Ford pulls LR/Jag GLBT support due to American Family threat

[Cadaverous Pallor]

What Alex and GD said.

Making thoughts and opinions illegal....<shudder>

[BarTopDancer]

I think I see what WB is saying... Please correct me if I am wrong.

You can think however you want, you can hold whatever opnions you want. But threatening to cause someone or something harm (financial, physical, mental etc...) because that someone or something doesn't think how you do or hold the same opnions you do is the problem.

The AFA can think however they want, hold whatever opnions they want, but they are threatening financial harm to corporations who don't think how they do and don't hold the same opnions that they do.

Edit: They aren't threatening within their group, they are going to the companies and saying if you don't stop supporting people who are gay then we will boycott you. If they went to their members and said "hey, Ford supports gay people lets boycott them" IMHO it would be different. I still wouldn't agree with them but they wern't threatening a company.

Come to think of it, isn't this type of behavior coercion? And isn't that illegal?

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I don't think what Ford did was illegal; it was cowardly, but not illegal. I think what the AFA did should be.

I believe what the AFA did IS illegal. It's called intentional interference with economic advantage, and it's actionable in courts of law. I have written to The Advocate urging them to sue AFA. People have been sued for lots less.

Where the AFA crossed the legal line was in meeting with Ford Motor Company. They have every right to state their intention to boycott, but once they meet with Ford directly to make that statement and gain concessions, they are interfering in the business relationship that Ford has with publications such as The Advocate.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I think I see what WB is saying... Please correct me if I am wrong.

You can think however you want, you can hold whatever opnions you want. But when you threaten to cause someone or something harm (financial, physical, mental etc...) because that someone or something doesn't think how you do or hold the same opnions you do is the problem.

The AFA can think however they want, hold whatever opnions they want, but they are threatening financial harm to corporations who don't think how they do and don't hold the same opnions that they do.

Edit: They aren't threatening within their group, they are going to the companies and saying if you don't stop supporting people who are gay then we will boycott you. If they went to their members and said "hey, Ford supports gay people lets boycott them" IMHO it would be different. I still wouldn't agree with them but they wern't threatening a company.

Come to think of it, isn't this type of behavior coercion? And isn't that illegal?

But that's simply a boycott - an often used tool throughout the decades. Alex mentioned that Rosa Parks helped start one. While I may not always agree with the boycotters, I support the right to boycott.

EDITED TO ADD - too much editing and posting going on here, I'm all confused

[Gemini Cricket]

Here's an email letter I sent out recently amongst many others...

December 9, 2005


Mr. William Ford
c/o Ford Motor Company
Customer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126


Mr. Ford,

My partner and I are Ford truck owners. We purchased our truck in Tehachapi, California with my partner's father who buys nothing but Ford automobiles and trucks. Before buying our vehicle, my partner and I did extensive research into which motor companies are supportive of gay and lesbian rights in our country. We found that Ford was one of those companies that showed tolerance towards gay and lesbian Americans and decided to purchase our vehicle from your company. We have been pleased with the performance of our truck and have had no problems with it in the 3 years of owning it.

However, a couple of days ago, I was informed by Advocate Magazine and newspapers countrywide that Ford has been in secret meetings with the anti-gay extremist group the American Family Association. The meetings resulted in Ford acquiescing passively to the demands of the AFA and deciding to pull all Jaguar and Land Rover ads from gay publications in 2006. I am stunned that any logical corporate company would cater to the views of an extreme group that does not have the best interests of Ford in mind but also aids in disenfranchising a group of American citizens.

Today, I question our decision of purchasing our Ford truck in the first place. When one spends a formidable amount of money with a company, one hopes that they are not supporting a business that can flip-flop from support to intolerance of gay issues so easily. But it seems as though we have.

The company's official word on the matter is that this was a business decision and had nothing to do with the AFA. However, it seems that the meetings with the AFA and the decision to ban advertising (which supports the publication's existence) are too much of a coincidence to be simply deemed 'good for business'.

Mr. Ford, I am deeply disappointed with your company. I am not angered, nor surprised by this sort of tactic, but I will question my choice of automaker in the future. At this point in time, I can not favorably endorse Ford or its products. I will be speaking with Ford buyers (gay and straight) to inform them of this new development in Ford's business practices. It's a small step to reclaim dignity in making a poor choice in the Ford Motor Company.


With regrets,


Mr. Brad XXXXXXXX

XX XXXXXX XX XX
Somerville, MA 02144-1201
(XXX) XXX-XXX

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I believe what the AFA did IS illegal. It's called intentional interference with economic advantage, and it's actionable in courts of law. I have written to The Advocate urging them to sue AFA. People have been sued for lots less.

Where the AFA crossed the legal line was in meeting with Ford Motor Company. They have every right to state their intention to boycott, but once they meet with Ford directly to make that statement and gain concessions, they are interfering in the business relationship that Ford has with publications such as The Advocate.

Thanks for the explainer!

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Thinking about doing harm, or talking generally about doing harm, or (in the Ford case), talking about what you think is wrong, with zero actual harm even implied, is not, and should not, be illegal.

Sorry to be playing post-by-post catch up here.


In this case, the AFA made a deal with Ford to stop advertising in certain publications. This is not speech. This is action. And it's actionable.


(Ford may not have any legal liability - they have the right to act on whatever advise they please. It's the AFA which took actions, not mere speech, to interfere with existing business relationships. They can, and should, be sued).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Huh? So, I have a contract with party A, but one that I have the option of ending at any point (some sort of escape clause). Party B comes along and offers me a better deal, so I exercise the escape clause with party A and enter a deal with party B. So you're saying party B has done something illegal?

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor in reply to me

But that's simply a boycott - an often used tool throughout the decades. Alex mentioned that Rosa Parks helped start one. While I may not always agree with the boycotters, I support the right to boycott.

EDITED TO ADD - too much editing and posting going on here, I'm all confused

What iSm said!

[innerSpaceman]

Contract negotiations are legal. One-upsmanship in contract negotiations is legal.

INTERFERING with someone's contract negoations is ILLEGAL.




(Um, it really is. I'm not merely stating my opinion about the law. This is what I do day in and day out. I sue people for interference with prospective economic advantage for breakfast, and I swallow all their assets for lunch.)