Well, the folks at BuzzFeed may twist Jeb Bush’s words to mean something quite different from the actual meaning of the former Florida governor’s actual comments, they do report a story which counters the narrative of anti-gay Mormons:
Marriott International, the hotel mega-chain that once counted Mitt Romney as a corporate board member — and whose owner is among the candidate’s top donors — has launched an agressive marketing campaign targeting gay and lesbian travelers.
The campaign, titled “Be You, With Us,” is promoted on the company’s website with photos of smiling same-sex couples and a guide to gay pride festivals throughout the country. It offers special deals for gay couples, as well as a sweepstakes that will award grand prize winners a trip to the 2013 gay pride events in either New York, San Francisco, or Berlin. On Marriott’s web page advertising the campaign, there’s a section devoted to wedding accommodations for gay couples.
Kudos, Marriott!
And from the hotel chain’s web-page, we learn that J.W. Marriott, Jr., the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Marriott International, Inc., is “is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints.”
Once again, we see that support for Mitt Romney and outreach to gay Americans are not mutually exclusive — and we see the private sector leading the way — and doing so without a government directive.
Gentle Dissent in Mormon Church on Gay Marriage
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us/dissent-on-gay-marriage-among-mormons.html?pagewanted=all
So, what other fringe sex group is Marriott going to launch an “aggressive marketing campaign” at, and Dan, will you be as gleeful about it as you are about Marriott pandering to homosexuals?
Private companies have a right to outreach to any specified minority group, Seane-Anna. However, I am not fond of the practice as it is subdividing Americans on the basis of sexual orientation, race, sex, ethnicity, or religion, which includes your fundamentalist church. America is a melting pot, but we are acting like hyphenated Americans rather than as plain old Americans.
Seane-Anna, I disagree that homosexuals constitute a “fringe sex-group.” Even if homosexuals only form 1% of the population, that is still over 3 million people in the United States alone.
Still, I find this “identity”-based pandering very distasteful (but, as davinci said, they are a private business so they can do what they want).
Interestingly enough, on YouTube, I’m having a back and forth with a guy who is hostile against the Mormon faith. Here it is.
PS. Benji Schwimmer is HOT!!!
*shrug* it’s economics, Seane-anna (Hope you’re doing well btw). There’s an untapped market, they want to tap it.
If there was a study that lefties had more money than righties, we’d see left handed commercials, or if it was shown that BDSMers did, Marriot would look at the cost/reward of having ‘special’ bedrooms.
In today’s reality, saying that you’re ‘gay friendly’ is economically beneficial. (Especially after OMM’s implosion over Alan Scott)
I’ve spent 3+ years with Marriott (as a customer, not an employee) and their welcoming* nature is pervasive so the ‘evil Mormon’ thing makes me snicker.
They’re not marketing to Gay Americans because we’re gay, they’re marketing to us becase there’s a better than average change we have money to spend on premium accomodations.
*In this case, ‘tolerant’ is wholely inaccurate. Besides, that word annoys me.
Personally, I don’t find the campaign to be positive or negative. It’s just another segmenting of the market based on whatever research Marriott’s marketing team is looking at. Companies do this all the time. The only reason it’s even news this time is the Mormon connection and some need by some of the media to make it sound like it’s a big deal. It’s not – it’s just a business decision.
That being said, I do prefer to spend my limited travel dollars with companies that make me feel welcome. Marriott always has no matter what Marriott brand I have stayed at, and this just reinforces that a little.
I must apologize for my comment #3. I said plain old Americans. That is an ageist term, and I should be shot for that by the PC police. I can never be seen in public again.
“…which includes your fundamentalist church.” davinci, I suspect you intended “fundamentalist” as a slur, well, it didn’t work. I’m not a member of a “fundamentalist” church, or any church. I am an unchurched believer, so there.
Rattlesnake, gays ARE a fringe sex group being, at the most, 5% of the population. Sorry, but 5% is a fringe. And I say that not only for the obvious numerical reason, but also because I see homosexuality as a behavior and not an identity. People who indulge in a particular erotic desire are a sex group, not a “minority”. And when the percentage of those people isn’t even in double digits then that makes them a fringe. Polygamists are a fringe sex group. That doesn’t mean they should be treated badly, but it does mean they shouldn’t wag the monogamous dog. It’s the same with gays. Understand?
“…Seane-anna (Hope you’re doing well btw).” Thanks for your concern, The_Livewire. And yes, despite some lingering chemo side effects, I am doing very well.
Seane-Anna, I’m glad to hear you are doing well, and hope you continue to do so.
I don’t want to quibble numbers here, so I’ll assume that homosexuals only make up 2-4% of the population. Further, I’ll concede your point about homosexuality being a behavior as opposed to being an identity. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that left-handedness existed for under 5% of the population. Would that make them a fringe group? Or is it their “behavior” (using their left-hand to write, throw a baseball, use scissors, etc.) that would make them fringe?
It seems to me that a left-handed person should use their left hand for things that a right-handed person would use their right hand for. Again, that should be the case even if the percentage of left-handed persons dipped below 5%. Just as it seems that a person who is naturally attracted to one of the same sex should form romantic partnerships with persons of the same sex. To me, “fringe” would be someone who is naturally attracted to one gender, but chooses to have romantic partnerships with the other gender (i.e. gay men having romantic partnerships with women). Thankfully, that percentage seems to be dropping.
Homosexual behaviour is a behaviour, I’ll grant. But if you want to argue over whether or not homosexuality is a choice, I’m not going to because I know it isn’t. Of course, acting on that homosexuality is a choice, but that is beside the point unless you are saying that homosexuals are only homosexuals if they act on their same-sex attraction.
As for whether or not it is an identity or minority, I really don’t care because I would like to see the concept of “identities” and “minorities” become obsolete (it’s already beyond relevance; the only thing stalling its obsolescence is power-hungry leftists who need to balkanize society to gain and keep power).
I’m glad I’m not the only one who finds this specific action by Marriott with a slight distaste.
I do agree with the concept of making all government-established labels obsolete.
However, living in reality, they will never be obsolete so long as the left continues to open their mouth and make everything about each indivdiual patchwork of the American fabric.
I do applaud Marriott because they have generally been very supportive of the LGBT community both in customer and employee support. I personally almost use them exclusively when it comes to hotel lodging.
The bad taste for me is why Marriott and other companies (Southwest has also done this in the past) only show these types of support during something related to the LGBT community, like Pride Week. instead of year round.
The message that it sends not only to the LGBT community, but to the American public at large, is that we support the LGBT community only when there is money to be made. And don’t we see enough of that from the LGBT Left??
oops…”we” in last paragraph is speaking as if I represent Marriott (or any other company)