• Apr 5th 2006 at 11:02AM
  • 35

Ford’s shareholders are to reportedly consider changing the company’s equal employment policy language to exclude any mention of sexual orientation. The move is expected after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rejected the automaker’s bid to keep the matter from its proxy statement. As of right now, the Blue Oval’s policy includes clauses that specifically outline the company’s pledge not to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, but a request by shareholder Robert Hurley has submitted the proposal for consideration.

Ford has apparently been petitioning the government agency to exclude the issue, arguing that its inclusion will hurt the automaker’s chances of wooing potential employees at certain universities (that require sexual orientation to be included in recruiting companies’ policies), also fearing that backlash stemming from such a changeover could hurt sales to GLBT supporters.

The proxy statement goes out this Friday, at which point shareholders will vote on the issue. The result is expected to be made public on May 11 at Ford’s annual meeting.

[Source: Associated Press via Detroit News]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 9 Years Ago
      I find the image attached to this story to be offensive.
      Paul Wilson is a jerk.
      Chris Paukert should apologize to autoblog readers.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Um, "klaatu"... "enough" with the "friggin" "quotes" "already." That's "annoying."
      • 9 Years Ago
      Hey klaatu, it's Gort,

      And taking 1/3 of our money to do it?

      It's much more than that, think about all the TAX on TAX items, and additional items like the 911 surcharge on your phone bill, that is then taxed. Or our after tax dollars that pay sales, road use tax, etc:

      • 9 Years Ago
      MJ - The custom-paint F-150 image was used in a previous post on a similar topic without negative feedback, despite bringing a ton of comments (and was taken from an explicitly gay-friendly source to boot). That said, we're not in the business of offending people, so please consider this an apology. The image has been changed.

      • 9 Years Ago

      You are just downright scary. Mind your own business, live your life how you believe it should be lived, and don't judge others. I am a Christian, and I believe that Ford and all other companies should have a clause that says it's illegal to discriminate based on race, gender, sexual or religious orientation.

      I hope the scary posts by people like you wake up the majority of us who just live our life and let God be the judge at the end. We need to wake up so the so-called Christians who feel it is their duty to run around and judge everyone else, and make us conform to your narrow, bigoted point of view see that you really are a minority, and in the USA, majority rules! Not just the loudest, but the largest.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Klaatu, you're a bigot.

      And you don't desrve that name.

      Now slink away and think of more ways to repress women.
      • 9 Years Ago
      This is a perfect example of how Mom was right, you don't talk Politcs, Religion or Sex in public.

      It's time to stop worrying about what other folks do and how they live.

      It far past the time, when I need to know if someone is gay, not gay, bisexual, homosexual, transsexual,transgender, whatever. I really don't care, so long as they are a good employee or a good customer and are genuine people.

      We are way to eager to label people and things we don't or don't want to understand or see in a certain way.

      Think about it, if Christ came back today, long hair, flowing robes, put together a group of 12 men, men only, started talking peace and love, care to guess what they be labeled? GAYS Or because of their coloring, terrorists from "over there" Or a group of druggies.

      You know it's sort of like the story earlier that GM (1 company) was overtaken by a group of Japanese companies.

      Approx 33% of the world follows Christian teachings and that group can't even get along with each other very well.

      21% is Islam
      14% is Hindu
      Jewish .22%
      Buddhism 6%
      Chinese traditional 6%
      Non Religious hmmmmm 16%
      Primal Religions 6%
      So the majority of the world does not follow Christianity and that is comprised of a splinter group of about 12+ "followings"

      So who has any right to say how someone should live, what is written and what is lived by individuals is a truly individual choice and each in the end may have it's consequences. If you beleieve that we were given "free will" then we all need to basically mind our own business regarding some issues.


      Mom was right, you don't talk Politcs, Religion or Sex in public.


      • 9 Years Ago
      Why are homosexual activists telling or little school age boys and girls to celebrate "diversity" when they themselves are practicing sameness?
      • 9 Years Ago
      Anyone remember when Christians used to let God be the judge?
      • 9 Years Ago

      "This is exactly the kind of bull-crap that allows more and more people to tell me that I can't behave a certain way because it might offend someone."

      -Imagine that, what a fucking concept.

      ""This is exactly the kind of bull-crap that allows more and more people to tell me that I can't behave a certain way because it might offend someone."

      -Such as:
      -Being fired for being gay
      -Not being able to be recognized in your country as a couple, does not even have to be marriage, just some form of recognition.

      You know before you are start going off on how frustrated you are because of offending someone, try being gay and walking into any place virtually ANY place (in the USA) with your partner and having to WORRY about not offending anyone.
      • 9 Years Ago

      Is a Ford truck with pink flames offensive to use as the illustrative picture for a story about Ford and Ford's gay employees? I wasn't offended, but I found the picture inappropriate. Though I didn't complain about the pic, I appreciate that Autoblog changed it.

      I found it inappropriate because I asked myself why the author would choose that picture. Is it a pun on the derogatory term "flamer?" Would one consider the truck to have a "gay" paint job, where "gay" is junior-high slang for "bad" (and that is definitely a "bad" paint job!)?

      I don't know. If the article were about people from Poland, I would hope not to see a picture of a guy changing a light bulb.

      Plus, the discussion of the picture has sidetracked us from the issue at hand. Given that Ford is having serious troubles these days, why in the world would a shareholder propose removing one of Ford's tools for attracting and retaining talent?
      • 9 Years Ago
      I just can't believe that someone is so *focused* on this. The majority of Americans do *not* believe in being able to be fired for simply being gay.

      I'm really just, wow, don't know what to think of this person, he really wants it pulled because he think you should be able to fire gay people, how would they even know anyway if you never say anything?

      Also, even if it is removed from company policy, they still have to follow state policy. I know even here in good ol' Nevada you can't fire someone for being just gay.

    • Load More Comments