Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Shimmin: Is boycotting Cinemark a step toward equality?
Last week, I watched Keith Olbermann’s commentary on his MSNBC show, Countdown, as he proclaimed:
“I don’t have a personal investment in this: I’m not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.“And yet to me this vote is horrible. Because this isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.”
Unlike Keith Olbermann, my experiences since the California vote against gay marriage have been extremely personal.
As a gay man and as a vice president at Cinemark Theatres (whose CEO, Alan Stock, has been singled out in blogs for his $9,999 pro-Prop 8 donation), this controversy has weighed heavily on me.
Two years ago, I was hired by Alan Stock, and my life partner and I relocated to Plano, Tex., from the San Francisco bay area. Moving to Plano and effectively leaving behind our cherished Domestic Partnership document, signed by California’s Secretary of State, took much consideration. As did the prospect of leaving the progressive Bay Area for life in a “red state.”
However, I quickly discovered - and the past two years have confirmed – that Cinemark Theatres is committed to treating its team members, customers, and colleagues with dignity and respect.
During my job interviews, I discovered that Cinemark has an LGBT liaison for community outreach; Cinemark provides domestic partner benefits for California team members; Cinemark hosts the annual Vancouver Queer Film Festival; and Cinemark works with the North Texas GLBT Chamber of Commerce as well as the Collin County Gay & Lesbian Alliance to arrange advance screenings for movies of interest to the LGBT community.
My partner participates in company and industry functions at Cinemark and is treated as my spouse by everyone here. In short, the corporate culture at Cinemark is inclusive and the customer experience at our theatres is inclusive.
After all, movie theatres are a community melting pot; a destination where all members of the community can share in an entertaining, and sometimes educational, experience.
Am I troubled by Mr. Stock’s personal donation to the Yes on 8 campaign?
Yes.
Have I ever witnessed Mr. Stock’s religious convictions as a Mormon interfere with his fair and equal treatment of employees or customers of Cinemark Theatres?
No.
When a corporation or a religious institution takes a stance against equality, then it is our obligation to stand up and voice opposition.
Unfortunately, there are far too many organizations and religious groups that promote hate and intolerance. Organizations that have taken a position on this issue deserve to be judged by their actions. In fact, a list of organizations that made corporate donations in support of Prop. 8 is posted on the Human Rights Campaign website (www.hrc.org/prop8supporters).
However, the Human Rights Campaign recognizes that it creates a dangerous precedent when corporations are held responsible for the religious or political contributions made by an individual employee; even if that employee is the CEO.
Alan Stock’s donation was a personal decision based upon his religious convictions. He made this contribution as an individual and only reported the name of his employer and his job title to be in compliance with election disclosure laws. Cinemark Theatres did not make any financial contribution to either side of this California campaign.
According to Cinemark’s Chairman, Lee Roy Mitchell, “it would be inappropriate to influence our employees’ position on personal issues outside the work environment especially on political, social or religious activities. Individual political actions, especially those outside of work are independent, individual acts of personal expression.”
This internet-based movement to hold organizations responsible for the individual, private donations of their employees should create fear in all of us.
When I contribute to the HRC, Democratic Party, or local candidates that share my beliefs, I am required, by law, to publicly disclose my position as a vice president with Cinemark Theatres. Should my employer be boycotted for my private views? After all, I’m an officer of the corporation. If groups call for my termination because I am gay, how should my employer respond? Should Cinemark’s 15,000 team-members be impacted by a boycott? Some argue that the employees are “collateral damage” and “the end justifies the means.”
To me, those terms sound eerily familiar to the justifications for past oppressions.
I am proud of Cinemark’s commitment to diversity in our workforce and the range of viewpoints expressed in the films exhibited at our theatres. I am saddened by Alan Stock’s religious stance on gay marriage. But I am hopeful that people can differentiate between the actions of a company and the convictions of an individual.
Right or wrong, individuals must have the right to express their religious or political beliefs outside the workplace without fear of reprisal.
