B
Brad
Guest
To me it means they have made some progress. AFA would not just suspend a boycott if they didn’t feel some progress was being made.
- Status
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Brad,
I honestly hope you are right. It is hard to believe that Ford would just dump its homosexual agendas because of a threat of a strike.
I honestly hope you are right. It is hard to believe that Ford would just dump its homosexual agendas because of a threat of a strike.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Brad,
Take note that it was Ford dealers involved…not Ford Motor Company. The dealers might try to put some pressure on FMC, but I personally think it will be very hard to get executives at FMC to change their minds…clearly some of those executives are very sympathetic to the gay agenda.
Take note that it was Ford dealers involved…not Ford Motor Company. The dealers might try to put some pressure on FMC, but I personally think it will be very hard to get executives at FMC to change their minds…clearly some of those executives are very sympathetic to the gay agenda.
B
Brad
Guest
I’m not saying they’ve dropped it. We’ll have to wait and see.
M
mikev
Guest
TPJ,
Well said/linked. This demonstrates Ford’s active support of these activities. Being so opposed to the Christian perspective and so active against it; they should not be aided by Christian money in pursuit of their agenda.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Brad,
I agree. I just think that the AFA put some pressure on the dealers…but the problem is I just don’t see FMC changing.
I agree. I just think that the AFA put some pressure on the dealers…but the problem is I just don’t see FMC changing.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
mikev,
I agree. In today’s world one can understand how FMC could change its benefits to include gays…yet FMC has a 100% rating from gay groups and FMC has shown it is a strong and deep-pocketed defender of gay agendas…specifically gay marriage.
I agree. In today’s world one can understand how FMC could change its benefits to include gays…yet FMC has a 100% rating from gay groups and FMC has shown it is a strong and deep-pocketed defender of gay agendas…specifically gay marriage.
S
soulspeak23
Guest
Other Eric:
This statement is unbelievably sad to me. I find it so hard to believe that person from a religion supposedly based upon love and acceptance could find in your hearts the ability to deny a person basic HUMAN rights such as food and shelter. These are most decidedly human rights, not “straight, god-fearing, catholic-only rights”. It seems as though you feel that homosexuals don’t even deserve to live, let alone eat and be able to sleep with a roof over thier heads. I understand your personal objections to the lifestyle, but you have no right, whether you think you do or not, to judge these kind of things. I hope to never be on the recieving end of your so called “charity”.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi Brad!
The landlord in your example may also not want to rent out his property to provide the means for an individual to commit what is objectively immoral and so refuse to rent an apartment or to evict a tenant who did not live up to the moral standard that the landlord expected of him. He might think that by doing so he is implying approval of an immoral lifestyle. Forcing a landlord to provide shelter to an immoral individual has been likened to discrimination against Christians. Do you disown this line of argument? If you do not, then the same logic can be applied to the clothes store owner, the soup kitchen worker or the funeral director. The homosexual has no special right to any of the services that they provide and therefore denying him is in no way a punishment. I see no reason why obtaining any of these services should not be conditional upon adherence to some minimal moral standard.
In the example you give, your child was found on your property punching another child and a disinterested bystander became involved by calling the police, which you contend was a legitimate consequence. In order to make the situation complete analogous, your child would have to communicate to the bystander an intention to punch the other child again. At that point, I am saying that the natural consequence to be expected is for the bystander to restrain your child to prevent this from happening. Is the act of restraining your child in this scenario sinful? I would think not. It is a reasonable exercise of the bystander’s moral principles in action. It is not a punishment.
Yes, the law does wonders in shaping people’s consciences. The law in ultimately the way that society expresses its disapproval of certain behaviors. If the arguments that homosexuality will ultimately lead to the destruction of society are to be believed, then society must respond in kind.
S
stbruno
Guest
AFA suspends Ford boycott for six months
Following a meeting with a group of Ford dealers on June 5, AFA has suspended its boycott due to the homosexual agenda of Ford Motor Company until December 1, 2005. In the meeting, the dealers asked for time to see if the concerns raised by AFA in their boycott announcement could be addressed by them in cooperation with officials from Ford Motor Company.
AFA felt that the dealers were making a good faith effort and agreed to accept their request. Therefore, the suspension request was accepted by AFA. During the remaining period AFA will work with the dealers in attempting to resolve our differences.
