Kraft Foods Gives Christian Customers Their Middle Finger

Oreos are the types of cookies that you never really want, but are good if you’re forced to eat them at Vacation Bible School or church potluck when the homemades cookies are gone.

But will churches like the new ad campaign by Kraft Foods, photoshopping Oreos to symbolize gay pride?

In response to the calls for boycotting the food company, Basil Maglaris, a spokeswoman for Kraft Foods, clarified the ad:

“We are excited to illustrate what is making history today in a fun and playful way,” she said in an email to ABC News. “As a company, Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness.  We feel the OREO ad is a fun reflection of our values.”

So…  The food company just wants to celebrate their values with a little fun? What’s not to love?

Of course, this is just the latest “gay pride” initiatives.  Target also has a line of gay pride products.

I guess if you’re homosexual, it would be a great deal of fun to go to Target and buy some Oreos.  For the rest of us — you know, people who’d rather not feel like they’re inherently supporting a cause antithetical to their deeply held beliefs — I guess we’ll have to make some hard choices.

Well, the choices aren’t really that hard, are they?

After all, no one really likes the people who bring Oreos to the potlucks anyway.

Read more on the Faith and Family Channel

Also, follow me on Twitter and Facebook!

Hugh Grant’s “The Re-Write” Delves into Love, Failure, and Family
Christians Must Use Explicitly Biblical Arguments
The Attributes of a Christian Warrior
Living Without Sex: How Christian Singleness Doesn’t Mean Ignoring the Hunger for Sex
About Nancy French

Nancy French is a three time New York Times Best Selling Author.

  • Erin

    Aww man, I really really really like Oreo’s too. I don’t shop at Old Navy anymore because of their stance on homosexuality. I didn’t really like them anyway though, this will be much harder.

  • Nancy French

    Yeah. I know. :( At least i’m eating less sugar these days! This will help me stay on the right path!

  • Ron Donaghe

    Has the writer ever thought that many products in Target and other places are heterosexual or religious; for example greeting cards for anniversaries and husband/wife birthdays are heterosexual; there are also religious ones. Has the writer ever thought that most films have heterosexual love interests and not same sex ones? You’re upset about an Oreo cookie? Or a few lousy T-shirts? For the rest of us — you know, gay people who’d rather not feel like they’re inherently supporting a cause antithetical to their deeply held beliefs—we just have to put up with the in-your-face, endless, inescapable heterosexuality we see all around us. Love, Ron

  • Nancy French

    Ron, do you think heterosexual sex is immoral?

  • Jada in GA

    If Kraft wants to be inclusive, we need a heterosexual Oreo cookie, right? Maybe pink and blue? What color cookie would bisexuals like? Dumb idea, Kraft foods. Before this is over, you’ll manage to tick off a lot of customers with your rainbow, and for what? Let’s spell this out to corporate America to “include” all the companies doing the oh-so-cool gay marketing: It is NOT going to change the Christian’s view of homosexuality. Ever. It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, or how I wish it could be. The Bible is my guide, and the Bible says it is WRONG. Over and over again. In black and white…just like an OREO!! Ironic, no?

  • David Lauri

    I guess the writer and everyone else who will be boycotting Oreos will also be boycotting Microsoft and Apple and Google and all the many companies that support “the gay lifestyle.” Good luck with your new Amish lives, folks.

  • Erin

    Agree with David.

    I’m Christian and heterosexual but I’m also not a judging person. Let’s love one another instead of making a point about “our religious stance” with a freaking cookie. And you know God invented the rainbow so really these cookies were His idea.

  • The Jet

    I don’t know the proper course of action here. I like Oreos, and am generally not a big believer in boycotts motivated for political, or cultural or even spiritual reasons, unless that company is engaging in truly heinous conduct (any company that is tied to George Soros or that is overtly supportive of NARAL/PP or foreign terrorist groups would be in that ballpark). I do think big companies tend to misjudge the need to appeal to the diversity group alphabet soup; as a big corporation interested in casting the widest net of customer appeal possible, why is it necessary to do this? And is it worth risking the offense of what is, obviously, the larger and more immediate demographic (Family values Christians with lots of Oreo-scarfing kids vs. LBGT folks and their immediate family, maybe 6% of the population, and if stereotypes are to be believed, not big junk food eaters)? Just curious, what, if any, thought, goes into these decisions? Or is this just the rote, mindless ritual of the Church of Diversity, as automatic as breathing to the its faithful?

