Microsoft, Apple in the hot seat over anti-gay link

“A group of big-name retailers, including Microsoft, Apple and Netflix, are in the spotlight after reports surfaced that a portion of the commission they pay to an Internet marketer is being funneled to groups that oppose homosexuality,” Aislyn Greene reports for TechFlash.

“The marketer, Charity Giveback Group (CCBG) and formerly known as the Christian Values Network, gets a commission for each customer it sends to an e-commerce site. It’s a common practice for many sites, but in this case CCBG donates a portion of the commission to a Christian charity of the customer’s choice, reports the New York Times,” Greene reports. “Such charities include the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, both of which vocally oppose homosexuality.”

Greene reports, “As a result of the uproar, which was tipped off by a gay Seattle man in July, more than 100 retailers, including Microsoft and Expedia, have dropped out of the program. But some that dropped out briefly — Delta, PetSmart, Sam’s Club, Target and Wal-Mart — have rejoined. ‘People have been misled. The retailers are not donating to anyone; they are simply paying a commission to get traffic,’ said CGBG president John Higgins in an interview.”

Read more in the full article here.


    1. I am not homophobic, but I’m becoming homo-weary, homo-annoyed, and homo-apathetic. I’m burnt out on LGBT issues. I think this is the danger of the constant yammering about every issue. Clearly Apple and Microsoft don’t in any way support anti-gay issues. This is nonsense.

      1. Agreed. The pro-gay agenda is becoming a bit overwhelming.

        We’re inundated with gay characters on TV and in movies at a much higher percentage than reality. Every little issue is a ‘HUGE ISSUE’ regardless of context. Feels like being-gay is being shoved front and center into out lives in a scale not commensurate with reality.

        The irony, to me, is that the gay agenda is about freedom and rights for gay Americans, yet the same agenda seeks to impose and/or limit the freedoms of others. Religion being the first coming to mind.

        1. With so many critically important issues vying for the attention of thinking people everywhere, it is simply not realistic for promoters of gay rights to expect the whole world to put their needs and concerns at the top of the list. Ain’t gonna happen. I support their right to lobby for change beneficial to themselves, but they should not expect any help from me and I know that I am not the only one who feels this way.

        2. Yeah, damn those homos for fighting against persecution.

          Don’t they know that persecution is freedom? So that’s what they’re really fighting against, here. Freedom.

          Promoting the idea that they’re an immoral abomination against God is my constitutional right. And I don’t know what the big deal is because that kind of thinking has never lead to any problems in history for anybody, ever.

          Seriously, two words sum up the whole LGBT community: Drama. Queens.

            1. Maybe because this one came across more like a bait than a sarcasm. It also didn’t help that gCv’s post had very little (if anything) to do with the thoughtful comment (by Pirate) that he/she apparently was responding to. Not all sarcasms are equal in quality. This one came across to me as missing the target at humour and wit. Fail etc.

        3. Sorry to bust your irony, but imposing legal limitations on what people can do is (and has always been) the only way freedom can exist in human society. Letting everyone do what they want inevitably leads to the oppression of minorities and women and to the economics of extortion. Human rights and individual freedom can only come about in society when laws impose and limit what people can do to one another.

      2. – same here – thx theIoniousMac

        The pro agendas of any rights movement seem to be actually rather reverse discriminating in some way – NO?

        Suddenly, all these minorities seem to be calling out at once (as if a bigger issue and seemingly as if they are a majority. Yet they do not recognize or respect the rights of who they effect in the movement for their own rights to chance.

        Yes… it has grown tiresome indeed.

        1. So, let me get this straight (pun!);
          If all members of our society have equal rights under the law (right to not be discriminated against in employment, housing, health care, protection from violence, etc., etc., etc.) then this somehow discriminates against others (you) in our society? The reverse discrimination you speak of?

          You speak of the “the majority”. Do you think lawful rights should only apply to “the majority”?
          Majority of what? Majority skin colour? Majority religion? Majority sexuality?

          Majorities change. Should the law float with the changes? Should courts refer to regularly updated polls to see if legal rights apply to certain groups of people at certain times?

