How About A Nice Cup Of WTF?

UPDATES — 9AM WEDNESDAY: The ProJo has picked up the story crediting “several left-leaning blogs” with breaking it, but we know it was Ms. Dymoke who spent most of Monday on the phone fielding questions from the Canadian media.

3PM MONDAY: Daily Dose wins again!

ORIGINAL, AUG 9th: Well that’s a first… apparently people do read the Side Blog, as several sites have picked up Wesli’s post. We’ll Golden Ticket it, all the way up to the featured slot:

National Organization for Marriage [sic] is throwing “Rhode Island’s First Annual” Celebrate Marriage & Family Day this coming Sunday 16th at Aldrich Mansion in Warwick, 3pm to 8pm. The event is “free and open to the public,” meaning that we’re all invited! So come on down! You can pay a modest fee for some hot food (some portion of which may or may not go to NOM/RI and their ongoing fight against the threat of marriage equality here and elsewhere), or you can just brown-bag it. (Probably not that kind of brown bag, though, sorry.)

That our lame-duck guber and his wife are members and vocal supporters is no news. What may be news to some people, however, is who’s bankrolling this shindig: Besides NOM and Aldrich, there’s also Blount Fine Foods of Fall River, Blish and Cavanaugh (Providence law firm), Michael David (wedding photographer based in Warwick), Northmark Solutions Group (Providence IT firm), Celldrifter (some Christian designer dude into Creation, Focus on the Family, and such; no name or location that I can find). And finally. . .

Tim Hortons?

Yes, Tim Hortons. The Dunkin Donuts of Canada. You know, Canada — where same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide since 2005 (and since 2003 in Tim’s home, Ontario). What in the world are they doing sponsoring something like this? Their site says that they support “local initiatives that make a difference” — such as little leagues, Halloween safety, and the like. And that they sponsor community initiatives with a focus on “helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.” But not “those representing religious groups [or] political affiliates,” such as.. well, how would you characterize a group like NOM?

As you may recall, some years ago, Tim Horton’s got a once-ever chance to win over Rhode Island when Bess Eaton sold out to Wendy’s, who was then partnered with Tim’s and basically handed the stores over to them. Tim’s managed to blow it though a combination of uncompetitive selection and pricing, inconsistent service, and, worst, failure to produce a decent iced coffee — or indeed, any iced coffee at all — until long after most people had given up on them. (Their Locator lists 36 Rhode Island locations, but most of these are gas stations selling their coffee, as well as their New England office in West Greenwich — conveniently located in the only New England state without marriage equality.)

So now they’re trying to fight their way back, and what better way to win over the hearts and minds of Rhode Islanders than to put their name and reputation behind the nation’s largest and most odious gang of gay marriage opponents? I’m sure they’d love to hear your thoughts about this.

51 thoughts on “How About A Nice Cup Of WTF?”

  1. Thank you for your reply Wess. I agree with much of what you say here. However, to clarify, I didn’t mean to say that science should be abandoned in favor of “…one mouldy book of folklore or another”. I was trying to suggest that faith can help fill the gaps that science can’t. You illustrated this point well in your quotes from Einstien. Thank you for taking the time to write.
    I do have to take offense as painting religion as being responsible for some of the greatest horrors of civilization. I think that distinction belongs to fanatics like Hitler and Stalin. I realize many conflicts arise from religious issues over the centuries, but it’s humans that are to blame, not religion itself.
    By the way, referring to religious beleifs as “folklore ” and such probably isn’t the best way to approach the argument.
    And I must add, more talk about so-called gay-marriage but nothing about homosexuality itself. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to why homosexuality was taken out of the DSM. Anyone?

  2. That moral relativism is rightly criticised at some junctures does not wholly invalidate the liberation of reason, or society’s right to question ancient paradigms, or formulate new philosophies based thereupon. History clearly shows us that religion has been responsible for some of the greatest horrors of civilisation: By some historic estimates, religion has killed more people than all other known causes combined. Should that demonstrated fact then wholly invalidate all of religion and spiritual thinking?

