Connect with us

Politics

Corporate allies increasingly challenged over LGBTQ support

State Farm, Disney punished for speaking out

Published

on

Ben Shapiro launched attacks against Disney for speaking out against the Florida "Don't Say Gay" law.

After years of leveraging their familiar brand names to denounce anti-LGBTQ measures in state legislatures, large corporations are facing increasing challenges to their free speech amid newfound pressure from conservative forces, raising questions about whether they will continue to remain as vocal as they have in the recent past.

From retaliation against State Farm for pledging to donate LGBTQ-themed books to children’s schools, to Florida revoking Disney’s special districting status after speaking out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law recently signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, businesses are encountering significant resistance after pledging support for the LGBTQ community — and the blowback is having an impact that may silence the relatively newfound ally for LGBTQ causes.

Nadine Smith, at the forefront of the fight as executive director of Equality Florida, said businesses “are receiving clear messages from the DeSantis bully pulpit not to interfere with the agenda of censorship and discrimination.”

“Speaking out on behalf of your employees’ children and the respect of your employees’ families is in keeping with the values of diversity and inclusion companies have touted for years to attract and retain top talent,” Smith added. “Failing to walk the walk because the governor and his fellow extremists have threatened you is the political choice.”

One recent case of a business reversing course was State Farm backing down after pledging to donate LGBTQ-themed books in coordination with GenderCool, a youth organization highlighting LGBTQ-themed voices, to schools and libraries. Among the titles of the books to be donated were “A Kids Book About Being Transgender,” “A Kids Book About Being Inclusive,” and “A Kids Book About Being Non-Binary,” which portrayed the experience of different gender identities. The anti-LGBTQ group Consumers’ Research launched a campaign consisting of online blasts, which were boosted by The Daily Wire and Breitbart, with the slogan “Like a Creepy Neighbor…State Farm is There.”

The campaign appeared to have the desired impact. On May 23, State Farm announced it would pull back, declaring “conversations about gender should happen at home with parents” as opposed from GenderCool it “will no longer support that program.” Although State Farm in a later statement insisted it would continue to support the LGBTQ community and inclusivity, the victory for conservative forces was evident.

Another high-profile example of a business speaking out on policy against LGBTQ people and facing blowback was Disney when it spoke out against the Florida “Don’t Say Gay” law, which prohibits discussion in schools on LGBTQ matters in grades K-3 . Although Disney initially was reluctant to speak out, it reversed course in response to public pressure and CEO Bob Chapek contacted DeSantis to denounce the measure days before he would sign it.

DeSantis, who’s widely considered a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, publicly denounced the company for embracing “woke” ideology. The Florida Legislature followed up by revoking Disney’s tax status, which had enabled it to operate its own security forces in Disney World in Orlando.

The conservative media also played a role. Skewering Disney for taking a stance against the “Don’t Say Gay” measure, The Daily Wire decried the media conglomerate for its all around approach to LGBTQ visibility, declaring a $100 million investment in the launch of a “DW Kids,” which aims to be a competitor to Disney in youth media. Conservatives also crowed when polling found Disney has suffered a loss in public approval; one poll from the conservative Trafalgar Group found 68 percent of respondents were less likely to do business with Disney as a result of the company “focusing on creating content to expose young children to sexual ideas.”

Disney ended up making neither side happy. The Human Rights Campaign announced it wouldn’t accept a donation of up to $500,000 pledged by Disney at the time it came out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law. Media reports also highlighted stories about LGBTQ employees and allies at Disney storming out in protest over the media company’s delayed action on the Florida measure.

Fabrice Houdart, managing director of the LGBTQ group Out Leadership, acknowledged the “Disney debacle hurt our community,” but said he thinks the overall impact of the incident was no indication of a decrease in strength among LGBTQ people.

“If Bob Chapek was testing the resolve and clout of our community and its allies to ensure corporations take a stance when our human rights are under attack, he got a very clear response,” Houdart said. “The community’s reaction, protests, and media coverage highlighted that the time for companies to play both sides on human rights is over. Corporate power is immense and we will continue to engage corporations to ensure they put their money and lobbying efforts where their mouth is.”

