near the door there are a few other coworkers. You overhear one of them say 'I better wait to go in that room, I don't want to be in there with him alone, he might touch me' and you hear other coworkers snicker. Question for you, what would you do? Keep in mind, you work with these people everyday, so this attitude towards you is non-stop. Would you go to your supervisor? Would you look for another job? How would you handle that?

whoa. Libertarian.

now I understand.

The building you're trying to access doesn't have wheelchair access? Well, maybe that's because they built it before you got crippled.

lol...did they build that building before paralysis of any kind existed? Is paralysis a recent phenomenon, one that didn't exist back in the good old days? Or could it be that back then, cripples were treated as lepers for the crime of being different and unable to walk? Hmmmm....

It is fine to say, Let's support this or that. But liberals have a bad habit of not asking, How much and who will pay?>/i>

I don't think that's true. Most liberals are willing to ante up in the form of higher taxes, in order to ensure equal access to the same facilities, for example, for all citizens.

Yeah, John must not really be gay because he isn't a liberal. Love that diversity and tolerance. To gloss on a previous comment: that kind of brainwashing (I mean, diversity and tolerance) I can do without.

and

Yeah well bhw, that,s what things have come to. You didn't believe I was gay until I quoted some dead, drunken, drug-addicted Diva.

Boy, you guys are so strident and full of venom that you don't even know a joke when you see one. I was playing on all those stereotypes that Kathy's been tossing around. I mean, if she can discuss how gay men are a blight on society -- what with all their nudity and drunkeness and all -- why can't I talk about their affinity for old time divas and show tunes?

Italics be damned!

italically challenged? You'll have to sit by me, you probably wouldn't be welcome elsewhere.

why can't I talk about their affinity for old time divas

Especially when a reference to one is made in a derogatory light, in the title of the post.

Multiple levels of irony, Boom....

Well since you liberals are all for tolerance and diversity so much, will you support an initiative by the RBC to have a program promoting EX GAYS as well???

You know, all those tens of thousands of people that have happily left the gay movement and are now living healthy hetro sexual lives!!

Surely since you lefties are so open minded, you will support them having stickers and flags promoting there freedom from the Gay Lifestyle right??

Hee hee.......I didn't think so!!

Well, I happen to think the that "recovered gays" are just deluding themselves, but if they were being descriminated against in the work place, and the company wanted to have a meeting with employees to discuss how that should not happen any more, I'm fine with that.

But I also said earlier that I didn't think a company should be asking employees to put any kind of sticker up.

Lastly, the bank in question isn't promoting any people or lifestlye, as your counter example suggests. It's promoting *tolerance at work* toward a particular group of people.

It's a typical misrepresentation of the facts.

Surely since you lefties are so open minded, you will support them having stickers and flags promoting there freedom from the Gay Lifestyle right?

See, this is the difference in the mindset of the left and the right.

From the newsletter, it states that the purpose of the sign is not to promote an activity or a lifestyle but to be a notification of a safe haven. Like a sign that says 'restroom down the hall' does not promote an ideology. It tells people where to go.

I, on the left, see that as saying 'this is a sticker to designate a safe haven and not promote an ideology'.

The right sees it as 'by displaying this sticker, you are endorsing a lifestyle, a sexual activity, a political ideology, rampant drug use and the endorsement of Palm Springs, etc'.

I guess I do clearly belong on the left.

If being gay is a choice, why does someone need help choosing to be straight?

"I, on the left, see that as saying 'this is a sticker to designate a safe haven and not promote an ideology'."

If the purpose of that newsletter isn't to promote an ideology, than why is there a glossary of ideologically correct words at the back? Sounds a little like a "re-education campaign" to me.

If the purpose of that newsletter isn't to promote an ideology, than why is there a glossary of ideologically correct words at the back?

I really don't know. Like I said, I probably wouldn't have chosen this method to provide safety to my employees, (if I was an employer).

On that page of terms, it says they have a mandate, with the word mandate in bold letters. It's my understanding that a mandate is a legal document (or a corporate document within a company, etc.) that grants or bestows rights, an order, a command, etc. I assume this mandate comes from the corporate body itself. I don't know all this stuff about Royal Bank.

So we do know though they do have a mission. Fortunately for us, they then break that mission down into three steps so we can see what they are:

1) To act in an advisory capacity to the regional diversity committee - not as a
separate distinct body.

