Jump to content

Timmy's gets in a tangle!


Recommended Posts

oof! someone dropped the ball on this one..

Tims axes plan to sponsor anti-gay marriage event

Rhode Island event organized by National Organization for Marriage

Susan Krashinsky

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Monday, Aug. 10, 2009 08:22PM EDT

When Tim Hortons (THI-T32.760.752.34%) decided to peddle its coffee and sugary treats in the northern U.S., the chain was betting that no one ever went broke overestimating the appetite of the American public. But in its cross-border expansion, Tims was not prepared to feed a political controversy.

The company is now reckoning with the quagmire of American family values politics, after creating a stir with its plan to sponsor an anti-gay marriage event in Rhode Island.

After local blog the Providence Daily Dose reported Tim Hortons' sponsorship of the event, the negative attention reached the company's head office in Oakville and it withdrew its support. “It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines,†the company said in a statement released Monday afternoon .

“Tim Hortons can not provide support at the event,†the release said.

The Marriage Day Celebration, which is to be held this Sunday in the shadow of a stately mansion in Warwick, R.I., is organized by the National Organization for Marriage, a group that lobbies against the legalization of gay marriage, and the sponsors behind an ad campaign released in April that famously equated the gay marriage lobby to a gathering storm. Plans for the event include a barbecue dinner and an ice cream social, as well as live worship music.

Tim Hortons' sponsorship guidelines specify it does not sponsor “religious groups†or “political affiliates.†The regional office in Rhode Island originally approved the sponsorship.

“Major error by the regional manager, here,†said Alan Middleton, a marketing professor at York University's Schulich business school. “This is an operational slippage by Tim Hortons. Sex, religion and politics are things you try as a corporation not to engage in. This is particularly thorny because it deals with all three.â€

The issue also highlights how difficult it can be for companies such as Tim Hortons to market themselves in local, national and international arenas simultaneously, while keeping a consistent brand image across the board.

A local gay marriage advocate said this move could hurt Tim Hortons in the region.

“This is an inclusive community,†said Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island. “People don't have a lot of money. The money that they have, they are going to use to support the businesses that put together the kind of society they want to be living in.â€

But Ken Hardy, a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Western Ontario and an expert in the coffee industry, said he is surprised to see such a sharp departure for Tim Hortons from its usual practice of sponsoring such benign events as children's charities and little league games.

“It's a real anomaly,†he said, adding that there are much bigger payoffs for supporting local events that are not political, since it reflects better on the business to endorse “things no one could really argue with.â€

As of May, four states in New England have legalized same-sex unions or given those couples some legal rights. Rhode Island, however, has resisted such change.

Regardless of the political makeup of a region, companies will always try to sit on the fence when it comes to addressing controversial issues, said York's Prof. Middleton. That makes this a difficult public relations challenge for Tim Hortons, because they may not want to be seen as either opposing or condoning gay marriage, he said.

“If you're seen as coming down too hard on somebody with that viewpoint, then the Christian right is likely to take this up as a cause célèbre and do things like boycotts,†Prof. Middleton said. “You have these policies which say you don't support either side. They're going to try to have their cake and eat it. It's a difficult position to take.â€

For now, Tim Hortons has taken a clear position – its release shows the company is trying to mitigate any damage.

“Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so,†the statement reads. “We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.â€

The National Organization for Marriage did not respond to interview requests Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that the same argument keeps coming up...

from Moe Unting:

"marriage is a tradition of opposite sex, based on the biology of natural reproduction for starters. It has cultural significance as opposite sex expressed through religion, custom, child rearing and community. Opposite sex marriage is the foundation for the nuclear and extended families.

Homosexuality is abnormal and non-procreative but mostly harmless, a tolerable issue meant for privacy; to permit gays into the pantheon of noble opposite sex traditions stains and degrades it meaning."

Oh how people presume traditions are 'noble' and based on biological process and community.

I often wonder how the issue of 'Gay Rights' stays as such...GAY.

Why can't it just be tackled as Human rights?

Silly humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh how people presume traditions are 'noble' and based on biological process and community.