          I’m intrigued by your rationale as to why certain groups of people should not have the same rights as others.
          Please, do enlighten us further.

          1. ‘seemingly’ — as if they are a great size and importance – I was attempting to convey – and perhaps still unclear I assume – typically misunderstood

            IN SHORT:

            Q:1 – A:no
            Q:2,3,4&5 – A:no
            Q:6 – A:changes happen – float with the times – they do – so yes
            Q:7 – A:reviewing old laws – some laws – yes need revision

            discrimination – noun
            1 – the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex:

            2 – recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another:

            OH – oh – I’m might be getting in a heated battle that I am sure to lose… however, me thinks me getting, some sense of ‘discrimination’ over
            my words and use of ‘MINORITY’ – fair enough – SHALL you be good enough to bother to read on?

            NOT to challenge but perhaps you have a better system of democracy and rights for the ENTIRE COUNTRY to be put forth.

            Yet, simply said, I am sure “we” can not please “all’ the people all the time.


            I AGREE with this – NO NOT ALL LAWS MADE are done for the masses – or majority – CORRECTLY questioned – and I don’t think I was trying to say that either… but I do think initially laws generally made are done so perceived to be for all of us. WHY you are correct – because LAWS get changed. AND yes, views points change – and also, Laws are not created solely for you or me.

            Allow me to RAMBLE on her some more. Eventually lose my own mind… and maybe I shall become a lonely minority on this – LOL.

            BECAUSE YOU ASKED.
            to me – my rationale and basic understanding is:

            LAWS – laws are made to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens – yet most laws are not voted on — not looked at and questioned by the citizens of the land in what I HOPE you can agree that LAWS are definitely not individually stated on a ballot for us to choose from – a cast is not made per-law being set.

            HENCE – our laws are not particularly made by, us, the people – YET I do believe most our LAWS (initially and fairly said) that we entrust our LAWYERS and POLITICIANS to MAKE are made – SET !! – for the greater masses. AGREED? LAWS MADE are to be fair to ALL – right – we HOPE.

            This process alone does not reflect the Majorities – does it ? – yet it is thought of – as – to be for the better good of all peoples – a fairness – SO the few LAWMAKERS in the land ARE MINORITIES – of which i thought i might mention… and then again it is the few – minorities – who stand up to make changes to these same laws made…

            THEN — it does happen and usually done by a few – again not by the majorities – some of our LAWS become questioned (brought forth by the few citizens who seek change) — let me stop and say – I AM NOT SAYING their fight is unfair or wrong — PLEASE — no — but some COULD argue their beliefs and wishes to change particular laws speak for them and not for you nor I — and not RESPECTING — perhaps you nor I or anyone else but them – how dare they — like legalizing Prostitution – our legalizing multiple marriages – good right.

            Ahhhh – i guess I am just a minority here. LOL

        2. False equivalence!

          You are saying that people fighting to be treated equally by the LAW is somehow reverse discrimination?

          What rights of yours are they not respecting? The “right” to impose religiously-based oppression by force via the government? That’s just plain illogical.

          For those who don’t know, we have a Constitution here in the U.S.A. You know what that means? It means that people have rights that cannot be taken away by an oppressive majority. It means that when the majority votes in representatives who will oppress and abuse a minority, the courts will strike down discriminatory laws and protect those who have less political power.

          Basically, it seems to me that, now that same-sex marriage is actually OK with a majority, the former-majority is furious that they have lost, and so resort to whining. The reality is that the majority should NEVER have been able to strip away rights from people based on their sexual orientation – the courts failed, based on “tradition.” Now that the legislatures and courts have started to remedy past injustice, those who would like to oppress strangers because they find specific kinds of intimacy “icky” are upset. Well, boo hoo!
          This is a major civil rights of our time – which side will you be on? When history looks back in a decade or so, which quote will you want to be yours?
          1) “I want the government to mistreat those harmless people because they are different than me”
          2) “This is America! We believe in constitutional rights and freedom for all people!”

          1. I think I am being ‘discriminatingly’ misunderstood here. LOL

            — where is Calvin & Hobbes? : I think my own brain is trying to kill me.

            I apologize MDN for this interruption
            and thank you to allow the freedom for such things to occur.