    The fact that science has a limited understanding of reality is mitigated by the fact that what knowledge we do have is built upon reasoned conclusions predicated on empirical evidence, and further that science is disinterested, demonstrable, peer-reviewed, open to challenge, amendable, and self-correcting. That science does not have all the answers is not rational cause to drop it and flee to ‘answers’ provided in one mouldy book of folklore or another.

    There comes a time when intelligent grown-ups put aside their children’s books and pick up school books. How to formulate a parabola may be informed, for appreciation and aesthetics, by our experience with Pet the Bunny, but the latter should not displace the former for purposes of building a bridge that will safely transport the whole of humanity.

    There is an old saying, that “Science explains how, religion explains why.” Einstein (and let me interject here that he was, for all his mathematical brilliance, still only a man, and many would-be-clever quotes and incidents attributed to him were not his) spent much of his life struggling to reconcile and harmonise his Victorian-era faith with the cold reality of his science (as did Darwin, Galileo, and many other scientists throughout history). Einstein did say, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Too often, this is taken to mean that one must always inform the other, but his meaning is more subtle than his blunt words.

    What he really means — and what any scientist will understand — is that raw physical knowledge of the natural world has little use for a society without the spiritual capacity to appreciate its meaning. (Astronomers use the word “wonder” to describe this: a giant galaxy is not merely mathematically compelling, but dazzling and humbling to the soul.) Likewise, faith without reason has little purpose beyond itself, and offers little to a thinking world. In history, both have at times tried to wholly seize control from the other, always with disastrous results. Because we are creatures of passion, there has been far more religious totalitarianism than scientific; but the one dramatic example of science attempting to drive religion from a people — the Soviet Union — still stands as one of modern history’s darkest abominations.

    The debate over gay marriage is not, as too often characterised, a fight over religion. It is a fight within given religions struggling to reconcile faith and reason, and between religions with differing views on the matter. But is not a fight between people of faith and people of reason, only the latest, and only one of many struggles of a diverse society with a complex history to reconcile devotion to faith with the necessary compromises of a civil society governed by secular laws. All of democracy is like this, and always will be. The alternative is to dispense with either faith or reason — and we’ve already seen what that accomplishes.

    In our society, people of different faith traditions pledge to endure each other’s differences by accepting a common legal system governed by ethics. Morals inform this system, but do not define it, and where differences exist, compromise must prevail. To insist upon or reject any particular view on the basis of either reason or faith is to reject the entire system. We already know this won’t work, and leads only to chaos and strife. We also know that historically, compassion and liberation almost always win over every other human drive — save only the corruption of greed, whether personal or communal.

    There is much that people of faith can do to help marriage in our society. Seeking to restrict the liberty of persons of differing faith, or differing understandings of faith, is not one of them. Banning gay marriage will not make either gays or gay marriage go away. Gays already form durable partnerships, equal in every way to those of heterosexuals. It has always been so, and plenty of societies throughout history have recognised this; that ours mostly declines to is not, as so often claimed, some evidence that anything has ‘always’ been any particular way, nor evidence that our way is inherently better than any of those long dead.

    In a society where you may get married without notice by an Elvis impersonator at a drive-through church, and divorced the same day by a TV judge, marriage is surely under duress. But denying the true love between people merely because of some traditions’ views of what is proper will not do anything to make the world better for anyone. And to think otherwise is to privately confess disapproval of a system that we have all agreed to, which has proven to be able to solve many ancient causes of human suffering. To reject this is to plea for a return to religious domination of society.

    Religion must stop trying to run humanity. Those ancient systems worked only in very small communities physically separated from others, and only and always by concentrating power in the hands of a few. The Old Testament is drenched in blood, as are the real histories from which much of it is drawn. Religion must instead accept that in a shrinking world, we all must somehow get along, and seek instead to inject humanity into civil life, for everyone’s good. I commend those people of faith who seek to inform us, but I abhor those who seek to dominate us. After all, plenty of faith traditions accept gay marriage: there is no reason that yours is superior to mine or anyone else’s. I respect and uphold the rights of your faith to reject gay marriage, as I do the right of the Catholic Church to reject me and refuse to marry me because I am not a Catholic. But I do not accept their insistence that other churches, nor the secular State, should not have the right to determine otherwise.

