Burger King's New Proud Whopper Might Give You Genuine Feelings Along With Your Meat Sweats

true detective /hannibal / dc movies / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel

Burger King's New Proud Whopper Might Give You Genuine Feelings Along With Your Meat Sweats

By Emily Chambers | Miscellaneous | July 3, 2014 | Comments ()


Burger King just released its “Proud Whopper” commercial marking the end of Pride Month, and it surprisingly hits all of the right emotional notes.

Highlights include:

  • a women tearing up at the inclusive message

  • not one, but two endearing children showing us that the future will be a more compassionate place

  • one woman speaking to the importance of even small acts of acceptance

  • faux, second wave hippies carefully deciphering the complicated meaning behind a burger wrapper

  • one sweet looking, mildly amused old guy

    And for the cynics in the audience, yes, this is just a commercial, Burger King could have zero vested interest in any and all social justice movements, and we might be chumps for falling for this. But consider it this way: it has now become more profitable for corporations to actively support gay rights than to not. That’s got to be worth something, right?

    Your Favorite Authors Played Dress-Up, and It Was Spectacular | Will 'Anthony and Opie' Host Be Fired Or Promoted After Racist Twitter Tirade?

  • Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.

    Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not

    • hoIoh

      Imagine the liberal uproar if Chick-fil-A sold a "straight pride Chick-fil-A sandwich".

      Keeping in mind that Chick-fil-A has never had a stance on homosexuality. Yeah, but its owners have liberals would say. Ok, but the latest liberal push is that Hobby Lobby can't have values because they are just a company. Therefore Chick-fil-A can't be held accountable for anything its owners say or do.

      Part of BK's campaign is "We are all the same on the inside". Yet, gays also claim they were "born that way", making homosexuality a genetic difference. So, no, we are not "all the same on the inside", we are genetically different "on the inside".

      Liberals, your hypocrisy is showing again.

      Food for thought.

    • Dave Dorris

      "I love my two mommies!!!"

      Man, I want to hug that little girl.

    • MDH

      dang, was hoping the difference was gay cows were spared the outcome necessary for humans to enjoy their delicious social ("humans only") justice. oh well.

    • "And for the cynics in the audience..." It's always nice to be included.

      And yes, "this is just a commercial, Burger King could have zero vested interest in any and all social justice movements, and we might be chumps for falling for this" was pretty much exactly what I thought the first time I saw the commercial and then again when I read this article.

    • googergieger

      Pshh. This is just a rip off of that time I fucked a burger.

    • e jerry powell

      I would prefer PROUD SALAD, but that's just me.

    • Lord Inferno

      Maybe even a proud tossed salad?

    • e jerry powell

      Well, yes, but I'd have to toss the salad myself...

    • Lord Inferno

      Now that is just talent right there.

    • e jerry powell

      Who said I'd only be tossing my own salads?

    • Rex Crayola

      Burgers are not the best anyway - I guess they are trying to put lipstick on a pig.

    • Rex Crayola

      Glad I don't like their burgers

    • Burger King also sponsored SF's Pride Parade, meaning they did (to some extent) put their money where their mouth is.

      It also does make them a direct opposite to Chick Fil A.

    • foolsage

      At least BK is making an effort to be supportive.

    • I'm genuinely giving them credit for doing more than wrappers and a clever marketing campaign. Putting that together with actually sponsoring Pride means something.

      Chick Fil A was donating money to anti-marriage equality causes, which triggered calls for boycotts along with record numbers of people showing up to support Chick Fil A for being anti-gay.

      BK donated money supporting Pride, now people are calling for boycotts. If people also turn out in big numbers to support BK for being pro-gay, then it's literally the same story happening on the other side.

      I really, really hope that BK's sales spike, more as a message about how many people support equality than anything else. A nice balance to the universe in answer to buying chicken for hate, you know?

