Thomson Reuters, a company that provides business data, is the latest company to come out against Minnesota’s proposed marriage inequality amendment. The company emailed the following statement to its employees today:

As we’ve heard from employees, recruiters and customers, one thing has been very clear: we’re a better place when we have a rich variety of perspectives, talents, backgrounds, lifestyles and experiences in our workplace, and within the broader community from which we recruit. We believe that building a culture that thrives on diversity and inclusion and provides equal opportunities to everyone is a critical factor in our ability to serve our customers and be successful. …We believe the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, if passed, would limit our ability to recruit and retain top talent. For this reason, we do not believe that the Amendment would be good for Thomson Reuters or the business community in the state.

Thomson Reuters is the third Fortune 500 company to oppose the discriminatory measure, joining General Mills and St. Jude Medical.

New Jersey Devil Cam Janssen released a statement today apologizing for the anti-gay language he used on a St. Louis-based internet radio show. When the show’s host asked the hockey forward a homophobic leading question regarding trash-talk, Janssen played along:

JANSSEN: You wanna get in people’s heads to get them off their fucking game and don’t get me wrong, you don’t wanna go too deep with shit because we all have our issues here. Let’s be honest.

HOST: But if the guy was sucking cock 4 weeks ago, you’re gonna let him know about it?

JANSSEN: Oh, if he’s sucking cock, he’s getting his ass kicked. [laughter]

Janssen released the apology on the Devils’ website:

I would like to apologize for my poor choice of language. The tone of the interview was very casual and off-color, and I lost focus on what is and is not acceptable and professional. I am deeply sorry to anyone who was offended by my language. Moving forward, I hope to eliminate that type of language from my vocabulary. I would also like to take this chance to express my support for the work the You Can Play project is doing, and for the gay community in general.

Patrick Burke of You Can Play — the NHL’s project to eliminate homophobia — accepted Janssen’s apology. “People unwilling to give Cam a chance to learn from his mistakes are doing no more to support You Can Play than he did in his interview,” Burke tweeted.

And Janssen’s comments should not distract from the amazing work the NHL is doing with the groundbreaking You Can Play Project. With a simple “if you can play, you can play” refrain, the NHL has been the first major American sport to strongly combat longstanding homophobia in American locker rooms. The campaign works by showing hockey stars framing the inclusion of LGBT players and fans with familiar sports aphorisms: unity, teamwork, and respect. Watch it:

– Steven Perlberg

Christian-affiliated Jitters & Bliss coffee recently attempted to profit off of  a partnership with the National Organization for Marriage because of the group’s boycott of Starbucks over its support of marriage equality. J&B would offer a special discount to its customers if they used the code word “marriage” and make donations to NOM in exchange for “free” press. J&B’s Facebook page was overwhelmed with negative comments about the partnership as well as countering pro-equality comments, all of which were deleted and the users blocked from the page. Ultimately, the page was removed from public view entirely for several days.

Jitters & Bliss has restored their page, and in comments on the page made clear that its relationship with NOM is officially over after just one week:

USER: is the hate group NOM still associated with this company?

J&B: No!

USER: So it’s not true that if I enter the promotional code “marriage,” you’ll give money to them? Like they say right here? http://www.nomblog.com/24761/

J&B: That is correct! Our customers will receive the discount until the end of July, but no money goes to NOM after July 9th. Our true intention is to sell great coffee. Period! Jitters & Bliss remains neutral, respectiving everyone. However, we are a Christian based company who will adhere to Christian business principles. We love everyone. [...]

USER: is there a pro equality code I can use to order coffee from you?

J&B: we are no longer connected to NOM. I do not care for SBucks for many reasons. I took an opportunity to get some of their business. Being inclusive, and loving everyone, yes, I would make another code. Will you use it?

It’s unclear how the company’s claim of being “inclusive” and “loving everyone” jibes with the “Christian business principles” that prompted the company to partner with NOM in the first place. Still, the failed PR plan shows just how toxic NOM’s anti-gay views are and how dismally unsuccessful their boycott strategy is playing out.

Charles Summers.

Since 2005, the Maine Human Rights Act has legally protected LGBT Mainers from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender expression. This law is so popular in the state that a ballot initiative to repeal them in 2010 failed to receive enough signatures to even merit a vote. But Maine Secretary of State Charlie Summers, the Republican candidate for Senate, appeared to oppose the Maine Human Rights Act in remarks cited by local columnist Chris Busby:

Maria Holt, a former state legislator from Bath who served with Summers in Augusta when the anti-discrimination measure was being debated, was on the phone. “But, my dear old friend, if your private life keeps you from getting a rental …”

Summers cut her off. “Well, I certainly know what you’re talking about,” he said. (He does?) He then listed several business groups — including the Maine Chamber of Commerce, the Maine Innkeepers Association and the Maine Restaurant Association — that “do not support that type of discrimination.”

