While I do find negotiating with the AFA distasteful, I have to agree with iSm and Alex in one regard. I don't see gay-specific advertising as a hugely supportive element for the gay community. I think the community is better served by things like an ad for a TLC show I saw recently. It was one of their myriad reality shows about come aspect of couple-dom or other. Not about gay couples specifically, but the ad lead off with a clip from an episode about a gay couple, and went on to show a few other couples (I believe the rest were straight couples, but I'm not positive). It wasn't "Hey gays, here's a gay show about gay people. If you like gayity, watch our gay show!" It was, "Here's a show about couples. Here's a couple, here's another couple, and here's another couple."

Yes, supporting gays is hardly a huge leap for TLC, but I was particularly struck by that ad. To me, that's a MUCH bigger step for the gay community. Mainstream exposure, in no way differentiated in presentation from anybody else.

I think an important question to ask Ford is, why don't I see those nice looking couples in the above ad in the Sunday Times? As I see it, they were doing a disservice to the community long before this alleged agreement. Sure they came out with some good, "we don't discriminate" statments, and yet they sure were keen to keep those photos of gay couples enjoying their product away from the general public where, thank the marketing gods, only gay people would see them.

No, any more than I would compliment them on their policy of offering partnership benefits to any of their employees.

No. I only addressed what I read in the AP article. To quote:I said what I've said here, Ford has every right to advertise to whom they want. I have every right to be concerned when major U.S. corporations take the time to meet with people who promote intolerance. If you'd like those questions asked, why don't you call Ford? Do you think people on a chat board have any more insight than the woman in Bangalore that took my call?

Really?

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Ghoulish Delight again.

Sorry Greg, you forgot to hack the code so you could get repeat mojo. ;)

Just send me a PM next time and I'll go ahead and manually add it in. :p

I dislike anyone caving to blackmail, which is what they appear to have done. I find it nearly as distasteful as the actual act of economic blackmail done under the guise of morality, or any one groups' definition of morality.

Out of curiosity, would you then find it distasteful if, simply in response to organized protest by gay groups, Ford reinstated the advertising?

I think it would be stupid*, not distasteful, Alex. Too much like "Oh, yeah? Well, we can do that, too!" I would try a more direct approach, like publicizing the apparent cave by Ford, and to shed light on the tactics of such groups as AFA and others.

*For the gay groups to retaliate in kind. Truth be told, there is little Ford could do in my estimation to make me buy one of their cars, since they suck.

Eh, they're just saying they wouldn't support the purchase of their products. That's not blackmail. Everyone has a choice to pay or not to pay, and others have a choice to follow purchasing recommendations by groups such as this one.

(disclaimer - doesn't mean I'm ok with all this...)

I realise that, CP- but it's not like these guys just sit around saying "That's it- I refuse to buy their prods!" No, they run around lobbying, garnering press and doing everything they possibly can to achieve their goal, which in this case is to pretend that there is no such thing as a gay consumer. Remember the Baptist boycott against Disney? I got real sick and tired of deleting those assholes' comments from the petition- they pissed me off so much that even if God appeared today and said he was Baptist, I'd have to decline.

I ran over a Volvo with a Chevy truck in college... Does that count for anything?