Each year for the last six, gay advocacy group Out Leadership has produced an index gauging the business climate for gay and transgender people state by state, mapping out where they can live and work with the least discrimination and hardship.
Last year as anti-LGBTQ+ bills swarmed statehouses across the country, the average score for all 50 states dropped for the first time.
New York was the highest-ranking state in LGBTQ+ equality for the fourth year in a row, scoring 93.67 out of a possible 100 points. Arkansas was the lowest-ranking state for the second straight year, scoring an all-time low of 27 points.
2024 alone, over 500 anti-LGBTQ laws were introduced in state legislatures across the nation. Even more alarmingly, for the second year in a row, the Out Leadership State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index has found that the political, social, and economic standing of LGBTQ+ Americans has declined.
The changes in this year’s Index reflect prevailing trends in American politics and culture. As we enter an election year, the political and cultural environment in the United States has become increasingly polarized with LGBTQ+-friendly states becoming increasingly inclusive while the worst states for equality become evermore hostile to equality and freedom.
Now, more than ever, businesses need to leverage their economic power to propel LGBTQ+ equality forward in the states in which they conduct business. In doing so, businesses will simultaneously benefit from the favorable business conditions created by a free and inclusive economy.
Launch Video
Six years ago, Out Leadership launched its first State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index in the US. This index provides leaders with a roadmap to better understand the many challenges still facing LGBTQ+ Americans. In 2024 alone, over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ laws were introduced nationwide.
Before the State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index, there was no single factual source that served to explain both the issues at hand and their impact. The Index highlights the issues, demonstrates the economic cost of discrimination, and, more importantly, highlights the economic opportunity enjoyed by states that are more LGBTQ+ inclusive.
The climate index ranks all 50 US states across 5 key categories, and measures them in every US state. The categories are:
Legal and Nondiscrimination Protections
Youth and Family Support
Political and Religious Attitudes
Health Access and Safety
Work Environment and Employment
Each section totaled 20 points and accounted for 1/5 of the Index total.
Our scoring process is transparent and meaningful. All the data used in the study is publicly available and objective. We are grateful to our key partners: the Movement Advancement Project and the Williams Institute who graciously shared this data.
The administration of President Joe Biden is urging tech and financial industries to help stop the spread of abusive, AI-generated “deepfake” sexual images used to harass real-life school kids and educators — particularly girls, women, and gay kids in schools. These images can ruin their lives, the Biden Administration says, but current school policies and laws don’t provide consistent ways to prevent their dissemination.
“As generative [artificial intelligence] broke on the scene, everyone was speculating about where the first real harms would come. And I think we have the answer,” said Biden’s chief science adviser Arati Prabhakar, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, according to Fortune. “If you’re a teenage girl, if you’re a gay kid, these are problems that people are experiencing right now.”
Sexual deepfakes place an individual’s face onto a naked body or a sexually explicit scene. These images are then distributed to students online as a way to humiliate and harass others in schools.
“[Creating sexual deepfakes] used to take roughly between 100-200 photos of the victim’s face; you had to have a high-powered computer; you had to have a good amount of technical ability and skill,” said Omny Miranda Martone, chief of the Virginia-based nonprofit Sexual Violence Prevention Association. “Now … you only need one or two photos.”
The Biden Administration will release a document on Thursday asking AI developers, online payment processors, financial institutions, cloud computing providers, search engines, and Apple and Google to restrict applications that help generate and distribute sexually explicit deepfakes for profit, Politicoreported.
The administration has already gotten voluntary promises from Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and other major tech companies to help minimize any harm caused by new AI systems before they’re publicly released. However, those commitments “[don’t] change the underlying need for Congress to take action here,” said Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council.