  3. If I may respond yet again, you seem to think that science doesn’t have all the answers, that our knowledge is only the tip of the iceberg of reality. If this is true, that means that I am justified in putting my faith in God and His teachings. What do you put your faith in? The things of this world? Do you feel justified doing anything as long as it “feels right to you”? This is moral relativism and it is a recipe for disaster.

  4. BTW, on science – it has no shortcomings. Only gaps of understanding. “The fault, dear Rob, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

  5. What? You were talking about science and then I had the gall to go and talk about science? Well aren’t I the rude-boy?

    You know the part where I say, “By all means, cite away.” Go ahead and take that as your cue to, you know, cite your evidence.

  6. Yep, more distraction from the real issue. Frymaster says he has better things to do with his time than discuss the nature of homosexuality, yet takes the time to point out the shortcomings of science and stereotype me as a Bible-toter. I am a religious person, but I wasn’t discussing that, i was talking about science and same-sex attraction. I hope the civility displayed by both sides last sunday prevail here as well.

  7. You may find it hard to believe, Rob, that I have other things to do with my time. And, to be sure, I’m not going to talk about the nature of homosexuality, although I think I know a good deal more about it than you do.

    Rather, let’s talk about your misconceptions of nature and science.

    One cannot claim that because A has not been proved, then A has been disproved or A cannot be proved. One might equally claim that before the apple fell on old Ike Newton, gravity didn’t exist. So right there, your argument falls apart.

    Science represents our best understanding of nature. And that understanding is pretty poor. There are orders of magnitude more that we _DON’T_ know than we do. When it comes to biology and, especially human biology and biochemistry and brain development, genetic variation, trigger genes, the effects of environment on genetic development, etc, etc, etc., we’re still badly in the dark. The human genome project is just the very tippiest tip of the iceberg. So at very, very least, you have to acknowledge that there is a lack of conclusive evidence. And, by all means, cite away. (PS, Bible don’t count.)

    Finally, your conceive of nature, especially human nature, as static and finite, which it is not. That is, you have a cookie-cutter approach that makes things either right or wrong, natural or unnatural. Nature, of course, is nothing but change and variation. For all we know, there is some uber-mega-outer stasis to nature, but that’s about as provable right now as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Note the expression: for all we know.

    I leave you there, then, in your black-and-white world that continues to fall farther and farther into the past with each passing day. One teaching I read says that the greatest deficit to humanity is those members of us that no longer have the capacity to change, even though the world – nature – will NEVER stop changing. This creates a dissonance that manifests in increasingly destructive behaviors.

    You know, like trying to tell people what to do with their lives.

  8. Imagine my surprise to see the Dose get a shoutout in the latest email from change.org. Congrats guys, keep up the great work!

  9. Funny, no comments about what i said about same-sex attraction. It astounds me that the gay community will discuss so-called same-sex marriage but will never engage in anything to do with the nature of homosexuality. Very interesting.
    I attended the event yesterday. I’m pleased to say it was very nice. The half-dozen or so protestors (waaaaaay less than the ProJO is reporting) were clearly in the minority. Can’t wait for next years event.

  10. And Budweiser is the country’s most popular beer, and ‘American Idol’ outdrew the Grammys. Half a century ago, a majority of Americans polled disapproved of so-called ‘inter-racial’ marriage.

    Popularity is a reliable indicator of the persistence of habit, not of rightness or good sense.

  11. Actually, more states in the US have passed bans on so-called same-sex marriage than have approved it. Perhaps Rhode Island is more in step than the rest of New England after all.

  12. Your comments are all based on the assumption that same-sex attraction is normal, natural and healthy. This is not scientifically proven. Speaking strictly in terms of anatomy and biology, we are all oriented to the opposite sex. If the body is oriented to one thing and the mind is attracted to the exact opposite, there is conflict. This conflict can rightly be called disordered. This is what we should be discussing, not so-called same-sex marriage.
    By the way, what you call “traditional gender roles” are more aptly called “gender symbiosis”. Opposites attract, simple as that.
    Thank you for you time!

