Barilla Pasta bans gays from its ads.

[Mela99]

Ronzoni is better, anyway. They give out way more coupons.

[lexiloumarie]

"Where the woman plays a fundamental role?" Well, in my "homosexual family" we both play a fundamental role, so arguably... :D

LOL, I read my wife this and she was like "hmmm, I'd like to think we both play a fundamental role. Should we take the Kid and the Little and auditon."

[ADoyle90815]

Just saw this retweeted on the Twitter: @ronzonipasta Just like pasta, we believe families come in all different shapes, sizes, colors & orientations. Our pasta is for all.

Signor Barilla, you shot your fine company in the foot today. Not cool.

They also posted that on Facebook as well. Boycotting Barilla is going to be easy, as there are plenty of brands to chose from, including the generic stuff.

[permanentproblem]

I was looking for a new spaghetti sauce anyway. For years their tomato & basil sauce was the only kind I would eat, but they went and changed the recipe recently. Has all these little chopped up onions. Not good. Anyway, back on topic, I think the best way Barilla could show they were really sorry about the comment is to actually feature a gay couple in a commercial. Best case scenario with two guys rather than lesbians...to atone for the part about cooking being women's work too.

[Sumeri]

You'd think at this point in time they'd be learning to keep their mouths shut.

This.

[FreeJosie]

Barilla's loss is Ronzoni's gain!

The comments on that Yahoo article are predictably mind-numbing. I don't think that many of the regular commenters are skilled in reading comprehension, because I kept seeing variations of "WHY ISN'T HE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN OPINION? THE GAYS WANT TO DESTROY HIS BUSINESS!" Um, he IS allowed to have an opinion, and so are the people who disagree with him and don't wish to buy his products as a result. No one told him that he couldn't speak on the issue, and no one is going to close Barilla down.

[HomegirlRuby]

I might or might not use up that Barilla pasta I bought, but that's it. I'll buy another brand or make my own. I do need to start using that pasta machine I've got.

[Sobeknofret]

I'm rolling my eyes so hard I can see my brain stem. Yanno, these people might just as well say "I'm against gay people because thinking about male gay sex makes me feel squicky." Get the truth out and stop acting like it's a moral stance or something. And when they do say it, we can all start making fun of them for being preoccupied with gay sex.

[Hane]

Dammit, I love Barilla and its wide variety of pasta shapes. (Its sauce, not so much.) Once I finish up the two boxes of Barilla gemelli in my cupboard, it's arrivederci.

[slickcat79]

Just saw this retweeted on the Twitter: @ronzonipasta Just like pasta, we believe families come in all different shapes, sizes, colors & orientations. Our pasta is for all.

Signor Barilla, you shot your fine company in the foot today. Not cool.

LOL. You know Ronzoni must be having a corporate field day today. Nothing like having your competitor shoot themself in the foot and do half your job for you. *waits for Ronzoni commercial featuring gay couple*

Seriously, if you know your opinion is going to offend a large portion of the people who buy your product, just STFU. Food doesn't have to be political.

[alchemy]

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/bertolli- ... nts-152758

Not just Ronzoni, Bertolli was quick to make hay from this too.

[moonbeam59]

Goodbye Barilla, hello Bertolli.

Just waiting for all the self-entitled "wahhh free speech" complaining like we heard over Chik-Fil-A. I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, but I also enjoy my right to withhold financial support from companies that make offensive public statements or donate to bigoted groups. That is not persecution, you tools.

[FreeJosie]

The Bertolli ad is just adorable....good on them!

[moodygirl86]

I'm rolling my eyes so hard I can see my brain stem. Yanno, these people might just as well say "I'm against gay people because thinking about male gay sex makes me feel squicky." Get the truth out and stop acting like it's a moral stance or something. And when they do say it, we can all start making fun of them for being preoccupied with gay sex.

Just what I've always thought. "Makes me feel squicky" is their opinion, and in a free country they have every right to say it. So why not own it? I remember having this conversation with a work colleague about three years ago when I worked for a courier company. One of our drivers had been sacked for shagging in a company vehicle, and the guy who had the desk opposite me asked if I'd heard about the "gay driver". I hadn't, so he explained with obvious disgust. But I noticed he peppered the backstory with a lot of emphasis on the gay bit. In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether the driver was fucking a man or a woman in his van - whoever he's shagging, he's misusing company property. My colleague looked embarrassed and said defensively, "Well, I'm not saying being gay's wrong, just that it's...not unnatural...I don't know!" and seemed quite angry that he'd been put on the spot. I'd bet a month's pay that had the driver been caught fooling around with a woman, the reaction would have been, "Go on my son!" and this bloke just couldn't handle having his prejudices challenged. I'd always got on all right with him until then but I noticed he avoided me after that...

ETA that a lot of homophobes say they have nothing against gay people, just that they don't want it "flaunted" at them, or that they don't want to have to think about it. Well why would you need to think about it? Do they look at a man and a woman who are a couple and automatically imagine what they get up to in bed? I didn't think so. So why would you look at a gay couple and see non-stop sex? Logic. Some people don't have.

[TheJewAmongUs]

Look, I don't really want to defend this guy because I don't happen to agree with his opinions, but the subject of this thread is misleading. He didn't ban gay people from appearing in his ads, he doesn't want the ads portraying a gay couple. Even if the gay couple is protrayed by straight actors. I think there's a difference in discriminating in employment and choosing not to portray something in your marketing material. Even if e sentiment comes from the same place, one is illegal and one is not. But he didn't "ban" anyone.

