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

[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.

[wendybeth]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[wendybeth]

No, they are not. It cost them, dearly. Too bad they had to beat the **** out of someone first though, eh? It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a social scientist, or really any kind of scientist to know that if this sort of filth is allowed to run amuck, it will. I'm not saying that we should outlaw freedom of speech, but I am saying that if your freedom of speech hurts me or mine, watch out. I will not lay down and take it- I will fight back. What AFA is doing hurts people I love. It diminishes them, dilutes their rights, and I don't have to have a degree in any sort of science to know that these groups have a dangerous agenda. I also don't have to stand back and let it happen.

[Gemini Cricket]

I just read a interesting article in the WSJ that I wanted to post here regarding the AFA boycott. The boycotting idea is spreading. I can't believe corporations are running scared from them:

With Ford out of the way, the AFA has now set its sights on Target Corp. The group attacked Target last year for banning Salvation Army fund-raisers from its stores. But it launched a new boycott just two weeks ago, attacking Target as well for declining to use the word "Christmas" in any of its promotions. (Meanwhile, a separate group, Focus on the Family, says it has closed all of its accounts at Wells Fargo & Co. because the bank contributed to a gay-rights group.)

Target is taking a different strategy than Ford, refusing to deal with the AFA. It says it doesn't allow anyone to make solicitations in its stores -- the Salvation Army included. And it says its holiday merchandise includes "Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa merchandise, along with Thanksgiving, New Year and other winter-related items." Tim Wildmon, president of the AFA and son of the group's chairman, calls that statement "political correctness run amok."

Source

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

No, they are not. It cost them, dearly. Too bad they had to beat the **** out of someone first though, eh?

You're talking about thought police. It's a firm principle in this country that you have to either do harm, or have a specific plan to do harm to be punished. 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.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

You're talking about thought police. It's a firm principle in this country that you have to either do harm, or have a specific plan to do harm to be punished. 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.

So, if I wander into a airport terminal and mutter something about blowing the place up, I am merely engaged in the thought of doing harm, and won't get into trouble? If I joke about harming the President to a Secret Service person, there would be no actions against me? I could go on and on with instances such as these where I believe I might get into mischief just by excercising my freedom of speech, but I have to go to work! Have a great day, all!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

So, if I wander into a airport terminal and mutter something about blowing the place up, I am merely engaged in the thought of doing harm, and won't get into trouble? If I joke about harming the President to a Secret Service person, there would be no actions against me? I could go on and on with instances such as these where I believe I might get into mischief just by excercising my freedom of speech, but I have to go to work! Have a great day, all!

As a matter of fact, I think things have gotten way too sensetive in that arena.

But let's take a step back here. Show me where the AFA has advocated or even hinted at violence against gays and I'll agree with you.