Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

THIS is Why Conservative Christians Get a Bum Rap!

▼

THIS is Why Conservative Christians Get a Bum Rap!

from JoeUser Forums

OK, so here's the scenario: Seems that Ford Motor Company, in order to sell luxury cars, posted a few ads in gay themed magazines. Trying to sell some cars, and going where the market lies, right? (statistically speaking, homosexual couples would at least seemingly have more dispensary income as they often don't have children to care for, so they would be a good bet to target with luxury car ads, or so I would think).

Not so fast. The conservative Christian watchdog groups called for a boycott of Ford because of their "promotion of homosexuality", and Ford pulled the ads. Now, the gay rights groups are threatening a counter boycott to bring back the ads, and the whole thing has gotten out of hand.

Excuse me? PROMOTION of homosexuality? Seems to me all Ford was trying to do was sell a few cars, and if they found some licensed drivers among lower primates, might just as well hae advertised in "Monkeyshines Monthly".

Now, I admit, sometimes the boycotts that these companies call for point out some rather disturbing facts about a company's practices. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and in this case, I see nothing wrong with Ford's practice of buying ad space in gay magazines. The gay magazines serve a specific market, just as any magazine does, and all a Christian has to do to avoid exposure to that point of view is NOT BUY THEM! You won't find them on the shelves of a lot of stores in mainstream America, frankly.

Which leads us to the final question: How exactly DID our conservative Christian friends discover these ads? SOMEONE out there must have a subscription!

6,157 views 37 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

It was a response article to: The American Family Association Has Completely Lost It by Philomedy on 6/2/2005. This isn't just 6 month-old news, oddly enough it is news that Gid must have forgotten about and then rediscovered taking a whole new stance. I guess every so often we need to slam the Christians to stay in "moderate" shape...

Nothing I said here contradicted the point of the other article. I didn't say I'd PARTICIPATE in it, just that I supported their right to DO it. And I still do. But because there has been so much posted about the attack on Christianity, I thought it fair to point out why these groups are being "persecuted". If people don't want to buy Ford products, that's their right. But I don't want to hear them whining about PERSECUTION when people complain about it.

As much as I hate to say it, myrr's response was probaby the best. There really ARE bigger things to worry about.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

To quote Gid:

"...it's Ford's money, and they can spend it as they wish.

And I can spend MINE as I wish...and AFA can spend theirs as THEY wish...free country, ya know"

And I still stand behind that statement. I didn't deny that in this article.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is, Gideon, that the premise of this article is wrong. It went beyond just advertising and selling cars when they donated money to GLAAD, etc. Every PR move has an equal and opposite reaction. If they had donated money to the NRA, would people be this angry when all the anti-gun organizations boycotted them? I think not.

You don't need a PAC to be gay. You need a PAC to effect political change. The AFA opposes most of the changes that GLAAD favors, so it makes sense they would oppose donating money to GLAAD through the purchase of Ford automobiles.

So you don't have a problem with them boycotting, but you think it is a bad PR move on the AFA's part? So, they should "mainstream" their image and reject their values in the interest of not getting a "bum rap"? Or they should keep their mouth shut and just not tell anyone they are doing it?

It seems to me that if there values aren't any more or less valid than anyone else's, and they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, I don't understand where your criticism is coming from. It looks like an awkward attempt at "balance" to me...
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

To be honest, baker, I had forgotten about the PAC contributions. You're right on that score. The PAC contributions do color it differently, I'll admit. Frankly, I had forgotten we'd covered the topic until you brought it up.

The articles I had found in regards to the recent news clip stressed only the advertisements. I'll take a mea culpa on this one. It wasn't inconsistency, it was a matter of poorly researching this particular article.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
No worries, Gid. Frankly I think the AFA takes a lot of counterproductive stances, too. I can understand what they do, but it seems like they fall in the same pit that organizations like PETA and GLAAD and the NAACP fall into, constantly whining and finding fault, and not offering much in the way of positive press.

I see your point, and it is valid. I just think that if people see this any different than anyone else, they are imposing a tougher standard on Christian organizations. GLAAD does stuff like this almost daily, and you never hear much derision in response. The fact is almost all activist organizations function this way.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Icon...
They are minding their own business. They're not picketing, they're not pushing for laws to block the ads, they're not even getting in anyone's way of purchasing a Ford. What they are doing is spreading the word to like-minded individuals who might not have been aware.

"Hey, here's what's going on... if you agree this is bad, don't buy from them!"

If I see something that is offensive to me, I'm going to probably let others know about it. This is no different from citizen groups boycotting WalMart or other Big Business over labor or sales practices or whatever. They're minding their own business... they're just getting the word out to others who agree with them... and there's nothing wrong with that per-say...

What it is though is counterproductive to the image Christians in this country are trying to cultivate. Oh, and you're off the mark on what tolerance means a bit.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
to say it, myrr's response was probaby the best. There really ARE bigger things to worry about.


And Tex and AvantiTexan.

don't see many Christians sharing Christmas dinner with any homosexuals thesedays, do you?


Unless some of the Christians are gay.

Icon...
They are minding their own business.


Not when it affects what Ford wants to do.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're right, gays might be considered a market for Ford, even other big auto mfg's. So might other ALT lifestyles, where does it stop.

Here's the problem as I see it. Ford is one of the biggest and older American organizations. It's employee base is predominantly family oriented blue collar America, as are other large American institutions. Ford stock is held by many conservative institutional American investors, also employing a sizeable conservative investment minded work force. It's important to note that many folks like myself put their family values and Christian beliefs above P&L. So for Ford not to pull their advertisements, they would face a slippery slope of cultural dissension by their investors. Because we prioritize reinforcing the definition of what historically has been defined as heterosexual mainstream America.

On the other hand if Ford didn't pull the advertising they would be giving the impression that Gays/ALT sub-culture is becoming a major portion of mainstream America, when in reality it's not. Not to say it won't happen in the future, hopefully when I am gone. Also, by not pulling their ads it could be construed as another assault on family values. I, for one hold family values above all and will not support, buy, nor hold stock in any organization that thinks Gays/Alt cultures should be included in mainstream American definition.

Even though I am a moderate conservative and support legal contract relationships for the Gay community, I am happy the Christain right took action and support all the way into my wallet. By the way, every conservative 527 committee has watchdogs for this exact reason and some are gay conservatives.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
don't see many Christians sharing Christmas dinner with any homosexuals thesedays, do you?


Guess My Mother and I are going to have to disinvite my brother? NOT.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not impacting what Ford wants to do. Ford can ignore them if they like. Ford is under no obligation and is in no way forced to capitulate to an extremist group. If Ford is so swayed by opinion, then me saying they're dumb on a public forum is forcing them to alter their stance.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
I hear what you are saying about this being really silly, but you really have to put it in perspective.

People will always form groups and try to influence the world to their way of thinking. If the group is big/powerful/loud enough, they will be heard and exert the power they so desperately want. That's all that's happening here.

You shouldn't be upset about the boycott by the religious right, you should really be upset by the fact that Ford felt that it was important enough to listen to them.

Chris
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder, if Ford donated money to the AFA, and GLAAD decided to boycott Ford, would iconoclast be whining that GLAAD should mind their own business... I'm thinking no.

Your predictabilility on the subject of Christianity borders on the deranged, iconoclast. I'm starting to think of you like some weird guy at parties that you never want to mention a particular subject around. You are JU's "Col Gene" of Christianity, spouting knee-jerk annoyance like you have tourett's syndrome...