Be angry. Fight for change. We will win the battle for equality. But the battle will be won by cultivating support and understanding; not through blacklisting and misguided boycotts.
Bob Shimmin is Vice President, Food & Beverage, of Cinemark Theatres
Did you notice in your article that you had to add the addendum “California team members” for domestic partner benefits.
Which means, when you moved to Texas, you lost those benefits.
Unless, of course, you, personally, are still considered a California team member, and therefore, were not affected.
I suspect that the former is true.
Because, if you were a Texas team member, I think you’d be kinda ticked that Cinemark only offers this benefit to California residents. Not exactly equal treatment for all team members, is it?
But, that’s okay. You keep rationalizing this any way you like. I’m sure that golden parachute makes up for a lot.
What Mr. Shimmin does not seem to understand is that the GLBT community has been playing far too nice for far too long – and yet, nearly 40 years since Stonewall, we STILL do not have many of the vital protections that the rest of the population takes for granted. We pay 1st class taxes for 2nd class citizenship. Well, NO MORE! I’m tired of seeing the years of my life pass by and having my personal potential limited by total strangers because their fairy tales don’t understand me. Our community has not survived thousands of years of outright hatred, murder, discrimination and seen countless lives destroyed as a result so Mr. Shimmin can feel good about his job. We are no longer going to tolerate total strangers dictating our lives for us because of their mythological belief systems.
While I appreciate the sentiment of this article, I don’t agree with how it frames the pro-boycott argument. The public–or in this case, a segment of the public–not only has the right to boycott businesses who employee political extreemists as senior administrators, it is in our best interest of a politically disenfranchized minority to do so. If even one pro-gay event is canceled from Cinemark due to a boycott, then both the corporation and the CEO himself will understand that publically disclosed political contributions have real life effects. To suggest otherwise undermines the spirit of the laws that required Mr. Stock to identify his employment when he made that ridiculous donation.
We should all appreciate companies who extend equal partner benefits for our spouses and families, but that does not mean that we should give our business, even unhappily, to a company that houses a political extreemist.
Mr. Shimmin, I respectfully disagree with you, but I nonetheless appreciate you publishing this article. The people who donated to this awful campaign need to grapple with the fact that their churches lied to them: this is about discrmination, gay people feel legitimately victimized, and their efforts (however legal) were innappropriate. They also need to be reminded that they are on the losing side of this.
With every successful protest, boycott and personal conversation, we are a little closer to changing the hearts and minds of the homophobic American spirit, and there’s no better place to start than with the Alan Stock’s.
Boycott Cinemark Theatres in the spirit of civil equality!
Mr. Meredith states in his form response:
“The company does not take a formal position on political issues that do not directly affect our business.”
What completely escapes him is the fact that we are now going to make sure it DOES DIRECTLY AFFECT HIS BUSINESS. Will you listen then – when the Almighty Buck forces you to have a backbone?
I’m sorry but my partner and I will not ever go back to your company for a night out at the movies. Sure our 40 bucks a month may not be much but I feel every little bit hurts in this economy.
Of course they give same sex benefits in California, its the law! Isn’t that the point of the “Domestic Partnership” you had? What about in Texas? Even here in even reddest state in the union Oklahoma you can get same sex benefits. A “Saint’s” hospital offers same sex benefits for my partner and I.
I can not believe that your company is as friendly as you’re trying to draw before us. The CEO is the public face that we the little people see of a large company. Whom is it in Washington begging for money for the big 3? It certainly isn’t the token black, gay, asian, latino, or P.R. person it is the CEO’s of those companies. His decision and choices in business and outside of business effect the health of the company. Being a CEO he knows this and gambled on his choice hoping for an influx in those red voting types rather than we blue voting types.
News flash, we have more disposable income for his industry than the average red voting family! We’re not in such a police state as of yet that we can not choose to go to another establishment. You’re not the gas or electric company we do have a choice and we as a group will now choose to go else where until he is gone!
As we say here in Oklahoma “Suck it up and deal with it, ball baggen isn’t going to help you now!”
