I just received this email from my favorite group…. the AFA…
 April 10, 2006
SEC refuses Ford’s request to keep homosexual issue off their stockholders meeting agenda
Ford Sales Drop 5% in March
Dear Joe,
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has denied a request by Ford Motor Company to keep a shareholder resolution forbidding Ford to promote homosexual marriage off the agenda at their upcoming shareholders meeting.
One of the reasons cited by Ford in their request to omit the resolution was that they feared they would be boycotted by the homosexuals. Over 20 pro-family groups have called for a boycott of Ford because of Ford’s support for homosexual marriage.
Ford reported that during the month of March their sales dropped 5% when compared to the same period last year. Ford did not mention the boycott when announcing the sales drop.
The resolution requests “that Ford Motor Company amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to exclude any reference to privacy issues related to sexual interests, activities or orientation.” The resolution, which Ford strongly opposes, would force Ford to stop promotion of homosexual marriage and other homosexual activities. American Family Association asked Ford in January to remain neutral in the cultural battle involving homosexual marriage. Ford refused and sided with groups promoting homosexual marriage.
Ford told the SEC that removing its pro-homosexual policy would hurt recruitment efforts to hire more homosexuals. It was homosexual activists in high positions who forced Ford to renege on an agreement with AFA to stop promoting the homosexual lifestyle. Ford said that failing to specifically seek out more homosexuals would “have a material adverse impact on the marketing and sale of company products.” (In other words, Ford fears a boycott by homosexuals.)
Ford’s logic in asking the SEC to omit the resolution is interesting. Ford fears a boycott by angry homosexuals more than they fear a boycott by pro-family groups. Even though Ford fears the homosexual groups, they want to continue to support them. For more information on the Ford boycott, go to BoycottFord.com by clicking here.
The resolution was drafted by a stockholder in Illinois. It will be presented at the stockholders meeting in Wilmington, Delaware, on May 11.
Take Action
Send the email to the Securities and Exchange Commission asking that they provide observers at the Ford stockholders meeting May 11. If you live near Wilmington, and own Ford stock, make plans to attend the meeting and help those who are working to stop Ford’s promotion of homosexual marriage. Stockholders should have received full information about when and where the May 11 meeting will be held.
 Click Here to Email SEC Chairman Cox Now!
If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family AssociationP.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
So it isn’t Ford that put that resolution out there for a vote but instead some close minded shareholder(s) who feel that the best way to deal with people doing things they don’t like is to try and erase any standing they have. We had the same type of stick in the mud dumbass thinking in the past come out against african americans, japanese americans, jewish americans, women and more. I wonder why these people can’t find happiness in making themselves better versus beating on minority groups that they think they can be victorious over? Do we really need to have different clubs and classes of people based on some physical characteristic or decision they make that doesn’t match our thoughts?
Really…. If you sit down and think about it, isn’t this sort of contraindicated? If being a homosexual is going to be punished by your god, what makes you think you should be the one pushing for and trying to getting them punished now? Afraid your god isn’t going to do a good enough job? Aren’t you showing a lack of faith by trying to punish someone going against your god? If you truly believed in your god wouldn’t you say, well I will tell them it is bad and if they don’t listen I will let god handle it… Or…. are you afraid of what it says about your god (or you) if some group not following your dictates (not your god’s) does not appear to be actively being punished? But wait, isn’t the punishment supposed to be about getting into the ultiimate club when you are done carrying your physical carcas around? So maybe they are being punished and we here don’t know yet you don’t even have faith in that… So very inconsistent and here I am a little concerned that I am inconsistent in that I like steaks made from cows but think people cutting Kangaroos into filets may be a little mean.
For my next rant, let me go on about the sheer enourmous stupidity of not eating meat but only on certain days of the week, we don’t want to totally impact our Christian brothers who make their living and give tithes to our churches by selling meat…
Oh… why is the subject Cheer! in this case? Because I was a trifle upset when I thought it was Ford trying to make it so they could dump sexual interests as a non-discriminatory aspect of their hiring policy. The fact that they approached the SEC to see if they can get it so they don’t have to put it to a vote makes me happy.
