Skip to main content

Overthinking Gay-friendly

The other day on Facebook, a friend of mine brought up an interesting issue that I hadn't really considered before. He got a mite peeved in one post, about gay-friendly businesses advertising themselves as such, which, so far as I had always imagined, was a nifty thing to do.

I'm pretty sure that I would probably opt for one place over another, online or in real life, that would proudly assert welcoming my kind's patronage. Not necessarily that the other company wouldn't likely be just as glad pocketing some coin, gay or no, it's just that the extra measure saying so seems like an indeed cordial thing to do.

John brought up the point, though, by asking how appropriate would it be showing off about being Muslim-friendly, for example, or black-friendly, Jew-friendly, Latino-friendly, et al.? Any discriminated-against group of folks should be delighted at being singled out and courted by such accepting establishments, no?

Put that way, I see his point; it doesn't seem quite right somehow. It really shouldn't, I suppose, affect where I buy my stuff, whether or not a company auspiciously touts its gay-friendliness. Despite maybe having the noblest of intentions, it might be considered rather condescending, actually, when you think about it. I'd expect they should probably be friendly to all of their patrons regardless.

John wrote that "people use [gay-friendly] all the time to defend people who aren't bigots. Why do we need to recognize people who treat the LGBT community as equal, like that's something special?" True, and I agree it ought not be that way, viewed as something special. But I have to admit that for some reason, I'm still partial to spending my money at the gay-friendly whereabouts.

I have way too much time on my hands to have overthunk this for the past couple of days, I know. I just hadn't ever looked at it from any objective perspective before, and I found it thought-provoking. Plus I did some Googling about various x-friendly places, and despite some of it seeming pretty incredible to me, it's not that unusual after all for drumming up business.

I don't know. I suppose so long as there is unfairness and inequality toward any particular demographic, just being publicly acknowledged and accepted supersedes what could be tagged condescension. John rightly questions why we need to recognize people who treat the LGBT community as equal, like that's something special. Maybe the answer is in the question itself, because until things change, we still do need to.

Comments

  1. I've never given this any thought at all. Broad-minded and liberal as I am, it wouldn't ocur to me to single out various discriminated-against groups this way if I owned a business. But I guess that's due to my basic philosophy that people are people. I see validity in what both you and your friend think about this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you are correct. Until people truly are treated equally, they must be treated "specially" (or as I prefer to say...supportively) to avoid being treated poorly. And just because a business is x-friendly, doesn't mean members of x-group are getting special treatment as customers, just that they are especially welcome there. I think unless members of said group are getting discounts that others don't, then there really is no "special treatment" going on.

    As a business model, though, I'm not sure it helps the bottom line to support specific groups...although the bottom line is surely not the ONLY reason to show support of a minority or other group. While the business gains some customers, they will lose others. I know that if a business openly supports a group, I can't help but let that influence my decision to give them my business...or not. However, if the business remains publicly neutral on those things, then they don't cross my mind, either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good post! Interesting too. It is a shame we have to say that this business or that business does the right thing and treats folks equally. Does the term "gay friendly" also mean that some proceeds from sells may go to benefit LGBT causes?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I completely agree with John, and what I said to him when he commented on my FB about this today, "I wish things were different that I could feel almost offended by the phrase... I just can't" so... yeah. Made me start second-guessing some of the gay bars I used to go to that advertised being "straight-friendly", too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I could only click the "Like" button on this comment once. Consider it clicked more. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. That would be something that wouldn't be a bad idea, benefiting LGBT (or whatever group's) causes. Unfortunately John is right that 'x-friendly' could read special, though, rather than equal, which I know is right, I just can't help myself appreciating a welcoming nod.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I prefer to support business that recognize diversity. It's one reason I LOVE Apple and P&G products; they seem to acknowledge as well as give their employees same rights as "normal" couples. I like supporting companies like that because it keeps them going. Perhaps one day there won't be a need to point things like "gay-friendly" out, but right now IMO it's good to have some recognition fvor the strides being made.
    I'm all for it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks, Stacee, I agree.. Ain't right, maybe, but for now I can't help myself feeling the same.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Georgia outlaws microchip implants: "Just imagine having a beeper in your rectum and your beeper numbers displayed on billboards throughout the city."

Well, that bill passed, the one from Georgia "so as to prohibit requiring a person to be implanted with a microchip," Senate Bill 235 . At least it made its way through the House Judiciary Committee, anyway, next stop the House Rules Committee that decides whether it moves on to the full House vote and (fingers crossed) final passage. I'd think it probably should, taking into account the compelling testimony brought up at this last hearing, from some fat lady about why non-consensual chipping should be made against the law. There she described in detail her own personal experience, with being implanted against her druthers: "I'm also one of the people in Georgia who has a microchip," she began. ("Also one?" There's more of them there?) She went on about the specific disadvantages, how it violates one's "right to work without being tortured by co-workers who are activating these microchips by using their cell phones and other electro

I Think

I think I'm bored blogging. I think I'm done with it. I think what's the point? I think you should check out my blogroll instead. I think they say stuff better anyway.

Hung on the Cross

So what, I'm not very mature for my age. I don't care, I'm easily amused because of it, and I enjoy being amused. Like this picture of a crucifix which was hoisted a couple of months ago above the main altar at the St. Charles Borromeo Catholic church in Oklahoma: I can come up with lots of hilariously inappropriate captions here, some that even I am embarrassed to admit thinking up, despite my unabashed crudity. I would share but probably everyone else is too sophisticated to see the humor. Plus, I really don't want to go to Hell. I'm guessing that there are an awful lot of Okie parishioners down there at the church where this is hung for real, who I reckon wouldn't appreciate my sense of humor about it, either. They are, in general, hugely offended by it instead, because they see nothing funny whatsoever about displaying Jesus' ginormous penis in church, not in the least bit! Seems as though this has caused quite a "deep divide" among members o