But the growing tension among business leaders is palpable. The Wall Street Journal, in an article titled “Disney’s clash with Florida has CEOs on alert” dated May 2, details the impact retaliation is having on businesses and whether or not they will take a stance on LGBTQ issues or other matters deemed socially divisive, revealing a new trepidation not seen in recent years.

“The fallout from the recent political spat between Disney and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has alarmed leaders across the corporate sphere, according to executives and their advisers, and heightened the challenges for chief executive officers navigating charged topics,” the Journal reported.

The current situation stands in stark contrast to years past when businesses were falling over themselves to denounce measures and policies against LGBTQ people. The most recent case was House Bill 2 in North Carolina, which barred citywide LGBTQ non-discrimination ordinances and transgender people from using restrooms on public property consistent with their gender identity. The business outcry and cancellations cost the state an estimated $39.7 million in revenue and is credited for being the reason Gov. Pat McCrory lost re-election in 2016.

The outcry over House Bill 2 echoed a similar situation. In Arizona, the business outcry in 2013 over religious freedom legislation seen to enable discrimination against LGBTQ people led conservative Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the measure. In 2015, Then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence defied opposition to similar religious freedom legislation and signed the measure into law, but after outcry continued to escalate, he signed into a law a “fix” to the legislation that dramatically limited its discriminatory scope.

In each of these cases, businesses were seen as the key ally in pushing back against measures against LGBTQ people because their brands were well known, seen as neutral in outlook and influential with lawmakers counting on political donations to win re-election. As a result, corporate involvement may well have turned the tide in conservative states like Arizona, Indiana, and North Carolina.

Regional differences may account for the different outcomes as LGBTQ advocates in certain states continue to boast strong business support that continues to thwart legislation seen to enable discrimination.

Angela Hale, managing director of the LGBTQ group Texas Competes, made a distinction between Florida, where she said the environment is “toxic” after retaliation against Disney and may lead businesses to “think twice” on LGBTQ issues, and Texas, where she said the business community continues to support LGBTQ people, pointing out more than 1,500 businesses back her organization.

“What I’ve been watching is Ron DeSantis punish Disney, try to punish the Special Olympics, punish the baseball team in his state, for speaking out on issues that are important to those corporate values,” Hale said. “And that’s unfortunate that he is taking such tactics because businesses employ millions of people across the country and have employees in every state, and these employees care about the positions that the company they work at take.”

Asked whether she thinks the retaliation against companies like Disney would have an impact, Hale said it’s “too soon to tell,” but in the meantime businesses are continuing to speak out on a range of issues, including gun control after the recent shooting at a grade school in Uvalde, Texas.

“When we have these horrible anti-LGBT bills, and we’re particularly targeting trans children, and we’re targeting teachers, businesses are going to speak out,” Hale said. “I have found at least what’s going on, even in this climate and in Texas, that because of the seriousness of the situation right now that we are having people brave enough to speak out, and it does take bravery to speak out because there can be consequences to those actions if you’re a regulated industry.”

The new influence of conservative media, which in years past didn’t have the impact or organization to take on LGBTQ rights, also cannot be understated. The Daily Wire, for example, proudly brags about its influence on Facebook and has produced some of the most widely circulated pieces on LGBTQ issues. Ben Shapiro, founder and contributor to The Daily Wire, did not immediately respond to the Blade’s request Wednesday to comment for this article.

Houdart, at the end of the day, said he’s is “not concerned” about businesses withdrawing because they know supporting LGBTQ people is good business, and the LGBTQ movement would continue to harness that power to “engage corporations to ensure they put their money and lobbying efforts where their mouth is.”

