![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
Is BMW hypocritical for marketing to gay clientele without extending worker benefits to the same?
Can BMW
eat its cake and have it too? That's the question Joe LaMuraglia is asking about the German automaker. The editor of Gaywheels.com questions how it is that the Bimmer-builders fail to offer same-sex benefits to employees, yet buys ads in gay-oriented publications such as OUT or The Advocate. This behavior stands in sharp contrast to such automakers like Subaru and Volvo, who offer same-sex benefits to their workers, as well as advertise in gay-oriented media.
LaMuraglia is quick to point out that he is not advocating a BMW boycott. He does, however, question why OUT and Advocate, would accept such funding while being fully aware of BMW's policies.
Shout out your opinion in Comments.
[Source: Gaywheels.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Neal M 6:12PM (3/30/2006)
BMW should keep on marketing to gays. Gays just shouldn't buy BMWs.
What year is this??? 2006? Is it still okay to be obviously discriminating against minorities? What is really funny about all of this is that in every other country BMW manufactures in (except Russia), like Germany for example, they are REQUIRED BY LAW to give equal treatment to gay workers. It is illegal in the European Union to discriminate against minorities...Somehow this got lost in translation when they build cars in the US.
Don't buy a BMW until they don't discriminate against you. That's all there is to it.
Reply
Finished.Law.School 6:30PM (3/30/2006)
"Is BMW hypocritical for marketing to gay clientele without extending worker benefits to the same?"
No.
If gay people do not like it then don't buy BMW and stop whining.
Reply
Corey 6:36PM (3/30/2006)
"The editor of Gaywheels.com questions how it is that the Bimmer-builders fail to offer same-sex benefits to employees, yet buys ads in gay-oriented publications such as OUT or The Advocate"
Simple, the prior costs BMW money, while the latter helps make BMW money. Marketing to gays has absolutely nothing to do with providing same-sex spouse benefits.
Reply
Strom 6:43PM (3/30/2006)
BMW is there to build cars, make money, and maximize shareholder wealth. One way they do that is by restricting the benefits to their workers.
I'm not saying that it's right. I'm just saying that BMW is going to do what is best for their bottom line. If people don't agree with it, they shouldn't buy BMW's products.
Reply
Collin 6:51PM (3/30/2006)
Its just a simple reminder that companies are not your friends, theyre companies and they could care less about the individual.
BMS markets to the gay community because they know the gay community likes them, among many others. They only thing you can do is show your disapproval by not buying BMW, and get a better car instead, like an Audi; who in addition advertises to the gay community and gives benefits.
Reply
BrianS 7:03PM (3/30/2006)
No, because last time I checked, BMW was a business that sought to make money by selling cars, not an insurance company or a mutual benefit society.
Reply
John Cressy 7:10PM (3/30/2006)
I'm a flaming hetrosexual and I think they should just stop advertising in those magazines. Then they won't be hypocrites. Maybe they should just stop paying benefits to all couples and just pay for the guy or girl they employ. Why should a couple get anything extra because, one of them works and the other dosen't. Maybe if I was single and had a dog at home I can get BMW to pick up the vet bill.
Reply
John Cressy 7:11PM (3/30/2006)
I'm a flaming hetrosexual and I think they should just stop advertising in those magazines. Then they won't be hypocrites. Maybe they should just stop paying benefits to all couples and just pay for the guy or girl they employ. Why should a couple get anything extra because, one of them works and the other dosen't. Maybe if I was single and had a dog at home I can get BMW to pick up the vet bill.
Reply
Matt Pipes 7:14PM (3/30/2006)
I think that if automakers, or anyone else wants the all mighty gay dollar they should walk the walk. It is not as simple as "if gay people do not like it then don't buy BMW and stop whining." I don't think anyone is actually whining, but if you are treating some of your employees as less valuable than others based on their sexuality - or any other reason it stands to reason then you shouldn't turn around and act as if you support their community just to get their cash. It's not whining, or hypocritical... I think the correct word is duplicitous.
Reply
Strom 7:33PM (3/30/2006)
It's also really a legal issue. Does BMW provide benefits to "significant others" who live with heterosexual employees? Gay marriage is not currently legal in most states, so BMW would have to offer benefits to significant others on both sides (gay or not).
Reply
emulous1974 8:44PM (3/30/2006)
Wow, I didn't realize how ignorant I was to this. I just assumed that BMW offered in other Countries that they hire people in.
IMO a company is not hypocrites if they go after the "gay dollar" while not providing same-sex domestic partnership benefits, but they should be ready and armed to to get the barage of feedback this is going to draw.