“I think that that is their choice and they’re doing it on their own volition,” Summers told Holt. “That is really the difference in the approach between you and I.”

Summers’ campaign failed to respond to repeated requests for clarification from ThinkProgress. This may be because Summers’ position is not only unpopular even among Republicans, but also indefensible: discrimination against LGBT workers is widespread, devastating for its victims, and bad for business. Summers’ position – that employers should simply choose not to discriminate – flies in the face of the fact that they, quite simply, do. “Voluntary” non-discrimination is really no protection against discrimination at all, a fact that Mainers have recognized for quite some time.

The extreme position embraced by the Summers campaign may be a Hail Mary pass for outside support. Summers trails independent Angus King by about 28 points, but has declared his intention to narrow the gap through a punishingly negative campaign. The only outside PAC support Summers has received so far has been from Senator John Cornyn’s leadership PAC, who has a track record of playing politics with LGBT rights.

Maine will also be holding the first-ever referendum to legalize marriage equality in the fall, which has solid support from the state’s voters. Summers, however, has used his role of Secretary of State to confuse the ballot initiative. Summers’ position is consistent with the extreme views of the governor, Governor Paul LePage, who wants to “reform” the Maine Human Rights Act and once said “there is no place for transgendered students in the state’s primary schools.”

Way back in August of 2011, the American Psychological Association unanimously approved a resolution in favor of marriage equality. Now, eleven months later, Maggie Gallagher’s Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (IMAPP) has released a critique, challenging all of the claims made in the resolution about gay people, their relationships, and their ability to parent. Rather than offer any compelling evidence that runs contrary to the APA resolution, IMAPP took eleven months to essentially argue that it’s merely not convinced by the evidence cited. Here are a few of the claims IMAPP simply refuses to accept:

• People who are gay are normal and healthy and can have satisfying relationships and raise well-adjusted children.
• Campaigns to deny same-sex couples rights cause them stress and negatively impact their psychological well-being.
• Same-sex couples are similar to opposite-sex couples.
• Equality improves same-sex couples’ psychological well-being.

There are two obvious flaws that make IMAPP’s critique irrelevant. First of all, IMAPP abandoned any sense of objectivity by only looking for opportunities to challenge the APA’s claims. There is plenty of additional supporting research not cited in APA’s resolution that IMAPP simply treated as non-existent, instead focusing only on weaknesses it could find in the few citations APA did provide. For example, the APA only cited three reference for its claim that anti-equality campaigns stigmatize gays and lesbians, the most recent of which was from 2006. But there is well over a decade of studies that reinforce this claim, such as the vast amount of research on this very question conducted by Dr. Glenda Russell.

Secondly, IMAPP abused what is actually good scientific rigor in the cited studies. When scientists conduct research, they take responsibility for identifying the limitations of each study, pointing out to what extent the conclusions can be fairly generalized and suggesting future areas of study. IMAPP pounced on these limitations in an attempt to demonstrate that the studies’ conclusions were somehow faulty or inapplicable, a tactic that abridges the integrity of what each study actually found. It actually raises the question of whether there is any collection of studies that could ever convince IMAPP to support marriage equality, and the answer is probably no, because IMAPP was founded upon the very bias of opposing equality. Thus, this oddly delayed and whiny rebuke should be seen only in the shallow intellectual format in which it was presented.

Just to drive home how disconnected from reality IMAPP’s positions are, consider this excerpt from its critique:

Overall the APA cites virtually no research suggesting that gay marriage provides any additional long-term benefits for gay couples in terms of their relationships, or social stigma. Nor does the APA take cognizance of the gay people who have opposed same-sex marriage, or in fact prefer civil unions. We do not know how many gay people take these views, but they appear with enough frequency in academic and popular press that a broad-brush assessment that gay people find the absence of gay marriage or the presence of civil unions uniformly stigmatizing appears hard to justify.

This, from one of many conservative groups committed to “strengthening marriage,” advocating for covenant marriage, and reducing the divorce rate. According to Gallagher and IMAPP, opposite-sex couples can benefit incredibly from having long-lasting committed marriage, but same-sex couples wouldn’t benefit at all. Clearly, IMAPP has nothing substantive to offer except a narrow-minded bias against the very lives of LGBT people.