  13. Well, Rob, you seem a more reasonable type of religious fanatic than, say, Blorf. Let’s see if we can’t get a few ideas out there for you to ponder. “Marriage” _as you know it_ is a societal construct drawn from traditional gender roles, the great stew that is monotheistic religion and, of course, the impulse in most humans to procreate. I’m not speaking for others, but I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that you and Blorf are the only people here for whom that is “marriage as we know it.”

    For me and, I think, the vast majority of this demography, the “marriage” we’re on about is a civil contract assigning certain right, privileges and responsibilities between the contracting parties. It’s not about God. It’s about the Constitution and equal rights.

    Please do not mention the concept of domestic partnership or civil unions. Brown vs. Board of Education clearly states that “separate but equal is inherently unequal”. Everybody plays by the same rules. Period. Legally denying same-sex marriage creates a separate class of people for no good reason. Unless, of course, you consider the idea that someone is different than you are to be a good reason to create a class of citizens who enjoy less-than-equal rights.

    Which it’s not, and it’s why these kinds of laws are inherently unconstitutional and, ultimately, losers.

    (I personally would like to see the word “marriage” expunged from all US statutes. If it’s something that can be sanctified, the government should get the hell away from it. From a civic point of view, there should only be ‘unions’ of individuals.)

  14. Annie Messier

    I love that this news follows the above post claiming that same-sex marriages and high divorce rates “attack” marriage, Wess. According to Rob’s logic, I can now hold Doug Manchester, along with everyone who has ever had an affair, personally responsible for “attacking” my happy, heterosexual marriage. Yay, two-way streets : )

  15. The civil rights haters should get the hell out of Rhode Island. Other than Guv Carchy, there really isn’t a lot of support for the NOM people, despite their hilarious name. The only people who come out to their crazy fest protests are the lonely inbred fools egged on by radio talk show hosts. It’s a real shame that the rest of New England is leading the way on civil rights for gay Americans and Rhode Island is still holding back. When the Guv, that icon of a great marriage btw, finally stumbles out of office, RI might make some real progress.

  16. I know it’s only coincidental, but I couldn’t help noting today that Doug Manchester, the devout Catholic who gave $125,000 to help get Prop 8 on the ballot, is divorcing his wife of 43 years. So I guess he won’t be renewing his vows at any upcoming NOM picnics.

    Stay classy, NOM.

  17. Donnie Darko

    As a loyal Dunkin Donuts consumer, I will be giving my local Tim Hortons a second look (and taste) starting tomorrow … They did the right thing.

  18. Yay Timmies. I’m so proud of Tim Horton’s. As a Canuck ex-pat living in Dunkin’ Donuts country, I was thrilled when they moved in and set up shop. Alas, I was disappointed with their lack of focus on trying to horn in on DD market dominance. People ain’t gonna give up their DD easily, even if the coffee, donuts, and food is inferior to Tim’s (in Canada anyway).

    I wish they would have survived but I experienced the crap service, winced when my partner couldn’t get iced coffee, and was dismayed to see the stores all close up.

    In Canada Timmies is serious business and a franchise owner can make a fortune. People literally drive 20min or more to get coffee rather than make their own. On a recent trip to Ontario every TH I passed was packed.

    It’s nice to see corporations doing the right thing.

  19. Rob Itteilag

    The event taking place at Aldrich Mansion this weekend is not an “anti-gay” event. It is a celebration of marriage during this time when true marriage as we know it is under attack by high divorce rates, inter-marital and extramarital affairs and yes, so-called same-sex marriage. I’m sorry Tim Hortons and others decided not to sponsor the event, but it will go on just fine without them. Thank you for your time!

  20. I can see the headline in the Projo:

    Providence-Led Pro-Gay Blogosphere Queers NOM Sponsorship

    Oh, wait, I can’t see that at all.

  21. Have been following the story and responses/replys from Prince Edward Island, Canada. In rural Western PEI, we have one Tim Horton’s in O’Leary corner at highway 2. Some people used to drive the 40 minutes to Summerside to get a Timmys before we got a franchise here. I’m glad H.O./Corporate pulled thier sponsorship. It was going to be a long drive again into Summerside for a cup of coffee and donut….