2) To assist in the development of an inclusive work environment for GLBT
employees within SDCC.

3) To identify activities that will enhance understanding of GLBT issues, in order
to collectively make our work environments more inclusive for GLBT
employees.

So I would assume, and I may be incorrect, that their stickers are for number 3. To make a more inclusive work environment, with the activity being the voluntary display of stickers.

I'm sorry folks, I don't see it, I'm really trying. I don't see how asking an employee if he/she wants to be a compassionate go-between, should a bad incident in the work force arise, is promoting an ideology other than Good Samaritan. Granted, I did say that I wouldn't have done this, I don't think I'd ask my employees to do this, I'd ask anybody with a beef to come to me (or the appropriate supervisor, etc.) But I don't see this as promoting an ideology. But then again maybe we just come from different worlds. I happen to know many conservatives who are opposed to gay marriage and the recognition of gay relationships but would not get so bent out of shape in helping someone and just being compassionate.

I agree that some social programs go too far. That movie house example could be one, this could very well be another, I don' t know what the environment in that bank is like. But to me that doesn't mean do away with the entire concept of humanity helping humanity. I just don't have that amount of compassionate conservatism and thankfully none of the conservatives I know off the web are the same.

Some of the rationale to arrive at these libertarian views are just sad. Comments like 'they didn't build that building just for you, you cripple, so get the fuck over it and leave us alone', while maybe having a point in the construction of older buildings gets completely lost in the spiteful, hateful delivery.

Perhaps the 'individual' mentality of the libertarian would reach more people if it wasn't from a so blatantly obvious 'fuck off' mentality.

Will the last person to leave please close the italics tag?

I have another option, boomer: Ignore the comments. I hear people saying ignorant, insensitive stuff all day long. And, because I'm an adult with a pretty thick skin I just ... pay no attention to it. Incredible but true!

Suck it up.

You know what most people really need? INsensitivity training. Get over your perceived, often delusional paranoia about housewife stalkers or "homophobes" or Jerry Falwell, and just grow up. Don't run to your boss to fight your battles for you, and get them to make everybody put up a frickin' STICKER like we're all back in kindergarten.

Get over your perceived, often delusional paranoia about housewife stalkers or "homophobes" or Jerry Falwell, and just grow up

The housewife who hired a PI to photograph me was more of a fag-hag thing, and was brought up to illustrate why I won't use my name, rather than to indicate that I need my boss to fight my battles for me.

Just so right wingers out there can understand where this liberal comes from, especially if they don't agree with me:

I have experienced multiple attempts on my life BECAUSE of my orientation, endured police brutality, attempted heterosexual rape and had to endure practically dozens of gang beatings on the school grounds on an almost daily basis.
Broken limbs, concussion, busted teeth, experienced it all at the hands of intolerant folks.

THIS influences my ideology, and somebody telling me to just suck it up STENGTHENS my ideology.

"Suck it up."

That's kind of funny coming from someone who has spent the past two days whining about a policy at a company she doesn't even work at.

I guess we liberals could say the same thing to you. Don't like it? Too bad. Suck it up.

Two words Boomer: Karate lessons.

And I'm angry about this policy because I know it will be coming soon to a job near me. But then you don't believe in premptive war, now, do ya?

That anyone would hear about the Royal Bank's policy and have any other reaction than "Screw that shit" shows a profound lack of principle, independence and maturity on all your parts. America is wasted on you all. A shame.

Yes, I understand. Anyone who doesn't view this situation the way Kathy does has no principles [indeed, a profound lack of them], independence, or maturity. Unlike you, who shows all those traits in this long comment thread full of stereotyping, condescension, and fear-mongering.

Two words Boomer: Karate lessons.

Gee Kathy, so that's all this world needs, huh? Should I have kicked the shit out of the police too? If a coworker is intolerant to me because of her catholic faith, I should just beat the crap out of her? This is your recommendation?

then you don't believe in premptive war

I wouldn't label working together as war, but I do believe the stickers were intended as preemptive.

I'm angry about this policy because I know it will be coming soon to a job near me

Why don't you take your own advice and suck it up.

Uh oh. Once those italics are on, it is hard to get them turned off.

Anyway, I wish to thank Kathy for answering my question. I'm still processing her response, but do appreciate it.

John P., I do not support the fat pride movement. I believe that obesity is a health epidemic. Therefore, I do not encourage that perspective. In addition, weight is something that can be controlled. However, that does not mean I abuse fat people or encourage others to do so.