    • foolsage

      I realized in retrospect that it sounded as if I was disagreeing with you or chiding you above, because I hadn't upvoted the comment to which I replied. Corrected. :)

      I hope their sales spike too, though I'd feel better about that if their food were healthier. Still, I hope the public supports businesses that take a stand for equality and tolerance.

    • I was afraid I just hadn't made myself very clear. As long as we're all on the same page, right? :)

      Also, I'll admit that I haven't eaten at a BK in years. I haven't been actively avoiding them or anything, they just tend to be located inconveniently and there are other, better options between them and me at nearly all times. I'll have to find the nearest one and stop by soon, though, precisely because I do find it worth supporting a business for taking a stand of that sort.

    • HarleyB

      May I recommend the chicke, apple, cranberry salad...it has bleu cheese as well and comes with a citrus vinigarette....romaine and arugula offset the dreaded iceberg, but its delish!

    • meh

      Ugh, I know that Burger King. It sits on the Pride parade route, but that's probably the best thing about it. I notice that they don't show people having to dodge piles of human feces at the BART station next door, or getting aggressively panhandled.

      It's located at the same place as this news story: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...

      And I'm sorry, but if a burger in a different wrapper makes you cry... I don't want to be your friend. Unless the message is "We're all made of the same shitty material".

    • Jezzer

      It might be over the fact that a major American corporation is standing behind equality for LGBT people, something virtually unheard of in the US, and not so much "a burger in a different wrapper." But, you know, I put a little thought into it and didn't just try to be all internet cool and cynical.

    • HarleyB

      Shame on you (and me) for just seeing the obvious....

    • Danar the Barbarian

      The Gay Whopper is made of Soylent Green?

    • laylaness

      Civic Center, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

      The message is fine, I just hate Burger King. I guess if everyone wants to eat crappy (ahahahaha) burgers, good for them?

    • bastich

      Your move, In-N-Out Burger!

    • HarleyB

      "Our name says it all" ....

    • Stephen Nein

      If only the fries didn't taste like alien replicants of potatoes.

    • Bert_McGurt

      Can't say I ever eat there, but I like their moxie.

    • Dulce et Banana

      I did NOT cry - a little whimper did get out but "C" at the next desk over just thought I'd stubbed my thumb on a drawer.

    • L.O.V.E.

      Burger King: You can have it, you're gay.

    • BlackRabbit

      I'm more concerned about the phrase "Meat Sweats." Also, it looks like they offer rainbow crowns. That is awesome.

    • doctormew19

      Walking in the Parade in NYC you saw a SEA of those crowns, which was impressive.

    • Dulce et Banana

      Let's not forget the image "Burger Kings New Proud Whopper" conjures.

    • BlackRabbit

      Must...resist...."IT'S A TRAP. GET TO THA WHOPPPAH!"

    • Al Borland's Beard

      As fast food competitions go, McDonalds must now one up them by filming a commercial where the Hamburgler is giving it to Grimace.

    • Bert_McGurt

      Did you know that Grimace is supposed to be a taste bud?

    • Emily Smith

      I did not. Does that mean that somewhere in Maccas' merchandise land, there is a GIANT purple tongue? *shudders*

    • Salieri2

      I did NOT know. Jeebus.


    • zyronife

      Ah, so it's to be blowjobs then.

    • BlackRabbit

      ...did they think people's tongues were purple?

    • Bert_McGurt

      Yeah, I mean, I'm colourblind and that still never made sense to me.

    • Please, don't ruin my childhood.

    • Dulce et Banana

      And cheat on Mayor McCheese??? Escandelo!!!

    • BWeaves

      "Do you want to go with meat or without meat, because we can go both ways?"

      That was my favorite line. I'll have to work that sentence into my conversation at least 3 times today.

    • HarleyB

      That was my favorite line too...like it, hate, suspect or not, it was a risk for Burger King. I'm straight and I love it....the message, not the Whopper.