  22. It’s a shame a nice old place like the Aldrich Mansion will host this crowd of homophobes. When the Aldriches gave this place to the church to avoid taxes, I doubt they ever imagined a crowd of religious zealots camping out on their lawn. (Nor the place where that Brad Pitt devil movie was filmed.)

    You used to have a nice view of Rocky Point from that place and now that’s gone, too. Warwick is really going to hell.

  23. All day today (Monday August 10th) Mike Airhart at Truth Wins Out has been in contact with Larry Marchese, P.R. agent for Blount Fine Foods, in conjunction with a petition I created over at gayrights.change.org Blount Fine Foods has now pulled their sponsorship from the anti-marriage event.

    Therefore, we have even more to celebrate.

  24. Dear Homos … this is why people hate you . you get in our face and try to impose your bum fuckery on the other 92% of us.

    What if TH supports the Nomri guys but then sponsors something like a provacative hot dog eating contest for you all? ok that might too much how about a contest to see how many bananas you can hide on/in your person in a specified amount of time?

  25. Tonya Callaghan

    I applaud Tim Horton’s decision to revoke its sponsorship of the National Organization for Marriage event called “Rhode Island’s First Annual Celebrate Marriage & Family Day.” It is very heartening to know that grass roots activism via the Internet can effect this kind of change so quickly. Thank you, Tim Horton’s, for discovering that your original sponsorship of the aforementioned event falls outside of your sponsorship mandate, and for taking swift action to correct this serious error.

  26. Wesli,

    Just wanted to update your readers. Tim Hortons has released a statement on its website: http://www.timhortons.com/us/en/about/2759.html

    It reads:

    Recently, Tim Hortons was approached in Rhode Island to provide free coffee and products for a local event, as we do thousands of times a year across Canada and the United States.

    For 45 years, Tim Hortons and its store owners have practiced a philosophy of giving back to the communities in which we operate. As a company, our primary focus is on helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.

    For this reason, Tim Hortons has not sponsored those representing religious groups, political affiliates or lobby groups.

    It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines. As such, Tim Hortons can not provide support at the event.

    Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.

  27. man that was close. i thought i was going to have to give up timmy ho’s for a while there. i don’t get it in DC, but being from buffalo, i get it when i go home.

    TH was a buffalo saber!!

  28. Glad to see that Tims backed out and did the right thing. I sensed a tinge of anti Tim Hortons sentiment within the article, especially concerning their business dealings and messing up their entry into America.

    I must remind you, that Tim Hortons is the company that single handedly held off the mighty Krispy Kreme’s entry into Canada and sent them packing.

    I also don’t know of any other corporate entity that does more charitable work towards children’s causes….

  29. Dayle Diamond

    Just called corporate.

    They wont get involved with this event.
    They say it was lack of oversight on their part.
    They are drafting a pubic statement to be released later today.

  30. UPDATE: TIM HORTONS PULLS SPONSORSHIP

    CBC just forwarded me this statement, also posted at their website:

    ——

    Recently, Tim Hortons was approached in Rhode Island to provide free coffee and products for a local event, as we do thousands of times a year across Canada and the United States.

    For 45 years, Tim Hortons and its store owners have practiced a philosophy of giving back to the communities in which we operate. As a company, our primary focus is on helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.

    For this reason, Tim Hortons has not sponsored those representing religious groups, political affiliates or lobby groups.

    It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines. As such, Tim Hortons can not provide support at the event.

    Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.

    David Morelli
    Director, Public Affairs

    ——

  31. David Raetsen

    As a Canadian I was shocked by this news. I am happy to see that Tim Hortons has addressed the situation on their website. They are no longer sponsoring the event and apologized for the misunderstanding. It seems as though they agreed without fully understanding the nature of the event.

    “Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.”

  32. This is what’s posted on the TH website now about the event.

    Tim Hortons responds to inquiries about Rhode Island event sponsorship:
    Recently, Tim Hortons was approached in Rhode Island to provide free coffee and products for a local event, as we do thousands of times a year across Canada and the United States.

    For 45 years, Tim Hortons and its store owners have practiced a philosophy of giving back to the communities in which we operate. As a company, our primary focus is on helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.

    For this reason, Tim Hortons has not sponsored those representing religious groups, political affiliates or lobby groups.