I often wonder how the issue of 'Gay Rights' stays as such...GAY.

Why can't it just be tackled as Human rights?


Now what exactly do we mean by human again? ;)



Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, as far as 'Gay Rights' I'm definitely annoyed by them


But as the same issues coming up as a part of 'Human Rights' - which to some would be nothing more than semantics (which are far more important than most people give them credit for) - I give them a lot more - I give them respect, because to date there hasn't been a compelling argument against homosexuality, especially considering that it has been proven to have the propensity to be genetically linked. I wonder if they'll make people get their DNA mapped out to prove whether or not they're actually homosexual to give them some kind of legal clout to be married in a same sex union...how annoying would that be to find out your fiancee isn't a through and through dyke/queer and not be able to wed. I could see that kind of thing happening in the good ol' US of A.

The nitty gritty consideration to a person as a person when it comes to certain personal freedoms like marriage and anti-discrimination on the basis of being homosexual - those are fabulous.

But if that stops people from heckling the queerest of queer for being drunk assholes on the street or under my window by dumping a bucket of water on them from storeys above while yelling 'shut up your stupid faggots' then it goes too far. (extra points to add a gallon of maple syrup?)

I could understand if it were urine or sour milk for a health violation...

...but buckets of (possibly sticky) ice water and a sexualized expletive - I bet that would be misconstrued as being a hate crime.

That, however, has nothing to do with a person's rights to live with the same opportunity to a certain standard of life as other people.


They would just be a bit wetter...and perhaps sticker on their way home from the wedding reception...which might just be a good thing for some of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if that stops people from heckling the queerest of queer for being drunk assholes on the street or under my window by dumping a bucket of water on them from storeys above while yelling 'shut up your stupid faggots' then it goes too far. (extra points to add a gallon of maple syrup?)

i'm not sure what you mean by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I wouldn't be 'heckling'

Is it a hate crime or migraine fallout?

I don't think there is anything about your scenario that could be misconstrued, YT. Legally, it would be classified as a hate crime because it is. Which of course is the whole point of this.

To back up for a second, though, it worries me that anyone would suggest that while human rights are all well and good because they pave the way for equality ... and at the same time, they are bad because they limit bigotry.

You say that semantics are important, YT, and I agree completely, and yet in the next breath you say 'faggot' in your example. That somehow, you should never be denied your 'right' to use that term. There are others here who often use the terms 'fag' or 'faggot' as a pejorative. It seems to me there is a lack of understanding that when terms like this are used, they do, in fact, contribute to oppressive subjugation and continuation of second class status for some people. Personally, I am not bothered by the term. But it can be, and is often used (as in your example) as a hurtful term. Part of the gay rights movement involves reclamation of the term and thus disempowerment of it. So, when you assert your right to use the term, you do so in the midst of a long and brutal history of politicization of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course...semantics is crucial - understanding how words work/are used...And therein lies my frustration...the politicization of the term in a negative way (I think it's a great word that is way too taboo) and the potential persecution/prosecution of the politically incorrect.

I never said that human rights limits bigotry.

Perhaps you look at the action of soaking someone with a bucket of water and calling them a faggot is bigoted. I suggest that it is not.

Perhaps because it could be argued that using a word that would define someone's sexual identity while being an expletive at the same time could be taken as a form of oppression...and that someone that would be fine with this would be bigoted, and someone that would do this would be supporting his own bigotry at the cost of the 'victim'.

But I suggest that 'gay' rights (in that example) may serve to change pouring a bucket of water to Hate Crime from what would otherwise be mischief, based on one word - which would serve to affect the pourer's life far more than the sopping wet 'victim'.

"The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done.

Hate crimes involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a family or a property. "

- http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

I would have intimidated with the physical force of the bucket of water, and used the water as a form of physical force against those persons and their property (clothes), but it would be because of what they had done and not who they are.

or perhaps you're talking about

"Section 319

(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of "

- http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

Perhaps you would look at the scenario as me soaking a bunch of loudmouth queers BECAUSE THEY'RE HOMOSEXUALS and not because they wouldn't move away from under my window being fabulously loud? Now that's rich. So it's a hate crime because I don't bat an eye at calling someone a 'faggot' just like I'd call someone a 'redneck' or a 'lawyer' - because that's what they are rather than me using it in a derrogatory fashion? If anybody can be culpable for the marginalization of someone from a potentially derrogatory term it's the reader/listener that takes it that way - not me.