Current laws criminalize the production and possession of sexual images of children, even if the images have been entirely fabricated by AI image-generators. In fact, 20 states have already criminalized the dissemination of nonconsensual AI-generated pornographic images. Some states also have laws forbidding the distribution of “revenge porn” (that is, sexually explicit images released without the photographed individual’s consent). But, it can be difficult to identify the individuals and companies behind the online, fly-by-night AI image-generating tools that make it easy to spread sexual deepfakes.
Worse yet, no federal laws or guidelines tell school administrators how to respond when such images appear in educational environments, causing the consequences (or lack thereof) to vary wildly depending on where such incidents arise.
Schools can investigate such deepfakes as a violation of Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in schools, according to Esther Warkov, executive director and co-founder of the nonprofit Stop Sexual Assault in Schools. In new Title IX rules released by the Biden Administration earlier this year, online sex-based harassment includes “nonconsensual distribution of intimate images that have been altered or generated by AI technologies.” The rules also require schools to address online and off-campus actions that create a hostile learning environment.
“This points to a larger need, which is to ensure that [a school district’s] Title IX procedures are properly in place,” Warkov told Politico. “Many school districts may not identify this problem as a potential Title IX issue.”
Without a federal law or guidelines, it’s unclear who gets disciplined, how minors get treated, and who must report such images to the police, especially since some school districts don’t require employees to report such images to legal authorities at all. The patchwork of existing policies and statewide laws can leave victims feeling unprotected.
“We’re pushing lawmakers to update [laws] because most protections were written way before AI-generated media,” Ronn Nozoe, CEO of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, said, according to Politico. “We’re also calling on the Department of Education to develop guidance to help schools navigate these situations.”
Earlier this month, the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse released a report explaining prevention, support, and accountability efforts for government agencies combating these images. The report said that the Department of Education will soon issue “resources, model policies, and best practices” for preventing online harassment in schools.
The White House also issued a “call to action” this week, urging Congress to pass legislation providing legal recourse for survivors. In the meanwhile, a bipartisan group of congressional legislators is scrambling to tackle the issue.
Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) has drafted the DEFIANCE Act, an amendment to the Violence Against Women Act that would give victims of sexual deepfakes the right to sue creators, solicitors, possessors, and distributors of the images for $150,000 in damages and legal fees if the perpetrators “knew or recklessly disregarded” the victims’ non-consensuality before disseminating the images.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) also recently introduced legislation to fine perpetrators $500,000 for disseminating such images. However, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who is herself a victim of deepfake porn and a supporter of the DEFIANCE Act, has said that some legislators are reluctant to pursue any such legislation for fear that it could infringe on free speech rights or the operation of larger tech companies.
“Going really big, really fast, with something regulatory in an emerging industry space — that can oftentimes run into its challenges,” she said. “Centering the bill on survivors’ rights — particularly the right of action — helps us dodge some of those larger questions in the short term and build a coalition in the immediate term.”
Those were just some of the flash points in last year’s Pride merch madness that tested consumer brands’ relationships with the LGBTQ+ community.
After all the boycotts and right-wing outrage, where do companies stand when it comes to this year’s Pride merch offerings and allyship?
Pretty much where they’ve always been, according to a new survey.
Data from corporate executives and Fortune 500 leaders gathered by Gravity Research and reported by PR Daily indicates that 78% of companies are not planning any change in their Pride strategy in 2024. Thirteen percent were unsure, while 9% said changes are in the works.
When it comes to consumer goods, though, 30% said they’re reevaluating their approach to Pride.
One of those is Target, which bore the brunt of last year’s far-right rainbow backlash.
While the retail giant says they’re “committed to supporting the LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month and year-round,” they’re slashing Pride-themed merch from at least half of their nearly 2000 stores. They’ll continue to have a presence at Pride events around the U.S., the company told LGBTQ Nation.
A collection of Pride products, including adult apparel, home products, food, and beverages, will be available in select stores and on Target’s website, they said, and “we will have internal programs to celebrate Pride 2024.”
That retreat contrasts with other brands with a long history of LGBTQ+ community engagement.