    Perhaps though, there is a silver lining, a chance for a small area of detente between Evangelicals and the LGBT community. The terms are simple; you guys back off the companies that overtly support our side (Chik-Fil-A most notably) and we’ll back off Nabisco, Kraft Foods and all the others who are affirming and supportive of your POV. Individuals can make their own purchasing decisions as they see fit. Just no organized boycotts by shrill-voiced pressure groups. On either side.

  • Nancy French

    I’m not boycotting Kraft. But Oreos are easy enough to give up that they’re making it less likely that I’ll ever purchase them if I’m walking down the grocery store aisle and I think, “They are taking a stand against my principles.” That’s a long way from being Amish.

  • Nancy French

    I don’t have a religious stance about cookies. I have an opinion on homosexuality. So does Kraft. I am not the one making a big deal of it. Kraft is the one that went out of their way to point out THEIR opinion on the matter.

  • Bert

    Trader Joes makes a pretty good equivalent called “Jo-Jo’s.” Their Mac and Cheese is better too.

  • Ron Donaghe

    Good Question. I don’t think gay sex is immoral either; but in either case cheating on one’s partner or spouse is immoral. It’s the intent in the behavior that can be immoral. Nor do I think sex outside of marriage is immoral, either, unless one is married or in a committed relationship and has sex outside of that.

  • maria

    Hurray for oreos!!!! That is awesome!
    OH you judgemental people. Why are you so controling? You are literally crazy. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but they should not oppress others from happiness. Why do you care so much if someone enjoys the same sex relationships? I cannot wrap my head around the thought that people are so crazy that they feel the need to prevent people from being happy and having rights just like everyone else. Come on you bible pushers! Go fight against things that are really effecting the human race, like human sex traffiking, famnisim, genocide… Stand up and fight against the people who actually are harming others with their doing. Gay people are not harming any one. They are not hurting you. Don’t you understand? Gay people have emotions just like straight people. If you prick them, do they not bleed?

  • Edmond

    Nancy, The Bible discusses heterosexual sex and its immorality quite often. Or were you just cherry picking and ignoring those parts?

  • Edmond

    Jada, The multi-translated Bible you are reading “says it is wrong.” But who translated those words? Fallible men did with political agendas. How about going back and reading an original script before judging others? Or does Satan already have you fooled into going against God? Judge not, that ye be not judged.

  • Michael H

    This just makes me want to buy even more Kraft products. LOVE A1 Steak Sauce. <3
    Hypocristians should keep their bibles at home and stop trying to force their backwards, hateful views into our government. They deserve the biggest middle finger the world can come up with.

  • Agkcrbs

    Edmond, it can be agreed that nobody has been any nobler, or any less of a slave to their own bodies, by sinning heterosexually instead of homosexually… but when was Nancy French ever a defender of heterosexual immorality, just because she admits here the unpopular truth that cross-gendered union is the only valid form of human procreation? She is certainly envisioning marital fidelity, not heterosexual immorality. How could she be ‘cherry-picking’ when she opposes wrongs on both sides?

  • Agkcrbs

    Edmond, it’s true that those who rely on a historical instead of a present God will always be opening themselves up to interpretive subjectivity… but even so, to which original script do you suggest a return to, that we would suddenly find it “infallibly” exonerating homosexuality? Raising doubts over translation error can shed light on some topics, but I’ve never yet seen it render a word of God that is permissive of abolishing his laws preserving the sacredness of family-creation.

  • Agkcrbs

    Maria, it’s an incredibly simplistic and even nonsensical view, that people who already have full freedom to pursue a certain lifestyle are somehow being “controlled” and “oppressed” when others disagree with them, and will continue enduring some abstract form of abuse until they’re allowed to redefine everybody else’s religious values, especially in a country that values religious freedom. As human beings, homosexuals enjoy every protection in this country that their neighbours do. In some places, that equal protection extends even further into actual redefinition of marriage as genderless, and re-education of the citizenry to fall in line with the new government dogma. In other places, the state does not establish new religion or controvert existing religious freedoms. Yet somehow this legal atmosphere, already neutral-to-favourable toward homosexuality, is entirely lost on you, and you angrily insist that a social movement flush with finances and converts and enjoying ever increasing privileges is actually a permanent victim, excusing yourself to persecute others in their defense. Well, it just strikes me as misguided. If you really want to know whether many Bible-believers do or do not oppose other forms of oppression in the world beside the self-oppression of hedonism, you first would need to lower the kaleidoscopes from your eyes and see the world as it really is.

