Arkansas | Gay Parents | News

Gay Parents Elton John and David Furnish Shielded from Children at Arkansas Grocery Store


A vigilant shopper and tweeter at Harps grocery store in Mountain Home, Arkansas notes that the store wants to protect children from a magazine cover featuring gay parents.

UPDATE: Harps has removed the shield.

As you may recall, last April an Arkansas Circuit court struck down the state law banning gays from adopting or fostering children.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I wrote this at Joe, too, but there is no way that sign was created for that specific issue (it's a weekly, they wouldn't have known the cover, etc.). I'm sure the store regularly shields the tabloids and mags like COSMO because they have racy cover images and cover lines. ("Mommy, what's an incredible orgasm?")

    However, if it turns out that the shields are used selectively by the store, which is considering which covers might be offensive, and/or if that picture revealed other tabloids unshielded, then definitely they need to be called on it. Because there is nothing racy at all about that cover.

    Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Jan 26, 2011 9:49:43 AM

  2. I love that the "hookups" title is still exposed.

    Posted by: Yeek | Jan 26, 2011 9:56:13 AM

  3. I can't get worked up over this

    If it was someone other than elton then yeah, but elton's antics don't shine a flatering light on the gay community

    Also if he hadn't sung at rush limbaugh's wedding might help

    Posted by: | Jan 26, 2011 10:01:41 AM

  4. Its Arkansas....I expect nothing less then Blatant Bigotry from that state..and most that are ajoined to IT......the FLY-OVER/ and DRIVE THRU don't STOP states (with the Most Obesity, Divorces etc)

    Posted by: Disgusted American | Jan 26, 2011 10:02:42 AM

  5. Won't someone protect the children from hair implant pics! Love "selective shielding"... sounds like a DoD tactic!

    Posted by: Sean R | Jan 26, 2011 10:04:18 AM

  6. Yeah, we wouldn't want to upset the children of first cousins.

    Posted by: Bart | Jan 26, 2011 10:06:56 AM

  7. Andy - you're more of a photography expert than I am, but isn't this obviously photoshopped? The "Family Shield" text isn't even level with the edges of the grey screen.

    Posted by: tcw | Jan 26, 2011 10:16:06 AM

  8. TCW

    is right

    LOL the text isn't level, it is off kilter = photoshpped/fake pic

    Posted by: | Jan 26, 2011 10:20:48 AM

  9. No wonder birds fall out of the sky in that state, even nature can't stand the stupidity of humans.

    Posted by: NY2.0 | Jan 26, 2011 10:33:55 AM

  10. I'd do the same. I don't want my child seeing rich elderly white queens buying babies because they're bored, creatively spent and have the disposable income to circumnavigate international laws.
    This is a tragedy that has nothing to do with the LGBT community, just as the Kardashians appalling expressions of bourgeois consumerism isn't a slight against Armenians.

    Elton is not gay. He's a rich flaming egomaniac.

    And you blind??? That pic is fake!

    Posted by: BangBang LaDesh | Jan 26, 2011 10:44:54 AM

  11. The text may have been added, but does that mean the "shield" is fake too? It is suspicion either way. Is there anyone in the area that can verify?

    Posted by: ravewulf | Jan 26, 2011 11:15:46 AM

  12. I was there this morning.

    Picked up the latest issue of Juggz, carton of cigarettes, and a Bull.

    This is not a problem. People mag should be banned.

    Posted by: AllBeefPatty | Jan 26, 2011 11:20:26 AM

  13. The woman who posted the pic to twitter is now saying that the shields are down - Though I agree, this looks photoshopped to hell.

    Posted by: bfenster | Jan 26, 2011 11:25:40 AM

  14. If def is a photoshop job, but if the shield itself is real it's disgusting. The fact that 2 people in a seemingly committed relationship celebrating an adoption is viewed as offensive simply because they are the same sex just speaks to how ignorant and screwed up society is (regardless of your view of elton john specifically). i bet in the next aisle of the store you can buy a steven segal dvd, a shoot em up video game, and a gun & ammo - but none of that is offensive at all right?? so messed up. sickening.

    Posted by: bdslater9 | Jan 26, 2011 11:31:43 AM

  15. It isn't photoshopped at an angle. Look at the row of magazines above and you'll see the bottom of each magazine is supported by two rods. Now look at the sides of the "US" slot and you'll see two rods. So casually drop a square piece of plastic in front of "US" and it will be supported by two rods in three possible configurations --- in this case the leftmost of the bottom ones and the lower of the right-side ones. Now go back to the school where you didn't learn geometry and demand a refund.

    Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | Jan 26, 2011 11:32:04 AM

  16. AnnieBeav - Your math skills suck.

    Towleroad! If there is ANY question that this is fake - do you REALLY think you should post the phone number so a nation of cunti queens can harass them???

    You're not the Advocate! Be the gay culture site with integrity...please! God knows the community needs it.

    Posted by: Not Into You | Jan 26, 2011 11:50:59 AM

  17. Think a rally should be organised of gay parent families all entering but not buying at that store.... See if they have enough family shields to "protect" kids.

    Bloody ridiculous someone would actually censor that cover

    Posted by: Aaron | Jan 26, 2011 12:12:45 PM

  18. In my opinion it's obviously photoshopped. Plus, those magazines are routinely put behind shields in "kid friendly" lines. Though very much ill aligned, I've never seen one with any text like that.

    Posted by: phillip | Jan 26, 2011 12:19:55 PM

  19. Makes me ill, but it's tough to prove that a shopper didn't remove that sign from another mag and put it there--unless the store admits that this is their bigoted policy.

    Posted by: Steverino | Jan 26, 2011 12:31:21 PM

  20. NOT INTO YOU: Since this is a real-world spatial reasoning task you can model it yourself and see your error. I just hope you're not an architect or engineer (or a carpenter, mechanic, firefighter, heavy equipment operator, casual laborer, ditch digger, or anything else but a know-nothing with an incorrect opinion).

    What amazes me is that people like you will spend thousands of hours of their lives watching CSI, Law & Order, NCIS, Bones, and every other procedural drama on television and "participate" in the fictitious investigation around a blurry, staged prop photograph, and yet here you have a perfectly clear real, actual photograph with all the evidence you need to work-out the problem and remove all doubt that it's real, but you'd rather imagine that someone has taken the time to fake the photo (and notice the VERY subtle shadows those metal rods cast on the shield and the magazine cover!) to slander a grocery store nobody outside of Arkansas ever heard of.

    No, the store had the sheilds pre-made and somebody (possibly even a customer) dropped on in place in front of "US".

    No conspiracy. Model it yourself.

    Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | Jan 26, 2011 12:36:13 PM

  21. Step away from the martini shaker, Beaverhouse.

    Posted by: Sean | Jan 26, 2011 12:46:33 PM

  22. They were already on the list of states to avoid living in.

    Posted by: AlphaA | Jan 26, 2011 1:08:42 PM

  23. The gray shield looks real by the text looks fake. The key to the text is that there are no continuous shadings from the gray through the text where there are shadows.

    Posted by: anon | Jan 26, 2011 1:22:33 PM

  24. GLAAD talked to the Harp's corporate and confirmed the story. The shield is real but has allegedly now been removed.

    Posted by: Ceezy | Jan 26, 2011 1:53:47 PM

  25. SEAN: The real world of solid three-dimensional objects trumps the fantasyland in which you find yourself clever. You have nothing to say, yet you say it anyway.

    Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | Jan 26, 2011 2:20:50 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Hawaii Governor Nominates Out Lesbian Judge to Supreme Court« «