Hyatt describes their longstanding commitment to Pride and the LGBTQ+ community as “the right thing to do.”
“We also recognize it as our responsibility to create inclusive environments for our colleagues, guests, and customers feel a sense of belonging,” Jonathan Pinkerton, senior social media manager for Hyatt and chair of employee resource group HyPride LGBTQ+ Network, added.
“I’m very optimistic about Pride this year,” said Gerry Rodriguez, senior vice president of brand purpose at Edelman. “What we’re seeing is kind of a trend towards more engagement, more visibility, more authentic engagement and visibility.”
Rodriguez points out it’s good business, too, based on the demographics.
7.6% of the U.S. population identifies as LGBTQ+, according to Gallup, and that number rises the younger consumers are. More than one in give members of Gen Z identify as LGBTQ+, along with nearly 10% of Millennials.
“What does that mean for your future consumer, your future workforce?” Rodriguez asked. “If you’re thinking ahead, those things should be part of the equation.”
Hyatt’s Pinkerton pointed out data from Booking.com that shows 69% of LGBTQ+ travelers say they choose airlines and other brands that practice inclusion.
“So not only is it the right decision, data shows that when you offer a place of acceptance and celebration, people will spend more,” Pinkerton said.
“If there are lessons to be learned from last year, it’s ‘what are your values?’ And how are you standing in your values to authentically engage?” Rodriguez at Edelman asked.
“Clients that I’m working with a lot, they’re focusing on local and making sure that their employees feel seen and heard. They’re showing up where they’ve shown before and understanding that allyship is more than just reading the chapter saying the words and changing your logo to a rainbow.”
Target Corp. won’t sell LGBTQ-themed merchandise in some stores during Pride Month in June, after a backlash dented revenue last year. Target faced threats from some customers last year over its Pride merchandise.
The Minneapolis-based retailer plans to offer the full assortment online but is considering store-level data to decide which physical locations will carry the products, people familiar with the matter said, declining to be identified discussing private information.
Target is likely to stock the products in about half of its nearly 2,000 stores in the US, the people said. The company has typically sold the Pride assortment in all of its stores in recent years.
While the ad is comical, online dating apps continue to provide an uneven experience for trans, nonbinary, and genderfluid users. Most dating websites and smartphone apps didn’t initially offer gender descriptions for these users to authentically present themselves to others. Even with expanded gender presentation options, non-cisgender users say that ignorance and transphobia continue to make online dating feel unsafe.
A brief (incomplete) history of LGBTQ+ online dating
The earliest days of LGBTQ+ online dating harken back to the late 80s and early 90s, when gay men used dial-up modems to connect through bulletin board systems (BBSs) like Backroom and Gay.net. Back then, some lesbians also used an e-mail listserv called Sappho and, later, the website lesbian.org, which contained personals, discussion forums, web links for lesbian-oriented non-profits, and even a lesbian literary journal called Sapphic Ink.
In the early to late 90s, web services like Compuserve and America Online (AOL) provided real-time M4M, W4W, and “transexual” chatrooms where queer love-seekers could connect, talk dirty, and spend hours uploading and downloading pixelated photographs of themselves via very-slow internet connections.
“I think LGBTQ+ people were always really early adopters to online dating,” Michael Kaye, the one-time director of brand marketing and communications for OkCupid told QSaltLake. “Speaking from experience, we are limited to the safe spaces that we have available.”
In the 2000s, some popular heterosexual dating sites like eHarmony didn’t allow gay and lesbian profiles, leaving queer users to look elsewhere like OkCupid, a personal ad site for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and cis-het people that appeared in 2004. OkCupid helped facilitate LGB dating by including a unique feature: It let users choose only to be visible to other queer folks, reducing the likelihood that gay men or lesbian women would receive messages from a bunch of eager and unwitting heterosexuals.