  • Agkcrbs

    What an angry little person, and what a fictional world he’s crying about. Christianity as a moral influence has been gradually receding from American government since it’s founding, and you suggest it’s being “forced” into that government?

    You know, we make our own labels. The curious but telling mantra of homosexuality is ‘pridefulness’. Your motto, Michael, has bubbled up uncontrollably from your own mouth. “Hateful” is not a word you can honestly use against others when it so appropriately describes yourself.

  • Edmond

    Agkcrbs, in this chain of comments Nancy French simply stated “do you think heterosexual sex is immoral?” She did not state; do you think nuptial heterosexual intercourse sex is immoral?” At this point may I remind you that current church doctrine teaches us that widows are forbidden from sex, masturbation is strictly forbidden, and both of these are equated to being equally against “current” chastity offences as is homosexuality. And all of these offences were written into church doctrine in the last century?

  • Edmond

    Agkcrbs, that is the problem right there, equating homosexuality with “abolishing [H]is laws preserving the sacredness of family-creation.” That is a human construct through interpretation. No where in the Bible is that connection made, it is all assumption.

  • Edmond

    “Christianity as a moral influence has been gradually receding from American government since it’s founding” – This is Christian revisionist theory and has no bearing in reality.

  • Edmond

    Agkcrbs – “As human beings, homosexuals enjoy every protection in this country that their neighbours do.” I have to ask what planet do you live on, because you certainly do not live on the same one as Maria or I. Get back to me next time you are fired from your place of employment simply because someone decided to assume you were gay.

  • Jim

    The irony here is that the LGBT community is the first and foremost community to initiate boycotts of any company or corporate sponsor that slights them in the least way. So what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (or goose and goose, or gander and gander, or gander that lives as a goose, etc). I’d advise that those of us offended by Kraft’s asinine Oreo ad boycott Oreos, not to be discouraged by the skilful technique of showing the broad range of Kraft products and how futile it would be to boycott Kraft. After all, heterosexual families are easily more likely to have children, for obvious reasons, than homosexual couples, and these children are more likely to be numerically more significant consumers of Oreos. So it’s a start on ways to show your disapproval of something better left alone by a Corporation. Anyway, the quality of Oreos seem to have suffered as of late, they fall apart when dunked in milk and there are non Kraft substitutes on the market that kids would find just as suitable. Also, do you suppose that Kraft’s desire to promote “love” extends to NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association? If I were a Corporation in the times of the Catholic Church and Sandusky sex scandals, I would be very careful not to endorse any group that may have related interests. Lastly, ask yourself the question, and I honestly don’t know the answer in this case, if the Corporate’s supposed strive for Diversity and Inclusiveness actually includes the expression of Christian Religious Beliefs (and other Religious Beliefs as well) while at work, such as in emails between employees of similar beliefs or the display of Religious Articles on your desk or the wearing of Religious jewelry where jewelry is otherwise permitted. I think you will find many so called crusaders of diversity to be egregious violaters of Religious Beliefs. Where’s the strive for diversity in a company, any company, that promotes homosexuality but stifles Christianity?

  • John with an H.

    Weight loss through bigotry! Now if only they had Pilates to burn off the burden of imposing your morality on those around you. That weighs a ton!

    -John with an H.

  • John with an H.

    You raise a good point, Nancy. Why no call for a boycott on products or companies that portray immoral sex of other kinds? Virtually every perfume/cologne company has produced sexually charged ads featuring young presumably unmarried people. Axe Body Spray certainly has produced ads featuring immorality. Could you direct me to your post calling for a boycott of those companies?

  • John with an H.

    You said, “I do think big companies tend to misjudge the need to appeal to the diversity group alphabet soup; as a big corporation interested in casting the widest net of customer appeal possible, why is it necessary to do this? And is it worth risking the offense of what is, obviously, the larger and more immediate demographic (Family values Christians with lots of Oreo-scarfing kids vs. LBGT folks and their immediate family, maybe 6% of the population, and if stereotypes are to be believed, not big junk food eaters)? Just curious, what, if any, thought, goes into these decisions? Or is this just the rote, mindless ritual of the Church of Diversity, as automatic as breathing to the its faithful? ”

    Perhaps, just perhaps… They’re doing what they believe is right. Pandering to the mediocre middle may be good business sense, but some of us (I would think as a christian you would surely know what I’m talking about…) live by more than the bottom line.

