"Ex-Gays" | Discrimination | Disney | News

'Ex-Gays' Want Corporate Recognition from Disney

I wonder how big this group of "concerned stockholders" is:

Chipdale "Concerned Disney stockholders have submitted a shareholder resolution asking the Walt Disney Company to include the prohibition of discrimination based on ex-gay status in its sexual orientation policy and diversity training programs. 'The resolution cites the need for diversity and equality in the workplace,' said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX). The supporting statement for the resolution explains that, 'Disney's exclusion of ex-gays from its sexual orientation policy and programs reinforces the second-class status of ex-gays, and contributes to the negative perceptions and discrimination against former homosexuals.' The resolution also cites a recent judicial decision issued for the Nation's Capital by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In that case, brought by PFOX, the Court ruled that former homosexuals are a protected class that must be recognized under sexual orientation non-discrimination laws. The Court held that, under the D.C. Human Rights Act, sexual orientation does not require immutable characteristics."

PFOX is the nutty group that just declared hate crime laws to be "anti-ex-gay". And I see they're still spinning their remarkable court defeat as a victory.

Hopefully, Disney will see beyond this horseshit and take the stance of the American Psychological Association and tell these misguided and dangerous people to "explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. At the least misguided morons.

    Posted by: philberto | Oct 13, 2009 9:30:20 AM

  2. Putting aside the fact that "x-gay" is bullshit.

    If it were true, wouldn't "x-gays" just be heterosexuals?

    This proves to me that this isn't so much of an "x-gay" movement as an anti-gay movement. Not much different that a bowel movement.

    Posted by: walt | Oct 13, 2009 9:30:48 AM

  3. I thought if you were ex-gay that meant that you were officially straight. Apparently that's not the case. Sorry to burst their bubble, but "ex-gay" is not a sexual orientation. Either you're straight, gay, or something in between. These PFOX folks are an inane bunch of dipshits.

    Posted by: David in Houston | Oct 13, 2009 9:32:39 AM

  4. 34% of Walt Disney Productions stock is owned by the saudi royal family

    The house of Saud is extremly anti-gay. 34% voting shares is a lot of pull to do this crap to denegrate gays

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 13, 2009 10:05:00 AM

  5. "Ex-gays" give the BEST blowjobs.

    Posted by: JJ | Oct 13, 2009 10:54:41 AM

  6. They're ex-gay? Fine, they're ex-gay. That means they're straight. The law already protects "straight" people.

    Posted by: Bernie | Oct 13, 2009 11:07:07 AM

  7. I think they're right to want to be protected. There is a lot of discrimination for ex-gays, both from us gays and from the people who are anti-gay. They have it worse. My heart goes out to them. I'm glad they're standing up for their rights... I'm gay and I think we should all be able to make our own decisions without being judged or discriminated. Or do we think that we're the only ones who have the right to do what we want and ask not to be discriminated?! Please! Sometimes I'm ashamed of some fellow gays because we want rights, but won't let everyone else have their right to disagree with us or to think differently.

    Posted by: AM | Oct 13, 2009 12:02:18 PM

  8. I think ex-gays should be put to death immediately for their lack of commitment. Obviously they are spies that will cum to the highest bidder. Whether it be business, relationships, or religion. The ex-gay is a harmful element to the clear lines that have been drawn according to each individual state or district that we live in that may or may not condone/condemn homosexuality or be in the process or one of the above mentioned opposing stances.


    Posted by: jakeinlove | Oct 13, 2009 12:28:28 PM

  9. @am -- I want them to be protected, too. And because they identify as straight, they already are. Has anyone ever been fired, denied an apartment, etc., because they SAY they are ex-gay?

    Posted by: BrianM | Oct 13, 2009 12:32:48 PM

  10. AM, I understand what you're saying but my question to you is, is being ex-gay is then a sexuality? Do you think that when ex-gay people are asked if they are gay or straight, they answer, "I'm ex-gay."

    For many years I dated women, uncomfortably, but I did so. Slept with more than a few. Does that make me "ex-straight"? Should I have my own protected class too?