    • I have a friend who works at a hardware store and he loves it when he can sell caulk to customers. "Okay, would you like white caulk or black caulk? How much caulk do you think you'd need? We've got large and small sizes."

    • BlackRabbit

      I'd like to hear how that goes, especially depending on what you do for a living.

    • manting

      he/she is a cop and they love playing games just like in Super Troopers. Actually I never meet any cops like that ever.

    • Mrs. Julien

      RIGHT! (or LEFT!)

    • emmalita

      Do gay people eat fast food? I love that question. I wish the answer was, no, gay people have to much self respect to eat that shit. Sadly, nobody has too much self respect to eat that shit.

      Good for Burger King. Their crappy veggie burger has saved me many times while on cross country driving excursions.

    • Muhnah_Muhnah

      I don't eat fast food, but it's not out of self respect, more because I wasn't exposed to it till I was 16 and by then it was too late. I just don't like grease or fried stuff in general. But bbq a tyre and I'll eat the shit out of it.

    • emmalita

      I know some BBQ places who would happily accommodate you.

    • Drake

      Indeed, it is just a small step up from cardboard, but when you're in the middle of a meat-laden nowhere, it is a lifesaver.

    • emmalita

      And with enough condiments, who can really tell anyway. (I travel with my own sriracha).

    • Mrcreosote

      Also the lines are shorter and less hate filled than at Chick Fil A.

    • olgahmccoin

      until I saw the paycheck which said $8694 , I didn't
      believe that my sister was like trully erning money part time on there
      computar. . there friends cousin had bean doing this for only thirteen months
      and resantly repayed the dept on their home and bought themselves a Infiniti .
      check out the post right here F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

    • e jerry powell

      I wouldn't know about that; I never get out of the car.

    • guyminuslife

      But unfortunately, Chick Fil A still tastes better. Damn. Remember when you could go through a drive-through without first having to take stock on your views on social justice?

    • manting

      I know. Chick Fillet is fucking delicious. Stupid bigots. At least I dont have to go to Hobby Lobby for any reason, I was never big on huffing glue or glitter.

    • hoIoh

      Why are they bigots? One of their owners said he didn't personally support gay marriage. Now a company comes out with a "proud whopper"? How hypocritical is that?

    • manting

      opposing a group of minorities from possessing the same rights you have = bigot.
      Its not that he just said it, its that he donated large sums of money to groups fighting to prevent gay marriage. If I eat at his establishment I am tacitly funding his ability to do so. This sucks because Chick Fillet is delicious.

    • Is there anything stupider than arguing about a fast food place's politics? The only thing less noteworthy than whether or not you eat the stupid toadburgers in the first place is why or why not you do it.

    • Salieri2

      Friend of a friend recently opined that the loathsomeness of a restaurant's political views was proportional to the tastiness of its menu. Chik-Fil-A: tasty. Cracker Barrel: some good options. Burger King: GAAAH.

      Flipside: Papa John's. Or is it the exception that proves the rule?

    • hoIoh

      Think about the liberal hypocrisy going on right now. They claim that Hobby Lobby can't have religious views because they are a company, not a person. Yet, they are boycotting Chick-fil-A because of a statement one of their owners, not the company made. Hypocrites much?

    • manting

      Papa John is the douche bag that proves the rule. His political views are ridiculous and their pizzas are total shit.

    • Rex Crayola

      Matter of opinion.

    • manting

      according to some people so is the age of the earth, climate change, and whether cucumbers taste better pickled. Some things are just facts, like when a guy worth over 600 million complains about giving his underpaid employees healthcare. He bitched that he would have to raise the costs of his "pizzas" 11 cents a piece. A whole 11 cents. To give all his full time employees healthcare. I think his douchebaggery is a fact.

    • Rex Crayola

      Yeah - I wouldn't want to support anyone who actually employs people with a decent wage and treats them like people and not a number. Maybe you do need to sniff some glue.

