And then people here point their fingers at other cultures how ” backwards” they are. How pathetic and absolutely idiot this culture here can be. Grow up for god’s sake.

Only in America, what a c**t of a place you live in.

Conservatives to World, “Yes, we’re a bunch of fucking children. Your point?”

*eye roll*
I have yet to see anything that makes me reconsider my belief that bigots are the dumbest people to ever walk the earth. Those idiots who complained about that magazine cover probably shop in that store year in and year out but never say a word about Cosmo covers with their featured Stupid Sex Trick Of The Month in 72-point type next to a picture of a naked or nearly naked anorexic junkie fashion model, but heaven forbid a magazine has two smiling happy men holding a baby on it!

Thanx for the link, I did contact them by email to tell them what a great job they are doing! I wouldn’t want my kids seeing that crap!

Of course they caved to bigots. But you don’t affect change by forgiving them for it. Absolutely you should call them out for catering to hatred. We can help them decide which is the more treacherous path to take.

I’m sure Elton John doesn’t give a shizz if these bigots dont get to see pics of his cute lil baby <3

to quote the recent poignant words of Ricky Gervais, “just because you’re offended, doesn’t make you right”!…  Would Harps also cover a magazine showing a mixed race couple with a new-born child if they received complaints about it from bigots? This should not be allowed to be deemed as offensive in this day and age, and a supermarket chain should not cater to it! Absolutely appaling!

I like how people are ignoring the possibility that Harps has a LOT of bigoted customers and that they are choosing to cater to them rather than make a political stand and lose business. How are we to know this isn’t motivated by a customer complaint in the first place? Also, if you want to get a little kid to pay attention to a magazine cover, especially in the impulse aisle where it’s usually magazines geared toward mothers, stick a “family shield” in front of it.

The only way (in 2011) I could recognize why anybody could find this cover offensive is because Elton John is very old to be entering fatherhood. I have no opinion on that at all. I’m going to assume that is the reasoning behind this and deny homophobia its right to exist.  Good day.

Really??! People live in a bubble! Get real, this is 2011! Children need to be exposed to REAL LIFE… hiding gay couples is not only sheltering your children but creating problems. Your child will become a teenager and become influenced by their parent’s behavior. These type of children will grow up troubled… from my own experience these children will want to do far worse like involving themselves with drugs.

geez, it IS gross and disgusting. Two gay guys who would rather suck each other’s penis, take a woman’s baby because they think it would be cute to have a baby. Yuck.

Personally, I think Elton John’s face should always be covered up.

A man holding a baby with another man nearby. A scene that many children have probably already seen recreated in their own homes by Dads, Granddads, Uncles, Brothers, Friends… Not to mention that if you showed that photo to a young child, all they’d see is the baby. Kids are like that. Maybe we should learn from that.

I don’t find that cover offensive at all. The baby is super cute. I’d rather have my children seen Elton John and his cute little baby, than some half naked anorexic chick in a bikini.

I’d like more info before leaping to conclusions. That one magazine could have just been moved out of laziness or it could have been one person’s idea.  If I find out it was a store-wide… or worse, chain-wide decision… then I’ll get pissed.

I love how everyone jumps to conclusions. How do you know a teenage cashier didn’t just put that up because he thought it was funny? Maybe it was a customer who moved it there for the same reason? Don’t be hasty to assume and crucify a store for one cell phone pic uploaded on the internet