However, the biggest revolution in online dating occurred in 2009 with the advent of Grindr, one of the first third-party apps for Apple’s iPhone. While the app — and similar ones — facilitated countless quick hook-ups and longer-term relationships, the apps weren’t initially inclusive of trans, nonbinary, and gender-fluid users because they offered a limited range of self-identifying gender options and transphobic responses from other cisgender users.
Over time, trans-inclusive apps like Tser appeared. Tser specifically marketed itself as a place where trans people could find community and support, but trans users found that the app still contained transphobia: It categorized cis individuals as “men” and “women,” invalidating trans women and trans men as not “real” women and men. It also used the outdated term “transsexual.”
Expanding gender options is a good start, but not enough
In 2016, Tindr offered users the option of entering any term that best describes their gender identity for display on their profiles. Grindr and Hinge took similar paths by offering more gender description options — like “trans man,” “trans woman,” “non-binary,” “non-conforming” and “queer” — in 2017.
In 2023, eHarmony also began offering an expanded list of genders — including options like “agender,” “bigender,” “genderqueer,” “pangender,” “questioning,” “trans masculine/feminine nonbinary,” and “Two-Spirit.”
The app Bumble also expanded its options to be more inclusive of nonbinary users in 2022, but the app’s “women make the first move” feature — which was created to reduce creepy unwanted advances from men — didn’t allow nonbinary people to message others who identified as women.
“I applaud them for trying to be inclusive, but they’re just completely missing the point,” one user named Kay told NBC News. “I get that their whole shtick is women message first. But if that’s the case, don’t add the gender-inclusive options if you’re going to make nonbinary people feel like they are being squished into a woman or man category.”
Non-cisgender users of Tinder and Hinge also had another issue: after self-identifying as their preferred gender description, the sites would then reductively ask if they’d like to be paired with people who were looking for “men” or women,” the independent cultural site The Skinny reported.
Other users expressed frustration that dating sites often group people by gender rather than by sexuality, making it impossible for searchers to filter out heterosexual users. Others found that, even when apps and sites had inclusive gender options, they had very few non-cisgender users, making the dating “community” feel isolating.
Taking a stand against transphobia
In 2015, when the women’s dating app HER launched, founder Robyn Exton said, “All of the online platforms for women [before 2015] were just reskins of sites built for gay men but turned pink, asking you how much body hair you had, or straight sites that were filled with guys asking you [to have a three-way]. It felt crazy to me, at the time, that no one had truly made a dating product for women.”
HER eventually branded itself as a community and dating app for the FLINTA [female, lesbian, intersex, trans, and agender] community. In 2023, it used Lesbian Visibility Day to send out an announcement to all users reiterating its “no TERFs” policy against transphobes, something it felt was particularly important considering the rise of right-wing anti-trans laws and rhetoric.
“[Trans-exclusionary radical feminists’] harmful and transphobic mentality negates the experiences and identities of our trans and gender non-conforming community, fosters their marginalization, and contributes to discrimination and [harm],” the announcement declared. “Besides being sad, hateful clowns who spew out a lot of misinformation, TERFs are also a genuine threat to the LGBTQIA+ community. And that’s just not going to fly here.”
Despite the announcement, HER still found that its trans, nonbinary, and genderfluid users still faced challenges when using the app, including people expressing trans-exclusionary preferences, misgendering, invasive questions, different forms of fetishization, ignorance about the trans experience, and even other users maliciously reporting their profiles as somehow violating the app’s user policies.
Apps like Grindr, Scruff, and OkCupid have since expanded by allowing users to express the range of genders they’re attracted to, making their profiles easier for non-cis users to find.
Two other platforms, Taimi and Lex, take different approaches by centering non-cis users and not focusing solely on gender as a way of matching users. Taimi lets users say whether they’re looking for trans, intersex, or nonbinary users. Lex is a text-based app that’s primarily for “womxn, trans, genderqueer, intersex, two-spirit and non-binary ppl” where users can describe what kind of people and social interactions they’re craving.