We urge those supporting the boycott to disregard the boycott until December 1, 2005.
On or about December 1 we will notify our supporters as to status of the boycott.
Thanks to all who contacted their local dealers. Your involvement made a difference!
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends.
Following a meeting with a group of Ford dealers on June 5, AFA has suspended its boycott due to the homosexual agenda of Ford Motor Company until December 1, 2005. In the meeting, the dealers asked for time to see if the concerns raised by AFA in their boycott announcement could be addressed by them in cooperation with officials from Ford Motor Company.
AFA felt that the dealers were making a good faith effort and agreed to accept their request. Therefore, the suspension request was accepted by AFA. During the remaining period AFA will work with the dealers in attempting to resolve our differences.
We urge those supporting the boycott to disregard the boycott until December 1, 2005.
On or about December 1 we will notify our supporters as to status of the boycott.
Thanks to all who contacted their local dealers. Your involvement made a difference!
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends.
B
Brad
Guest
Other Eric:
I don’t disown the argument because I never “owned” it. But I do disagree with it.
Other Eric:
Other Eric:
I disagree with the argument unless the immoral activity is harming the landlord/neighborhood financially or otherwise. The landlord is not the moral/legal authority of the tenant’s actions. Under your argument, no landlord could rent to anyone because everyone undertakes some immoral activity sooner or later.
I don’t disown the argument because I never “owned” it. But I do disagree with it.
Other Eric:
Restraining the child is providing protection. It is not punishment. It is direct and related to the bad behavior. You seem to not be understanding that distinguishment. My example was not providing aid if there was injury BECAUSE of the bad behavior. That is wrong. That is providing punishment outside of proper authority. When you punish outside of proper authority, it confuses those that you are trying to correct. It provides inconsistency becuase it is often done arbitrarily and seen that way.
Other Eric:
The arguments have strong historical backing as well as circumstancial evidence. Society has responded. A minority of judges has played the role of God in rejecting societies’ response. The critical path goes right through the judicial branch and, by association, the legislative branch.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi Brad!
Your designation of who has the proper authority to attach conditions onto an immoral action seems to me to be more and more strained.
A landlord has the exclusive right to determine the terms under which he will allow a tenant the use of his property. Those terms may be reasonable or unreasonable but that is besides the point. In the case of a landlord renting to a sexually active homosexual, the landlord may not wish to have his property used as the base of operations for one or a series of sexually immoral couplings. If this behavior violates the previously agreed upon terms that the landlord and the tenant have agreed to then the landlord retains the moral and legal right to pursue eviction proceedings.
Similarly, if Ford uses its financial resources in a manner that promotes sexual immorality, then you retain the right not to purchase their products. You retain the same exclusive right to the use of your money that the landlord retains to the use of his property.
Returning to the example of your violent child who needs to be restrained in order to prevent him from hitting another child again, you have said that the act of restraining the child is not sinful because of its direct relation to the child’s violent behavior. The problem that I see with this is that the distinction between a direct relationship and an indirect relationship is a subjective one. A landlord can say that he is responsible if he provides an apartment for a person to commit what is an objectively immoral act. The director of a soup kitchen can say that his decision to provide nourishment to a homosexual directly influences the homosexual’s decision to engage in sexual immorality by making it appear as though it is a trivial matter of no grave concern. I may choose not to use my money to purchase a vehicle from Ford because doing so is directly related to sexual immorality as well.
B
Brad
Guest
Other Eric:
I don’t know what state you live in but mine would never allow such a contract as you indicate. In some areas, 95% or more of potential renters fornicate. Is it right? No. Should they all be denied shelter? No. Jesus wouldn’t deny them shelter.
Other Eric:
There is little or no comparison between the 2 cases. One discriminates against a customer. The other discriminates against a company. Nobody is ever required to keep a company in business by buying their products. It is Ford’s job as a company to satisfy me as the customer. Can Ford not sell someone a car because they are homosexual? That is a more appropriate comparison.
I don’t know what state you live in but mine would never allow such a contract as you indicate. In some areas, 95% or more of potential renters fornicate. Is it right? No. Should they all be denied shelter? No. Jesus wouldn’t deny them shelter.