            THIS IS A MAC FORMUM.
            THINK DIFFERENT.
            LETS FOCUS ON THAT – back to ALL MAC things thx.

            The fact that you QUESTION me exemplifies that;
            it is HARD ENOUGH for even JUST two people to agree on something.

            Exponentially factor that into the CONCEPT of making LAWS and POLICIES for a NATION; a tough job to face and to set forth rules to govern the land for ALL PEOPLES to agree on, let alone to prosper and continue happily in daily life.

            I have two, (2) words for you.

            These two words are at the root of issue.
            Perhaps the ULTIMATE FLAW in what you have said and/or systems and things…
            that concern LAWS and BELIEFS – etc.

            “WE” and “ALL”.


            AND SO YOU ASKED,

            Q1) The one self ‘me’, is not whom the law governs solely for. I do not oppose those who are different. I myself am different.

            My views and words are being questioned. Those words are different to you. You can not accept this, it has offended you and you whine to me seeking justification and answers from me. Respect my freedom of speech.

            Q2) I am not American – however – I respect and believe mostly in the same similar principles set in your famous American constitution of rights.

            I shall not question you. Yet you have demonstrated to me you treat the American Constitution somewhat of an oxymoron. Contradictory to respecting my freedom – for I am a person also – though you may not think so.


            Here is something more for you to ponder…
            and please – honestly – feel free to think what you may.
            I do believe you have that right… for it is not I, who questions you.

            …”the fact that our LAWS CHANGE is a demonstration
            of a sort-of-weaknes within a democratic society, and yet ironically, it is this democratic system which then act in compliance of this own policy to justifies its self by its own definition…

            I believe most the laws were based on Christianity – in god we trust – and all that. Perhaps it is the fairness in which Christianity is based on – that exposes; this sort-of weakness in its own structure — yet it can adjust, change and re-think.
            This is the beauty and fairness.


            if you PERSONALLY wish to know HOW I THINK. I share this with you:


            ——- peace

      3. I really don’t care, but it seems like there is a double standard from many of the gay activist groups. That gays can have all the freedom to say what they want, but if anyone speaks out as anti-gay, those people are the scum of the earth and are threatened and shouted down.

        If you’re advocating free speech, then advocate it for everyone, even if you don’t like what they have to say.

  1. Give me a friggin’ break!! Homosexual acts have been immoral since the beginning of time and will slways be! Feel free to link to this and send the gay police after me! I’m sick of the political correctness! Love the sinner, hate the sin! Notice I’m talking about the acts, not the people! All people should be respected. Sinful ACTS should not!

    1. Actually homosexuality has not always been considered wrong. In many societies, the native americans for instance it was considered to be a special gift. The ancient greeks and romans also didn’t have a problem with it. You’re free to feel anyway you want about it, as long as you don’t infringe on anyone’s rights.
      As for this story, I do think it’s a non issue and I happen to be gay.

        1. ACTOR 1 : “special gift – I am”

          ( with arm on hip and a voice speaking in a rather joking mannerism that is ‘fanciful and flowery’ and/or lisp like )

          I MUST SAY.

      1. Well, so much for the Romans, Greeks, and native American Indians. We want the same for us? I don’t think so.

        BTW, child sacrifice (and other disgusting things) use to be normal in some societies, too. Just because it was accepted in some societies does not make it the smartest thing for us to embrace.

        1. Well, usually the anti-gay rhetoric goes right to equating homosexuals with pedophiles. But you went right for child sacrifice. Bravo! Gotta’ give you points for creativity.

          And nothing else.

          1. The child sacrifice association was not intentional as you put it. I had been recently researching human and animal sacrifice in various cultures and that was what was on my mind. i guess I should have referred to animal sacrifice or some other disgusting thing instead.


        2. You know, I’ve heard of societies where forcing people into slavery based on their skin color (intrinsic biological property) was the law. Oh, wait! That was us! And guess what? People tried to use the Bible to support that!
          Why is homosexuality immoral? Because you read the Bible to support your “eww, that’s icky!” attitude? There’s a pretty reasonable argument that most biblical comments about “sodomy” were about rape, not consensual sex.