As HER and other dating website and apps figure out how to be more welcoming for non-cis users, HER’s non-cis users said the app would feel safer if it provided more education about trans experiences, better profile filtering, more ways to self-identify one’s gender, better account verification methods, and better safety protocols to prevent and penalize transphobia.
“Even in spaces built for all queer folks, there is much work to be done,” Exton wrote.
Gay dating app Grindr is facing a mass data protection lawsuit in London from hundreds of users who allegedly had their private information, including HIV status, shared with third parties without consent, a law firm said on Monday.
Austen Hayes, which said the lawsuit is being filed at London’s High Court, said thousands of Grindr users in the United Kingdom may have been affected.
The firm alleges users’ highly sensitive information, including HIV status and the date of their latest HIV test, were provided to third parties for commercial purposes.
Grindr said in a statement provided to the Guardian that it planned to “respond vigorously to this claim, which appears to be based on a mischaracterisation of practices from more than four years ago”.
Austen Hayes said around 670 people had signed up to the lawsuit over breaches said to have taken place between 2018 and 2020, with potentially thousands more joining the case.
Austen Hays’ Managing Director Chaya Hanoomanjee said in a statement: “Grindr owes it to the LGBTQ+ community it serves to compensate those whose data has been compromised and have suffered distress as a result, and to ensure all its users are safe while using the app, wherever they are, without fear that their data might be shared with third parties.”
Grindr did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Guardian reported a Grindr spokesperson as stating: “We are committed to protecting our users data and complying with all applicable data privacy regulations, including in the UK.
“We are proud of our global privacy program and take privacy extremely seriously.”
Over a dozen Planet Fitness locations have been hit with bomb threats after the fitness chain reaffirmed its commitment to trans inclusion last month.
The gym franchise, which is primarily based in North America, has been the victim of at least 17 bomb hoaxes after it became the subject of right-wing backlash last month.
Planet Fitness found itself in the headlines in early March after the notorious anti-LGBTQ+ social media account, Libs of TikTok, shared a video of a customer complaining that a trans woman was using the women’s bathroom.
The customer then shared an email exchange with Planet Fitness regarding the complaint, which took place at a Wisconsin location, in which the company reaffirmed its commitment to inclusion.
The policy, which was shared with the customer, reads: “All members, including transgender members, may use Planet Fitness locker room facilities and programs based on their self-reported gender identity.
“These facilities include bathrooms, showers, and all other facilities separated by sex,” the policy continues. “Wherever possible, Planet Fitness clubs should maintain private changing areas in each locker room for the comfort of all members.”
The controversy has done little to stifle Planet Fitness’ value. (Getty)
Right-wing pundits called for a boycott against the chain after the Libs of TikTok post went viral, causing the company’s stock value to dip.
Various locations across North America have since received hoax bomb threats: At least four locations in Rhode Island, four in Mississippi, six in Michigan and several in Connecticut have been targeted.
The most recent set of threats occurred in Alabama after a string of chains were evacuated on Saturday (6 April) according to the FBI.
Fairhope Police shared in a statement that a threat was emailed to a news outlettargeting multiple locations, including two locations in Daphne and Mobile, Alabama.
Planet Fitness is still financially stable despite backlash, experts say
In a statement, Planet Fitness reiterated its commitment to an inclusive policy, telling staff to “address discomfort” and “foster a climate of understanding.”
It also clarified that the membership of the customer who shared the video was terminated for “taking photos of individuals in the locker room.”
Financial experts have estimated that the fallout from the controversy has not been enough to significantly affect the company as it continues to grow in value.
Stifel analyst, Chris O’Cull, told Athletech News that the dip was unlikely to disrupt Planet Fitness’ growing value, saying that “social media comments have a short shelf life.”
“Having positive earned media highlighting the brand’s ‘judgement free’ positioning can prevent search results with a shorter shelf life from continuing to impact the brand’s reputation.”