Again let me restate why I feel this way. I don’t believe in the right of others to tell me what to do if what I am doing is not causing immediate direct harm. I do not believe that hiring nor supporting folks with a non-traditional lifestyle is harmful, in fact, I think it is a good thing. If everyone is always thinking the same thing, there is no progress. The deviants are who push this society forward. Being a deviant is a very good thing. It means you vary from the norm.
I have received a couple of sporadic emails with subjects such as GAY LOVER, etc because of these blog entries. The more accurate subject would be NOT A GAY HATER or INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS LOVER.
I realize that if we allow some groups to run roughshod over others and give them any inch which makes it seem like bigotry is ok, it will eventually get used against me for something I do that others don’t like. How about we open up the Ford charter to allow for discrimination based on religion? Ohhhh uh oh! Oh wait, I bet the same group pushing for removal of sexual interests wouldn’t have an issue with that as long as they got to control what religions were discriminated against…
“Again let me restate why I feel this way. I don’t believe in the right of others to tell me what to do if what I am doing is not causing immediate direct harm.”
Hehe… so it’s okay if it’s causing delayed indirect harm?
You know, just a thought experiment here: if sexual orientation shouldn’t be anyone’s business, why is it Ford’s? Just think, why is your sexual orientation a matter for public deliberation or inclusion in Ford’s (or anyone else’s) company policy statement? Whom you are having sexual relations with or how is no one’s business so keep it out of official company policy, don’t you think?
The ONLY thing that should matter is how well you do your job.
I’d be interested in knowing under what circumstance the fact that one is gay or likes having sex with goats (or whatever) comes up in a business environment. Discussing sexual orientation in a business setting is highly unprofessional. Sexual intercourse preferences are NOT something companies should be discussing so I don’t understand why it needs to be in a policy statement. To repeat: it is, after all, no one’s business!
I can understand creating a company policy stating an aversion to discrimination against race, gender, or religion. These attributes are immediate apparent. One can quite accurately ascertain what race you are simply by looking. Same goes for gender. Religious conviction will come up the first day of Yom Kippur or Eid El Fitr (or whatever) when you HAVE to take time off, an act that could possibly impact business activities so it makes sense to include that in the policy.
But sexual preference? When ever will that come up in normal business activities? Oh, that’s right, I forgot: when you grab the butt of your co-worker! Oh but then, that’s already illegal.
What is the specific indirect harm delayed or immediate? Most likely it is termed indirect because there is no actual causal evidence, simply opinion versus opinion or not properly labeled.
I think the policy is a statement to the fact that it isn’t their business in case anyone has any doubts. I agree with much of what you say in theory but don’t feel it actually reflects reality. Companies need policy to guide their employees, it is possible, I guess, but highly unlikely that all employees in a large company would have the same view on things unless policy dictated that view from an official standpoint. A hiring manager may feel that discriminating against someone is alright but that certainly shouldn’t be and probably isn’t the feeling of the company. Applying policy gives consistency to the processes.
As for the detectability, there are many times where people will judge sexual preferences based on various cues and whether that is accurate or not has no bearing on the topic. It is a done deal. The reaction to that detection is something that should be managed in a corporate environment; policy is the mechanism to handle that.
Finally, like it or not sex comes up in the workplace on a regular basis; it is tough for it not to. Sex is one of the most core aspects of what we are as human beings even though many would like to shuffle it and its discussion under the covers so to speak. If sex was such a non-issue, a whole category of laws wouldn’t need to exist.
I completely agree that when it comes down to it the only thing that should matter in your PR and when getting a job is how good of a worker you are. We don’t, however, currently live in that world and discrimination is almost the norm whether it be due to sexual preference, race, religion, or gender.
Never said nor implied sex was a “non-issue”, Joe. In fact, it is precisely because sex is so inflammatory and “important” that I wish it gone from the realm of business, where it should play no part. You seem to agree with that.