“Companies were never supportive out of the goodness of their heart but because it is good business,” Houdart said. “And it remains good business. Employees, consumers, and investors are very clearly demanding that the private sector acquires a social license to operate and LGBTQ+ issues are one of the most straightforward avenues for companies to do so.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

After Biden signs TikTok ban its CEO vows federal court battle

“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere,” CEO said

Published

on

TikTok mobile phone app. (Screenshot/YouTube)

President Joe Biden signed an appropriations bill into law on Wednesday that provides multi-billion dollar funding and military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan after months of delay and Congressional infighting.

A separate bill Biden signed within the aid package contained a bipartisan provision that will ban the popular social media app TikTok from the United States if its Chinese parent company ByteDance does not sell off the American subsidiary.

Reacting, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said Wednesday that the Culver City, Calif.-based company would go to court to try to remain online in the U.S.

In a video posted on the company’s social media accounts, Chew denounced the potential ban: “Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban of TikTok and a ban on you and your voice,” Chew said. “Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere. We are confident and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail,” he added.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre adamantly denied during a press briefing on Wednesday that the bill constitutes a ban, reiterating the administration’s hope that TikTok will be purchased by a third-party buyer and referencing media reports about the many firms that are interested.

Chew has repeatedly testified in both the House and Senate regarding ByteDance’s ability to mine personal data of its 170 million plus American subscribers, maintaining that user data is secure and not shared with either ByteDance nor agencies of the Chinese government. The testimony failed to assuage lawmakers’ doubts.

In an email, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who doesn’t support a blanket ban of the app, told the Washington Blade:

“As the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I have long worked to safeguard Americans’ freedoms and security both at home and abroad. The Chinese Communist Party’s ability to exploit private user data and to manipulate public opinion through TikTok present serious national security concerns. For that reason, I believe that divestiture presents the best option to preserve access to the platform, while ameliorating these risks. I do not support a ban on TikTok while there are other less restrictive means available, and this legislation will give the administration the leverage and authority to require divestiture.”

A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) told the Blade: “Senator Padilla believes we can support speech and creativity while also protecting data privacy and security. TikTok’s relationship to the Chinese Communist Party poses significant data privacy concerns. He will continue working with the Biden-Harris administration and his colleagues in Congress to safeguard Americans’ data privacy and foster continued innovation.”

The law, which gives ByteDance 270 days to divest TikTok’s U.S. assets, expires with a January 19, 2025 deadline for a sale. The date is one day before Biden’s term is set to expire, although he could extend the deadline by three months if he determines ByteDance is making progress or the transaction faces uncertainty in a federal court.

Former President Donald Trump’s executive order in 2020, which sought to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned WeChat, a unit of Beijing-based Tencent, in the U.S., was blocked by federal courts.

TikTok has previously fought efforts to ban its widely popular app by the state of Montana last year, in a case that saw a federal judge in Helena block that state ban, citing free-speech grounds.

The South China Morning Post reported this week that the four-year battle over TikTok is a significant front in a war over the internet and technology between Washington and Beijing. Last week, Apple said China had ordered it to remove Meta Platforms’s WhatsApp and Threads from its App Store in China over Chinese national security concerns.

A spokesperson for the ACLU told the Blade in a statement that “banning or requiring divestiture of TikTok would set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms.”

LGBTQ TikToker users are alarmed, fearing that a ban will represent the disruption of networks of support and activism. However, queer social media influencers who operate on multiple platforms expressed some doubts as to long term impact.

Los Angeles Blade contributor Chris Stanley told the Blade:

“It might affect us slightly, because TikTok is so easy to go viral on. Which obviously means more brand deals, etc. However they also suppress and shadow ban LGBTQ creators frequently. But we will definitely be focusing our energy more on other platforms with this uncertainty going forward. Lucky for us, we aren’t one trick ponies and have multiple other platforms built.”

Brooklyn, N.Y.,-based gay social media creator and influencer Artem Bezrukavenko told the Blade:

“For smart creators it won’t because they have multiple platforms. For people who put all their livelihood yes. Like people who do livestreams,” he said adding: “Personally I’m happy it gets banned or American company will own it so they will be less homophobic to us.”

TikTok’s LGBTQ following has generally positive experiences although there have been widely reported instances of users, notably transgender users, seemingly targeted by the platform’s algorithms and having their accounts banned or repeatedly suspended.