[Arete]

Friggin' A! I just bought 10 boxes in a sale last month, so it is going to be a while before I can reroute my pasta dollars. After this, it's Ronzoni.

Damn, I love Barilla's no boil lasagna noodles :( , but I am also a sincere believer in the power of the pocketbook as a tool of correction.

[thoughtful]

Someone got clever with Photoshop:

[GawkingToo]

Look, I don't really want to defend this guy because I don't happen to agree with his opinions, but the subject of this thread is misleading. He didn't ban gay people from appearing in his ads, he doesn't want the ads portraying a gay couple. Even if the gay couple is protrayed by straight actors. I think there's a difference in discriminating in employment and choosing not to portray something in your marketing material. Even if e sentiment comes from the same place, one is illegal and one is not. But he didn't "ban" anyone.

Illegal where? Is that type of discrimination illegal in Italy? It's perfectly legal in most U.S. states, so I'm honestly curious.

(Btw, if anyone else is curious, I found this list of U.S. states that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. I don't know what percentage of commercials and such are filmed in California, but it does seem to be illegal there. Then again, if actors tend to be unionized, wouldn't that be something that might also be protected under their union agreements? (Do they tend to be unionized??))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_emplo ... #State_law

Edit: Added the link to the Wikipedia entry.

[thoughtful]

More fun visuals:

[Coconut Flan]

Yes, actors are unionized: SAG-AFTRA.

[TheJewAmongUs]

Illegal where? Is that type of discrimination illegal in Italy? It's perfectly legal in most U.S. states, so I'm honestly curious.

(Btw, if anyone else is curious, I found this list of U.S. states that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. I don't know what percentage of commercials and such are filmed in California, but it does seem to be illegal there. Then again, if actors tend to be unionized, wouldn't that be something that might also be protected under their union agreements? (Do they tend to be unionized??))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_emplo ... #State_law

Edit: Added the link to the Wikipedia entry.

I'm from California. For some reason I thought there was a Supreme Court decision at some point that said sexual orientation is a protected class. I looked up Romer v. Evans, it looks like that one just said a state can't make an amendment saying it's not a protected class.

But anyway, I still think there's a difference between saying he wouldn't hire a gay person and he won't allow the portrayal of a gay couple in an ad by gay or straight people. The thread title says "bans gays from its ads," which is not the case.

[Mrs Ms]

Oh, my family has been buying the wrong brand! We're a straight couple, but we don't qualify as the MALE does most of the cooking in our house - sorry, my bad..... :naughty:

All joking aside, this sucks as Barilla is the cheapest edible brand available where we live.

[lawlifelgbt]

@TheJewAmongUs: Law student, interest in LGBT issues here.

No, sexual orientation is not a "suspect class" like race and gender are. Suspect classes, which are those most often legally protected, cause any discrimination against that class to be subject to "strict scrutiny." However, rational basis or intermediate scrutiny is mostly applied to sexual orientation, because to meet strict scrutiny:

The group has to have historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.

They possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait.

They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.)

The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.

Race clearly meets this standard, but sexual orientation is more debatable. #1 is met for sure, but "immutability" (that the trait cannot be changed), is still somewhat up for debate, as is political powerlessness. Hence the lessened scrutiny.

[GawkingToo]

@TheJewAmongUs: Law student, interest in LGBT issues here.

No, sexual orientation is not a "suspect class" like race and gender are. Suspect classes, which are those most often legally protected, cause any discrimination against that class to be subject to "strict scrutiny." However, rational basis or intermediate scrutiny is mostly applied to sexual orientation, because to meet strict scrutiny:

The group has to have historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.

They possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait.

They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.)

The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.

Race clearly meets this standard, but sexual orientation is more debatable. #1 is met for sure, but "immutability" (that the trait cannot be changed), is still somewhat up for debate, as is political powerlessness. Hence the lessened scrutiny.

Lawyer here. Sexual orientation isn't a suspect class because the politics just won't support the courts reaching that conclusion yet. Even sex (as in, male vs. female) is only a "quasi-suspect" classification (meaning it's subjected to "intermediate" scrutiny rather than "strict" scrutiny).

But all classifications and scrutiny levels aside, at least in the private sector (I'm a little hazy on public sector), the reason employment discrimination is illegal for some groups is not because the Supreme Court says so; it's a statutory matter. There are specific federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, and age (in some cases). For instance, in the case of age, the federal statute only protects people aged 40 and up. So an employer could discriminate against a 30-year-old in favor of a 25-year-old, and the 30-year-old would not be protected (unless state law provides greater protections).

Now, that said, this is just what I know from a basic employment law course, and I took it about 3 years ago, so my memory is hazy on a few aspects. You can bet that what counts as "discrimination" in an acting context might be evaluated differently, as certain characteristics (such as race, age, sex) might be considered essential qualifications for a particular role. Which is why TheJewsAmongUs raised a good point when she said that Barilla was banning the portrayal of gay couples, rather than gays themselves. I just took issue with the part where she said discriminating against gays in employment was illegal, because in lots of the U.S. it is perfectly legal, and I think people should know this so they can be appropriately outraged. :)