I for one will be writing a letter to BMW USA.
Reply
GrowUp 9:43PM (3/30/2006)
No, it's not. Next question?
Reply
SHOTT3R 9:49PM (3/30/2006)
Gays are not a minority. Stop it.
In fact let's just outlaw the word minority altogether.
The comment re: gay partnerships not being legal marriage so they don't have to cover it, and the one re: quit buying BMWs and quit whining address the issue fully.
Next blog post!
Reply
Ryan 9:50PM (3/30/2006)
"No, because last time I checked, BMW was a business that sought to make money by selling cars, not an insurance company or a mutual benefit society"
-First off, not in the United States, Americans truly are co-depentant on corporations for health insuranse as there only *somewhat* reasonable option for cost-effective (term used loosly) insurance. We both know health insurance is a common element that comes along with employment in the United States, simply stating they are a CAR maker, kind of skirts around the issue.
*Second*
-If that was the case then why do they offer insurance to straight married couples?
I think that we can all agree, at the very least weather your a *breeder* or a *flamer* it is just plain bad taste to advertise in gay mags and *act* like you care. But as a gay dude, it is just as frustrating to me that the above-listed mags allowed such a thing, but at the same time it's all about money, so I'm lost.
#2
Your Quote:
"If gay people do not like it then don't buy BMW and stop whining."
Quote From Article:
"LaMuraglia is quick to point out that he is NOT advocating a BMW boycott."
-Yeah we sure are whining... Thank God I'm not straight.
Reply
Ryan 10:11PM (3/30/2006)
Well, on the bright side, all of those advertising dollars/euros went to the gay community, somethings better than nothing.
There is not a doubt in my mind that it is just a matter of time before they start to offer the same benefits to everyone
Reply
Dan 11:21PM (3/30/2006)
Many companies won't even hire a convicted felon let alone give them benefits, but will still happily sell their products to them.
Where does the line for the wrongheaded outrage over that, umm, "hypocrisy" start?
Reply
GotThatVibe 1:10AM (3/31/2006)
Since when does paying for an ad in a publication mean that you support that organizations agenda? In my experience, it is the exact OPPOSITE that holds true. If you are a publication, it is your responsibility to only run ads that your customers will support/tolerate. Liquor companies don't support (straight) men's magazines and "the male community", men's magazine's and the male community support liquor companies. The examples are endless if you take a look at it.
Just recently a very popular computer magazine pulled it's ads for a company that uses unethical means to acquire mass amounts of valuable in-game items that they then sell to customers for real life money. Many legit gamers don't appreciate this sort of practice, so the magazine pulled the ad, despite the loss of revenue. Simple.
(Anyone else see the "smug cloud" lingering over #13's post? :P )
Reply
Adam 8:10AM (3/31/2006)
Dan (#15): Don't be absurd. There's a difference between selling a car to a convicted felon and advertising in (for example) "Convicted Felons Illustrated" (e.g. targeting a specific audience). The problem here is that someone reading Advocate--a magazine that supports the equal rights of LGBT individuals--would believe that anyone advertising in that magazine shares that magazine's beliefs. If you want an extreme comparison, it's comparable to (for example) KKK Clothing, Inc, advertising in Ebony--"We think your readers are second class citizens, but we want their money anyway."
Reply
Steve C. 8:41AM (3/31/2006)
Yikes!
Answer the freaking question!
Is BMW hypocritical? Of course. They are asking people to buy their car that they discriminate against in the workplace.
Forget that the question involves gays and forget that there are laws here and there that require or prohibit offering helath care benefits to same-sex partners, or laws leave it up to the individual company to decide whom to offer health coverage. At this point, it's a "free market" choice for employers.
As a few have mentioned, the "free market" response to this conundrum is for gays to go buy something else and let BMW know why they're doing it. Maybe they (BMW) will change their policy, maybe they won't, but in the interim they remain hypocrites.
Reply
Sean 8:46AM (3/31/2006)
If someone would have checked, BMW DOES NOT offer domestic partner benefits. There isn't any stipulation between same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Benefits are only available to a spouse. Marriage, or whatever it will be called for a same-sex couple is not yet a widespread option in this country. Some companies offer domestic partner benefits and some do not. If a company decides to offer domestic partner benefits, they can not discriminate as to which type of "domestic partnership" as per Federal law. What Bush and his supporters don't realize, if they gave gay people marriage, most gays would be so elated, they'd let him slide on just about every other issue which makes this administration so problematic. Simple human nature; you give someone something they really want, and it changes their view of you. They are much more likely to get off your back and cut you some slack. Most people are more self-interested than they are comfortable admitting.
Reply