Previous post
Next post
I’m going to start with a disclaimer here: I don’t watch the Hallmark Channel. Nor do I have small children at home, so family friendly viewing is not paramount for us. But when the channel first pulled, and then did an about-face on a ad featuring a lesbian wedding smooch, I knew exactly what happened. I don’t have to watch those sappy Christmas movies to figure it out.
Last week, Hallmark Channel banned a commercial which featured a same-sex couple at their wedding ceremony. The women were ruminating on how using Zola wedding planning services (never heard of them until now) would’ve improved their ceremony. The commercial ends with one of the women taking her partner’s face in her hands and planting a huge smooch on her ruby lips.
Gah! said the online conservative group One Million Moms. They issued a petition for their followers to sign, asking the TV channel to pull the ad. As they wrote at their website:
“One Million Moms is asking Hallmark to stay true to its family friendly roots that so many families have grown to love, and to keep sex and sexual content – including the promotion of homosexuality – out of its programming.”
Hallmark pulled the ads on Friday the 13th (make of that what you will) and explained to The New York Times that the network does not take ads that are “deemed controversial.” They added that the “public displays of affection” violated their policies.
Zola fired back:
“Hallmark approved a commercial where a heterosexual couple kissed. All kisses, couples and marriages are equal celebrations of love and we will no longer be advertising on Hallmark.”
Oops.
Credit: giphy.com.
Smelling blood in the water, Twitter scolds created the hashtag #BoycottHallmarkChannel that trended on the platform. Gay icon Ellen DeGeneres tweeted:
Isn’t it almost 2020? @hallmarkchannel, @billabbottHC… what are you thinking? Please explain. We’re all ears.
— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) December 15, 2019
Netflix snarked this one:
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/1206012403126657024
And of course, Hallmark caved to the pressure, issuing this statement which I have handily edited for you:
“The Crown Media team has been agonizing over this decision as we’ve seen the hurt it has unintentionally caused
to our bottom line. Said simply, they believe this was the wrong decision. Our mission is rooted in helping all people connect, celebrate traditions and be inspired to capture meaningful moments in their lives. Anything that detracts from this purposeand our profitsis not who we are. We are truly sorry for the hurt and disappointment this has caused. … “
“Hurt and disappointment” my ass. The only disappointment that LGBT activists have is when they fail to make people bend to their agenda, like Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker. He keeps facing lawsuit after lawsuit for refusing to bake cakes to celebrate gay weddings and sexual transition.
Au contraire, we don’t have any agenda! claim LGBT activists. Right, and M&M’s don’t melt in your mouth either. Tell that to Phillips, or mothers who are appalled at drag queen story hours. Or the women at a Canadian waxing salon who refused to wax the balls of the hideous creature who calls itself Jessica Yaniv.
No agenda? Bull hockey. And Hallmark, which prided itself on family-friendly entertainment, caved to this agenda by offering insipid lies and milquetoast “we’re truly sorry” statements.
How ironic that we’re at the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, when at one point in the offensive German forces encircled Americans in the town of Bastogne. The situation looked dire indeed, but when the Germans demanded that the Americans surrender, Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe issued this response:
“December 22, 1944
To the German Commander,
N U T S !
The American Commander”
It’s sad that in 75 years we’ve gone from the courage of McAuliffe to a major entertainment network grabbing the ankles for LGBT and Twitter bullies, sniveling “please, sir, may I have another?”
Featured image: Victoria_Borodinova@pixabay/free for use.
GWB says: All kisses, couples and marriages are equal celebrations of love
Well, actually, no, they aren’t. Sorry, but 100 million people believing it doesn’t make it so.
N U T S !
Well, that’s actually the answer they’re looking for – at least some of them……….
And yes, one of the reasons they are facing backlash is because, after achieving “equality”*, they refused to let anyone live their own lives. When you are a tyrant expect people to eventually push back.
(* It never was unequal. Any man could marry any woman – assuming not closely related – and be married under the meaning established literally for as long as man has had civilization. It was always equal – the only reason to care about your personal proclivities was if you defrauded your partner in getting married. What the activists wanted was approval of their recognized-for-eons-as-a-perversion. Right or wrong for desiring that, it is wholly different from “equality”.)
Myself, I don’t know why ANYONE would want to use Zola for wedding planning. They seem to want to push the homosexual weddings – four out of six commercials were for those (even the most insane of the “activists” don’t think that two thirds of the population is homosexual). That should turn off any heterosexual couples – do they really care about OUR thinking?
On the other hand, they did have two commercials with heterosexuals. Blasphemy! The narrative is that only homosexual unions are ever good! (That whole patriarchy thing, you know. NO marriage with a man and a woman can EVER be a partnership of EQUALS!)
Next up will be the transgender ads. Then the poly ads. Then the children. (I might be off on the order, but all of them will eventually be displayed in all their glory.)
Charles N. Steele says: I agree. But a digression: what the heck is that opening photo? The ribbons forming the gags on the two women are same as the flag of the Russian Federation. Two women, gagged with Russian flags, kissing? Я не понимаю.
3 Comments