Of greater concern is the staggering rise in anti-LGBTQ violence and threats on the platform prompting LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, in its annual Social Media Safety Index, to give TikTok a failing score on LGBTQ safety.

Additional reporting by Christopher Kane

Continue Reading

Politics

Smithsonian staff concerned about future of LGBTQ programming amid GOP scrutiny

Secretary Lonnie Bunch says ‘LGBTQ+ content is welcome’

Published

on

Lonnie G. Bunch III, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, appears before a Dec. 2023 hearing of the U.S. Committee on House Administration (Screen capture: Forbes/YouTube)

Staff at the Smithsonian Institution are concerned about the future of LGBTQ programming as several events featuring a drag performer were cancelled or postponed following scrutiny by House Republicans, according to emails reviewed by the Washington Post.

In December, Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III appeared before a hearing led by GOP members of the Committee on House Administration, who flagged concerns about the Smithsonian’s involvement in “the Left’s indoctrination of our children.”

Under questioning from U.S. Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.), Bunch said he was “surprised” to learn the Smithsonian had hosted six drag events over the past three years, telling the lawmakers “It’s not appropriate to expose children” to these performances.

Collaborations with drag artist Pattie Gonia in December, January, and March were subsequently postponed or cancelled, the Post reported on Saturday, adding that a Smithsonian spokesperson blamed “budgetary constraints and other resource issues” and the museums are still developing programming for Pride month in June.

“I, along with all senior leaders, take seriously the concerns expressed by staff and will continue to do so,” Bunch said in a statement to the paper. “As we have reiterated, LGBTQ+ content is welcome at the Smithsonian.”

The secretary sent an email on Friday expressing plans to meet with leaders of the Smithsonian Pride Alliance, one of the two groups that detailed their concerns to him following December’s hearing.

Bunch told the Pride Alliance in January that with his response to Bice’s question, his intention was to “immediately stress that the Smithsonian does not expose children to inappropriate content.”

“A hearing setting does not give you ample time to expand,” he said, adding that with more time he would have spoken “more broadly about the merits and goals of our programming and content development and how we equip parents to make choices about what content their children experience.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Survey finds support for Biden among LGBTQ adults persists despite misgivings

Data for Progress previewed the results exclusively with the Blade

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A new survey by Data for Progress found LGBTQ adults overwhelmingly favor President Joe Biden and Democrats over his 2024 rival former President Donald Trump and Republicans, but responses to other questions may signal potential headwinds for Biden’s reelection campaign.

The organization shared the findings of its poll, which included 873 respondents from across the country including an oversample of transgender adults, exclusively with the Washington Blade on Thursday.

Despite the clear margin of support for the president, with only 22 percent of respondents reporting that they have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of Trump, answers were more mixed when it came to assessments of Biden’s performance over the past four years and his party’s record of protecting queer and trans Americans.

Forty-five percent of respondents said the Biden-Harris administration has performed better than they expected, while 47 percent said the administration’s record has been worse than they anticipated. A greater margin of trans adults in the survey — 52 vs. 37 percent — said their expectations were not met.

Seventy precent of all LGBTQ respondents and 81 percent of those who identify as trans said the Democratic Party should be doing more for queer and trans folks, while just 24 percent of all survey participants and 17 percent of trans participants agreed the party is already doing enough.

With respect to the issues respondents care about the most when deciding between the candidates on their ballots, LGBTQ issues were second only to the economy, eclipsing other considerations like abortion and threats to democracy.

These answers may reflect heightened fear and anxiety among LGBTQ adults as a consequence of the dramatic uptick over the past few years in rhetorical, legislative, and violent bias-motivated attacks against the community, especially targeting queer and trans folks.

The survey found that while LGBTQ adults are highly motivated to vote in November, there are signs of ennui. For example, enthusiasm was substantially lower among those aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 39 compared with adults 40 and older. And a plurality of younger LGBTQ respondents said they believe that neither of the country’s two major political parties care about them.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular