While Subway has done the right thing, the Christo-fascists and Mormons behind Proposition 8 are threatening nasty consequences if the California Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8 on the basis that the "Yes on 8" crowd used the wrong amendment vehicle to try to amend the California Supreme Court. Since the California legislature had TWICE passed gay marriage bills, the wingnuts knew that they could not get the proposed amendment through the legislature. Hence why they used the initiative process that they did even though it sounds more and more that it was not the correct procedure (that and the fact that the Christianist attorneys are usually strong on ideology and short on legal skills). A Daily Kos diary has a run down on some of the threats and posturing going on amongst those who want a theocracy and care nothing about the constitution or rights of minorities. Here are some highlights:

*

Another nasty trend is emerging from the homophobes behind the Yes on 8 campaign. Apparently shocked by the national uprising in support of full equality under the law for gay/lesbian families, leaders of the Prop. H8 campaign have rolled out a new tactic: threatening the Supreme Court.

*

Andrew Pugno, their attorney turned up their dangerous rhetoric this weekend: What could get opponents of same-sex marriage in the street, however, would be the state Supreme Court tossing out the vote, he said. San Francisco city officials, joined by the city of Los Angeles and Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties, have petitioned the court to do just that. "I think you'll have a revolution on your hands at that point," Pugno said.

*

They’re freaking out. Good. It’s clear that the backlash to the vote has energized and strengthened the gay/lesbian rights movement in a nearly unprecedented way...and tarred the image of the Mormon Church and of anti-marriage activists. Let’s recall that is was the Yes on 8 folks who invented the camapaign tactic of intimidating and demonizing No on 8 donors.

*

The story also looks at the hand wringing pansies among the self-crowned leaders of the gay rights movement who are being out classed and out organized by virtual unknowns who have taken grassroots organizing to levels almost unheard of previously. One has to wonder whether these self-anointed leaders care more about becoming irrelevant than the cause of gay rights:

*

Despite this, the lgbt community gatekeepers, who were so ineffective during the campaign], are criticizing the protest and boycott movement. But given this description of the online and offline activists who have been leading this movement, I don't expect the gay gatekeepers to be too successful: "They are not connected to the supposed leaders. All they know is that their rights have been taken away and that the majority has successfully curtailed the freedoms of the minority." My response, of course, is what else are we supposed to do? Let hateful attacks go unanswered? Count on the Supremes to save our bacon?

*

The bottom line is that if each one of us doesn't get off our ass and work to make an impact, we cannot expect others to look out for our interests. HRC, the Task Force and similar organizations need to get on board and stop worrying if their leaders might get invited to a few less cocktail parties.

I have to hand it to him, Mike Rogers at BlogActive.com does know how to get things done. Yesterday he posted that he had discovered that a franchisee of an international company had supported Proposition 8. Here's what Mike said:

When I saw a franchisee of an international company gave $2,500 to opponents of equality, I immediately knew I would require someone at the company's world HQ to address this. Or, I would.So, after a few discussions, I informed the company's spokesperson that they had until today to take the following three actions:

*
1) Repudiate the franchisee's gift;

2) Make a gift in the same amount to an organization fighting for true equality; and

3) Immediately add sexual orientation and gender identity to the corporation's non-discrimination policy.

*

Today he is reporting he did not indicate the company in the post choosing instead to approach the company discreetly over the matter. In a conversation with Rogers on Monday, Subway Director of Corporate Communications Michele DiNello responded to the three demands. Having reviewed Subway franchise agreements fro clients, the franchisee was incredibly stupid to have made the contribution since it could reflect back on the chain and constitutes a violation of the franchise agreement. Here are highlights from PageOneQ on the steps taken by Subway which include sending a letter to all franchisees and amending the corporate policy on non-discrimination:

*

The company wrote in response to the gift made by a Merced, California location of the chain. The store is located inside the popular Merced Mall. . . . . "You should also be aware that your franchise agreement prohibits your use of the SUBWAY® trademark as part of your business or corporate name. Further, it states that you agree to '...not use the Trademark in a manner that degrades, diminishes, or detracts from the goodwill of the business associated with the Trademark' and 'to promptly change the manner of such use if requested to do so by us.'". . . "You should also be aware that your franchise agreement prohibits your use of the SUBWAY® trademark as part of your business or corporate name. Further, it states that you agree to '...not use the Trademark in a manner that degrades, diminishes, or detracts from the goodwill of the business associated with the Trademark' and 'to promptly change the manner of such use if requested to do so by us.'"

*

We are changing the discrimination policy language and that includes anything we add through headquarters human resources, not just in the field," said DiNello. "The company used the exact language you gave us," referring to BlogActive's request to add both 'sexual orientation and gender identity.'"

*

I suspect that there are many other franchise chains that have the same ability to influence the behavior of their franchisees. There are those who do not like Mike's tactics including the outing of anti-gay politicians - I am not one of them - but the reality is that if people and corporations will not grant rights to LGBT citizens because it is the right thing to do, then I'm all for having them do so to protect their asses. Here's how Mike explains it and I agree:

*

"This is a textbook example of how a company should react when they realize that one of its operating units has done something wrong. What was outrageous behavior by one franchisee has resulted in a letter to owners of 30,000 stores and a corporate policy change for the better," said Rogers, "I am particularly happy that the company added both sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected individuals under the corporate non-discrimination policies.

*

With over 30,000 outlets operating in more than 85 countries, Subway is the second largest food chain worldwide, raking second only to McDonald's.

*

I hope the LGBT community will ignore the whining of those who claim a boycott will be counter productive. The reality is that in these economic times, companies will be less and less inclined to drive away the gay dollar. We need to take advantage of that reality to foster positive change.