          Basically, you have a personal dislike of other peoples’ sexual behavior, and you are using your interpretation of a religious text to support the idea that the government should enforce your religious belief to oppress others.

          Wrong country, bud! Go find a theocracy somewhere. But, be sure to pick one where they support your particular brand of oppressive theocracy, or you may be in for some rough treatment.

          1. Sir, you have no idea of what I like nor dislike. I was pointing out the fallacy of praus’ rationalization. Maybe that makes me a rationalization-phobe but not a homo-phobe.

            Why you become so defensive I dont understand. Well, I kind-of do but I wont go there.

            You’re right, in the past, and even now, people use the Bible or other texts (religious and non-religious texts) to support their views. Other’s use other’s behavior to justify their’s as praus did. The poster before praus said homosexual behavior is immoral (probably according to the Bible in his mind) and praus thinks it isn’t based on other society’s norms (according to his understanding of other society’s norms).

            I’m not saying which justification is right, I asked if we wanted to go down the same road. It may be for your personal gratification that we do. It is for the longevity of our society and our children’s children that we don’t.

      2. “The ancient greeks and romans also didn’t have a problem with it.”

        Yeah and how did that work out for them? Greece, ‘the cradle of democracy’ – bankrupt… morally and financially. The Romans… ever read ‘The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire’?

        Good thing homosexuality was not the prevalent norm back then, otherwise we’d have propagated ourselves out of existence.

        “You’re free to feel anyway you want about it”

        Thank you. That is nice of you.

        “…, as long as you don’t infringe on anyone’s rights.”

        Then why does say Disney have a Gay Day? What, are you only entitled to be Gay at Disney only one day out of the year? And if I spend my money on a Disney vacation with the family that happens to coincide on that day, what about my rights? I don’t want to see a bunch of boyfriend/girlfriend slakeishly crawling all over each other in a lip lock battle, I definitely don’t care to see homosexuals of either sex doing the same! If you’re gay, go to Disney as a human not as someone define by their sexual orientation. What’s next Disney Child Molester Day?

        1. How incredibly bigoted!

          I won’t even bother with the Greeks and the Romans, as it is on such level of ignorance, I wouldn’t know where to begin (and it would be wasted effort anyway).

          As for the Disney’s Gay Day, it was instituted precisely because of types such as yourself. While normal people don’t have any problem seeing other normal people holding hands, some apparently get an urge to vomit when they see two normal people holding hands, if these two happen to be men (when they’re women, it apparently doesn’t cause a gag reflex but an arousal, for some reason). Same thing when two normal adults kiss each other (again, if the two happen to be men; if they’re women, same reaction again).

          Disney has instituted Gay Day, so that people who happen to be gay don’t have to behave any differently than those who aren’t gay. On this ONE single day in the year, Disney park visitors who happen to be gay are actually allowed to hold hands (and perhaps exchange a kiss in public), exactly the SAME way other people can on any other day of the year.

          Obviously, many gay people go to Disney on all those other days. During those days, they are encouraged to refrain from in any way revealing that they are what they are. The one single Gay Day gives them a chance to be normal — just like the rest of the population.

            1. Just because Predrag says he has a wife and children and is “happy” does not mean he is not gay.

              Predrag is gay. Predrag is gay. Predrag is gay. ha! ha! ha!

        2. “Yeah and how did that work out for them? Greece, ‘the cradle of democracy’ – bankrupt”

          Democracy sure as hell isn’t the way to go, then. To avoid falling into ruin the USA clearly needs to turn its back on homos, Democracy, and anything else the ancient Greeks were cool with. The same goes for the Roman Empire, so we can forget about a Republic as well.

          Unfortunately we might be totally screwed already, since we’re a Democratic Republic where only like half the population has a problem with gays.

          Man, the sane part of the country needs to secede from the Union while it still can. STAT.

      1. Even so, the language echoes someone agonisingly un- self aware. If the irony was deliberate, hopefully at least, it will cut short the expected phobia posts. I live in hope.

      2. theloniousMac, I think your comment is related back to iMaki.

        Consider this –

        iMaki wouldn’t know how to be funny.

        iMaki is a bigoted bellyaching fscktard ignoramus.

