Heineken & Sam Adams withdraw support

from the St Patrick Day parades.

Two of the country's biggest beer companies are withdrawing their sponsorships of upcoming St. Patrick's Day parades because gay and lesbian groups aren't allowed to march openly.

Sam Adams, owned by Boston Beer Co (SAM), will no longer be sponsoring the parade in Boston on Sunday, while Heineken (HEINY) has pulled its sponsorship from the New York City parade on Monday.

Not a whole lot more to the article, but I don't know what the copy write rules are, so here is the link:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/pf/heineken-sam-adams-parades/

 

Good on them for making that statement!!!

 

Just a PR move imo..Draw some attention they supported the LGBT..Sell more beer..
Take a look at the CET /RIO website and bottom of page shows a LGBT link.
Think that is not a marketing angle? Ever seen a casino care about anything other than income?

But bottom line is (to me anyway or myop) is why not just be proud of your Irish heritage w/o including your lifestyle? Who the F cares what you do..And don't they all have thier 'own special 'parades every year in every city anyway??

Flame away but used to watch the NYC parade as a little kid w/Grandma waiting for the County Cavin participants..It's an IRISH parade nothing more nothing less...

 

Good for them!

 

I like that the Boars Bar has a strict sports only policy. Why would anyone want to ruin a vacation watching mindless CNN "news stories" and faux controversies?

Mindless sports > mindless "news"

 

There are plenty of gay Irish people, so I don't see why they shouldn't also be allowed to march in the parade. The Pope himself said we shouldn't judge gay people, so that's good enough for me.

 

I don't think I understand any of this. Everybody is Irish on St. Patrick's Day.

 

Except of course, for the gays and Italians. Homer vs the 18th Amendment

 

I'm slightly conflicted on this.

I don't think here should be discrimination against gay people.

However, I disagree with there being a prominence of displaying your sexual orientation on t-shirts.

I can't wrap my head around displaying who you like to bang on a t-shirt for a parade.

I am for civil unions where loved ones of the same sex can leave property upon and share benefits but I think some things go too far.

Yes, I believe it's a PR move but they are a business.

I don't like this anymore than a guy having a t-shirt with "I like sex with chicks" or more subtler "I am a straight guy".

I just think logic has gone out of the window due to appeasement and not wanting to appear a bigot.

 

Just to be clear, these groups were permitted to march in the parade as long as they did not identify themselves as part of the LGBT community.

Where is Elvis when you need him.....when a reporter asked him a politically divisive question, he demurred and replied something like: "sorry I'm just a singer".

 

Guinness has also withdrawn.

 

Being gay is about who you choose to love, not just who you choose to "bang". Do you have a problem with heterosexual veterans who wear tee shirts celebrating their wives?

 

Being a sponsor of a parade is a PR move as much as withdrawing from a parade is.

 

Glad to see supporting gay rights is good PR.

 

Eh? Being gay is most certainly about who you choose to have sex with and love.

I also already addressed your last completely with a guy wearing a shirt saying "I'm a straight guy".

Lastly, you leave out the part where I'm talking about the St Patty's parade and not general life.

Basically and generally, being gay has to do with homosexuality just like straight has to do with heterosexuality. Love and/or sex may or may not be in the equation.

 

This may be the case.

However, any and everything about gays and homosexuals is not to be allowed no more than it is for straight folks.

It's not enough to be supportive of gay rights but now if anyone disagrees with anything like saying "umm no please don't wear t-shirts saying I'm homosexual" whilst being in a parade...

....you don't support gay rights.



Logic is starting to go away.

I wouldn't be surprised if everyone does. You stay, you're seen as discriminatory.

As someone noted, if you are gay you are allowed to march so....

Anyway, just found this

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/15/the-south-boston-patrick-day-parade-story-you-haven-heard/1cWGE9P41gWgvCTRodcbRI/story.html

 

When they first came out to say they don't allow any groups who are trying to make a statement that didn't sound to bad, even though that vague definition could be applied to other groups marching.

But when they later came out with their official statement, still on their website, that included language like the following they sounded like assholes:

So which one of these things did they think the "LGBT Veterans for Equality" were destroying? The integrity of the parade, their faith, their town, or their country?

Keep in mind no one was forcing them to do anything. They were getting pressured by public opinion which is what should happen when you are relying on public tax dollars and corporate sponsors to pay for your event. If they don't want to deal with it next time they can try funding all the costs privately.

 

They have been banning certain activism for quite some time and not just gay activism.

Also, they wouldn't allow gays to march at all if it was a case of "if you're gay you can't march".

I'd like to know what other groups are marching.

 

Interesting

http://www.wcvb.com/news/walsh-pushes-southie-parade-to-include-gay-groups/24993484

and some background

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurley_v._Irish-American_Gay,_Lesbian,_and_Bisexual_Group_of_Boston

 

What exactly does this have to do with gay rights? Or any rights for that matter?