Tunney made a similar proposition in 2003 that died almost immediately, but this time around city lawyers seem more willing to explore the issue.

If the plan is accepted, Chicago may be the first city to qualify LGBT businesses for minority contract set asides.

Read the full story in the Chicago Sun-Times.

Greg Quinlan, a member of the conservative American Family Associated affiliated group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, presented a motion asking  stockholders to stop donating money to groups that he said ” aim to discredit the ex-gay community.”

In his speech to shareholders, Quinlan described the Human Rights Campaign and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) as “gay organizations that hate people like me.”

Over the past two years, Pepsi has given $500,000 to the Human Rights Campaign and $500,000 to PFLAG.

“By funding PFLAG, PepsiCo promotes fear and hostility against the ex-gay community and our supporters, and spreads lies about ex-gay organizations. Diversity does not mean funding one organization so that it can attack another,” said Quinlan.

His motion received five percent of the vote.  Quinlan said he will keep pressing the issue at shareholders meetings.  Under company rules, any vote receiving more than three percent remains active.

PepsiCo produces Frito-Lay snacks, Pepsi-Cola and Gatorade drinks, Tropicana juices, and Quaker foods.

The company already is under a boycott by the AFA.

The AFA in January issued an Action Alert to its more than two-million members, telling them to avoid Pepsi products.

“Pepsi refuses to give money to any pro-family organization that opposes the homosexual agenda. Plus, every homosexual organization we know of is overwhelmingly pro-abortion,” according to the Action Alert.

Previous AFA boycotts have had little impact on companies, although the group has had some success.

In October, it ended a boycott of McDonald’s after the fast-food giant agreed to end its support for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.  McDonald’s incurred the wrath of the AFA after it made a $20,000 donation to the chamber, and Richard Ellis, who until September was vice president of communications for the chain, was named to the chamber’s board of directors. Ellis resigned from the Chamber of Commerce board, though the company said Ellis resigned after moving to McDonald’s Canadian operation.

The AFA previously boycotted Disney for several years over its support for Gay Days at Disney World, although the company is not an official sponsor of the event. It has also boycotted Proctor & Gamble and Kraft, and has threatened to boycott Wal-Mart.

An AFA boycott of Ford over the automaker’s support for LGBT issues was heralded as a success by the organization, which noted that it had resulted in a drop in sales and share value.  But most financial analysts said that Ford’s problems were really the result of vehicle designs that failed to impress the public. Ford was the only carmaker of the Detroit big three to decline a federal bailout. 

The AFA claimed victory when Ford began pulling its ads from LGBT publications, but industry observers and the company said the ad pullout was part of a downsizing of expenses.

Since the news, the blogosphere has reacted with signature snark: After nine years of being told to take their business elsewhere, gay folks are skeptical. Likewise, conservablogs are accusing eHarmony of succumbing to government bullying and caving in to the gay agenda.

And in a move that took that gay agenda and draped it in 1960s game show dressing, a recent episode of the Ellen Degeneres Show unveiled the set of the Game Show Network’s new Newlywed Game, sponsored by eHarmony – not exactly a paragon of gay pride – as the affable host brought her wife Portia De Rossi on to play.

A segment of the Ellen show sponsored by eHarmony? How did it come to this?

Back in 2005, New Jersey man Eric McKinley wanted to experience eHarmony’s much ballyhooed matching methodology. The problem for McKinley was that he was a man looking for a man. And eHarmony’s services are strictly for heterosexual matches. So Eric lodged a complaint with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, Division of Civil Rights.

After two years of “back and forth, back and forth,” says McKinley, the attorney general found probable cause. At that point, the parties agreed to negotiate toward a settlement. One of the conditions? That eHarmony would agree to provide an option for same-sex connections (McKinley and the first 10,000 to join up get free memberships).

Why would a company, so heaven-bent on promoting traditional marriage, “cave in” to the “gay agenda,” as so many conservative bloggers have alleged? Why didn’t they fight?

“We chose to settle ultimately because litigation outcomes are unpredictable,” says CEO and founding investor Greg Waldorf. “We were at it with New Jersey between 2005-2008 and said, ‘This is a real burden for the company.’ We’re just moving forward with a business that we hope turns out to be successful. ”

Compatible Partners is the settlement’s lovechild – a “what’s good for business” compromise negotiated between a gay partner-seeker and a company not known for its gay-friendliness. What’s unclear is if this unholy alliance is an arranged marriage or shotgun wedding.

It’s no secret that the company’s founder, psychologist Dr. Neil Clark Warren is a born-again Christian. National ad campaigns introduced the grandfatherly Warren boasting of the company’s exclusive ‘29 Dimensions of Compatibility’ to demographics larger than their original Christian following.