    • manting

      Yeah I know right? I love it when white christian men tell women what they can do with their bodies while they are paying them a whopping 11$ an hour. As long as they are paying their employees a barely living wage they should be allowed to force their employees to accept their religious beliefs. If they were paying 9$ an hour (actually they pay their stock people 8$ an hour) then it wouldnt be ok, but its that extra 2$ an hour that makes it right.

    • Rex Crayola

      Actually on average they pay their full time employees $14 / hour. And white men aren't telling women what to do. HL has conceptive coverage, they just don't want to pay for abortions - which last time I looked - wasn't a form of "birth control". No one is forcing religious beliefs on anyone.

    • manting

      I.U.D.'s arent abortions. Its birth control. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

    • foolsage

      1) IUDs and Plan B prevent fertilization (i.e. they're forms of birth control); that's not the same as abortion. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics issued a very clear statement that Plan B is not an abortifacient in any sense. The FDA and the European Medicines Agency agreed. But hey, what do all those doctors know about medicine, anyhow?

      2) Hobby Lobby's owners actually ARE forcing their religious beliefs on their employees, by denying them health benefits. Employers have no right to interfere with what employees do when they're not at work, unless it directly affects their job performance. I'm pretty sure a clerk with an IUD can still sell yarn and glitter.

      3) Hobby Lobby is a great example of the worst kind of Christian: the flagrant hypocrite. They buy most of their stuff from China, a country well-known for its human rights abuses, child labor, and abortions. Oh, and of course China also doesn't support religious freedom, something that Hobby Lobby pretends to care about a great deal.


    • hoIoh

      And Burger King is forcing its employees to sell Proud Whoppers. Hypocrites much?

    • foolsage

      The sales of those Whoppers directly pertains to Burger King's core business: selling food to a wide audience. Let's not pretend, please, that whether a clerk has an IUD is directly related to Hobby Lobby's core business, because customers DO NOT KNOW. False analogy, there.

    • Bert_McGurt

      Boom, fact-ed!

    • Mary123s

      well then, the employees can get their health insurance elsewhere... I'm pro choice, but HL does not have to pay insurance...it's their choice, remember?

      The only way you can circumvent this is to have total govt healthcare ie single payer

      and stop hyperventilating.

    • Salieri2

      Or, Hobby Lobby could say no to the large tax break the government gives them for offering health insurance in the first place, not offer health insurance, and pay wages that allow their employees to be able to purchase it on their own. Except that would cost them money.

    • manting

      no they do need to pay for insurance. Its part of the healthcare law. Full time employees get healthcare insurance.

    • hoIoh

      Not for coverage they don't want to pay for. There was a Supreme Court ruling last week that you must have missed, LOL. Suck it, liberals!

    • Jezzer

      We would love to have single payer healthcare.

    • hoIoh

      I love how you have to put this illogical, confusing label of "single payer" on things to cloud what it is: "socialist medical care".

    • Jezzer

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

    • hoIoh

      And that's the problem with the liberal mindset. Socialism is not a "good thing" or a "bad thing".

      It just isn't an "American thing". If you want to live in a socialist country, move to Europe, Russia, China, etc.

    • Rex Crayola

      Speak for yourself.

    • Jezzer

      I think I speak for everyone who thinks basic health shouldn't be a luxury item.

    • hoIoh

      It's not and hasn't been in the US for years and years. Hospitals have been required by federal law to provide all life-saving care regardless of the patients ability to pay.

    • Bert_McGurt

      Look at it another way - what if we were talking about them refusing to pay for someone's Epi-Pen for a shellfish allergy because they don't believe people should be eating shellfish?

      Interesting how they pick and choose which pots to stir...

    • hoIoh

      Whatever the company wants. Shellfish eaters shouldn't work for companies that are anti-shellfish, duh.

      Would you work for the Republican National Convention? No, because you disagree with their views. Why would someone who wants to murder babies work for Hobby Lobby?