Popular outdoor clothing brand The North Face is the latest brand to face boycott calls – in this case, over its long-established sponsorship LGBTQ+ summer camps.
Brave Trials is a leadership summer camp, located in California and Maryland, for LGBTQ+ youth and allies between the ages of 12-18. Its focus is on helping “LGBTQ+ youth find what they need most to thrive: their people, their place, and their passion,” according to its website.
The California and New York-based Camp Brave Trials – which have caused outrage among conservatives – are designed for for LGBTQ+ teenagers aged 12-17, and aim help teens improve their leadership.
On its website, the organisation shares that the goal of the camps is to “foster a supportive space where LGBTQ youth can connect with like-minded individuals, explore their identities, and pursue their passions.”
Responding to a 2021 tweet by The North Face, which announced the brand had donated more than $70,000 to the non-profit, controversial anti-trans organisation Gays Against Groomers stirred outrage, causing conservatives, once again, to unite in calls for a boycott.
In the tweet, the organisation described the camp as a place where “kids as young as 12” go to “perform in drag”.
The group then called for the brand to be boycotted – much like conservatives did with beer brand Bud Light, after it worked with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney last year in a sponsored Instagram post.
Brave Trials posted an announcement in 2022 that explained that its partnerships with brands such as The North Face, Brooks Sports, TOMS, and others, raised more than $100,000 (£79,063) to aid its summer camps.
A Christian father reposted news of the partnership and wrote: “No more @thenorthface for our family.
“This is wrong. All North Face going to give away today. We need to stand up to this nonsense, not condone it, and not become numb to it’s constant attack on the future of our country.”
Others simply posted calls to “boycott The North Face”.
Backlash to LGBTQ+ inclusivity saw countless brands face boycott calls in 2023, with Target, Bud Light and Build-A-Bear, being just a few that faced the wrath of the far-right.
PinkNews has contacted The North Face and Brave Trials for comment.
Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads — has failed to enforce its own policies against anti-transgender hate posts, including posts made by high-profile political influencers and media outlets, according to a newly released report from the LGBTQ+ media advocacy group GLAAD.
GLAAD cataloged numerous posts referring to trans individuals as the slur “tr***y” as well as “mentally ill,” “satanic,” “sexual predators,” pedophiles,” “terrorists,” and “perverts,” The Washington Post reported. One illustrated image showed a group of people stoning a trans-identified person to death; another showed a masked person holding a gun standing on top of a demon painted in the colors of the transgender flag.
Other cataloged posts said that trans people seek to “sexualize, sterilize, and butcher children.” Others misgendered trans celebrities, mocked trans suicide victims, suggested violence against medical professionals offering gender-affirming care, promoted conversion therapy, and called for the “eradication” of trans people.
The posts were made by accounts associated with the right-wing publication The Daily Wire, Gays Against Groomers, Chaya Raichik’s Libs of TikTok, The Babylon Bee, and One Million Moms.
The posts violate Meta’s stated policies against anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech and “dehumanizing speech” that conveys a protected group’s “inferiority,” “subhumanity,” an intent to bully or harass such groups, and statements that a protected group shouldn’t exist.
In a June 2023 open letter facilitated by GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, over 250 LGBTQ+ celebrities, public figures and allies asked Meta and other social media companies to do more to fight the massive wave of anti-transgender hate on their platforms. The letter was signed by such queer and allied celebrities as Elliot Page, Laverne Cox, Jamie Lee Curtis, Janelle Monáe, Gabrielle Union, Judd Apatow, Ariana Grande, and Jonathan Van Ness.
However, the recent report states that Meta hasn’t done nearly enough to fight the tide. In September 2023, Facebook’s own Oversight Board wrote, “The fundamental issue in this case is not with the policies, but their enforcement. Meta’s repeated failure to take the correct enforcement action, despite multiple signals about … harmful content, leads the Board to conclude the company is not living up to the ideals it has articulated on LGBTQIA+ safety.”