    I would however, certainly agree with you that neither side needs to be calling for boycotts. We live in a free market economy and (in general, with some exceptions) we should allow companies to market as they see fit, to whom they see fit, and not impose our morality on others. Good point.

  • David French

    Extramarital sex is immoral. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Divorce is forbidden in the absence of adultery. All of these points are extremely clear biblically. If you surf around this site a bit, you’ll see that we’re very consistent on these points.

  • David French

    Edmond, you just make stuff up.

  • Edmond

    No sir, I do not “just make stuff up.” I do not need to, you guys do plenty of that to the point of absurdity, and people eat it up like candy. Who here is really walking the path of the wicked, hmmm?

  • Darin Southam

    So… Ron you feel like having as much sex as you want outside of marriage is totally fine but now one better have sex with someone else if they are married? Marriage is for love, but if that is all it was for, same-sex marriage would have a leg to stand on. The fact is, marriage as an institution was founded at the same time as “government” as when the Lord told made Adam “Lord over all the earth” at the same time he sealed Adam and Even in eternal marriage. Marriage is for the protection of children, who don’t have a voice in our society, in the name of adult “rights”. Is homosexuality a choice? YES! Else why are there droves of FORMER “homosexuals” now voicing strongly against such practice?? As Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece put so plainly, “While I have met many former homosexuals, I have yet to meet a former black.” Homosexuality is a choice, a lifestyle, a preference. The only thing that is certain at birth is race and gender, period. Sure there are the arguments that former “gays” are really still “gay” and the ridiculous argument that marriage is not sacred anymore anyway because of society’s high divorce rates – bologna! The only reason same-sex marriage has risen to the forefront of political hot buttons is because society has lost so much respect for the institution of marriage in general. Can two people of the same sex procreate? No, they can not, nor have they even been naturally designed to do so. Do I feel pain for people who have feelings of same-sex attraction? Yes. It is a terrible thing to be faced with. I feel terrible that the majority of self proclaimed “gays” had troubled childhoods, usually associated with a father who did not give them the love and attention that every child deserves. The issue of same gender attraction is a deep, deep rooted problem in society. Selfishness is the root of all misbehavior and the love of money is the root of all evil. Before same gender marriage was an “issue” homosexuality was defined in psychology as a behavioral disorder. Only after threats from homosexual activists was it removed from diagnosis as a mental disorder – not from research, but from threats it was removed. Homosexuality is a behavioral disorder, like alcoholism, drugs, or any other behavioral disorder. It can be overcome if confronted. Problem is, loud minority voices in our society would have you embrace and celebrate same gender attraction, a problem more dangerous than murder.

  • Darin Scott

    I agree completely

  • Jim

    I believe that part of the reason that Kraft et al become embroiled in such endorsements is that they are out of touch with the majority of people throughout the country. I don’t mean to suggest that the majority of people harbor ill feelings towards homosexuals but I think it likely that the majority think that this gesture by Kraft is not really done in consideration of things that motivate them (the majority). The reason for this, in my opinion, is that the executives at Kraft, and the executives at other corporations that make the decisions to engage in such gestures, are represented by a higher number of homosexuals, per capita, than the balance of employees at the corporation (blue collar workers) or throughout the country at large. Conversely, they may be heterosexuals that have been sensitized to homosexual issues through their education or so called diversity programs at work. I work for a major corporation and had the chance for a few years to be more intimately involved with corporate decisions as well as to see the impact that such decisions would have on the employees (blue collar workers). Rest assured, the saying “the lunatics are running the asylum” is based on real life experiences. Unfortunately, as part of their natures, I don’t think that it would be possible to restrain the activism in the LGBT community, it is, perhaps, a reflex to perceived threats. I also believe that such activism has been under-represented in the Christian community. In my opinion, it would be best for boycotts to be expanded, though I do see the futility of avoiding the entire line of products from a corporation. We can live our lives without Oreos, and if the loss of or significant diminution in the profitability of this product line can be conveyed to the executives of a corporation, they may be reluctant to engage in such gestures in the future. I can say that I am less concerned about reacting to such gestures when a corporation has a well rounded program that also overtly includes endorsements of Christian interests. But Christians have been stigmatized by Hollywood, evil priests and ministers abound, cutthroat and hypocritical followers are the norm, leaving many corporations with the insane belief that diversity and inclusion includes homosexuality and non-Christian religions while, in some cases, pursuing a complete exclusion of Christian expression in the workplace (i.e. I can’t have a Bible on my desk, even if I don’t preach to others, but a Muslim can have a Koran because the employer seeks to have an diverse and inclusive workplace). At work, no Bible = no Koran, or ok Bible = ok Koran, be consistent. In England, look online for yourself, the government is insisting that Christians have no right to wear a Cross at work, since its wearing is not compelled by the religion, but that members of other religions have the right to wear jewelry that conveys their religion if the religion compels its use. Folks, be an advocate for your beliefs and Christianity.