I do respect your opinion, Bob. But it has an odd tint of Cinemark pulling out it’s gay exec to do PR work for them. I think I saw that on an episode of “The Life and Times of Tim” where Tim is trundled out and forced to be “latino” to save the company’s image. And I agree with the other posters that a simple employee donating that much might not be anything to get upset about, but the face of the company, which Mr. Stock is as CEO, is another thing altogether. Did he think of the company when he made his decision. I hardly think so. I also agree that, just because a company has something on the books, it doesn’t automatically parlay into action. I’ve seen that at too many companies where they wiggle out of lawsuits by saying “well, it’s our policy….” and then executives do whatever they want. He IS Cinemark and his reputation and personal practices are wound up in it. There is no separation at his level. He should be fired at the very least for bringing this kind of degradation to Cinemark.
Exactly, I knew there was something I was missing in the “policy statement” by Bob. Cinemark doesn’t have a good reputation with “second class citizens”. They had to be sued by the Feds just to supply handicapped seating. Cinemark fought desperately against a lawsuit where handicapped people had to lie across several seats because there wasn’t any seating specifically for them — thereby hindering their view because of the stadium seating involved. Not much compassion there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinemark_Theatres
Can we please stop using that damn word “my partner,” cause it sounds like assimilation to me. that’s their word for us so they won’t feel uncomfortable. I say fuck political correctness. No mor Mr. Nice Gays, remember? Lets go back to calling our significant others “lovers!”
“Cinemark provides domestic partner benefits for California team members”
Cinemark should provide domestic partner benefits for all it’s team members, if it truly believes in treating it’s LGBT employees equally, not just in California where it is required to by law.
So, Bob, how much were you paid by Cinemark’s marketing department for writing this PR piece?
For some reason, I imagine you were asked by your company to do this because they know you’re gay, and they figured they could use your sexuality and position as a torniquette to help prevent some potentially heavy bleeding of LGBT customers.
I certainly hope I’m wrong, but something about this just smacks of your being willingly used as a pawn.
Alan Stock is the CEO, not “just an employeee”. Boycotting a business is expression of free speech. I would not do business with them any more than I would buy gas from Exxon.
i pay $10+ to Cinemark to see a movie, Cinemark uses that to pay CEO Stock a salary, which he then uses to support something that attacks me and people I care about.
seems simple to me. don’t fund other people when they fuck with you.
Guy in SF,
Amen to that. That’s always been a big complaint of mine, too. Companies will claim that they’re better than the competition because they do this, that or the other thing somewhere, as if it’s a feature, when in fact, they only do it because they’re required to by law.
I dare say this Bob fellow isn’t even gay, but rather got too handsome a bonus for playing gay to turn down the opportunity, regardless of what his mother will think when she reads his article and believes it to be true.
“But, Ma, even if I were gay, which I’m not, I was able to buy you a beautiful mink coat with the money I got for saying I am. So, shut up already before I put you in a nursing home!”
I’ve already been boycotting Cinemark for well over a year after a very poor experience the one time I went to one (Mesa, AZ). Large sodas appeared to be smaller than at other theaters in the area and did not come with a free refill as at other theaters. Senior discounts do not start until 65, unlike 60 at other theaters (even 60 is a sore point with me because it used to be 55 until I got close to that age). The theater was understaffed. I made the mistake of buying tickets for two shows. The auditorim was clean at the first show I saw since it was the first show of the day but the auditorium where the second show was shown was filthy, the floor littered with trash; it obviously had not been cleaned between shows.
I complained to Cenemark via their website. I never heard from them.
Now, I read their CEO contributed to Prop. 8. Somehow, that doesn’t surprise me.
Whether or not I would agree with Mr Shimmin is not relevant, it’s whether or not a boycott actually has the persuasion that people think it does. Or is that some just want payback? This country has boycotted Cuba for more than four decades, to no effect other than make us look bad. And what I’m hearing in other letters is anger and lashing out. To what end? What positive good will it accomplish? Name one instance of an economic boycott doing more than heaping negative publicity on a company, and I’ll shut up and never post here again.