Barilla Chairman's Interview Prompts Boycott Call
 

snopes.com: Barilla Pasta Anti-Gay Remarks

Possibly the first argument regarding same sex couples adoption rights being based on the "child's right to choose."

He announced on air that he would never feature a gay family in one of Barilla's ads. Clearly unaware that gay people can actually hear what he says on the radio, Barilla added that he had "no respect for adoption by gay families because this concerns a person who is not able to choose." He then encouraged those of us who found his statements offensive to eat another brand.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sla...ediumlarge.jpg

The Judge I worked for in San Francisco Superior Court (Criminal felony division) was straight and divorced in 1985, and he riffed on the Gay Freedom Day parade's topless lesbian Harley Davidson contingent (known as "Dykes on Bikes") that ride in the parade every year) with his baby shower gift to a lesbian Superior Judge that was new on the bench and who had just adopted a small baby to raise.

His inscription with the gift was "Tykes on Trikes".


Cute! :P

Anti-gay statements havent killed Chick-fil-a (yet?). I'm not sure what the lesson is but its worth noting.

-doesn't care either way

The guy can be ignorant all he wants. May or may not hurt his business. I read of a teenage black girl who was real happy with her two gay adopted daddies. They had a picture of her in the article, with her new family, another adopted child as well, and she was a cutie. Apparently she'd been molested by hetero foster fathers in the past and was pleased as punch with her two dads who did not want to get in her pants.

Of course not all hetero adopted fathers will be like that, most won't I'd reckon. But in this case, gay parents adopting worked.

[QUOTE=MTI;3214146]Possibly the first argument regarding same sex couples adoption rights being based on the "child's right to choose."

He announced on air that he would never feature a gay family in one of Barilla's ads. Clearly unaware that gay people can actually hear what he says on the radio, Barilla added that he had "no respect for adoption by gay families because this concerns a person who is not able to choose." He then encouraged those of us who found his statements offensive to eat another brand.

Fair enough. Does the child get to choose where they go as far as a straight couple or what? If we are going to respect the right to choose, how do we ask the child?

That is his right. Perhaps it is not that he is unaware but doesn't care. IDK.

Just another attempt at free advertising in the fashion of the recent Starbucks gun debacle and the Hooters announcement prohibiting Bob Fillner from patronizing their restaurants in San Diego. This time, however, it may not have worked as intended.

Dunno. I don't do the shopping much so I haven't heard of Barilla. Now I have. I hate gays so I will support him by buying Barilla. I don't care one way or the other but now I heard the name. I'm gay but I'm not concerned and will buy something but it might be Barilla. I'm gay and I will not buy it anymore.

There are quite a few categories. Say he loses 10 gays who will not buy it but he picks up 20 more, it might work out. I guess the question is how many people will say "I like Barilla but because they don't support gays, I will not buy their product." vs how many will say "Oh, there is Barilla as an alternative.".

I support gays and their rights to be equal citizens myself. In this case, I won't buy Barilla because I am not fond of their stuff so it is a push. Would I give up my Barilla just because they don't support gays, assuming I liked it? Probably not. This and Chick-Fil-A will be an interesting test of what happens when the rubber meets the road.

Starbucks issue was not an attempt at free advertising.

Barilla guy can do what he likes, although I agree with you that it may not work out as planned.
I'm not aware of too many people who are very brand loyal when it comes to pasta. A slight price difference is generally all it takes to vary from Barilla to DeCecco or Ronzoni or any other brand.
Giving a large block of people a reason to choose a different brand is just foolish.

In principle, yes. However, this is more of a social issue. Will the someones like Larry, for instance outweigh those in the large block? Sometimes, I think so. The large block probably won't care so much about social issues as opposed to saving a few cents. Maybe for a month but in the long run, it won't matter.

This is me caring...

I don't. I buy cars that Nazis helped to create, I buy oil from terrorists, and I buy my pasta from gay bashers.....

Nothing I can do to weed out the "bad" and only buy PC anything.

Well, no ****. What have we got here, a fawking comedian? Private Joker. I admire your honesty. Hell, I like you, you can come over to my house and fawk my sister! (If I had one)

The question is not whether you can by PC approved stuff. Oil for instance, you don't matter. You don't buy it, somebody else will and money still spends the same. Every product we have is oil tainted in some way, shape or form. So the real thing is to ask "why". Why should I stick my neck out for you? Who are you to me? I don't stick my neck out for anyone besides the wife and dogs unless there is a definite interest. After all, unless there is an interest, I don't believe you will stick your neck out for me.

Pasta is off the menu at my house, pretty much permanently so I don't GAS. Having said that, I've eaten Barilla in the past, it's good noodles. If I still ate carbohydrate bombs I'd prolly buy it. I don't really care what he thinks.
I watch Mel Gibson movies too, even though I think he's a racist dickweed.

Starbucks issue was not an attempt at free advertising.

You're correct, it was not an attempt, it was success; it got the name out there, that's free advertising in my book.

I can only imagine that you are ignorant of how that situation transpired.

Clearly you don't have a clue how that jackpot went down, start to finish.