Gay couple asked to reverse "marriage is so gay" shirt at Dollywood

ApolloAndy said:
I think the point Jeff is trying to make is that where the park is and what the religious sentiments of its patrons are is completely and totally unrelated to whether the shirt was in lines with the dress code or not.

I disagree with that. Dress codes (and other policies) are not set in vacuums. They are set with customers in mind. Look at what Ouimet said yesterday: know thy customer. I am not saying it should be determinative. But I think it plays a part with successful businesses. Making it not irrelevant.

Carrie J. said:
I still think that depends on the intent of the family friendly comment. You seem close-minded to the idea that it might have been offered as support for the LGBTQA community.

I would in fact take that comment to mean that what I have, as a gay person (when I play one on TV) is not a family.

GoBucks89 said:
Putting aside how you know with any certainty whether that is the case, why is your god the only one that matters and not any of the various other views of god that have different positions on the issue?

Exactly.

ApolloAndy said:
I think the point Jeff is trying to make is that where the park is and what the religious sentiments of its patrons are is completely and totally unrelated to whether the shirt was in lines with the dress code or not.

You so get me. Bummer neither one of us is gay.

GoBucks89 said:

ApolloAndy said:
I think the point Jeff is trying to make is that where the park is and what the religious sentiments of its patrons are is completely and totally unrelated to whether the shirt was in lines with the dress code or not.

I disagree with that. Dress codes (and other policies) are not set in vacuums. They are set with customers in mind. Look at what Ouimet said yesterday: know thy customer. I am not saying it should be determinative. But I think it plays a part with successful businesses. Making it not irrelevant.

So are you saying that they disallowed the shirt because the customer base would disagree with the actual content, not because of the potentially offensive phraseology? If a shirt had said "Marriage is between a man and a woman" or "Fags are so gay" they would have allowed it?

Holy crap, c'mon, I think the point of my words was very clearly NOT how you guys have turned them. We're talking about an area of the country where there are still a heck of a lot of prejudices that are very strong, including the ones at play here, and that is pretty common knowledge (so much so that everyone knows the jokes about that region). It was meant to say "hey, there was no way they didn't know the kind of prejudices that exist in that region, and a focal point at the entrance of the park could be a pretty big reminder."

And I think harping on the 'family' comment is all nitpicky overanalyzing.

I'm not so sure. For a lot of people involved in the "marriage debate", the word "family" is an extremely loaded word, carrying a lot of subtext.

But in this context, I dunno.

'Family friendly' is a term used all the time. We all know what's implied by it and it has nothing to do with determining what constitutes a family.

To start dissecting it and trying to twist it into more feels like looking for trouble.

ApolloAndy said:
So are you saying that they disallowed the shirt because the customer base would disagree with the actual content, not because of the potentially offensive phraseology? If a shirt had said "Marriage is between a man and a woman" or "Fags are so gay" they would have allowed it?

No. I am saying its a factor. The statement made was that its irrelevant meaning its no factor at all. Businesses take into account the preferences of their customer base in a whole host of decisions/policies. Dress code is one of them. My guess is that had she tried to wear the shirt to an amusement park in the San Francisco area, the woman would have had no problems and probably would not have been the only person wearing that t-shirt in the park that day.

You can't ignore the religious underpinnings in the gay rights debate.

Like someone posted when you bu the ticket then you have accepted thier dress code. If you don't want to obey thier dress code then go buy the ticket. The couple in question tried to play innocent by saying that there was nothing wrong the shirt. The y was asked politely to turn it around or a better option was to buy a shirt to wear over it. The amusement park was within thier rights to enforce dress code. It is that simple.

Here we are...another day and seven pages into "the story" and still no word from Dolly.

I've met Dolly a couple of times back in my network radio days...and I have always known her to be a class act (and a cool person) in and out of the studio.

I would expect her to say it was all a misunderstanding so that her workers could save face...and to publically apologize to the offended (with a free pass or something like it) and to just let this thing just dissipate into history. (Sadly, like her record sales.) Dolly is the type of artist who can sell out a decent sized arena in certain areas of the country without having a solid country hit since the mid 1990s.

I'm just surprised there is nothing up on her web site as of yet.

She was on Leno last week...but it was before "shirt-gate."

My two cents! Dollywood was correct in asking that couple to turn their shirts around. I feel that it wasn't because they were lesbians or gay. It was because of the writing on the shirt, no matter how clever or brilliant play on words it was. It very well could have offended someone somewhere in the park. I read in a previous reply that it seems that amuesment parks , malls and beaches are the only ones that care about the offensive stuff. All the other places bars, motels, ect. also have the right to enforce a dress code or not. It is up to them because they all are considered PRIVATE PROPERTY (just like the parks!) not PUBLIC. Private property is property owned by an individual or group. They make the rules, just like going to a Golf course there is a dress code, you don't follow it they ask you to change or leave. I have also been in many bars where I wasn't allowed to wear my hat and couldn't wear certian colors. Was I discriminated against ? NO. Their rules. If you don't like or want to follow the establishments rules then don't go there, don't give them your money. Simple.

If someone walked up to the lady and said "Ma'am, that shirt is not acceptable according to our dress policy, you'll need to turn it inside out", it's a legitimate business decision.

If they said "Listen you diesel dyke, we don't like your kind here, turn it inside out or you're out of the park", then it's a problem they can and should go to the media about.

But nowadays it's just too easy to claim "They did it because I am "fat/bald/eat vanilla ice cream" than it is to accept the fact things don't go their way.

Where's Moosh!? Miss him...