  • Nate Sauve

    “Since it’s founding” is certainly an overstatment, but over the past 75 years he has legs to stand on.

  • Edmond

    Jim, oh yes, let’s bring up illegal behaviors as a defense against legal ones. Let’s equate child abuse with that of consenting adults. Let’s dictate what all adults do in their lives around the few who commit the travesties such as Sandusky. Let’s all jump on that slippery slope which quickly transcends the rudeness of equating such behaviors toward the homosexual community and watch as it moves forward into those who hide behind religion.

  • Nate Sauve

    Big corporations are always the most moral among us aren’t they?

    Of course it is a marketing strategy. Companies that stand against same sex marriage face the wrath of the homosexual lobbies and advocates (ie chic-fil-a).

    Maybe the business reason is that liberals make more money and are more likely to spend it on themselves (and less likely to give to charity)A Brooks book Who Really Cares
    I think moreso Christian boycotts have gone out of vogue…too culture warrish, too confrontational, another “sin” to atone for in the minds of non-Christians.

  • Pingback: Kraft Goes Gay Pride: Protestant Potlucks Hardest Hit()

  • Jim

    The issue concerns boycotts of products and whether or not a specific group should engage in such when offended by the actions of any particular manufacturer. The LGBT community thrives on boycotts and threatened boycotts, they have found this to be an effective way to coerce their views into society. What about the ruling by the Supreme Court that the Boys Scouts of America did not need to admit openly homosexual scoutmasters, Boy Scouts were intimidated in a plethora of ways by manifold groups and organizations. But we sit by, with a smile on our face, observing the pressure by homosexuals and homosexual groups to attempt to have the offending group or manufacturer cave-in. I’ll bet this doesn’t bother you, because it supports your ideals. But when someone suggests something opposed to your views, they are intolerant. Why is it Pro-Choice but Anti-abortion, why not Pro-Life? How about anti-life and pro-life? (a little secret here, you can’t do an abortion without killing the baby). Why, when a person does not support homosexual lifestyles are they labeled homophobes? They likely are not afraid of homosexuals, they simply do not support the lifestyle, why are there no Heterophobes? Did you ever know a claustrophobic. Stick them in a very small space and watch them flip out. That’s fear. Take a homophobe and stick him/her next to a homosexual and watch what happens. Likely nothing. They may work with them every day. There is no phobia. Why are there no Christophobes? Why are there no Left Wing fanatics discussed on the evening news? Why is it ok for the national news to selectively edit comments by conservative politicians to make them appear to have said or done something that is blatantly untrue? Why is it ok to hate Christians, to denigrate and demean them, without social sanction? Hey, it’s the fun thing to do, it’s the acceptable form of intolerance. If you can’t see this, you’re blind. You don’t belong to or advocate for the only instance of intolerance. Society has tilted its scales in the behalf of the beliefs of specific groups by biasing the language. It’s so apparent to anyone that has ears and is willing to hear and question. I just don’t see what Kraft had to gain by their gesture, sure, it’s the trendy thing to do, but I hope that sufficient numbers of Christians cease buying the product for their families to make a difference. My expectations of Kraft would be to avoid such “shows” in the future, or to ostentatiously do something that benefits Christians. Maybe they already are, but if they are, it’s not in the news to the extent as the Photo Shopped Rainbow Cookie has been. Best Regards to you Edmund.

  • Kimberly Knight


    I am frustrated by the ongoing misconception that only evangelicals are Christians. Oreo is only ticking off some Christians, not all.