However, you also seem to think that since “reality” is different and that sex is indeed an obstinate part of the workplace because of human nature, we require policies to protect people from discrimination. If we follow your thought process on this, we can equally say that since watching pornography is a major and obstinate part of the young American male sex life, so we should let it in the workplace BUT to be strictly governed by policy. Perhaps only being allowed within the hours of 3 and 4pm.
You will see that it is an untenable position. In fact, it is my assertion that the policy on sex in the workplace should be explicitly spelled out in the negative: NO sex in the workplace. This is due to the destructive, deleterious and very unproductive influence of sex.
Be careful not to conflate corporate policy and governmental laws. There are literally, thousands of laws governing sexual conduct in society and these are very, very strictly confined to limited areas of the law: criminal and tort. One may not, for example, have sex with underage people, that’s a criminal infraction; needless to say: no rape, etc. Sexual harassment in the workplace is not only criminal, the perpetrator can be made to pay civil penalties (tort or personal injury law). Since corporate bodies are, by definition, a part of society, there already exists a body of law that covers sexual misconduct in the workplace hence no need for specific policies.
The problem with passing policies (and by extension I think, societal laws) that regulate sexual behaviour is that it is none of the companies’ business and neither should it be the government’s. As long as there are two consenting adults and no one is getting hurt, although some people like to get hurt 🙂
Quite apart from that, such policies are almost impossible to properly execute. And(!) they are way too easily corrupted. I have seen situations in which a heterosexual man, bitter at being demoted–and rightly so because he was a very poor worker–brought (homo)sexual discrimination charges against his 60-year-old boss. Just how would a policy forbidding sexual orientation discrimination help in such a circumstance? should the company force someone (the 60-year-old boss perhaps) to prove their homosexuality?
I’m a forceful Libertarian in that regard: keep your corporate and government hands out of my pants.
I agree that it shouldn’t play a part in business but see no realistic mechanism to remove it and thinking it ever will be is unrealistic. No policy, no law, papal decree, no wishful thinking will ever succeed.
The porno piece really isn’t the same but I will respond in that it can actually be monitored/controlled with technical means in the workplace. Not much possibility to stop an eye to eye glance that is held maybe a second or two too long and thinking and casual accidental bumps except for making everyone telecommute and even then two people who want to make a connection absolutely will and very likely use business resources to do so.
I am actually out of time for the night but want to say that sex is probably the most productive force in human history, I think more has been constructively done in the name of sex than pretty much any other reason. Contrast that with organizaed religion which has been a great force of destruction. 🙂
De gustibus non est disputandum.
I don’t think you get my point: you agree sex has no place in business yet you continue to push for including it in policy statements. {scratch head} 🙂
(Heterosexual) sex has been the most productive force in human history because it is solely responsible FOR human history: no humans, no history. However, like every single other human institution, it has caused problems. Yes, the church has been a great force of destruction, but it has also saved (literally) billions of people. There are too many examples but in Africa, where I grew up, without the church’s help, I daresay the number of children that would die of silly diseases would be astronomical, even in 2006.
However, since I doubt there will ever exist a logical argument against this issue that you’ll agree with–hence my opening sentence–I think I’ll just call it good. Let’s get back to bashing McAfee!
My Latin is rusty but I think that sums it up well. 🙂
I don’t wish to have to have a policy to spell things out like that. For none of those categories… race, religion, gender, sexual preferences, any of them. However, until the level of intelligence in this country comes up a significant amount to where people realize being different doesn’t equate to being dangerous and certain groups stop being divisive and attacking minorities to further their agendas by presenting the “that is our enemy” mentality so consolidate their own forces I see us having no choices in the matter.
I am sad to say that I have a brother who is relatively intelligent (some would even consider him to be very intelligent) who has become more and more god fearing every day and at the same time more and more of a homophobe because of the indoctrination he is receiving. I have little doubt in my mind that he would discriminate against someone at work (or anywhere) if they were not of the “proper” sexual inclinations. I raz him for it every chance I get because I hate seeing his mind close up like that. This has only happened since he got divorced. He lost a wife and found god. I am happy to know that there are policy statements out there to prevent someone like him from taking that decision into his own hands when there is a chance to make that decision at work.