I am not saying Ford is anti-gay. However, this decision does reflect a significant step back from their previous pro-gay position. JaTo's response reflects a far smarter and more businesslike decision than the one Ford made. His whole post fits my position on this issue.
Why is it OK, or a smart business decision for the AFA to threaten a boycott?
Concentration of wealth is measured by average net worth. Gay men tend to earn more than the national average, and are far less likely to have children to hamper the building of wealth.
If the AFA didn't try to force their beliefs on others by threatening Ford, there would have been no decision to stand or cave. I also do have an issue with Ford for not replying as JaTo already posted.
But if Ford had the balls to stand up to the principles you claim they have, it would render AFA impotent. Again, the problem is Ford, not AFA.
I consider it economic terrorism when a group threatens to blow up your income statement if you don't do what they want. They did the same thing to Toyota for advertising on Nip/Tuck.
Originally posted by Davo:
Do you consider being marketed to a courtest?
I meant the courtesy to allow a company to also market in media outlets I don't like or agree with. However, advertising to me is sort of a courtesy. While it may tell me about the new Chinese restaurant or furniture store, it really doesn't influence what I want to buy. I decide what I want and then try to find it (unfortunately, sometimes with the issue of it not existing). 