From the company’s emergence in 2000, when they first marketed their matchmaking services primarily to fellow Christian websites, Warren credited much of their early ascent to his relationship with evangelical group Focus on the Family and its founder James Dobson.

Inevitably, eHarmony’s growing pains put strain on that relationship, and in 2005, Warren broke from Dobson and Focus on the Family. The break, however, did not signal any change in the company’s policy of exclusively heterosexual match-ups.

While Warren was active in the company, whenever the topic of homosexual clients arose, he would insist that the results gleaned from his compatibility matching system were based solely on research of heterosexual couples. Competitor Chemistry.com launched their own ad campaign, “Rejected by eHarmony,” poking fun at the Christian matchmaker’s rejection of all types of folks.

Warren, 74, retired from active management in 2006 yet still sits on the board, today. Interestingly, under his watch, the company began offering spouse and domestic partnership benefits to their employees back in 2004. It took the threat of a lawsuit, however, for the company to offer the “benefits” of their patented algorithms to the general public.

After so many years of claiming that their 29 Dimensions were not compatible with homosexuality, how will the company convince people that suddenly, their system will work?

Current CEO Waldorf is “very hopeful that this will work just as well in the gay community. I think that anyone who says that they’re interested in a serious relationship,” he says, “will benefit from [our] deep compatibility matching.”

Next page: Working out the quirks

With the nearest gay-themed bookstore more than an hour away, I went to a local shop for a card. I found row after row of Valentine’s Day cards for mom, dad, brother, sister, niece, nephew, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, cousin, colleague, best friend, and, of course, husband and wife.

But the my beloved, my dearest, my honey, my sweetie-pie cards I found for Valentine’s Day were written and drawn for him to give to her, or her to give to him. Not a card for girlfriend to girlfriend, partner to partner, or cohabitant of my dreams.

Hallmark, the nation’s largest greeting card company, issued same-sex wedding cards last year, but I have yet to see one in my area.

The card closest to avoiding a hetero-centric “I love you” message featured two penguins — the gender of one penguin, with her ample bosom and pear-shaped body, was obvious, but the other penguin seemed rather ambiguous.

But I opted instead for a Peanuts card, just in case my girlfriend could see something on the male penguin that I missed. My card depicts Linus wishing a happy Valentine’s Day — I couldn’t even find a Peppermint Patty card.

Every year I have trouble finding a Valentine’s Day card for my girlfriend. She too has trouble finding cards, which is why she makes her own — she’s more accomplished with Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop and scissors.

Wouldn’t it be nice to walk into a drug store, a supermarket or a greeting card shop outside our GLBT ghettos and find his and his and hers and hers cards? Managers could just reserve 10 percent of the all-my-love selection for gays and lesbians. That’s all I want. Segregation in the card aisle is OK.

Integration is OK too.

Why not leave the gender of the loving animal characters to the reader’s imagination? Is there really a reason in a greeting card to distinguish dogs as male and female, with the female dolled up in rouge and curlers and the male running about in a necktie? Why must the two skunks frolicking on a card be dressed like Barbie and Ken dolls? And why must one goldfish snuggling in the bowl be sporting a moustache and the other wearing lipstick?

Really, I’d like to see more integration of GLBT lives and passions all around, especially this time of year.

Turn on the television set this week and you’ll see any number of programs celebrating Valentine’s Day — from talk shows to dramas to investigative reports to sitcoms. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has made great strides in encouraging the TV industry in bringing gays out of the closet and into programming, but so much this week will ignore us, or marginalize us.

And call up the American Film Institute’s list of the top 100 love stories — “AFI’s 100 Years … 100 Passions.” Sure, “Casablanca” and “Gone with the Wind” deserve the top spots. But is there no film depicting a gay or lesbian romance worthy of being named to this list? There’s not a film with gay or lesbian lovers who generate more heat or more romance than Tom Cruise and Renee Zellweger in “Jerry Maguire”? The gayest movies on the list are “A Star is Born” and “Pillow Talk.”

Open up your local daily newspaper this week and you will likely find Valentine’s Day-themed features in the news section, the style section, the entertainment section, the food section, maybe even the auto section and classifieds section if an editor can come up with an angle. And what percentage of them will profile or even quote someone in a same-sex relationship? Consider yourself fortunate if you find mention of the Freedom to Marry campaign.

Next Valentine’s Day, I hope to find greater celebration of same-sex love and romance. The age of “the love that dare not speak its name” is ancient and over. Everyone knows its name, and a majority of people seem comfortable with it — so why not generators of products and programs?