Since most Americans are overweight, if not obese, society has made accommodations to that reality. The desk chair you are sitting in was probably made wider for American consumers. Your sofa may have stronger springs than it did a decade ago. If you flew lately, the plane seat likely was broader than before, too. So, even though you may not realize it, what you presume to be preposterous is occurring to an extent.

Boom, after all the discussion you and I had about libertarianism and the LP position on gay rights, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that you could pluck Kathy's use of the word 'libertarian' on a tangent and have it explain away her personal unfriendly view.

Mike, I believe Kathy is a libertarian. Perhaps she will come back to the thread and be explicit, but such politics is implicit in her remarks so far. Also, the friends she appears to have brought over from her blog to support her appear to hold views sometimes described as libertarian. Perhaps you didn't read the entire thread. The emphasis on property over people is pretty noticeable if you do.

No self-described libertarian who has thought it through to any degree puts property before people, because property is a function of individual ownership; and, core libertarian philosophy is: you own yourself, which means, you cannot be owned.

So, I would also like Kathy to explain in greater detail, because you're right in a sense: Kathy and 'the friends she appears to have brought over from her blog to support her appear to hold views sometimes described as libertarian'... by you and Boom.

Boom, after all the discussion you and I had about libertarianism and the LP position on gay rights, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that you could pluck Kathy's use of the word 'libertarian' on a tangent and have it explain away her personal unfriendly view

Mike you seem to be the exception rather than the rule. My encounters with the libertarian party are very limited, I've conceded that, but they do tend to be more like her perspective than yours, unfortunately.

I do know that there are Republican conservatives who believe in their ideology because of what it stands for. I know that there are also Republican conservatives who support their ideology because they just hate liberals. It reads like I've found the libertarian party's equivalent.

Individualism and personal responsibility, I strongly believe in. But for me, it stems from the concept of character, not financial incentive or condenscending selfish demeanor (as in comment 39).

I also find it sad and childish that in this day and age, when the FBI reports that there are over 1,000 hate crimes per yeardue to sexual orientation that she would tell gay people to suck it up and quit whining, but then she whines for several days over the possibility of being asked if she wants a sticker.

Comment 10 posted by Kathy Shaidle on October 7, 2004 07:20 PM:
How sad that so many of you are content to hide behind noms d'Internet instead of posting with your real names.

It is a traditional value to use a screen name. Maybe if we plastered our real names all over the internet like you do, we would see it as a form of self promotion, like you do.

Reading your responses merely confirms my beliefs about liberals. When they talk about "tolerance" and "diversity" they really mean enforced group think.

The same could be said of most fashiong in deportment and social graces.

Do any of you truly "tolerate" Southern Baptists, pro-lifers, suburban WalMart shoppers? USA Today readers? Readers of romance novels?

That is exactly what I do- I tolerate them. I don't start with them unnless they start with me. I don't try to pass laws that discriminate against them. I even shop at Wal-Mart sometimes.

Is a "diversity" that looks down on such people true diversity?

Nondiscrimination isn't about how you feel, it is about how you act.


So I'm to believe that in the out-and-proud 21st century, in ultra liberal Canada, no more than 1% of those surveyed anonymously were willing to say they were gay??

You can believe what you want, and probably will. It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 10%. Caucasians, Negroes, and Mongoloids are represented in hugely different proportions in the US and Candian populations, it doesn't change their entitlement to equal treatment under the law.

Explain, please. Explain how people have no compulsion about parading around naked on Pride Day, being captured by tv crews, but won't say "I'm gay" on a confidential survey.

False logic. The handful of people who embarass themselves and the gay community at PRIDE events may or may not be willing to take a survey. The gay community as a whole doesn't make decisions in unison. I don't answer telephone polls, that doesn't mean I don't vote.

No need to grace us with your presence, Natalie. We have enough "diversity" flakes. Knowing that I frighten somebody like you makes my day.

She probably meant that it's frightening that people like you still persist. The optimist believes that all people are essentially good, it is truly a belief because the evidence doesn't support it.

And no, I don't believe we should change our entire society around for the sake of 1% of the population, however much they bitch, whine and parade naked down Main Street. Colour me crazy that way!

No one has suggested changing our entire society around, merely extending equal right to gay people. You are free to be whatever colour of crazy you find yourself to be.

