@Jackhoffsky: Nice try, but point out that a company is discriminatory is not discrimination anymore that pointing out that the military’s ban on gay soldiers was discriminatory. Moreover, the notion that one should shut up an institution’s discriminatory policies unless they are an active participant in that institution is utter nonsense: should only soldiers have been able to criticize the military’s ban on gays? Should only Russians be concerned about gay rights violations in Russia? In the 1950s, should only people who rode the bus in Birmingham or went to school in Arkansas complained about segregation? Of course not. You don’t have to get the clap to know you don’t want it.
It is not surprising that a person who downplays and makes excuses for bigotry and segregation suggests that people should only “care” about injustice when it affects them personally. This, of course, is the difference between changemakers and people who stand idly by an enable injustice with their silence and apathy. The suggestion that “sales” are a legit excuse for discrmination didn’t work for whites only restuarants in the 1950s and it shouldn’t work for “whites only” gay underwear companies in 2013. It’s amazing that anyone would advance this long discredited Jim Crow argument.
The fact that simply pointing out that Andrew Christian’s might be discriminatory has spurred so many furious defenses from you proves that calling attention to this is effective as a visibility tactic. You may not notice skin color, but it quite obvious that Andrew Christian does when choosing how to displaying his product, and I *will* continue to fault gays who continue to display the product of gay culture as all white, all the time as happens constantly in gay advertising, porn, nightlife, and entertainment.