In its statement about its recent report, GLAAD wrote, “Meta itself acknowledges in its public statements and in its own policies that hate speech ‘creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion, and in some cases may promote offline violence.’ Such acknowledgements of its own culpability make Meta’s negligence and refusal to protect people from such hate… all the more shocking.”
Additionally, some LGBTQ+ content creators on Meta have accused the company of limiting their post’s reach because of Meta’s new restrictions on political content, including content involving politicians and queer social issues.
“As the trillion-dollar company’s revenues soar, Meta continues to lay off critical trust and safety teams and increasingly relies on ineffectiveAI systems for content moderation,” GLAAD wrote in its report. “Meta’s enforcement failures have prompted repeatedrebukes and concern from the Oversight Board (the independent body that makes non-binding but precedent-setting content moderation rulings on Meta’s platforms). As Axios and The Verge have documented, some users find that their reports on harmful content are not reviewed at all.”
Best Buy offered to screen donations from its employee resource groups going to LGBTQ causes following pressure from a conservative think tank that holds shares in the company, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing made public this week.
The SEC filing contains a monthslong email exchange between the National Center for Public Policy Research, which describes itself as a “nonpartisan, free-market conservative think tank,” and Best Buy. The dialogue, which hasn’t been previously reported, shows how the center said it would make “a splash” unless the consumer electronics giant moved in favor of its demands.
In some of the last correspondence in the filing, Best Buy noted that it allows its employee resource groups “some discretion to directly support organizations of their choosing” but added that “any such contributions would be screened to ensure they do not advocate or support the causes or agendas you have identified as concerning.” One of the causes the NCPPR cited was transgender care for minors, which the group falsely described as an attempt to “mutilate the reproductive organs of children.”
When asked for a request for comment regarding the filing, Carly Charlson, a spokesperson for Best Buy, stated in an email: “At Best Buy, we strongly believe in an inclusive work environment with a culture of belonging where everyone feels valued and has the opportunity to thrive. This commitment is evident through our longstanding and continuing support of organizations like HRC, which has recognized us as one of the best places to work for the LGBTQIA+ community for the past 18 years.”
She then sent a followup email adding, “Nothing has changed in the ways we give to LGBTQIA+ organizations.”
In HRC, Charlson was referring to the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ-rights group.
“The news of this SEC filing is very concerning, and we are working in partnership with Best Buy to understand more,” Eric Bloem, HRC’s vice president of programs and corporate advocacy, said in a statement Friday afternoon. “Any company that uses their Corporate Equality Index distinction as cover while working with fringe groups and bad actors does not reflect true LGBTQ+ allyship in the corporate space.”
The communication in the SEC filing began on Dec. 11, when the NCPPR sent Best Buy a shareholder proposal asking the retailer to produce by June — and distribute at Best Buy’s annual shareholder meeting that month — a report for investors analyzing how its partnerships with LGBTQ nonprofits are benefitting the company’s business.
“Best Buy has partnerships with and contributes to organizations and activists that promote the practice of gender transition surgeries on minors and evangelize gender theory to minors. Why are Best Buy shareholders funding the proliferation of an ideology seeking to mutilate the reproductive organs of children before they finish puberty?” the proposal, signed by Ethan Peck, an associate at the NCPPR’s Free Enterprise Institute, states. “This contentious and vast disagreement between radical gender theory activists and the general public has nothing to do with Best Buy selling electronics.”
In an email dated Jan. 17, Peck told Best Buy’s attorneys that his organization “will withdraw its proposal if Best Buy were to end its partnerships with and contributions to” eight different LGBTQ nonprofits and initiatives, which he refers to as “predatory butchers” in his email. These groups include The Trevor Project, an LGBTQ youth suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization; SAGE, which advocates on behalf of LGBTQ elders; and GLAAD, an LGBTQ media advocacy group.