Alas, this year I’ve got my Peanuts card for my girlfriend. There’s Linus on the cover in his striped shirt and shorts, saying, “Felicitations and salutations on this beloved occasion,” and inside, “In other words, happy heart day,” along with my signature, “Happy Valentine’s Day, Love Lisa.”

Although state law does not permit gay marriage within New York State, a Rochester court ruled that valid out-of-state marriages of lesbian and gay couples must be recognized. The state’s highest court upheld the ruling.

In addition, Gov. David Paterson in June issued a directive instructing state agencies governing insurance and health care – to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages performed in areas where they are legal.

Nevertheless, some private insurers have declined to recognize same-sex marriages.

In his directive to insurance companies operating in the state, Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo said legally married same-sex couples cannot be treated differently than other married couples.

“Insurance is an essential part of our planning for daily life,” Dinallo’s directive said.

“We expect insurance companies to provide the same rights and benefits to all legally married couples, regardless of the sex of the spouses … As Governor David Paterson has explained, this is consistent with the position the State historically has taken with respect to marriages conducted in jurisdictions outside of the State of New York.”

Large numbers of New York gay and lesbian couples have gone to Canada, Massachusetts and Connecticut where same-sex marriage is legal to tie the knot. LGBT rights groups are hopeful the incoming legislature will pass marriage equality legislation in the Empire State. Gov. Paterson has said he would sign the bill if it is passed.

In 2006, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.

A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in New York passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly last year but Republicans who then controlled the Senate refused to consider the legislation.

November’s election saw 40 years of GOP rule in the Senate come to an end. The marriage equality legislation likely will be reintroduced in 2009.

Supporters of same-sex marriage called the tactic “an attempt to extort people” and “a bit Mafioso.”

ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn this year’s California Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, targeted about 35 companies in the appeal, spokeswoman Sonya Eddings Brown said.

She called the letter “a frustrated response” to the intimidation felt by Proposition 8 supporters, who have had their lawn signs stolen and property vandalized in the closing days of the increasingly heated campaign.

Certified letters from the group this week asked companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.

“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”

The letter was signed by four members of the group’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.

A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published.

San Diego businessman Jim Abbott, who owns a real estate company and is a member of Equality California’s board of directors, received one of the letters late Wednesday afternoon. His adult son called Abbott to read it to him.

“He characterized it as a bit Mafioso,” Abbott said. “It was a little distressing, but it’s consistent with how the ‘yes’ side of this campaign has been run, which is a bit over the top.”

Abbott, who married his same-sex partner at the end of August, estimated that over the last decade he has given $50,000 to Equality California, including a recent $10,000 gift to underwrite a San Diego event that raised money to defeat Proposition 8.

When asked whether ProtectMarriage.com planned to name businesses that have supported the No on 8 campaign, Prentice initially said he was unaware of any such effort.

“I’m not familiar of any organized attack against organizations that have given to No on 8,” he said Thursday.

But when asked about the letter to Equality California donors, Prentice confirmed they were authentic and said the ProtectMarriage.com campaign was asking businesses backing the other side “to reconsider taking a position on a moral issue in California.”

Prentice said it was his understanding that the letter was intended for large corporations such as cable operators Time Warner and Comcast instead of small business owners like Abbott. Time Warner and Comcast are listed on Equality California’s Web site as corporate sponsors that gave $50,000 each to the group.

Companies that have contributed directly to one of the campaign committees collecting cash to fight Proposition 8, including one set up by Equality California, also were recipients of the letter, Prentice said. That list includes companies such as Pacific Gas & Electric, Levi Strauss and AT&T.

“I think the IDing of, or outing of, any company is very secondary to the question of why especially a public corporation would choose to take a side knowing it would splinter its own clientele,” he said.

Equality California executive director Geoffrey Kors said Thursday he has heard from two other business owners besides Abbott.

“It’s truly an outrageous attempt to extort people,” Kors said.

While an anti-Proposition 8 group called Californians Against Hate has posted lists of gay marriage ban donors on the Internet and even launched boycotts of selected businesses, Kors said that work has been independent of the official No on 8 campaign.

“They are going after our long-term funding and trying to intimidate Equality California donors from giving any more to the No on 8 campaign and from giving to Equality California ever again, which would impact our work for seniors, youth and other people in need,” Kors said.

As the woman behind the counter ran my credit card, she casually drawled, “Yep. It’s thirty-five dollars unless you’re co-workers, spouses or domestic partners.” My partner and I exchanged a look and I knew we were both thinking the same thing: “Is it worth thirty-five dollars to convince someone that we’re gay? In public? In a red state?”