    2. Wrong. In fact, it was very normal in old, ancient Greece. Highly intellectual philosophers like Plato loved boys.
      In Thailand it is tradition to raise on of your sons as a Ladyboy.
      In Sparta

      Homosexuality is as old as human mankind. There has been and will always be 10% queer people. Get used to it, redneck.

      There are no sins, just like there is no god. The concept of sins is strictly christian puritan nonsense.

        1. RIGHT you are… hahahahaha

          To have a army strong enough that all the men are away and WELL YOU KNOW protecting each other cause – WELL YOU KNOW… so all those woman OFC OFC — see you right too.

  2. Do they expect retailers to screen all feeding business to them for political correctness? This is a non-story story. I’m sure there are a myriad of internet marketers that feed a portion of their commissions to left-wing anti-religious groups.

  3. Well let’s all club unenlightened thinkers on their heads until their theology is straight, why don’t we.

    By the way, I wrote this post while respecting authority, valuing diversity, and believing that God had a son who was divine and looked AMAZINGLY like a European, Renaissance-age painter.

    The thoughts and opinions expressed above on this user page are not intended to be offensive to any particular minority group (based on race, religion, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, gender identification, disAbility, occupation, meat-eating/vegetable-eating practices, and hobbies—even hunting). Note too that parenthetically mentioning “even hunting” in the preceding sentence was not intended to signal any disapproval of the sport; the author does not wish to disparage the legal, safe, and most humane-possible methods of hunting. This preceding statement should not however, be construed as an endorsement of the sport; the author values all the biodiversity of earth and no animal should suffer at the hand of a human. However, that preceding sentence should not be construed that the author is indifferent to the plight of workers displaced by environmental issues; the author is mindful of the plight of timber workers vs. the plight of spotted owls. The preceding sentence should not be construed that the author thinks there is only one group of workers who have been financially harmed by environmental issues; there are others and not mentioning these others by name should not be construed as suggesting they are any less important than another. The author wishes to ensure all who review this communication that he values diversity and has the utmost respect for the law, government officials, the institutions of the United States, the wide variety of social customs and diversity of its peoples, and the civil treatment of other individuals who post here at MDN, even if the come across as assholes. This statement should not however, be construed as being intolerant of others who have contrary or differing values or who might hold the U.S. in disdain. The author embraces the wholesome notion that no person’s or group’s values are any more meritorious or valid than another’s, and the author does not wish to suggest that by stating an admiration for America and the U.S. Government, that this ought to be construed as deprecating the many other fine systems of government throughout the world and the social practices of its peoples. Notwithstanding that the author wrote the word “he” three sentences ago, (the author happens to be “anatomically male” by birth) this should not be construed as diminishing in any way, the existence of the word “she” nor does it signal that the author is adverse to the use of the gender-neutral “he/she” where appropriate. Furthermore, the words “he” and “she” should not be construed as being exclusionary or diminishing to the transgendered. This paragraph was not intended to be understood by blondes.

    1. Would the clubbing of unenlightened thinkers be construed as hunting? What if you only meant to club the in the best way possible the “uet’s” who gave the most to charities? Would that be Good Will Hunting?

      1. Indeed, it would be “hunting” (bashing) of Charity Giveback Group by ‘outing’ the fact that some of their money goes to the Family Research Council (FRC); all in hopes of pressuring Apple to distance themselves from FRC’s views with a Gomer Pyle-style “For shame – for shame – for shame.”

        But them, I will defend TechFlash (the Web site to which MDN is quoting) and their right to pass this off as news in order to make a buck from advertising.

        And I will defend the right of all readers who think TechFlash has uncovered The Big Story®™© to…

        1) watch ‘Glee’ on Tuesday evenings, and
        2) to feel smug and self-righteous, and
        3) think that by shaming sponsors into withdrawing support for those whose values are old fashioned, that your average hetrosexual will—deep down—somehow have intensely more respect for gays.

        Mind you, some of my favorite friends are gay. Nice people. My only objection is over how there are some liberals out there who feel that being *enlightened* and liberal beyond all comprehension entitles them to dictate to others what they may think and how they may express their thoughts.