Peck did, however, leave the Human Rights Campaign off this list, stating in his email that “we understand that it’s unrealistic for Best Buy to leave HRC in the near future because of their political clout.”
“We hope you take this off-ramp for the sake of shareholders,” Peck wrote in the Jan. 17 email. “Were Best Buy to agree to such a compromise with us, we will not make a splash about it.”
In a Feb. 5 email, Marina Rizzo, a Best Buy attorney, told Peck that the company had reviewed his organization’s concerns and informed him that the company hadn’t donated in several years to two of the LGBTQ causes mentioned in the Jan. 17 email — the Trevor Project and Our Gay History in 50 States — and has never donated to the other six. She then says the company would screen certain donations the NCPPR may find concerning.
“As discussed during our call, we do allow our individual employee organizations, including our Military ERG, Conservative employee interest group, and our PRIDE group, among many other groups, some discretion to directly support organizations of their choosing,” Rizzo wrote. “That said, any such contributions would be screened to ensure they do not advocate or support the causes or agendas you have identified as concerning. We hope this addresses the concerns.”(In a letter included in the SEC filing, Best Buy notes that its employee resource groups “are provided with their own funding and have the capability to identify sponsorships to receive that funding, subject to internal guidelines and Company oversight.”)
Later that day, Peck thanked Rizzo in an email “for looking into this” and added, “we’re definitely delighted to hear all that.” He then raised several follow-up questions, including why a page on the Best Buy website still indicates the company supports the Trevor Project and a book titled “Our Gay History in 50 States.”
“We’re going to need some kind of proof that that funding has ended,” Peck wrote.
In an email on Feb. 9, Rizzo informed Peck that Best Buy would submit a letter to the SEC that afternoon asking that the regulator not take any action against the company for omitting NCPPR’s proposal from shareholder materials. She also told him that the letter is a “standard part of the proposal process, and we intend to continue our dialogue.” She ended the email by writing, “We remain ready to reach an understanding in conjunction with the withdrawal agreement you initially outlined.”
No additional email correspondence is included in the SEC filing after Feb. 9, and it’s unclear whether an agreement between Best Buy and NCPPR was ever reached. On March 22, NCPPR withdrew its Dec. 11 shareholder proposal. Then, on Tuesday of this week, Best Buy pulled its Feb. 9 “no action” requestfrom the SEC, and the agency sent a letter on Wednesday confirming the matter was moot. This, in turn, ensures NCPPR’s shareholder proposal regarding LGBTQ donations will not be presented at Best Buy’s annual shareholder meeting in June.
In response to NBC News’ request for comment, Peck declined to share any specifics regarding his communication with Best Buy, stating, “We don’t discuss confidential discussions.” He did, however, confirm that his organization has sent similar proposals to other public companies, though he did not name them.
When asked why he chose the eight LGBTQ causes mentioned in the Best Buy SEC filing, he wrote, “We used those groups as examples of groups that have adopted radical and divisive positions on LGBTQ issues, but we recognize that many more such groups exist.”
The exchange between Best Buy and the NCPPR comes as many large companies face renewed pressure from conservatives to curb their public support for the LGBTQ community.
Major consumer brands, includingBud Light and Target, have faced heated criticism from conservative activists, prompting a rollback of LGBTQ-focused marketing campaigns and products as well as calls for boycotts. In Bud Light’s case, sales declined and shares of its parent company, Anheuser-Busch Inbev, tumbled in the months following the beer brand’s partnership with transgender influencerDylan Mulvaney on April 1 of last year, though the stock has since rebounded.
In an email on Friday, GLAAD, one of the LGBTQ nonprofits mentioned in the SEC filing, expressed its displeasure with Best Buy.
“Executives at Best Buy ought to be ashamed of how they turned their backs on their LGBTQ and ally employees and consumers,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said. “They know what they did was wrong, or they would not have tried to hide this cowardly, toxic corporate takeover inside an ordinary SEC filing.”
