Recent reports about Disneyworld refusing to hold gay weddings should serve as a wake up call to all queer Americans that just because a company has a history of supporting our community, it does not mean that they will be there when the topic shifts to controversial issues that our community is fighting for today.
According to the Human Rights Campaign's corporate equality index, Walt Disney scores a 95 out of 100 for the protections they offer their queer workers. The item that holds them back from getting a perfect score is the fact that they do not offer diversity training including gender identity or that they do not have supportive gender transition guidelines in place, but I would argue that this recent marriage controversy may have opened up a pandora's box that ultimately should bring down Disney's rating in the Corporate Equality Index. Explanation over the flip...
HRC has another category that is phrased as such:
Does the company "Engage in action that would undermine the goal of GLBT equality... In 2006, companies that do engage in such activity lose 15 points, with a minimum possible total score of 0"
Now, Walt Disney Co. receives 0 points in this cateogory, meaning that they did not "engage in action that would undermine the goal of GLBT equality," but one wonders who decides what an undermining of the "goal of GLBT equality" entails for a company. Is a company fine as long as they do not donate money to anti-gay groups, are they ok if they donate money to anti-gay Republicans, are they ok if they refuse to hold same-sex marriages even if they offer wedding services like Disney does?
According to HRC, the criteria for this category is as follows:
The company will not bar charitable contributions to groups and organizations on the basis of sexual orientation, gender expression
or gender identity, nor will it support groups opposed to such rights.
Walt Disney Co., despite the recent kerfuffle over marriage, has stood by us at times like when they refused to give in to the 8 year boycott by anti-gay groups over company policy on queer employees, and especially over over events that happen at Disney Theme Parks (but as a commentor pointed out, is not sponsored nor discouraged by Walt Disney Co.)such as "Gay Days", which is now a Disney tradition with the queer community. 365gay.com also gave coverage to Disney's stance on Ellen when she came out years ago:
"But 10 years ago, when Ellen was on the air, Disney executive Susan Saroff told The Advocate: "Ultimately this move makes Disney even more reflective of America, because we're acknowledging a basic truth about this country: that there are different kinds of people here. We're getting very good at showing that."
But, as 365gay.com duly notes, their early support of our community does not excuse them from their policy not allowing same-sex weddings:
[Showing a diverse America that is pro-LGBT] may have been true when it came to DeGeneres' sitcom, but it is not true when it comes to gay and lesbian couples wishing to celebrate their commitment to each other.
365gay.com offers some more details on the marriage issue over at Disney:
According to Walt Disney World spokesperson Jason DiPietre, Disney's Florida property requires a valid Florida marriage license in order to offer their services...
The fact is, Disney's Fairy Tale Weddings and Honeymoons offers wedding ceremonies, not marriage licenses. The two things are legally completely separate; no license is legally required or necessary for such a ceremony to take place.
When asked why Disney, a private corporation, insisted it needs a valid marriage license to offer wedding services, DiPietre responded that what "makes the marriage binding and recognized by the state [of Florida] is the license, so that is why we need the license."
Florida state law, however, does not regulate to whom Disney may offer their wedding services; it only regulates which ceremonies the state recognizes as legal — a fact that we pointed out to DiPietre. He said in response: "What we offer our guests is the opportunity to get married through the state of Florida. A marriage is only recognized in the state [of Florida] with a marriage license."
Though pressed further on the issue, DiPietre only stated: "The Walt Disney World Resort is open to everyone, every day. We extend our welcome to everyone and treat all of our guests with respect."
While Disneyland Resort in California also requires a California marriage license to hold a wedding on their property, they will host same-sex commitment ceremonies for domestic partners. (The Florida property won't.) But there is a catch. Weddings with marriage licenses are handled by Disney's wedding team and, should the couple choose, the ceremony may be held in Disney's Rose Court Garden. Commitment ceremonies, however, are handled by the local corporate office and are held in one of the banquet halls or ballrooms. Only heterosexual couples are allowed access to the Rose Court Garden.
It's possible that denying same-sex couples access to the Rose Court Garden might be in violation of California's civil code section 51 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. This act prohibits all businesses in the state from discriminating on the basis of "marital status" and "sexual orientation." We were unable to clarify by press time whether this was the case or not..."
While I haven given credit where credit is due, it is obvious that Disney's policy on same-sex weddings certainly qualifies as an example of this company engaging in an action which "undermines the goal of GLBT equality".
The Human Rights Campaign should consider this as a possible reason for downgrading Walt Disney Co.'s equality score in 2007. I encourage all to e-mail HRC at HRCWorkNet@hrc.org and tell them whether or not you think Walt Disney Score should have their score downgraded. While you're at it, contact Monica Olague, Director of LEAGUE (Lesbian and Gay United Employees, LA Chapter) at monica.olague@disney.com
The Queer Community should mean more to companies than just our buying power. True friends- corporate or not- are those who remain allies even when controversial issues arise that really boil down to one thing- our BASIC rights.