I received this email from Daniel Zimmer and talked to him on the phone. He gave me permission to post this email. It’s an important aspect of our reaction to the Grafitti Ad issue.
Paste begins here
My name is Daniel Zimmer. Many of you may know me through attending various functions in the community with my friend and roommate. What many of you may not know is that I work for Graffiti Ads LLC. I consider myself to be a proud gay man and I would never work for a company that is homophobic.
I am very angry and disheartened at the way some of our “leaders” in the community have been so quick to flex their networking muscle. First mass e-mails, now blogs. This situation has been blown out of proportion by the authors of said e-mails and blogs and is causing an unnecessary shit storm.
Graffiti Ads is a business. Like any business that deals with the public at large, they try their best to ensure that their company’s image is liked by all. Therefore, Graffiti Ads’ policy is to refrain from selling to any clients whose ads could upset some of the public, ignorant or not. There are many gay-owned businesses in the Triad. Graffiti Ads already has relationships with some of these businesses. The difference between, for example, a gay-owned boutique, and what ART wants to advertise is that the boutique is just running an ad for their newest style or a sale. There is absolutely no perception of any “agenda”.
I’m sure that all of you have seen the business card that ART sent to Graffiti Ads as an example of what they had in mind for their creative. Graffiti Ads has two concerns with this business card. Concerns not because they’re homophobic but because some of the public reading the ads may be offended. The first concern is the word “Queer” as part of the name “QCYNT”. The second concern is the mention of ART’s website, outgreensboro.com. Some people, who are ignorant and homophobic, may go to the website, not fully understanding what it is, and then be offended that it’s a “gay” site.
As a gay man, I understand the need in our community to promote outlets for our youth. I also know that there is still very much of a need to educate those that are ignorant and homophobic. At the same time, these ignorant and homophobic people are a faction of the public at large. Therefore, I am equally understanding of Graffiti Ads’ plight to uphold their policy regarding anything that can be interpreted as controversial. THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONDEMNED FOR THIS!!!
I’ve been to outgreensboro.com and have seen the movies that will be showing. They both have a gay theme. Graffiti Ads’ policy works both ways. If a Christian-backed group approached the company to advertise a “christian movie night”, we would deny that request as well. I dare all of you to that has e-mailed and blogged about this issue to tell me that if Graffiti Ads were to advertise a “christian movie night” promoting movies with an anti-gay theme, that you wouldn’t be part of the public that this offends. I’m certain that you would be all over it with equal or more fervor.
To sum it up, I’d like to use the phrase, “Don’t get it twisted!” As a community we need to choose our battles and I believe that our “leaders” who have started these e-mails and blogs have chosen poorly. If any of these e-mails or blogs were to be picked up by a mainstream publication, like the News & Record or the Rhino Times, it would just be another sorry example of how the GLBTQA community always has a finger on the trigger of discrimination and homophobia, and is so quick to shoot. I think the parties responsible for stirring up all of this bad press owe Graffiti Ads an apology, not the other way around.
Respectfully,
Daniel Zimmer
End of paste
Note: Daniel pointed out that Grafitti offers a disclaimer that we both agreed could have been placed in a more prominent place on the Grafitti web site. This disclaimer reads:
We are selective about where our boards are placed and are equally selective about our local advertisers who appear on the boards. We do not display adult entertainment, political or any other “controversial” advertising.
I’m very glad Daniel offered this information and respect his willingness to be open with all of us. I do not agree with Grafitti’s inclusion of any GLBT event as “controversial,” but it is their policy. I hope they post it in a more prominent place on their Web site in the future.
Let’s put this one to rest.
I can understand where Zimmer’s coming from – but his letter doesn’t really move me.
I don’t think there’s anything honorable or defensible about a business’ decision to cave to pressure from people who are offended by the very mention of gay people (gasp!) gathering in groups. We’re talking about a business whose policy is to ignore the mention of homosexuality not because they oppose it on principle but because they think they’d make less money if people who ARE homophobic saw this advertisement above a urinal at their favorite restaurant. In a way I think it would be more ethically defensible if they simply thought homosexuality was an abomonation and wouldn’t support groups like this for that reason. But cowering from something this benign because it might hurt the bottom line? That’s shameful.
Also – I’d like to be the first to take Mr. Zimmer’s dare and raise my hand to say that I wouldn’t be offended by a religious movie night. I have a lot of good friends who are deeply religious, a lot of friends who are gay and a few who are both. The suggestion that anyone who supports a gay youth group would lose their minds if religious people were advertising their gatherings seems a little simplistic to me. I’ve BEEN to comparable Christian gatherings and occasionally helped to promote them. Some advertising company denying a Christian gathering as “too controversial” would be equally ridiculous – and if their defense was not that they opposed the group’s views but were afraid other MIGHT it would be equally offensive.
Sue- you owe them a big aplogy- so does Matt.
I dare all of you to that has [sic] e-mailed and blogged about this issue to tell me that if Graffiti Ads were to advertise a “christian movie night� promoting movies with an anti-gay theme, that you wouldn’t be part of the public that this offends.
That’s an equal comparisson? OutGreensboro.com is not anti-anything as far as I can tell.
I mean this as no offense, but I think I’m honestly dumber for reading Zimmer’s response.
Daniel your saying it was because it offended someone, and not because it was homosexual?
What doesn’t offend someone? Who is the judge of this?
As a gay man you think the topic might offend someone? Do you not consider your lifestyle as equal, and deserving of the same status heterosexuals maintain? Your doing Gay rights and yourself a dis-service by allowing those people who would love to continue to oppress homosexuals, continue to do so. Stand up for yourself Daniel and quit your job.
Did any one point out that Zimmer was asked (or told) by his employer to put out that email statement?
I don’t see any evidence of that. Let’s see if Daniel has a comment.
I emailed Daniel the link and he replied in email. He does not wish to engage this conversation here. He bids ‘good riddance’ to the whole ordeal. Don’t read anything into that, ssg. He simply doesn’t wish to comment anymore on this.
[...] Let me also point out that in a letter from one of Graffiti Ads’ employees it was stated: “The first concern [about the ad] is the word “Queerâ€? as part of the name “QCYNTâ€?.” I don’t know if Ms. O’Sullivan mentioned that to the reporter but I do know that it was certainly not a “concern” noted in the article. Being the “first concern” you think it would have been mentioned. [...]
[...] Over on Sue’s blog, commenter Chip Atkinson (who said QCYNT “smacked of pedophilia” on his blog) said that both Sue and I owed an apology to Graffiti Ads. I think Sue said it for me when she responded to Mr. Atkinson saying: Just like you still can’t spell my name, you still can’t understand what I wrote. So I won’t try to explain it again this time. You’re never going to “get it,” I fear. [...]
[...] Sue has posted a letter from an employee of Graffiti Ads, LLC. [...]
The anti-gay Christian movie night comparison falls apart for all the reasons listed above. A more apt one would be at hand were Graffiti to reject an ad for an African-American film festival because it might offend local Klan members.
Daniel Zimmer revealed himself to be such an intellectual and moral lightweight here it boggles the mind. The cluelessness of Uncle-Tomming for his homophobic employer would be bad enough all by itself, but to do so by completely understanding that some people irrationally hate him for an innate quality that harms no one and THAT’S OKAY, and THEN high-tailing it and running from the discussion? He doesn’t even have the courage of his moronic convictions.
He deserves to work in advertising.
I love to see the reaction to that business. What a head in the sand response claiming neutrality is! Guess what America– the long march toward equal rights is coming to your little hole in the wall shop. Pick a side. Be for equality or be a proud and Broke bigot.