THIS is Why Conservative Christians Get a Bum Rap!

Published on December 14, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

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!

Comments (Page 2)

bakerstreet

on Dec 15, 2005

"no one is doing anything but minding their own business.

Really?"

Yep, you differ? Ford decides where their money goes, the consumer decides where their money goes. If someone doesn't want to donate to gay rights causes, then they opt not to buy products from companies who donate some of their profits to gay rights causes.

If I run Frobbers International, and I donate money to the Whales are Delicious PAC, would you have a problem if members of Greenpeace decided not to buy my frobbers? I doubt it, but since these are "Christians" everyone furls their brow. It's utterly hypocritical, imho, and at least bloggers could get their story straight THE SECOND time they blog about it. This was over a couple of weeks ago, and it wasn't just about advertisements.

Is "really" all you got, or was there something substantial you had to say about my post?

ParaTed2k

on Dec 15, 2005

I just think it's fun watching a generally Conservative group complaining about marketing, while a generally liberal group fights for more advertizing. ;~D

Ionolast

on Dec 15, 2005

Is "really" all you got, or was there something substantial you had to say about my post?

I didn't think I needed to spell it out. How are the Christians minding their own business?

Ford decides where their money goes, the consumer decides where their money goes. If someone doesn't want to donate to gay rights causes, then they opt not to buy products from companies who donate some of their profits to gay rights causes.

That's not the point. The point is, the Christians aren't minding their own business because they're protesting, boycotting, and telling other people they shouldn't buy Ford products because Ford is gay friendly.

Ionolast

on Dec 15, 2005

since these are "Christians" everyone furls their brow.

Because Christians are supposed to be tolerant. Are you really that dense?

bakerstreet

on Dec 15, 2005

Are you being facetious? It's their money to buy what they want with. If Ford opts to donate money to causes they disagree with, you're saying they're OBLIGATED to do business with Ford?

-Ford chooses to donate money to GLAAD.
-The members of the AFA don't want part of the price of their new car going to GLAAD.
-Members of the AFA choose to buy cars from someone else.

Feel free to explain to me where in that scenario someone is being forced to do something against their will. I suppose that Greenpeace is supposed to be tolerant of nations that whale? Should the NAACP have been tolerant of business that had ties with the South African Apartheid government? Why should the AFA be tolerant of a PAC that functions counter to their interests?

This is so patently dishonest, and your terse little answers betray the fact that you can't make a real argument, you just say '"duh, I'm "right", they're "wrong"'. You don't have anything but your subjective values dictating that, and yours aren't a bit more valid than theirs.

pseudosoldier

on Dec 15, 2005

Who has the largest collection of pornography in the world? The Vatican.

Source, please?

like the Disney boycott, this one will go nowhere as well.

I agree with this, and the resulting emotion as well.

bakerstreet

on Dec 15, 2005

"like the Disney boycott, this one will go nowhere as well."

Immense precognitive powers, since the boycott was over two weeks ago. I predict Ford will pull their ads... oh, wait...

Dr Guy

on Dec 15, 2005

Immense precognitive powers, since the boycott was over two weeks ago. I predict Ford will pull their ads... oh, wait...

I meant to Ford's bottom line, not to its activities.

bakerstreet

on Dec 15, 2005

Yeah, given they pulled the ads, I'd have to say that's a safe bet, Doc.

Ionolast

on Dec 15, 2005

you're saying they're OBLIGATED to do business with Ford?

Not at all.

I think we have a communication problem. I mean "mind their own business" as "mind their own beeswax."

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 15, 2005

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.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 15, 2005

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.

bakerstreet

on Dec 15, 2005

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...

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 15, 2005

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.

bakerstreet

on Dec 15, 2005

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!