    Are you getting the absurdity of this? Since I've now accepted that I am sexually attracted to men, that makes me gay. If an ex-gay person is actually attracted to women, then they are straight. If they are ex-gay and still attracted to men, then they are either lying to themselves or celebate, but it's not a sexuality.

    Posted by: Bart | Oct 13, 2009 12:33:49 PM

  11. Ex-gay = Heterosexual.

    At least that's what they keep on telling us.

    So, they're already "protected" under all relevant state and local laws in 20 states.

    And as they know full well (since they vehemently oppose ENDA), federal law does not recognize sexual orientation discrimination of any kind. Obviously, that means nobody is "protected" as far as the nation's largest employer is concerned.

    End of story.

    Posted by: John | Oct 13, 2009 12:44:56 PM

  12. At what point does a person become an "ex-gay" as opposed to a straight person, with sexual curiousity, or who explored other options, before finally deciding they wanted to just be with someone of the opposite sex? And then isn't that sometimes called bi-curious? What the hell...ex-gay??? Yeah, not working for me...you either are, or you aren't...period.

    Posted by: Carol | Oct 13, 2009 1:20:05 PM

  13. Largest single stock holder is Steve Jobs (his deal for the purchase of Pixar) at 7%. Michael Eisner second at 1.7%, Roy Disney third at 1%. Largest stock holder (institutional/funds) is an institutional fund. I don't know where you get the Saudi number from, but they aren't the largest voting block and 34% would be an extremely large percentage of Disney.

    Also, someone at PFOX could have bought even 1 share of voting stock ($28.50/share) to make their original statement be truthful. It doesn't mean anything. (This was the tactic that Michael Moore used in Roger & Me to meet the CEO of General Motors)

    Posted by: unruly | Oct 13, 2009 1:25:47 PM

  14. RE: AM. - I agree that it is unfair that "we" as a group sometimes vilify those who struggle with their sexual orientation and sometimes opt out to the "ex-gay" status. That being said I do think that there are several factors to consider in this. For one and I do hope that most on here would agree with this, homosexuality, heterosexuality, inter-sex, transgender, and all of the other groups in terms of sexuality are not choices being made by people. In other words people are born this way and deal with it the ways in which they can. "ex-gay" however is an out-and-out choice and therefore doesn't hold the same weight as the others, and in my opinion does not qualify for certain rights associated with the other groups. It's the same as if you consider yourself an ex-christian, or hell even a christian for that matter. You are not born a christian, you are born void of religion and religion is taught and at some point you choose to be christian. And you can walk away from it without it being a denial of who you are. While I do not think that you should in anyway be penalized or vilified for being a christian or being "ex-gay" I also do not believe that you should equate yourself with those who suffer and are judged for who they are born as.

    Also I think the distinction needs to be made for those who label ex-gays as straight that this isn't the way they view themselves, They view themselves as gay but able to suppress and mold to the "non-deviant" norms of society. They all know they are still tempted and attracted to the same sex but for whatever reason they believe and again I reiterate, they choose not to act on these innate urges. Therefore they are not straight which one is born with, but ex-gay which they choose to be. If I am wrong and they view homosexuality as a choice rather than being born with it, then you would all be correct in labeling them as straight and therefore protected. But it is my feeling that they do not see themselves as straight but rather, no longer acting on "the gay".

    Overall though I feel pity for those who label themselves ex-gay. They have it harder than most of us to carry on a healthy life. As the study mentioned suggested they face many more difficulties in life than those who accept who they are. Because like I mentioned they are still gay people who live in a constant state of denial, but instead of just living in the closet they are open about it and therefore at the mercy of those in the public.

    Posted by: Matt | Oct 13, 2009 1:46:39 PM

  15. @Matt -- I don't know if I've ever seen a study about how ex-gays feel about themselves, although it would be interesting. I've seen a number of anecdotal reports that are split: some say they still have homosexual attractions, some say they used to but not anymore (were "cured," so to speak), and some say that they were "seduced" into homosexual behavior either by older people or because of recreation drug use and that their true self was never gay.