    Kimberly Knight
    Patheos Blogger and Gay Christian

  • gayRepublican

    I might add that while I didn’t find the ad offensive (I do not share the author’s religious view of homosexuality), I did as a gay person find it a bit patronizing in a cringe-worthy way. I don’t need every brand I like to go out of it’s way to say it likes me back–or more accurately that it likes the idea of people like me buying their products.

  • Pingback: Homosexuality, Morality, and Talladega Nights Theology()

  • Pingback: Man Battles Goose With a Light Saber()

  • Edmond


    “[T]he LGBT community is the first and foremost community to initiate boycotts of any company or corporate sponsor that slights them in the least way.” – That is odd, I always thought the first and foremost boycott around here was when merchants in Philadelphia joined the boycott of British trade goods at the time of the American Revolution over something called “taxation without representation.”

    You people really do live on another planet and like to make stuff up. Do you know how many boycotts are and have been supported by Christian organizations? You speak as if the gays started it all, that’s a laugh! The number of Christian led boycotts is staggering, look it up. The few active boycotts by the gay community are for political donations made by such companies as Target and Chick-fil-A to anti-gay proponents and another main boycott today is for the threat of death by the organization The Salvation Army… THE THREAT OF DEATH!!! Wouldn’t you boycott an organization that wanted you dead?

    I don’t think you are aware of this, but no one anywhere is telling Christians they cannot have their point of view or not belong to any organization they so please. You see, Christians are hypocrites. They themselves are a protected class but cry boo-hoo when things do not go exactly their way and reach out to destroy anything they do not agree with, especially the non-protected classes. How about we change this? How about we start allowing companies to fire people for being Christian? How about we allow organizations the ability to ban Christians from their midst? How about we tax Christians differently than everyone else? How about we ban Christians from adopting? And best of all, how about we promote active violence against Christians by telling people that Christians are immoral and that their thinking can be corrected or the world should be ridden of them?

  • Edmond

    “[W]hy are there no Heterophobes?” – Don’t fool yourself, there are plenty in this world, you just are not aware or looking in the right places. Why don’t you ask someone that has been beat-up by a homophobe?

    “Why are there no Left Wing fanatics discussed on the evening news?” – Weren’t you paying attention to the news when sweet Gabrielle Giffords was shot?

    “Why is it ok for the national news to selectively edit comments by conservative politicians to make them appear to have said or done something that is blatantly untrue?” – Why is it ok for the national news to selectively edit comments by liberal politicians to make them appear to have said or done something that is blatantly untrue?

    “Why is it ok to hate Christians, to denigrate and demean them, without social sanction?” – Give an example!

  • Maria

    Im not angry whatsoevr agkerbs. I am questioning why people are against people dating the same sex. What mAkes them feel that it is ok to invade their private sPace and mind and tell them they cannot marry? I am married. And being married is very different than being a girlfriend. I am asking for a simple explanation of ones feelings and you’re showing off your ”intellegence’ or if that’s what you call it when all you are doing is diverting yourself away from the answer besides claiming I am simple. The world? The world is cruel. People are cruel. A gay man who has a life partner cannot arrange his funeral, if he were to die because he is not married Is just one of the few examples. So you say people look for ways to claim they are being hated? That they are purposely different? Nonsense. We are who we are. Did a black man wake up one day and say’you know I dont feel like being a slave anymore so I think I’ll try to escape just for attention’ or did a woman say ‘you know what? I don’t like being treated as if I’m stupid so I think I’ll ask if I can vote just to stir the pot!’ bull. You do not know what you speak of. Ignorance blinds anyone who falls for the trick. Try to defend it as you wish but as far as I’m concerned, if a man wants to put his penis in another mans bitthole? Go for it. Btw I’m straight. Im happily married. I think that my gay friends should have the same right as me.

  • Jim

    Edmond, I read your responses although I largely disagree with them. But I realize it will go on ad infinitum, so I will say no more in response with the exception of noting your comment about companies being anti-gay. Why can’t someone be free to disagree with your lifestyle without being labeled as a hater? If I chose to buy a foreign car am I anti-American? If I chose to buy a Microsoft equipped computer, am I anti-Apple? No, Edmond, I have simply made a choice. The use of negative words has been reserved by the elites in our society to describe otherwise time honored principles. I can just see someone looking at a woman and in a disparaging way say “she’s anti-abortion”. The term pro-choice is a misnomer. It should be pro-abortion or anti-life. But we have accepted these carefully selected terms into our personal lexicons. I’m surprised that monogamous couples have not yet been described as anti-adulterous and adulterous couples as pro-variegated. Feel free to believe that my failure to address you further signifies a victory for your views. Oh, and by the by, I work with former man, now a woman, in a blue collar environment. More than 1000 employees. After the company fretted about harassment issues, it now seems that this individual has integrated without problem, after all we knew him as a him and now her as her. I just don’t see the hate that one would have believed would occur with the obsession some have on the topic.
    Best wishes, quite sincerely.