I lived in Toronto's Church & Wellesley "Boystown" for a dozen years, so have a bit of a right to speak on the subject.

I lived in the Fillmore neighborhoopd in SF for a couple of years, that didn't turn me black, nor did I come to imagine that the residents of that neighborhood were representative of all black people in SF much less the world.

Did you know that Palm Springs California is the syphillis center of America? Did you know that 40% of the population is gay, including the mayor? Do you think this is just an incredible coincidence?

I would imagine that if you went to Tijuana you would find a high rate of almost any social disease as well. Does that mean that Mexicans or heterosexuals are inherantly disease ridden or morally inferior? Or does it mean that if you go to bordello you will find whores?


There is a lot of anti-Semitism in this world. Is there a Jewish Royal Bank Club? Are employees being asked to put up Stars of Davids at their desks? Of course not. Yet we must all bow down to the trendy gayness god to show how hip and "diverse" we are.

There are all kinds of affinity groups at some corporations. Others have none.

Companies like this are the same ones that forbid employees to say Merry Christmas, but you probably approve of that too. But when the great never-satisfied maw of gayness opens, down we all must bow.

I have never worked for a company that forbade anyone from saying "Merry Christmas." However, in general one does not presume to know the religion of a customer. All Jews aren't named Goldberg and all people named Shaidle are not Catholic.

"Diversity" and "tolerance" are just empty calorie concepts promoted by elitist whiners and professional pests.

The words can and have been abused and misused by some. That doesn't justify mocking the concept and the moral aim of the concept.

After reading more of Kathy's blog, I realize she considers herself mainly an advocate for Christianity. Specifically, she seems to support a rather rigid interpretation of Roman Catholicism. I found myself thinking Opus Dei and Catholic Traditionalist Movement. She also appears to be far Right in her politics. Then there is the libertarian aspect. What I found missing was any sense of compassion or concern for other people. Perhaps her Christ is different from the one I learned about as a child, since that was his main characteristic. Anyway, as a member of Blogcritics, Kathy will have future opportunities to explain her views.

I looked over Kathy's blog and saw only area that would lead me to believe that she and I would have much common ground: the phrase 'we love capitalism'. I love capitalism, too, yesiree. The rest...

A friend writes in:

"I would point out the amazing similarity of the current flap over the Royal Bank and the pink traingle with what Vaclav Havel described in his seminal essay "The Power of
the Powerless". the whole point of the essay was how the Communist regime reinforced its power and authority by implicitly (but not (explicitly) requiring ordinary people to make ritual signs of obedience to the system. The example he uses is a greengrocer receiving a"Workers of the World Unite" banner with his daily shipment of newspapers, with the unspoken assumption that he is supposed to put the sign up in his window as a sign of loyalty to the regime. Isn't this conformism to ideology through apparently voluntary, apparently benign sloganeering exactly what RBC is trying to promote?"

www.designwritingresearch.org/ Shakespeare/shakesTexts/Havel.doc

I don't accept the concept of "Hate crimes" to begin with. But even if I did, I'd actually find that low 1,000 figure pretty heartening, considering the population of the United States is 300 million...

And precisely what is wrong with self-promotion? Is it your fondest hope to be unsuccessful in life?

Of course I joined BlogCritics to increase hits on my own site. So far the results have not been promising. A conservative friend is a member so I took that to mean the place wouldn't be crawling entirely with amatuerish, anonymous leftists. I was mistaken.

The payback simply isn't worth the investment in my time, if my SiteMeter stats are anything to go by. BlogCritics seems much more like a small group of folks talking to themselves than I'd envisioned. There is nothing wrong with that, I belong to a few of those online myself. But I need a much bigger ROI than BlogCritics can provide. Let the celebrations commence!

Kathy Shaidle writes:
I don't accept the concept of "Hate crimes" to begin with. But even if I did, I'd actually find that low 1,000 figure pretty heartening, considering the population of the United States is 300 million...

Those are hate crimes based on sexual orientation. About 20% of the U.S. population is Catholic and between 5-10% of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian. Yet in 1995, 1299 anti-homosexual hate crimes committed while only 31 anti-catholic hate crimes were committed. On a per capita basis the rate of offense is 80-160 times as great.

Yet Catholics are protected under federal hate-crimes legislation and gays and lesbians aren't. In fact every attempt to give lesbians equal protection under the law has been struck down by the religious right in congress.