This (in reality - my warped reality) is NOT a gay or anti-gay issue at all. It's an offensive shirt to many. If it were worn (or spoken) by heterosexual people, it would be offensive to me - as a gay man. However I know that other gay (BLT, etc. etc.) folks won't agree with me, I am speaking for myself (and others, I'm sure). Perhaps Dollywood staff sees the shirt as offensive to gay people. The question of wearing other 'gay' themed shirts is a good one.

A pride shirt or a 'gay day at Disney' shirt - I doubt Dollywood would ask the shirt to be turned around.

The question of 'why do you want to advertise you are gay' is a question that comes up and that has as many answers as there are people. Everyone can decide for themselves.

Heterosexual folks arguably advertise their sexual orientation when they wear a wedding ring, hold hands, etc. etc.

I am speaking of this exact shirt though. I think if i wore a shirt that simply said GAY really big on it (whether or not anyone likes it) and was asked to turn that around - then personally, I would have a reason to claim anti-gay. I'm surprised Cedar Point asked someone to turn around a "I'm not gay but my boyfriend is" shirt.

But of course, those are my own comfort zones and thoughts on it. Everyone has their own thoughts.

'Family friendly' is a term used all the time. We all know what's implied by it and it has nothing to do with determining what constitutes a family.

Ah, but in this case, the two notions are very intertwined...at least that's my reading of the tea leaves.

Dollywood's dress guidelines bans offensive words so the combination of the words being "so" and "gay" it would seem the park would be defending LGBTQ people like Carrie said. But using the words "family friendly" as a reason for exclusion seem the wrong words.

If the woman was trying to be provocative considering christianity and the region then something like "David loved Jonathan more than women" -2 Samuel 1:25 Or the passage about their disrobing and kissing and their covenant to each other or their weeping together because of the persecution they were enduring would seem more "in your face". Or better yet how about "Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve" Or the impassioned vow's they made to each other before God. No. She was just being herself.

T-Shirts with phrases are very common at parks.

CoasterDemon said:
Heterosexual folks arguably advertise their sexual orientation when they wear a wedding ring, hold hands, etc. etc.

With the exception of 'official' wedding rings in certain states (just because you're not married by law, doesn't mean you can wear the same ring - or even assign it the same emotional value) homosexuals can do all the same things to 'advertise' in the same way.

Hold hands with your boyfriend at the park and I get the point.

I'm still not sure why the t-shirt has become the weapon of choice. It's kind of funny to me.

Interestingly, I don't wear a wedding ring. Never have. Should probably start though. I bet I'd get more chicks....and dudes. :)

Smoke329 said:
It very well could have offended someone somewhere in the park.

If that were the criteria to follow, the outright presence of some people would be reason for disallowing them from the park.

There seems to be a lot of comments trying to simplify it into an if-then scenario, but it's still complicated. It very much reinforces my earlier comparison to affirmative action in the 90's. That some people find anything "gay" offensive and that this particular gay person finds the use of "family friendly" to be an offensive and loaded term that implies substandard consideration, to me, indicates that there is still very much a larger cultural problem.

Again, if Dollywood wants to prohibit this sort of shirt, fine, but train your people to not say things, intentional or otherwise, that undermine the very being of a guest.

I was googling Gay Day at Dolly wood and I ran across this very disturbing commentary....

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/sevierville-tn/TMB7JMQ4IT04RSK40

If folks are thinking that there aren't haters and fools out there then they need to rethink it.

Lord Gonchar said:

CoasterDemon said:
Heterosexual folks arguably advertise their sexual orientation when they wear a wedding ring, hold hands, etc. etc.

With the exception of 'official' wedding rings in certain states (just because you're not married by law, doesn't mean you can wear the same ring - or even assign it the same emotional value) homosexuals can do all the same things to 'advertise' in the same way.

Hold hands with your boyfriend at the park and I get the point.

I'm still not sure why the t-shirt has become the weapon of choice. It's kind of funny to me.

Interestingly, I don't wear a wedding ring. Never have. Should probably start though. I bet I'd get more chicks....and dudes. :)

Wearing a 'gay' tee is certainly not meant as a weapon to me. After years of being closeted, perhaps many see it as a form of liberation.

Each person had their own story and feelings. Some want to shove it others face, and some of us wear it as a badge of honor. Any way other's see it (that haven't walked the walk) isn't too important (to me, anyway).

What's the old saying about not talking the talk until you walk the walk?

Anytime I hold my boyfriend's (my imaginary boyfriend, until I find a real one) hand, it comes at a toll. I get looks, etc. But it's worth it. I'm not complaining about all the looks/comments, but rather I see it as a small price to pay for finally being able to be my real, natural self.

Same thing with any minority group. I certainly don't see people speaking out too much about all the culture and style (and perhaps 'acting-out') from some of the African American community.

Jeff, I agree there is a huge cultural gap. I personally don't care if a person is gay or straight. The fact is that there are rules to be followed. If the establishment/employee no matter how low on the pecking order deems it offensive, it is no matter what you or I think. Their yard their rules. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. As for the delivery from the employee we will really never know how it was put to the patron. If the employee used a demeaning tone then ask to speak to the higher ups. Honestly I would have been in the frying pan for using the term FAMILY FRIENDLY as well, I had know idea that was offensive to the gay community until today.

Smoke329 said:
using the term FAMILY FRIENDLY as well, I had know idea that was offensive to the gay community until today.

I'm 100% gay and don't find that term offensive.

We are not one huge person, or a bunch will all the same thoughts.