    I don't have a problem with any of that. People have a right to define themselves as they see fit. Lord knows, most of my friends used to be "ex-straight." (I never took that path, but that's just me.) Where I have a problem with the ex-gays and their supporters is when they say that choosing to deny our natures is preferable than accepting them. Or they use ex-gays to fight against non-discrimination laws.

    Be an ex-gay and go in peace. But leave me out of it.

    Posted by: BrianM | Oct 13, 2009 2:09:39 PM

  16. If a company has a fairly strong and visible and mostly accepted group of gay employees (and I think that describes Disney), then it *does* seem possible to me that someone who had been out/gay who decided to be "ex-gay" could, indeed be discriminated against, as a lot of the comments on this thread clearly illustrate. Many gays don't respect that choice, and that's where the discrimination would likely come from.

    However, my understanding of putting sexual orientation into a non-discrimination policy, would be that WHATEVER a person's sexual orientation would be, whether they are hetero-, homo-, bi-, or ex-, discrimination or mistreatment based on that should be prohibited, right? is there something about the way discrimination or hate-crime laws are written that would exclude ex-gays from the protected class? I wouldn't think so.

    Hey, if someone has been to gayworld and decides they don't want to live there any more for whatever reason, I may think they are deluded, but who am I to judge and make their life more difficult than they are already making it themselves?

    Posted by: Mark in Portland | Oct 13, 2009 2:13:49 PM

  17. @Brianm - I hope that I wasn't coming across in favor of any of these actions that "ex-gays" are taking such as trying to be included in anti-discrimination laws. I agree with most that this is a blatant step to try and undermine the fight that LGBTs are fighting and it's a bunch of bull-shit. I'm over caffeinated and probably not the most coherent of writers at the best of times. I have a problem with them doing this the same way that I have a problem with any anti-gay, racist, misogynistic, discriminatory in any sense factions that trump up false suits to muddle the system and degrade those with a rightful cause.

    Re-reading what I wrote, which I don't tend to do and probably leads to more problems than if I would just have a quick skim over things, I would like to put the disclaimer that my views on what ex-gays believe is simply that.. my views as garnered from anecdotes and my own pre-conceived notions and not based on any studies.

    Still though I feel sorry for them, not the ones who parade around and try and preach that conversion is actually possible (I have nothing but contempt for those that do this as they only add to the hardships faced by those who are only just coming to terms with their sexuality by giving false promises), but rather those who for some reason or other choose to believe that conversion is possible. For the teenagers who are forced to go into these programs and come out for the worse, those who have to hide a part of their lives because it won't be accepted by those who "love" them. But then maybe these people wouldn't ever label themselves as ex-gay to begin with.

    I don't really know. All I know is that singling out all people who may label themselves as ex-gay is the wrong approach. The villains are those who use it against others, whether you are a preacher who exorcises the gay out of someone by beating them or if you are a lawyer who defends radical religious groups by proposing legislation in order to undermine truly worthwhile causes.

    Posted by: Matt | Oct 13, 2009 2:32:34 PM

  18. You need only to read the PFOX website to understand that ex-gay is not a sexual orientation, it is a political movement with the goal of thwarting any protections to GLBT people.

    Posted by: sammyseattle | Oct 13, 2009 3:10:56 PM

  19. "Ex-gay" isn't really a group of people. It's a political movement. And it is all a lie. Sexual orientation can't be changed, and even if it could, the only reason people want to is because of anti-gay lies and hatred, or to conform to their idiotic, homophobic religious upbringing.

    These people deserve NONE of your sympathy or pity. They play a huge role in denying you your civil rights. They are not innocent victims. They are stupid, horrible people who make the world worse for the rest of us.