    • Rex Crayola

      I wouldn't exactly compare eating shellfish and the question of what is contraception the same thing. I guess there might be religious shellfish eaters.....

    • foolsage

      I'm not hyperventilating in the slightest, but thanks for caring about my health. :)

      Your argument ignores the fact that health insurance is an earned benefit; it's a form of remuneration just like salary. An employer can't tell an employee how to spend their paycheck, so why can they tell an employee how to spend their health insurance? If an employee spends their paycheck on birth control, the company is paying for that no less directly than if that employee's health insurance covered the birth control.

    • hoIoh

      It is only an "earned benefit" if the company chooses to provide it. They do provide health coverage for things they choose. I'm sure they also don't provide coverage for elective plastic surgery and many other things.

      The option you may force them into is to cease providing any coverage because you are trying to force them to provide specific coverage.

    • foolsage

      Explain please the ethical difference between a company paying a salary, with which an employee obtains birth control, and a company providing health benefits, which with an employee obtains birth control.

      Then explain please what ethical right an employer has to decide how an employee acts in things unrelated to their job.

    • hoIoh

      I'll do it with another analogy. Let's say I work for you and you owe me my $4000 paycheck for the month. I ask you to reimburse me with a $1000 AR-15 rifle, $1000 worth of derogatory homophobic posters for me to put up around town, $1000 donation to the Republican party, and $1000s worth of copies of the nasty porno that a family member of yours starred in. You're okay with all of that?

    • foolsage

      Of course not; that's a false analogy once more. The employer has no say in how the remuneration is spent, and should not be involved in any sense. The responsibility for spending remuneration and any legal or ethical issues that arise therefrom are entirely up to the employee. So e.g. an employer is not responsible for an employee buying drugs with their salary.

      I note that you didn't answer either request I made above, but instead responded with a false analogy. Should I take this to mean that you have no answers that you find suitable to either question?

    • hoIoh

      If you can't see that I did answer your question through my not-false analogy, then you are too stupid for me to converse with.

      You, however, did not answer my question of "You're ok with all of that?" which answered your question of that there is an ethical difference between paying an employee money which they are free to use to buy whatever and forcing an employer to purchase things they are morally opposed to (murdering babies in my case and all of the things your liberal masters have told you that you must be opposed to in your case).

      I didn't answer your second question because it is idiotic. How the hell is PAY and BENEFITS for a JOB not related to their JOB??!?!!?

    • foolsage

      I asked two questions. You addressed neither, actually, but feel free to lob multiple insults where you're unable to debate.

      And I did answer your question: "of course not". That's a definitive answer, and should be quite clear. I then went on to explain why I'm not ok with that: employers have no business deciding how an employee's money is spent. They have nothing to do with it.

      Your analogy is both completely unrealistic (as nobody would ever ask that of an employer; if they want those things they can buy them with their wages) and in no way explains what you believe the ethical difference is between paying wages and paying other benefits. As you failed to address the topic, I'll do so: when an employer pays for health care, that employer is not personally going out and paying for each pill an employee receives (as your analogy suggests); there's a health insurance organization acting as middle-man, and there's a doctor involved in the employee's care. The employer has no say over what the doctor prescribes, nor should the employer have any say there. Employers are not parents, and it's not their place or their job to control what employees do outside of work. When an employer provides health insurance, they're agreeing to let another party work with the employee to ensure the employee's health. That's the extent of the employer's involvement.

      More to the point, the employer's money is going to the employee, and the employee then controls and is responsible for how that money is used. Benefits are precisely like wages in this regard.

      Whether a clerk has an IUD has nothing to do with whether she can sell glitter and yarn. Whether an employee buys guns or porn has nothing to do with their job, unless they're buying or using them while at work. My question was far from idiotic, but it seems we're not really communicating well at all. You ignore my valid questions and stoop quickly to insults instead of making an honest attempt.