  • Edmond

    Jim, here we see the typical tactic of the sufferer, or what I better like to call oh-woe-is-me. I am more insulted than anything by your avoidance, it is basic denial. Here you are willing to take a stand, but refuse to accept any responsibility. That is called a being a coward. I asked you legitimate questions and you do not have the cojones to answer those questions. Instead you resort to blaming others – the elite – and you bring up that you “know” someone – a woman who was formally male – which is an entirely different subject, but I am sure you are confused on that matter. You are also confused about the difference between disagreeing and discrimination, you seem to think they are one in the same, they are not.
    Good luck with keeping your head in the sand.

  • Luke

    Darin, you ninny. I just read the first sentence of your post. Reread Ron’s post slowly before responding. It will save you a lot of typing. Before you respond with blah blah blah blah blah know that God loves you. He gave his only son so that we could all be saved. Don’t belittle that great act with your blind bigotry.

  • Concerned Citizen

    Christian Customers? Except for the Christian customers who SUPPORT gay pride. But I guess they dont count as real Christians.

  • Concerned Citizen

    That is a handy link for you on if you want to avoid the Gay Agenda *cue ominous music*

  • Concerned Citizen

    You are talking with people to whom the concept of consent is meaningless. they honestly dont see the difference between sex between consenting adults and the rape of children. And the reason for that is simple. Consent is not important to them because sex is a matter of property rights. The man in the marriage owns the woman and as a result, he can have sex with her. Sex with anyone else is a denial of the property rights of the owner of that person.

  • Concerned Citizen

    Real True Christians believe in the Holy Trinity
    Gays are icky
    God is a Republican
    Gays are icky

  • Jim

    Huh, talk about an interesting find? Rather than bore everyone with details, I have provided the link. The article discusses a situation at Facebook where the author believes that the treatment of offensive content and material is not handled evenly, and postulates why, in part, this may be so.

    Alternately, in case the link is removed automatically, the article may be found by searching for- Michael Brown Facebook are you telling me this is not offensive

    Be well.

  • Edmond

    Jim, so you are equating the actions of some moron on Facebook as justification for further discrimination? Because someone’s bad taste and freedom of speech has hurt you, it justifies you for giving the okay for hurting others?

  • Eric the Red

    Enjoy being ostracized from polite society, bigots. Pretty soon you’ll be sitting in caves banging rock together, which is just where you troglodytes belong.

  • Edmond

    Ohhh, *smack forehead* I forgot. Good catch there Concerned Citizen. Thanks for the reminder, partially forgot who I was dealing with.

  • chaz

    JESUS – I thought we were talking about cookies.

  • Pingback: Coming Out of the Pantry: “Homo-snacks-uality”()

  • Leanne

    Well, to those of you who choose to boycott/stop purchasing from companies who support equal rights for the lgbtq community (which is seeing increased support year after year – and why not?we’re regular people just trying to make it through life happily like everyone else.) you may as well power down your pc’s, macs, and smart phones. Why? Because both Apple and Microsoft support gay rights. Cheers.

  • Pingback: The Cookie Battle: It’s Not Pride, It’s Taking Sides » Transvestite Ireland()

  • buzz

    So tell me, are you upset that with regular Oreos the blacks outnumber the whites 2-1?

  • Hmmm . . .

    Did anyone notice that the only options offered here are to be either a homosexual or part of a group called “the rest of us”, which is then defined as a group of people who would rather not support something that is “antithetical to their deeply held beliefs.” It seems to me that this leaves out a very large groups who easily make up the majority of this country. Heterosexuals who don’t share these deeply held beliefs about homosexuality as sin. It has already been pointed out in other comments that the author is leaving no room for Christians who don’t oppose homosexuality, but in fact, she doesn’t even leave room for non-Christians who don’t oppose homosexuality. By her sentence construction, you either morally opposed to homosexuality, or you’re gay.