I sincerely doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot that someone would jump to a similar conclusion if someone soaked me yelling 'shut up whitey'. If it's an issue of tolerance and equality, racism et al. goes both ways but is rarely recognized as such. I think that the person that gets soaked and takes it on as a hate crime deserves to be addressed as many things far worse than 'stupid faggot' for such a huge waste of time and the legal system because while it could be misconstrued as a hate crime, that's not the kind of thing that the distinction was created for.

I suppose that yelling the word 'faggot' late at night 'breaks the peace' but I really doubt that this code was created to curb noise violations with politically incorrect verbiage. Unless what I'd have said led to a riot or fights or incessant disturbance, then it doesn't fit.

So still somehow this choice of words defines 'hate crime'?? Perhaps one would look at what I said as being about justifying hate (after all, 'faggot' contributes to oppressive subjugation and continuation of a second class status for some people) but I look at it as a potential misunderstanding which is why I brought it up in this forum as a way to illustrate how unfortunate it is to get stuck in a way of thinking about an issue - for the person that gets stuck with a Hate Crime conviction, and for those that would automatically label it as a Hate Crime when it really isn't, possibly creating anther form of prejudice in the process.

The scenario as above would of course be a rarity. I'm presuming there are lots of people that would be more likely to take a baseball bat downstairs to really shut up a bunch of loudmouths - especially if they HATE people based on a difference (which isn't the case with the above example) and a Hate crime would really be the person that gets out the baseball bat BECAUSE they HATE people based on a difference, and not because of the noise. Would I soak straight people in that same situation? Would I soak a bunch of super loud homosexuals? In the real world probably no and no but there's always a chance it could happen.

Although it takes specific classification to turn Gay Rights into an 'issue' that gets its own individual clout in discussion or crusade, separating 'Gay Rights' from the overall blanket of 'Human Rights' can quite easily take people away from moving forward to a scene of overall tolerance just to look at addressing individual directions that turn them into other entities altogether.

Because once the issue is made, there is always another side to it: Should we accept 'these people that are different from us'(only one example)...

If it is general 'Human Rights' then what is the other side? Specific exclusion from a more general position is much more difficult.

Not that I expect this new approach to tolerance could ever happen now that we've got the balls rolling, and in many ways it would probably be seen to be 'inefficient' but there certainly wouldn't be any backlash and hate crimes committed in response to it.

I guess that in many ways I've just moved on and hold to beliefs of tolerance even though it's plain to read what I've written and find that I care very little for political correctness on this issue - but *gasp* someone that would say something like that and do something like that can't be tolerant - someone that would challenge the notion of Gay Rights and suggests they interfere with the direction of society - *gasp* that person must be a bigot.

Well I'm not because there's more to the 'issue' than the 'issue', and suggesting that it's all 'just semantics' is pretty spot on, however it certainly depends on what kind of value one can derive from semantics - if you can't then I suggest that you reevaluate your position.

I was trying to not take this thread too seriously, but if someone suggests that I would be guilty of a hate crime in my little world where I really would not be, there stands to reason that I need to be serious for a moment, as that's a serious suggestion that deserves the respect that a bunch of loudmouths probably wouldn't get in a hasty minute of filling a bucket with water and the hasty moment of barking a politically incorrect comment at them.

Sure it would have to be premeditated, but an attempt to kill their spirit? Not a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends on whether or not one views a water spill as a real 'assault' and how one uses the word in question.

I didn't suggest that the law 'agrees' with the act - but it certainly doesn't DISAGREE with it as stated and divised.

that specific law doesn't have the grounds to DISAGREE with it - which is what laws are designed to do. Laws aren't designed to agree with acts, they're designed to disagree with infringements, of which the act as above would not fit into that of a hate crime. Perhaps an assault (but really...a bucket of water?)