      I'll counter your false analogy with a real one. Imagine that an employer (who owns, say, a bookstore) pays his employees with coupons redeemable only at a specific supermarket. The employer is Muslim though and feels that alcohol is wrong. Are you seriously suggesting that the employer ought to be able to instruct the supermarket never to sell the employee alcohol, even if the employee is not a Muslim? Even if the employee IS a Muslim, do you really think that's all right? I don't. I think that's preposterous.

      Or here's another real analogy: do you seriously feel that an employer who runs a travel agency ought to be able to deny his employees access to psychiatric care, simply because that employer is a Scientologist?

      I think it's useful to distinguish between religious employment (e.g. being a minister) and employment where the employer happens to be religious. In the former case, there's an expectation that employees will share the belief system of the employer. One can make an argument that some of those employees (e.g. ministers) ought to be restricted to act IN THEIR FREE TIME according to the religious beliefs of the employer. In all other cases, there's no ethical justification for this kind of employer meddling in an employee's life.

      When an employer pays a wage, or pays health benefits, they're giving that money to the employee to use. Once the money leaves the employer's hands, it is no longer the employer's money. The employer no longer has, or should have, any control over what happens with that money. That's basic economics.

      Incidentally, I have no "liberal masters"; I'm a free man and a free thinker, and I don't accept dogma in any form; it seems unlikely that the same is true of you, ironically. I make my own choices and form my own opinions based on evidence. That evidence, in this case, is scientific, and has nothing to do with politics. But, again, your desire to discuss the issue seems to be far less than your desire to attempt to score points with insults. Carry on if it pleases you; I can't say I'm either hurt or impressed by those efforts.

      Also, as I explained above, Plan B is not an abortifacient. It doesn't "murder babies". If you believe otherwise, then what evidence is that belief based on? Did you receive word from God himself, telling you personally that these pills cause abortions? I rather doubt it. So instead, did you perhaps listen to someone else's opinion on the matter, and simply take their word for it without understanding the science involved?

    • hoIoh

      You continue to parrot what your liberal masters tell you to say, such as "do you seriously feel that an employer who runs a travel agency ought to be able to deny his employees access to psychiatric care". No, just as I don't think that Hobby Lobby ought to be able to deny their employees access to legal drugs. And they don't - they don't own their employees and can't and don't want to tell them what to do in their private lives. But, they shouldn't have to PROVIDE those drugs or any other specific compensation that they wish to provide in compensation for the job that they are providing. The Supreme Court agrees with that.

      The fact that you have all of these beliefs which you detailed in probably the longest disqus post I've ever seen, yet can't understand that others (like the owners of Hobby Lobby) have equally valid beliefs is amazing to me, yet I see it every day in the speech and actions of your fellow liberals. Perhaps you should ponder that for a moment - why do you think all of your beliefs are so much more right than other's? Don't you think that other people think that their beliefs are just as right as you think yours are?

    • foolsage

      You continue not to understand that other people are capable of assessing evidence and forming their own opinions (thus your repeated nonsense about "liberal masters"; reading comprehension is not your strong suit apparently, as I addressed this in some detail already). Just because you're mindlessly regurgitating nonsense that's been fed to you, don't assume everyone else does. Or do. I don't care.

      I formed my own views because I'm a scientist and I assayed the evidence. You took someone else's views and simply repeat them as if they're God's own truth. If you can't see the difference between those two approaches then nothing else I can say to you is going to sink in. You're locked into your dogma. Your hypocrisy was briefly amusing but now is wearisome.

      It's become clear to me that this discussion has more than run its course.

    • Mrcreosote

      Eh. Chick Fil A is bland and mushy-I'll take Popeye's every day. Red beans for the win!

    • The Replicant Brooke

      Those waffle fries tho.

    • Rex Crayola

      Heart attack in a bag.

    blog comments powered by Disqus