Ford pulls LR/Jag GLBT support due to American Family threat - Page 10

Cadaverous Pallor · 12-08-2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I could care less if Ford advertises to my demo group, but if some fundie whackjobs were to pressure Ford into specifically not advertising to my demo group based on their objection to my participation in society, then I should have recourse.

Are you saying you have "a right to be advertised at"?

Cadaverous Pallor · 12-08-2005, 10:37 PM

Basic scenario:

I put an ad in a gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) publication. A person comes up to me and convinces me that gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) people are evil. I pull my ads.

Obviously, it sucks that I was swayed to such a crappy opinion. But still, it's my choice what to advertise in and what not to. If I've been converted to Crazy NutJob and only want to advertise in Crazy NutJob Quarterly, then that's my right.

Again, it sucks, but that's life.

wendybeth · 12-08-2005, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Basic scenario:

I put an ad in a gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) publication. A person comes up to me and convinces me that gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) people are evil. I pull my ads.

Obviously, it sucks that I was swayed to such a crappy opinion. But still, it's my choice what to advertise in and what not to. If I've been converted to Crazy NutJob and only want to advertise in Crazy NutJob Quarterly, then that's my right.

Again, it sucks, but that's life.

I was as clear as I am going to get on this, and I cannot state it any better. I believe discrimination is wrong, and such tactics as those employed by AFA for the reasons they employed them are wrong. If Ford caved, then Ford deserves the backlash they're going to get. If you don't have a problem with looking away when these types of people pull this ****, then that's between you and your conscience. If something strikes me as being completely wrong, I'd like to think I would always have the backbone to stand up against it. I'm not, nor have I ever been, the type to just let the affected party handle it.

Oh, and I would intervene if such a scenario as I presented to Alex ever occured in front of me. In fact, I have.

Alex · 12-09-2005, 12:01 AM

I'm not arguing against a backlash against Ford just your comment that what Ford did should be illegal.

I have absolutely no problem with everybody in the world telling Ford what they think of the situation. Though I don't think cutting advertising to the Advocate is that big of a deal any more than I was bothered when GM cut advertising to the Los Angeles Times because they didn't like the message of that newspaper, if you do, then trying to convince Ford to change its mind is exactly what you should do.

Criminalizing opinions you disagree with is not.

wendybeth, I'm not sure what "scenario" you mean. I didn't think you literally meant beating beating women in the parking lot. I've intervened in such as well. But in the metaphorical sense I thought you meant it, yes. Mysogynists are allowed to be mysogynists until such time as they act on that mysogyny in ways that go beyond speech.

wendybeth · 12-09-2005, 12:16 AM

Of course I meant literally. This kind of crap leads to such behavior, eventually. Let hate win out, and people get hurt. I know that there is a fine line between legal and illegal activities when it comes to defining discrimination, but I have a hard time seeing the difference between this group and groups like the Order, Aryan Nations, the KKK, etc. It took a severe beating by some AN thugs, but a Native American woman and her son wound up owning their compound up here.

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

Alex · 12-09-2005, 12:36 AM

And again, what you think should be illegal is scary to me. The Aryan Nation, KKK, and AFA are free to think whatever they want and try to convince other people to think the same.

They are not free to beat Native American women or their children.

innerSpaceman · 12-09-2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

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 · 12-09-2005, 11:02 AM

What Alex and GD said.

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

Gemini Cricket · 12-09-2005, 11:51 AM

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

Quote:

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

BarTopDancer · 12-09-2005, 11:40 AM

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?

12-08-2005, 10:37 PM	#2
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Basic scenario: I put an ad in a gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) publication. A person comes up to me and convinces me that gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) people are evil. I pull my ads. Obviously, it sucks that I was swayed to such a crappy opinion. But still, it's my choice what to advertise in and what not to. If I've been converted to Crazy NutJob and only want to advertise in Crazy NutJob Quarterly, then that's my right. Again, it sucks, but that's life. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2005, 12:01 AM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm not arguing against a backlash against Ford just your comment that what Ford did should be illegal. I have absolutely no problem with everybody in the world telling Ford what they think of the situation. Though I don't think cutting advertising to the Advocate is that big of a deal any more than I was bothered when GM cut advertising to the Los Angeles Times because they didn't like the message of that newspaper, if you do, then trying to convince Ford to change its mind is exactly what you should do. Criminalizing opinions you disagree with is not. wendybeth, I'm not sure what "scenario" you mean. I didn't think you literally meant beating beating women in the parking lot. I've intervened in such as well. But in the metaphorical sense I thought you meant it, yes. Mysogynists are allowed to be mysogynists until such time as they act on that mysogyny in ways that go beyond speech.
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2005, 12:16 AM	#5
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Of course I meant literally. This kind of crap leads to such behavior, eventually. Let hate win out, and people get hurt. I know that there is a fine line between legal and illegal activities when it comes to defining discrimination, but I have a hard time seeing the difference between this group and groups like the Order, Aryan Nations, the KKK, etc. It took a severe beating by some AN thugs, but a Native American woman and her son wound up owning their compound up here. I don't think what Ford did was illegal; it was cowardly, but not illegal. I think what the AFA did should be. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2005, 12:36 AM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And again, what you think should be illegal is scary to me. The Aryan Nation, KKK, and AFA are free to think whatever they want and try to convince other people to think the same. They are not free to beat Native American women or their children.
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2005, 11:02 AM	#8
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	What Alex and GD said. Making thoughts and opinions illegal....<shudder> __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2005, 11:40 AM	#10
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	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? __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge Last edited by BarTopDancer : 12-09-2005 at 11:51 AM.
	Submit to Quotes