I don't really need to justify anything phishtaper, but in an explanation a lot can come to light that would otherwise be hidden behind a scramble to justify or defend.

Being honest about this, I don't harbour any specific hard feelings against any group of people expressly protected by these laws but I do resent the need for the legislation and laws therein in these modern times - not the legislation itself.

I'm not criticizing the rules, just a potential approach to them. I know I've talked about respect in the past and in many ways, the act that I described above (and defended, with reason) is still disrespectful to those people - not so much because of the word shouted or the act of drenching somebody with a bucket of water, but the action of lashing out in anger towards people that - while probably acting disrespectfully in some manner, didn't deserve it.

If one were to poll Canadians about whether they agree with someone justifying calling someone a faggot in anger and then assaulting them, then they probably wouldn't agree with it, but if you were to poll people that were woken up by a bunch of loudmouths I think there would be very different results. This example is just masked by a dirty word and a touchy subject.

I'm glad Tim Hortons backed out of that sponsorship deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just skimming this now .. what a pickle Tim Horton's must have found itself in, given their large consumer base back in Canada.

I think Canned Beats is wanting to be able to say 'faggot' to those mythical drunk people beneath his window in the way he might want to say 'bitch' to drunk loud women beneath his window or 'assholes' to drunk whomever beneath his window. I kinda get it. He doesn't actually have a problem with gay people, so it is an off-the-cuff expression of anger that is personalized but would be personalized a different way if it were a different group of people. ie., in that situation he's not mad that they're queer, he's just mad, and wants to drive the point home.

The sticky bit [pun] is that most people aren't up to YT's speed. This is why "fuck you nigger" from a black man to a black man isn't the same as "fuck you nigger" from a white man to a black man. Ideally it would be, particularly when all the power had been sapped from those words. And it can be really tempting to recognize that you don't have racial/gender/orientation hatred towards the other person so the word is harmless and just like any other expression of dissatisfaction until you consider that *if* that is the case, you are in the small minority and the recipient of the slur has no way of knowing just how 'enlightened' you are. And even if you are really pissed off at someone for being noisy and drunk, it's worth taking that sort of thing into consideration.

The problem with yelling 'shut up you stupid faggots' and dumping water on them (despite the fact that there is probably a problem with dumping water on anybody, because it is violence) is that for a persecuted group it is as likely as not to be understood to them that your act of violence is occuring because of their faggotness rather than because of their behaviour. Perfect world, there would be no place for such misunderstanding. Not a perfect world where that group is exposed to all sorts of heinous discrimination and brutality because of their faggotness - your being above all that does not get communicated through the bucket of water. And even if you are really, really mad at them, there's no point stretching out all of that.

Best thing: scream "Shut the fuck up, some people have to work in the morning" and leave it at that.

Give it a few more years and maybe there will be less latent ever-present hatred generally for them to interpret through your words specifically (and from there out into your actions). Remember: you want them to understand that you are angry because of their discourtesy, not because of who they are as people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankyou, Glitterking.

Though I don't consider myself to be 'faster' about this than everybody, I have moved on while so many people cling to issues such as this. Perhaps that lends itself to making me look like a bigot or merely just uncompassionate for not taking the issue as seriously from the same direction...depending on one's perspective.

Maybe it looks like I'm 'baiting' a conversation as I have before...maybe it's a bit unfair and uncouth...but I think that those fine lines/shades of grey are where the real problems lie.

Thanks for the pun, Glitterking. Glad to know that someone was rooting for the maple syrup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've wondered, Why am I drinking this thing?

Timmy's is one of those weird, prideful, Canadian fetish items that's never quite made sense to me.

Hear Hear. I had a cup this morning and was wondering that even while i was paying for it. The stuff tastes like shit. Sometimes it's like a warm blanket though. Weird.

The Canadian pride that surrounds the franchise is truly bizarre. Well, it's simply a result of great marketing attaching a brand to national pride I suppose.

Their food gets shittier and shittier every year too :P And don't get me started on their fucking Roll Up The Rim To Lose crap every year :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...