    1. You can’t oppose homosexuality ’cause it’s part of the human nature. There will ALWAYS be 10% queer people. No matter what you do. The only thing that you can do is just accept it. It would be like if you oppose the weather. Does it change anything? No. But unlike the weather, queer people are human beings with no less rights than straight people (at least that’s the way it should be). Opposing homosexuality does nothing, except hurting the feelings of innocent people who have done nothing wrong and who have never hurt you. (see hate crime)

        1. I don’t discuss with someone who is so uneducated and stupid that he doesn’t even now what queer is and means and just utters garbage.

          Dream of your pure straight world. Don’t forget to dream about unicorns.

    2. The American Right is no better….. “If you aren’t like me – a white bible toting, God fearing Christian….. you ARE a sinner… and therefore a second class citizen (if not lower)”

      I happen to be gay…. and do agree that both sides have taken it to far… its the chicken and egg game….. the more one side says, the more the other side retaliates.
      Oh, and in regards to the actual MDN topic…. Apple can’t and shouldn’t do anything about these sites linking to Apple… in fact, you could look at it from another aspect…. by sending people to Apple’s site, they are generating MORE Apple customers…. which means Apple can donate more to GLBT causes…..

  4. a bit of a stretch, isn’t it? In short, A giving to B, while B gives to C doesn’t mean that A supports C’s values (or is even aware that C is a recipient of support from B). This story doesn’t deserve in a Apple-related forum……………

  5. I am a christian and I do not like the gay movement in America. My kids 1st through 5 grade don’t need to be taught about such things. I love focus on the family and they provide for wholesome education that is correct. If you want to be gay be gay, just shut the fuck up about it already. It’s your damn fucking bitching all the time that makes people hate you. Be a man if you can just shut up and live you life. Why do you need special favors. You know handicap people needs special favors and help, so are you admitting your handicap. I think you worse, just crying bitching little people. I send money to place that fight the gay agenda because its not my agenda for the same reason you send money to your agenda because its not my agenda. Stop bitching and just buy your stuff somewhere else like I do.

      1. “By definition, gay people can’t be a man.”

        By definition you are stupid. Most gays are more man than you will ever be. Real men don’t need to hide behind hate and fear.

          1. Me, too. And my dictionary states : “hoffbegone; m; noun – Stupid homophobic prat who doesn’t know anything”.

            What kind of dictionary do you use? The 20 pages thick Redneck Special Edition of General Lee’s almanack anno 1866?

    1. Queer people do NOT need special favors. But the facts are quite the opposite. Straights have special favors (right to marriage, adoption, tax laws, etc). It is just the same old story of the 50s again. White people against black people. But now straight vs. queer. A majority (straight) dare to treat the new black people (queers) like 2nd rate citizens.

      Do you thing Rosa Parks and Luther King wanted special favors as well? No. They just wanted to stop violence and being treated like shit. That’s the same the so called queer movement want.

      Equal rights, no violence/hate crimes. Nothing more, nothing special. Just the most logical thing there is. Equal rights for all citizens.

      1. Last I looked queers can use the same toilets, drink from the same fountains, stand in the same lines, etc. This fear and hate and violence thing is your head and is FUD on your part. Get a life.

        I certainly don’t see the KKK equivalent towards queers but I do see queer parades.

        1. Yeah, but it used to be that you could have a decade-long career in the U.S. Government, then be seen with your boyfriend at a club and fired.

          But that was a long time ago: all of last week.

    2. Being x-tian is a choice, being gay is not. Morality only applies to choice. There is no moral question about blue eyes, brown hair, or being gay, and it is beyond stupid to do so.

      It’s the x-heads in America (yes, I do not respect you or your religion, since it seeks to denigrate an entire population based on an unprovable myth, written in a book that is not even properly interpreted, and yet insists on making it the law), that whine every time they’re not allowed to force their agenda on others. It’s the x-heads that have an intrusive agenda. There is no gay agenda other than equality before the law. Feel free to continue lying to yourself and others, though. It’s your right. Just like you have a right to an opinion, even a stupid one. But, when you seek to force your opinion on others, then expect pushback, even if you are incapable of understanding why.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.