Thriftiness got the best of me and I blurted out, “We’re a couple!” “Okay, then,” the woman smiled, “let me cancel that charge.”

While my awkward self-outing saved me $35 (and brought my relationship with the Avis woman to whole new level of honesty), it probably would have been easier for me to know the company’s policy before I arrived. Not interested in having your own Very Special Episode of Blossom at a rental car counter? Check out the list below for details on the additional driver policies at some of the nation’s largest rental car companies.

Avis & Budget

When it comes to adding your partner as an additional driver, it doesn’t get much easier than Avis. According to Alice Pereira, Manager of Public Relations for the Avis Budget Group (which owns Avis), “Domestic partners are included, no questions asked.” In fact, Avis is the official car rental choice of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

Avis’ gay-friendly policy applies to all of their corporate-owned and operated locations. A small percentage of locations are owned by licensees, however, and the policy may vary at these locations.

How do you know if a rental location is owned by the corporation or by a licensee? “Call the location,” Pereira says. “For the most part our licensees do follow our policy but it’s best to call to be sure.”

To reserve a car, and to learn about Avis’ domestic partner policy, visit www.avis.com/prouder.

Budget Rent-A-Car is also owned by the Avis Budget Group and Pereira says that there are, “no additional driver fees for domestic partners on the Budget side [of the company] either.” According to Pereira, Budget’s additional driver policy, with respect to domestic partners, is the same as Avis’.

Learn more, or rent a car, at www.Budget.com.

Enterprise

Enterprise Rent-A-Car also waives the additional driver fee for domestic partners. “This is standard throughout the company at all locations,” according to Lisa Martini, Manager of Public Relations for Enterprise.

For more, visit www.enterprise.com.

Dollar & Thrifty

Dollar Rent-A-Car and Thrifty (both owned by the Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.) charge additional driver fees for opposite- and same-sex partners. According to Chris Payne, spokesperson for Dollar Thrifty, “Our policy is that additional drivers identified as a life partner will be treated as a spouse.” When asked why Dollar Thrifty has a policy on same-sex partners when there is no discount involved, Payne replied, “We just want to make sure it’s a non-issue for us….A customer’s a customer and we just treat everyone the same.”

Visit Dollar and Thrifty online at www.dollar.com and www.thrifty.com.

Hertz

Unfortunately, the Hertz corporate office did not return multiple calls for this article. According to the company’s reservation line, however, Hertz charges a daily fee for each additional driver, regardless of their relationship to the renter. This policy is consistent across the country, although the amount of the fee varies from state to state (for example, it’s $3 per day in New York and $11 per day in Illinois). The only exception is for Hertz Gold Members, who may add an opposite- or same-sex partner to their rental agreement free of charge.

Check out www.hertz.com for more information.
What if..?

It’s wedding season again, and my partner and I have yet another out-of-state wedding to attend. Last week, we called around to rental car companies, checking availability and comparing prices. The calls were routine until, during one call, my partner’s brow furrowed.

“Budget just told me I can add a husband for free, but not a domestic partner,” she said as she hung up.

“That can’t be right,” I said. Having spoken recently with Pereira, I knew that was inconsistent with the Avis Budget Group’s policy.

I called Budget’s toll free number and was also told that I could not add a domestic partner to my rental agreement for free. I asked a few follow up questions and the agent ultimately admitted that she wasn’t entirely sure what the company’s policy was.

Finally, I asked to speak to a manager, who assured me that I could add my partner to my rental agreement without an additional fee. Ultimately, I got the right answer – but it took three conversations to get it.

I spoke with Pereira about my experience with Budget’s reservation line. She reiterated that, at Budget, “domestic partners are treated as spouses.”

So what if, as in my case, a traveler knows that a company’s official policy is the same for opposite- and same-sex partners, but the agent they speak with doesn’t comply? “They should ask to speak to a supervisor,” Pereira says, “because that’s the policy.”

Travelers who are AAA members can call AAA Headquarters in Orlando, FL for help with customer service issues. According to AAA Director of Public Relations, Mike Pina, AAA’s Member Services Department is happy to intervene to resolve conflicts between members and travel service providers. “Our policy,” says Pina, “is that everyone receives equal treatment…and we would certainly encourage our partners not to discriminate.”

To contact AAA Headquarters, call 407-444-7000.

You can be your own advocate, though, by knowing a company’s official policy before you make your reservation. As illustrated above, calls to a company’s reservation line can yield a variety of responses, both correct and incorrect. For the most accurate information, call the rental company’s corporate office.

Daniel Carver, 46, withdrew the suit “with prejudice” meaning he cannot legally reinstate it and court documents do not indicate why he decided not to proceed.