Other Eric:
Feeding and providing shelter are basic and natural needs and in no way encourage negative behavior. Negative behavior will occur regardless of where someone lives or eats. Love the sinner. Hate the sin. In fact, inviting a sinner to rent the apartment or eat at the soup kitchen may provide opportunity for evangelization and conversion of heart that will not exist in other enviroments.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi Brad!
I’m not sure what state you live in, but in mine there is no special provision for homosexual conduct that would require a landlord to provide shelter for a homosexual. Nor is a landlord required anywhere that I am aware of to provide shelter to just anyone who happens to ask. Outside of some socialist regime, a landlord generally has the freedom to interview potential tenants, run a credit and criminal background check and assess the suitability an individual applying for residency in one of his property. I see no reason why a person’s likely sexual conduct while in the apartment should be any different from any of the other criteria that the landlord is expressly free to take into account when deciding whether to rent out his property. To do so in the case of a homosexual is nothing more than “to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority.”(Romer v Evans, Scalia dissenting)
You may stammer that no one is required to keep a company in business, but then no one is required to provide for the security of a stranger. To do so in the latter case is an act of charity that one retains the absolute freedom to refuse.
To befriend these people with an aim to evangelization can also be argued to be woefully misguided. “Actually, the evangelization will go in the opposite direction. The same-sex couple; most of whom are skilled evangelizers for their “lifestyle,” will - amid the socializing and as the friendship develops - tell the Catholic family about the ill treatment they have encountered and the Catholic family will of course feel compassion, will feel their pain. The Catholic family will find that the same-sex couple are civilized people and will wonder why the Church is so hard on these nice people and why they shouldn’t be allowed to get married.” (New Oxford Review, “Notes” section, September 2004)
S
soulspeak23
Guest
Other Eric said:
You quote this as though homosexuals are wild animals ravaging the streets, conniving “innocent” landlords into(gasp) renting them an apartment! Homosexuals are humans. And, believe it or not, most of them are quite civilized. They use forks and knoves while eating, say please and thank you and may even have held a door open for you once or twice. And how exactly do you propose that these landlords screen for “gayness?” Do you think that all homosexuals wear a sign around their neck proclaiming it? You probably walk past people on the street all the time and have no idea if they are hetero- or homosexual. I still think that denying the basic HUMAN rights of food, shelter and clothing is ANYTHING but a catholic ideal.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi soulspeak23!
That homosexuals can act in a civilized manner when out in public is not something I dispute. I readily admit that I have had doors held open for me by such people. Indeed, I know it for a fact. Their behavior in this manner is, however, completely irrelevant to the point I am making.
No one has an inalienable right to food, clothing or shelter. If you took a piece of bread from a store because you were hungry, you would be prosecuted for theft. You do not have a right to it. If you were found trying to sleep in a house that was not your own you could be forcibly removed a prosecuted for trespass. You do not have a right to it. These are things that society sees fit to grant to those in need. I see no reason why society should not put conditions upon the reception of its benevolence. Especially from a class of people who, by their actions, mean to destroy society.
S
soulspeak23
Guest
Other Eric:
Cna you please give me some examples of homosexuals trying to “destroy society.” How in the world does who we choose to spend our lives with affect anyone else but ourselves and our partner? I’m not trying to move into your house and live off of your money. I live my own life each day. With my same-sex partner of five years. We go to work, pay our bills, donate our time to charities, take care of our pets and host dinners for friends. What about any of that is destructive to society and how on earth does it affect you?
S
soulspeak23
Guest
Other Eric:
Can you please give me some examples of homosexuals trying to “destroy society.” How in the world does who we choose to spend our lives with affect anyone else but ourselves and our partner? I’m not trying to move into your house and live off of your money. I live my own life each day. With my same-sex partner of five years. We go to work, pay our bills, donate our time to charities, take care of our pets and host dinners for friends. What about any of that is destructive to society and how on earth does it affect you?
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Hi soulspeak23!
Well, if two members of the same sex are living together in an arrangement that contains illicit sexual activity, and this arrangement comes to be tolerated, or worse, celebrated, then society begins to fall apart because it can no longer distinguish the proper use of one’s sexuality among other things.
S
soulspeak23
Guest
I’ve never encountered such closed-minded people in my life.
- Status