A quick synopsis of the Ford situation. John Aravosis is covering it and ably, of course, but I myself was a bit confused on the specifics and decided to do some research. It's important to get these things right. So, in short, here's where we stand. Earlier this year, the American Family Association announced a boycott of Ford because of the company's extending of marriage benefits to same-sex couples and for its support for the "gay agenda" through such actions as sponsoring pride parades. Last week, the AFA announced that the boycott was through:
One week later, Ford announced its decision to drop its advertising of its Jaguar and Land Rover brands in the Advocate and other gay publications, a move that they said was part of a larger effort to cut advertising budgets and not in response to AFA demands. And just today, John is reporting that Ford has also agreed to stop supporting gay events. Ford has heretofore stated that it will not roll back the significant benefits that it accords gay and lesbian employees. That's the end of my summary.
And the beginning of my commentary. Listen, I applaud Ford for the benefits they provide their gay and lesbians employees. Far more generous than those offered to gays and lesbians toiling in say, the United States Congress. (That's true.) But what seems indisputable is that Ford met with a pro-hate group to rationally discuss their demands, and then seemingly acceded to the bulk of those demands. If they feel that was a business decision that they felt that they had to make, they should at least be compelled to admit that they chose to perpetuate discrimination and hate in a effort to protect their bottom line. At the least, they should have to admit it.
"We called for a boycott of Ford, then a group of dealers requested a meeting with us -- and we've met with Ford several times in the last several months," he [AFA founder and chairman Donald E. Wildmon] shares. "They've heard our concerns; they have responded, we think, in a very positive way. We've opened lines of communication, [and] we think those lines of communication will stay open."
Wildmon believes the boycott is no longer necessary, and that Ford executives are addressing pro-family concerns in good faith.
"They've heard our concerns; they are acting on our concerns. We are pleased with where we are," he says. "Obviously there are still some small matters of difference, as people will always have, but generally speaking we are pleased with the results -- and therefore the boycott that had been suspended [is] now officially ended."
One week later, Ford announced its decision to drop its advertising of its Jaguar and Land Rover brands in the Advocate and other gay publications, a move that they said was part of a larger effort to cut advertising budgets and not in response to AFA demands. And just today, John is reporting that Ford has also agreed to stop supporting gay events. Ford has heretofore stated that it will not roll back the significant benefits that it accords gay and lesbian employees. That's the end of my summary.
And the beginning of my commentary. Listen, I applaud Ford for the benefits they provide their gay and lesbians employees. Far more generous than those offered to gays and lesbians toiling in say, the United States Congress. (That's true.) But what seems indisputable is that Ford met with a pro-hate group to rationally discuss their demands, and then seemingly acceded to the bulk of those demands. If they feel that was a business decision that they felt that they had to make, they should at least be compelled to admit that they chose to perpetuate discrimination and hate in a effort to protect their bottom line. At the least, they should have to admit it.