    "Ex-gays" don't exist. There is no "ex-gay" community. The movement consists of well-funded rightwing anti-gay hate groups who pump out anti-gay literature and support anti-gay laws; a few scattered "ex-gay" public spokespeople like Alan Chambers who literally get paid to tour the country claiming they no longer suck dick; and a whole lot of people getting suckered (or coerced) into "ex-gay" camps because they think life will be wonderful if only they could have the desire to stick their dicks in women (or vice versa for the self-hating lesbians who go into this).

    Am, and everyone else here who thinks this is some kind of genuine minority, you are either spies for PFOX (since their #1 tactic as of late is to steal the terms and feelings of the gay rights movements and use it against us all), or you are just fucking stupid and have no idea what you're talking about.

    "Ex-gay" identity is anti-gay by definition. It is predicated on the idea that there is something wrong with all of us, and that we would be better off if we would change who and what we are. This is poison.

    Posted by: Eshto | Oct 13, 2009 3:28:02 PM

  20. lol What the fuck is a pfox. Sounds like something from Power Rangers.

    Posted by: CAJIVA | Oct 13, 2009 3:49:22 PM

  21. @Mark in Portland,

    Most anti-discrimination laws include an explanatory clause to the effect of:

    "For all purposes of this Act, sexual orientation refers to actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality"

    Courts in this country - including those in California where Disney is based - have interpreted this to mean that sexual orientation, as a legal concept, deals specifically with an individual's preference in terms of gender. The law protects one from discrimination based on their current sexual preference only. There are no provisions for those who are discriminated due to a former preference which they've disavowed. It is not difficult to gauge legislative intent here.

    What the ex-gays are saying is that their employers must not only protect their status as current heterosexuals; they must also provide protection from discrimination based on their former status as homosexuals. That is, they're arguing the employer cannot allow employees to harass , discuss, or joke about them based on the fact that they're in an "ex-gay" ministry. Civil rights legislation, however, doesn't really work in the absence of an identity. The law can only protect you from being discriminated against for what you ARE. It cannot protect you from what you ARE NOT.

    Although some courts have allowed limited claims of harassment to proceed specifically under "sexual harassment" statutes, none have endorsed the idea that these cases should be decided under the Unruh Civil Rights Act - the main anti-discrimination instrument in California.

    Posted by: John | Oct 13, 2009 7:36:06 PM

  22. Ex-gays do have it hard. They're usually discriminated by gays for claiming to be ex-gay, and by straights because they once were gay. To speak of them you really need to know one of them. You can't claim that they are spies for PFOX. They lead difficult lives too.

    I agree with AM. If we are going to want to be respected and accepted as we are, we should do the same for others, no matter what they choose to do.

    Posted by: Mitch | Oct 13, 2009 7:52:44 PM

  23. Eshto has it exactly right. Spend any time with an "ex-gay" functionary and it's real clear: "ex-gay" exists to further "anti-gay" sentiment. Along the way, they take the most vulnerable members of an already marginal and vulnerable minority and tell them they're bad, evil, at opposition to God's plan for them, and any number of variations of those until they are so miserable that they become willing participants in their own brainwashing. If they happen to be under 18, there's a very good chance that they are there under duress and held against their will.

    Posted by: KJ | Oct 13, 2009 8:43:56 PM

  24. My first reaction was similar to many on this board, which was ex-gay=straight so what is this need for special rights?

    After reading the other comments (especially by Matt, BrianM and Eshto)I have to admit the issue isn't as clear-cut as it first appeared to me. When the comments generate well-thought opinions and doesn't degenerate into snarkiness, it reminds me why I read this blog.

    While I feel sympathy for those who, because of coercion or ignorance, became an ex-gay, I have to agree with Eshto. Those who choose to be ex-gay are not just acknowledging who they are, they are also denying what we are.

    Being straight or bi does not negate my being gay, but by "choosing" to be ex-gay, that person invalidates what I am by implying that my homosexuality is a choice.

    (I have to say, though, if homosexuality was a choice, I'd choose to be gay anyway.)

    Posted by: Loki | Oct 14, 2009 1:28:29 AM

Post a comment


« «Watch: Gay Marriage Proposal at Mariah Carey's Vegas Concert« «