Your own Church, while crying a few crocodile tears, has said that if we get murdered we bring it on ourselves by demanding our civil rights.

I have little sympathy for you or your Church. I spent 30 years living in an oppressively Catholic southern city. As a student in a Catholic school, I knew that, although I wasn't sexually active, if my sexual orientation became known, I'd certainly be expelled from that school, and I knew that as the child of very religious parents, I would be committed to in patient psychiatric care until I was "cured." At school, I was fed a steady diet of anti-gay hatred, but I had to keep my mouth shut until I reached the age of majority.

I have little use for Catholics or their Church because of the way they treated me, but I will not see anyone treated that way-- even those that did it to me.

I think every lefty so far on this board has conceded to you that the sticker idea is not an ideal one.

I don't accept the concept of "Hate crimes" to begin with.

It doesn't matter if you accept them or not, they are the law. The purpose of a hate crime law is because there is more than one victim. If a woman is walking down the street and gets murdered, people shake their heads and maybe clutch their can of mace closer to them and go on with life. If a woman is walking down the street and gets murdered and people find out she was murdered because she was Catholic, then all the Catholics in the area become terrorized. Members of the Catholic community live in fear and so there is more than one victim than the person who was just murdered. That's why a hate crime carries a bigger penalty, it's because the hate crime affects more people than 'a simple murder'.

But even if I did, I'd actually find that low 1,000 figure pretty heartening, considering the population of the United States is 300 million

You are putting that 1,000 figure against the population of 300 million, but you are the one who insists that gay people are only 1% of the population. So it's actually 1,000 hate crimes per 3 million people. And that is for orientation, that does not count the hate crimes against race, religion, etc. And when you consider the ripple effect those hate crimes have, it's easy to see how all 3 million can end up terrorized.

Of course I joined BlogCritics to increase hits on my own site. So far the results have not been promising.

Mike Kole is a conservative. And he got pissed that I initially compared your ideology to his. Perhaps the people aren't coming to your site, not because of where you have placed the podium, but because of the overblown rhetoric, falsehoods and intolerance spewing from the speakers mouth.

OK, I see what Kathy is saying in making reference to the Havel essay. There is a cultural difference between the US and Canada that needs to be noted. The Royal Bank of Canada is an arm of the government, and there is no US equivalent. We have only private banks here for conducting routine banking (yes, yes, the Federal Reserve).

Whereas I would not have a problem with any American bank, such as a Key Bank, making a corporate decision to place rainbow stickers all over their windows and teller windows, I would have the same problem with a US Gov't institution creating such a policy for rainbow stickers as I do with a gov't institution putting up religious symbols.

The basis for argument is the same: in a multi-cultural nation such as the US, governmental institutions should be completely neutral culturally. Show neither discrimination against, nor favoritism towards.

Kathy- Regarding click-through, I'll give you the same advice I received. If you want huge click-through traffic, make sure to talk about Britney Spears, Michael Phelps, sex, and for good measure, sex using the naughty words. That will guarantee voluminous click-through.

If you only post on politics, like I tend to, you will have less click-through than those who post on music or celebrities, but you will probably have higher quality visits, meaning, people will add your blog to their list of favorites and check back regularly.

The people who post comments here frequently are like the people who write letters to the editor. They are 1 of 1000 who think exactly the same as the person bold enough to stick his neck out here (for regular chopping off). The commentors are the tip of the viewing iceburg.

Comment 67 posted by Mike Kole on October 10, 2004 09:22 AM:

I looked over Kathy's blog and saw only area that would lead me to believe that she and I would have much common ground: the phrase 'we love capitalism'. I love capitalism, too, yesiree. The rest...

Considering she likes working freelance and has lupus, I would imagine she also "loves" socialized medicine unless she is independently wealthy.

Slavery used to be legal and abortion still is. "But they are/were the law"...? Germany had the finest human rights laws in Europe, right up to and including the Nazi Regime. Laws are often bunk, my love.

Boom: as for hits from BlogCritics, yes they are low, and for the very reasons you cite. And also because the readership here at BlogCritics is obvously college-age leftist.

Oddly enough, however, my real blog gets more than 1,000 hits a day, a rate that increases about 10-15% a month. My fans include Jeff Jarvis at Buzzmachine and Rob Dreher at the Dallas Morning News (a pretty liberal paper, btw, despite your possible Texas=stupid bigots stereotyping.

