Yesterday's post about the Portland Rescue Mission's decision not to sponsor a queer-themed Christmas event has ricocheted around local media outlets over the past 24 hours. From Just Out to KATU to a gay-rights blog, even out to St. Louis, Mo. (And, you've seen, we're helping with our own Queer Coat Drive.)

After playing phone tag this morning and yesterday (while I was at city hall and the Portland Building) I finally got a chance today to have a long conversation with Bill Miller, the development director of the Christian-based mission.

He says that while he didn't dispute the voice mail one of his employees, Brian Merrell, left for queer performer Jeffrey (aka Fannie Mae) Darling, organizer of the Queer Quistmas event, Miller does want to air the mission's side of the story and clear up a few things. So, here goes...

First off, Miller wanted to mention that the Portland Rescue Mission serves anyone and everyone who walks through its doors. He also said it won't turn away any donations. Even "queer" ones. In email traffic that followed the message left with Darling, he explained, the mission still offered to muster its collection barrels, even if it wasn't going to be a backer. But, by then, Darling (who was justifiably upset) had "decided to move in another direction."

Miller and I spent a lot of time talking about "miscommunication" over that distinction—a key nuance, as he sees it. Sponsorship, he says, means a much bigger commitment—at a time of the year when the mission's resources are more stretched. He says Darling's event, scheduled for December 20, was too soon. Other groups have also been turned down, and he says he wanted to talk to Darling more about that before things went south yesterday.

"Usually, we promote it. We communicate it to the media, and our donors and volunteers, etc. We put our name and logo up there as a major player in the plan," he says. "We just don't do that on a quick turnaround. We needed more time."

Sounds reasonable. But I had a question. If that was the reason all along—it was about sponsorship, not coats, logistics, not queerness—why did Merrell, in his voice mail, even bother to venture here: "We are a faith-based organization and there was some concern with how it might come across to some of our donors."

Keep reading to see his answer.

Miller hedged here. First, he blamed Merrell, saying he jumped the gun by calling Darling back before the mission's pooh-bah's had had a chance to really think through their decision. He also said that was a "mistake" and a "misstatement by Brian, and he admits that."

And he also claimed, initially, that whether the mission's donors—an important lifeline of cash and goods—are uncomfortable "was not part of the criteria" used when weighing an event. But then he later acknowledged that donors' feelings are one factor, just not the factor, when making a decision.

"It's really about the organization and the brand we've built," he says, also noting that some people have been surprised that Darling approached the mission, knowing it's a Christian organization. "We want to protect the integrity of the brand. ... It wouldn't be hard to imagine any number of organizations that would appreciate the importance of protecting their brand and choosing how often you go to the marketplace with it, and who you go along with to the marketplace."

Still, having "queer" in the event's title, he contends, "wasn't a deal breaker." So does that mean, I asked, if someone called right now and said they wanted the Portland Rescue Mission to sponsor a "Queer Springtime Pageant" in March, plenty of time to build a perfect plan for the event, you'd do it?

His reply? "It certainly would be part of the conversation." I'll believe it when I see it.

Before we got off the phone, Miller confirmed that he had accepted the Rev. Chuck Currie's offer to broker a meeting between the Rescue Mission and gay advocacy group Basic Rights Oregon and that he's spoken to folks there. But because of scheduling, that meeting probably won't happen until after the holidays.

"I had never heard of the organization but it appears they're doing important work," he says. "Any time we can build bridges rather than walls it's best. I'm confident good will come out of this situation."

Here's hoping that, indeed, the conversation next time really does result in some good.