McDonald’s Will Not Confirm Nor Deny AFA’s Gay Claims

Why can’t McDonald’s be straight with the gays?

The American Family Association last week claimed victory in a boycott against McDonald’s, which the right-wing organization claimed endorsed same-sex rights because their vice-president of communications, a gay man Richard Ellis, donated to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. McDonald’s was also once listed as a sponsor of a NGLCC event.

The queer connections rubbed the AFA the wrong way, of course, but they’re now insisting McDonald’s crumbled under conservative pressure and has committed to their cause. McDonald’s, however, refuses to agree – or disagree – with the AFA’s take.

In their press release last week, the AFA assured supporters McDonald’s was on their side:

In an e-mail to McDonald’s franchised owners the company said, “It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald’s remains neutral on same sex marriage or any ‘homosexual agenda’ as defined by the American Family Association.”

Scads of gays scratched their head at this statement, including David Guggenheim, producer for homo-journo Michelangelo Signorile’s radio show. Did McDonald’s really back the AFA, or were the AFA leaders twisting words to stroke their collective ego?

Hoping to get to the bottom of this mystery, Guggenheim asked McDonald’s for a simple statement on their apparent settlement with the AFA. The fast-food franchise’s response opened with this ridiculously broad statement: “As we’ve said all along, McDonald’s stands by and supports our people. Diversity and inclusion are integral components of our brand and our heritage.”

Still curious, Guggenheim specifically pressed the AFA’s claims that McDonald’s saw things their way. Again, McDonald’s skirted the issue, replying, “McDonald’s will neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the “e-mail to McDonald’s franchised owners” referred to in the release.” We’re not loving this…

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #americanfamilyassociation #davidguggenheim stories and more


  • seitan-on-a-stick

    There’s always the Chicken Tenders at Loewws…

    “W.” In Theaters Oct. 17

    A Father.

    A Son.

    An American Dynasty.

    See The Trailer!

    1-800-FANDANGO (Almost SOLD OUT!)

    Michelle Obama – Antonio Villaraigosa 2016

  • PJ

    You can’t fault McDonalds for their ambiguity on this subject. They are a business and the only thing they really care about is the promotion of their business and making money. That is what corporations do; they make money. If McDonalds openly takes sides in the politics, they are going to alienate someone. That is bad for business. They already have enough enemies. The fact that they are talking about “diversity and inclusion” speaks volumes. The GLBTQ community use those words, the AFA doesn’t.
    I am interested in seeing how this plays out. I think the AFA may be in for some big surprises, though.

  • Jaroslaw

    PJ – I understand what you’re saying about being “neutral” – making money is their objective etc. But hate is not neutral – and the AFA is trying to pressure groups/companies to see things their way. If they stand by their statement of “valuing diversity” they can also say they do not support or endorse any group that does not share these values….

  • Jaroslaw

    PJ- I of course understand a business is there to make money. But they did state they value diversity etc. They could have been just as neutral, and not name names – and say that in keeping with “valuing everyone” McDonald’s does not support any group that does not share those values…..

  • Jaroslaw

    sorry there are two comments, I got “duplicate comment detected” and didn’t see any response from me so I crafted another to avoid the duplicate error.

  • gayinsf

    Jardslaw is right…they are in it for the money but they could have spun it with AFA the same way they spun it with Guggenheim.

  • Bill Perdue


  • Mandy

    Like some have said, McDonald’s is in it for the money and for appealing to as many people as possible, and could probably care less about anything else. I think’s it’s interesting how PJ says that AFA doesn’t use words like “diversity and inclusion”. I’m not sure what your definition of the word diverse is, but as far as I know, the entire country (USA) is diverse and inclusive and that is something that cannot be avoided, even by the AFA. One can be diverse and inclusive without lowering their moral values and standards, and without breaking years of ethical traditions by accepting homosexuality.

  • gayinsf

    McFuck ’em.

Comments are closed.