In a reply to the lawsuit, franchise holders Glenn and Lois Karpinske denied Carver’s claims and said that he was fired because of poor work performance and excessive absenteeism.

Neither Carver nor his attorney have spoken with the media.  An attorney for the Karpinskes would say only that “the case has been satisfactorily resolved.”

It also is not known if Carver has withdrawn a complaint made to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.

In his original filing, Carver said he had worked for the franchise for about four months, but was fired in February.

He alleged that after management learned he was HIV-positive, he was denied promotion, had his hours reduced and was subjected to derogatory remarks, violence and death threats.

The filing claimed that Carver on one occasion was punched in the stomach by a manager and in another instance was slapped in the face by an employee who called him homophobic names.

“In November 2007, I was threatened by other employees because of my HIV status and my sexual orientation that I, ‘better watch my back or I might get shot,”‘ Carver said in his claim to the commission.

Under Iowa law, it’s illegal to discriminate against an employee because of perceived sexual orientation or a disability, which includes HIV status.

McDonald’s has not commented on the case. Earlier this year, the fast-food chain announced its support for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, giving the organization a grant and placing an employee on the Chamber’s board of directors.

The action resulted in a boycott call by the conservative American Family Association.

“[We are] proud to express our strong support of federal workplace non-discrimination legislation that would extend basic job protections to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans,” the company said in a letter to members of Congress.

“Our endorsement of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is consistent with our longstanding Statement of Equal Opportunity … The principles fostered by ENDA are consistent with our corporate principles in treating all employees with fairness and respect, said the letter, signed by Denise Lynn, American’s Vice President of Diversity & Leadership Strategies; Michael Wascom, American’s Managing Director of International & Government Affairs; and Betty Young, American’s National Sales & Marketing Manager for the LGBT Community.

ENDA, after it was stripped of protections for transgender people, passed the House last year. It has yet to be dealt with by the Senate.

If passed in its present form, ENDA would bar job discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Dozens of LGBT groups have been lobbying Washington to reinstate trans protections in the bill. American’s letter, released Monday, supports that effort.

American is the nation’s largest air carrier. It was the first major airline to implement same-sex domestic partner benefits, and the first to implement both sexual orientation and gender identity in its workplace non-discrimination policies. It also was the first airline to have a recognized LGBT employee resource group – GLEAM.

“On behalf of our more than 80,000 employees, we appreciate your consideration and encourage Congress to enact this important legislation,” the letter said.

Statistics released last month by Equality Forum, an LGBT civil rights organization, show that 471 of Fortune 500 companies written workplace protections on the basis of sexual orientation.

Exxon Mobil is the largest of the Fortune 500 that does not specifically provide sexual orientation protection and resisted shareholder calls to amend the policy in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

According to Gallup’s May 2008 Values and Beliefs Poll, 89 percent of U.S. citizens believe gays and lesbians should have equal rights in job opportunities.

The figure represents 94.2 percent of the companies listed in 2008.

This year marks the fifth anniversary of Equality Forum’s Fortune 500 project, which is a collaboration with Louis Thomas of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and Ian Ayres of Yale Law School. 

“The Fortune 500 have overwhelmingly decided that including sexual orientation is in the best corporate interest and helps communicate corporate values to the estimated $660 billion annual domestic GLBT consumer market,” said Malcolm Lazin, Executive Director, Equality Forum. 

In 2003, when Equality Forum began contacting the Fortune 500 companies, 323 companies explicitly provided sexual orientation protection in their workplace policies. 

Equality Forum reached out to the CEOs, Human Resource Directors and all members of the Boards of Directors of the 177 companies without this protection. 

By the fall of 2004, the list of companies offering protection had grown to 405.

Equality Forum and Professors Thomas and Ayres communicated with 25 large institutional investors to solicit their support on proxy statements requesting sexual orientation nondiscrimination at companies not providing that protection.

Exxon Mobil is the largest of the Fortune 500 that does not specifically provide sexual orientation protection and resisted shareholder calls to amend the policy in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Among other major companies with protections are GMAC, Virgin Media, Celanese and Universal Health Services.

According to Gallup’s May 2008 Values and Beliefs Poll, 89 percent of U.S. citizens believe gays and lesbians should have equal rights in job opportunities.

Twenty states include sexual orientation nondiscrimination in their workplace statutes but there currently is no federal workplace protection based on sexual orientation.

Senator Obama favors and Senator McCain opposes including sexual orientation in the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  In 2007, the House of Representatives voted 235 to 184 to amend ENDA to add sexual orientation.  Thirty-five Republicans voted for the amendment. The legislation, however, would not provide protections for the transgendered.