A piece I wrote for the DMN got over 30,000 hits. I've been interviewed by Vatican Radio and the CBC, am a regular guest on Canadian panel shows, used to write a column for the country's largest newspaper, and was nominated for my country's highest literary honour.

And you are...?

So I'm delighted to inform you that the audience for overblown rhetoric exists out there. However, despite Mike's generous advice, for which he has my thanks, I plan to continue building my readership elsewhere. No pointing fishing in an empty pond.

And actually Mike, the Bank of Canada is part of the gov't but not the Royal Bank. It is a public company. Unlike the US, where I'm often surprised to see Joe Blow's Drive Through Bank and so forth, we only have 6 banks.

Those who oppose the sticker campaign and leave will find their choices of alt. workplaces far more limited than they would in the US. Yet another reason my country is inferior to yours.

The fact remains that whether the gov't is behind this campaign or not it is repulsive on principle for the reasons explained in Havel's essay.

OK, I see what Kathy is saying in making reference to the Havel essay. There is a cultural difference between the US and Canada that needs to be noted. The Royal Bank of Canada is an arm of the government, and there is no US equivalent. We have only private banks here for conducting routine banking (yes, yes, the Federal Reserve).

I would have the same problem with a US Gov't institution creating such a policy for rainbow stickers as I do with a gov't institution putting up religious symbols.

RBC is a publicly held institution traded on the NYSE. It doesn't appear to be different than most US banks.

I couldn't get her website to load, either it's on a slow server or the site is not macintosh compatible.

But now I'm really confused. Her gripe about this was that "I'm angry about this policy because I know it will be coming soon to a job near me", but she works freelance?

Isn't this conformism to ideology through apparently voluntary, apparently benign sloganeering exactly what RBC is trying to promote?

Well, Kathy, I'm sorry criticism of your ideology makes you want to leave. (especially criticism from a site with 'critic' in the name).

Your Havel analogy was where a government required someone to do something, and you youself state that this is a private company giving it's employees a voluntary choice to make. I don't see the analogy as completely accurate.

Isn't this conformism to ideology through apparently voluntary, apparently benign sloganeering exactly what RBC is trying to promote?

How about the Right's fight to put creationism in public schools? That makes it non-voluntary and it's an ideology. How about the Right's fight to put religious symbols in federal buildings? That is involving the government and so is much more like your Havel analogy than some private employer asking their employees something.

Kathy,

You aren't off the hook for choosing this specific area of corporate culture as the inspiration for your objection, you simply couldn't get away with complaining about racial sensitivity training or Black History Month. However, the larger issue is one that corporate employees live with, the asvancement of "corporate culture", which amounts to a combination of marketing and private bureacracy, the latter more than the former.

The legal departments of companies used to be small affairs which handled the daily interests of the company with regulation and the occasion competetor lawsuit. Now they have grown into huge departments which handle "risk management" and often demand to review and approve any written word issued by the company. The companies obviously see value in this and are willing to pay for it (with our money of course).

The other bureaucracy which has entrenched itself in corporations is the "Human Resources Department" formerlyu known as Personnel Management, formerly known as the Hiring Office. These people also sit around think of new ways to justify their existence and portion of the operating budget in addition to the now necessary function of tracking compliance with all sorts of regulations some of which are good and some of which are silly.

I agree with you that a company shouldn't be doing something silly like promoting "gladhand gay people week" or "hug hispanics week" and I absolutely despise a lot of the "see how much we love our employees" crap they contrive. I also don't appreciate the company suggesting or creating expectations of donations of time or money to _their_ charity interests when the employees are perfectly capable of choosing their own charities and how they wish to help them. If a company rewards those employees who participate then it is by default favoring them over employees who don't- that amounts to telling me which charity to support.

But these are private companies and they have a right to choose how to operate, and a huge legal department to review those choices as well as a marketing department which analyzes the cost to benefot ratio for the decisions.

Here in the US, the banking industry workforce tends to be disproportionately gay. These aren't the world's best jobs or the world's best paying jobs. For whatever reason some gay people are attracted to working in this field, as we are to customer service in general. It isn't surprising that an industry which is heavily gay is going to have a gay aspect to it, now is it?

This is not a communist plot, it's just life.

The banking industry is disproportionally gay? I didn't know that. It's amazing how when we are 1% of the population (3 million people) that we have 'overtaken' banking, Hollywood, flight attendancy, hair salons, home design, nursing, what other industry am I forgetting that apparently we dominate? I didn't realize how busy the 3 million of us are!