    It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines. As such, Tim Hortons can not provide support at the event.

    Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.

  33. I’m a Canadian, and up here in Canada we take our Timmie’s very seriously. It’s considered one of the essential “Canadian icons” (I know – it’s a bit silly) — so when the news came out about this last night, all hell broke loose on the internet this morning. I’ve received dozens of facebook postings about this from all over Canada this morning and people are calling head office – which is in Oakville, Ontario. Even if it’s some rogue franchisee in Rhode Island, corporate HQ has to know that this is not acceptable. Keep emailing and calling Timmie’s HQ until they post a clarification on their website…

  34. I live in Canada. I learned about this from the Monkey Mind blog, which reprinted this article. I have just sent Tim Hortons an email stating that I will no longer patronize their stores and that I will get my church to switch to Second Cup until I hear that they have stopped funding this sort of event. I’m not gay but it is ridiculous that Tim Hortons funds hate events in the States that target basic freedoms we enjoy up here.

  35. “””well, how would you characterize a group like NOM?”””

    A Political Group

    A Religious Group

    A Hate Group

  36. This has gotten passed around the blogosphere a bit now (thanks for the shout-out, Truth Wins Out!), and I feel I should clarify a couple details.

    I characterised Tim Hortons as Canadian. The reality is a bit more complex, but I maintain it’s essentially correct. Tim Hortons started in Hamilton, Ontario in 1964, and has grown to some 2800 store units and partnerships in Canada. Estimates of their U.S. penetration vary, but run around 500 units and partnerships, including 36 in Rhode Island (the majority being Shell travel stations operated by Colbea Enterprises, selling their coffee and pastries). Many of these U.S. units are or until recently were with Wendy’s, with whom they were merged from 1995 to 2006. Since then, Tim Hortons has been an independent U.S. firm headquartered in Delaware. However, they are expected to return to Canada (Oakville, Ont.) in September, pending shareholder approval. Operational control is and always has been from Ontario, and the company’s longstanding Canadian history justifies their ongoing perception as a Canadian firm and the patriotic support of Canadian consumers (many of whom are unaware that it has ever not been a Canadian company).

    Same-sex marriage has been legal in all of Canada since 2005, and in Ontario since 2003. Tim Hortons has a stated corporate policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, both in employment and service. This arguably extends to their involvement and support in community groups and events. It is very difficult to rationally correlate this with their named sponsorship of NOM’s explicitly anti-gay Celebrate Marriage & Family Day event at Aldrich Mansion in Warwick next Sunday.

    It’s unclear at this time how this happened, what it means, or what should or will happen as a result (other than the clear fact that many people are very upset about it). Some 95% of Tim Hortons stores are franchises, and store owners are apparently given broad discretion in when, where, and how to provide such local support. Nevertheless, Tim Hortons’ own Standards of Business Practices demands that owners and managers maintain the company’s ethical standards wherever they are, and proscribes any action that might embarrass the company. This sponsorship would appear to contradict those guidelines. Whether an individual franchisee or the New England office in West Greenwich is behind this sponsorship is not yet clear, but it seems to clearly originate in Rhode Island, as same-sex marriage is already law in the rest of New England, and in all of Canada.

    The few comments (not here at PPD but in a few other places this has gotten around) that Tim Hortons is a U.S. firm (true, but not for long or much longer) or part of Wendy’s (no longer true) seem to suggest that it’s unreasonable to hold them to implied Canadian cultural standards, particularly any explicit antidiscrimination policies or practices regarding gays. But in fact, Tim Hortons not only explicitly guarantees such policies right now, they also did when they were part of Wendy’s, who also have this explicit guarantee (including in the associated Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption — a provision which makes them more progressive and open-minded than pretty much all Catholic adoption charities).

    In short: Tim Hortons promises to treat all employees and customers equally. So should we interpret this sponsorship as a signal that they don’t want us as customers?

  37. You should also note that Blount Fine Foods sells its soups and chowders under the names of some of our local favorites, including Legal Sea Foods and Panera Bread. I’ve written to corporates of those companies to find out if they share the mindset of Blount.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Providence Daily Dose