The banking industry is disproportionally gay? I didn't know that. It's amazing how when we are 1% of the population (3 million people) that we have 'overtaken' banking, Hollywood, flight attendancy, hair salons, home design, nursing, what other industry am I forgetting that apparently we dominate? I didn't realize how busy the 3 million of us are!

You forgot restaurants, hotels, amusement parks, fashion, retail, professional tennis and wrestling, and urban renewal.

Funny story. One Christmas Day at Mega-Bank's call center in Tampa, when the volunteers for duty just happened to be mostly from my supervisory group and unpartnered gay men without children- a customer called in and got one of our more gregarious operators. "Paul" hit the supervisor button alerting me to listen in and stood up in his cubicle to get everyone's attention. After a moment of listening to the caller he said "Just a moment Sir, I will see if I can get someone else for you." He looked around the room and then went back to the caller. "I'm sorry sir, all we have here today are gays, blacks , and foreigners. Would you like me to have a white heterosexual call you after the holiday?"

That is funny. What in the heck could somebody have asked for from a bank that would have gotten that response?

I just want to say I am not urging Kathy to leave. I would prefer that she stick around and explain her views. Not lecture, not yell, explain. When I first began blogging, I used to host symposia on complex topics with legal implications on Mac-a-ro-nies. Having written a law review article on public space, I'm interested in that topic and its implications. That is what attracted me to this entry. The major flaw I see in Kathy's reasoning in that regard is that she is not giving ample weight to public or quasi-public spaces being communal. This is an area of life in which the individual must often defer to the needs of the community.

As for using Blogcritics to attract traffic, I doubt it has much effect. Not enough return visitors. Too many participants who don't write well, leading visitors to think we're all numbskulls. A leaderboard that consists mainly of balloon posters. If Kathy is trying to sell her book, I think an ad at religious or conservative sites would work better. My own take on blogging and selling books has been to keep them separate.

I love the way people like Kathy and Jim Kalb trot out the old "even liberalism cannot tolerate illiberalism" argument like it actually proves something. No intelligent person ever claimed that liberalism is not an ideology. Of course it is! Liberalism, like all other world views, is premised upon a "radical choice" that cannot be defended. Catholic Ideologues have "organic tradition" and morality by decree, and liberal-democrats are moved to respect the wishes of all individuals as fully as they can--chastened by the knowledge that no perfect attunement between sovereign subjects is possible.

A liberal will have no problem placing a gay person's sincere romantic desires over the demands of the "traditional" idea of marriage. There is no possibility of agreement on this issue. Kathy is far more emotionally attached to the abstractions embodied in her idea of marriage than to the needs of other people.

You are one special lady, that's all I can say. A little suffering is good for the soul right? And a lot of suffering is better!

I'll bet you hate the Care Bears too!

Dave

Comment 83 posted by boomcrashbaby on October 10, 2004 01:54 PM:

That is funny. What in the heck could somebody have asked for from a bank that would have gotten that response?


The customer had said that this was his third call to try to get his account fixed, and this time he didn't want to talk to any queers, blacks, or foreigners.

Thanks for the corrections on the status of the bank in question as private. As I indicated, then, I have no problem whatsoever with the bank doing the rainbow sticker thing. In fact, if they had a branch here, I would be inclined to patronize them. The bank has the right as a private intitution to pursue any policy it chooses. The customers and employees are free to make choices pursuant to that accordingly. There is nothing ominous in that.

this time he didn't want to talk to any queers, blacks, or foreigners.

and he was in Tampa? wow.

Mac Diva, I am curious. Since you are a civil rights lawyer, if this scenario had played out (the Royal Bank sticker scenario) here in America, and somebody like Kathy sued or complained coercion, etc. who would win?

Works for me, Mike! Maybe the left and the right can agree on some things.

I don't know where the caller was calling from, the call center was in Tampa.

I alluded to that in Comment 24, Steve (Boom). About the only way a similar scenario would occur is if the bank was taking proactive measures after being accused of discrimination. The bank would have to be in a municipality, city or state which extends employment discrimination protection to homosexuals or the legal issue could not arise. Since private employers do not have a constitutional obligation not to interfere with employees' expression, the employees wanting the stickers would likely avail over those opposed.

I recall a somewhat similar situation from my monitoring of