FRC Reports: Exxon-Mobile Stands With Pro-Marriage Values of its Shareholders
From the Family Research Council's Washington Update:
It won't change how much we're paying for gas, but it might comfort you to know that at Exxon-Mobil your business isn't fueling the homosexual agenda. For the 13th straight year, shareholders voted to maintain their reputation as the only major oil company to uphold the values of a majority of Americans. At Exxon's annual meeting, the corporation voted down a resolution to add special protections for "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to its employment opportunity policy. After so many years of resistance, the result may not have come as a surprise--but the measure of victory certainly did. A whopping 80% of shareholders voted against the amendment--the largest margin of defeat in recent memory. One homosexual activist lamented that "the percentage of shareholders voting for the policy had increased steadily over the years to about 40%." But this week's result--in the midst of a national debate over same-sex "marriage"--was a colossal blow to the homosexual community, which is desperate to prove that its agenda is resonating with Americans.
In a corporate environment dictated by wealthy, pro-homosexual activists, we applaud Exxon-Mobil for refusing to cede the moral high ground to the special interests of the Left. While other businesses drift away from their principles or capitulate under pressure, this company is putting its stock in something other than political correctness. And, as Exxon-Mobil representatives point out, any additions to the nondiscrimination policy are unnecessary. They view the company as a "meritocracy," where employees are rewarded on the basis of performance--not sexual preference. Their conviction is a refreshing change from companies like Starbucks and Target, who continue to alienate customers with radical political views. Join us in thanking Exxon-Mobil for refusing to be bullied. Click here to send the company a note of appreciation!
We are also continuing to build up our campaign at DumpStarbucks.com -- now over 43,000 pledges strong!
31 Comments
Very good. Exxon-Mobil shareholders understand that changes to nondiscrimination policy are unnecessary, and that any such changes would only be politically motivated.
It's the same story with school anti-bullying policies. Bullying is already prohibited. We don't need to carve out special policies for any particular groups. We just need to enforce policies that are already in place.
You'd think that "corporate fairness" would include protecting and recognizing the diversity of the corporations employees -- including the lgbt ones.
Great point about anti-bullying policies and how they relate to these protections for special interests, Barb.
When I was in school, the people who were bullied the most were the little guys. By the homosexual activist standards, there should be special protections for short kids. Oh, and smart kids and kids with glasses. Oh, and fat kids. And not-so-smart kids....
Garrett - Everyone is covered under existing policy; BLTg-ers are looking for special protections that no one else gets.
Such as the right to not be fired or discriminated against because of sexual orientation? That's no in the policy. (And, by the way, sexual orientation includes heterosexuality.)
How about fat people, Garrett? Should they be a protected class too? Ugly people? Short people? And why not pedophiles? After all, as long as they're doing good work, why should they be discriminated against just because they like little boys and girls?
Why should BLT-gers have special protections and others not?
From the Exxon-Mobil web site:
"Any form of discrimination by or toward employees, contractors, suppliers, and customers in any ExxonMobil workplace is strictly prohibited. Our global, zero-tolerance policy applies to all forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."
What the heck does the opposition want?
Overcame, I wasn't aware that Exxon/Mobil employees could be fired solely for being heterosexual. You're okay with that?
1. More proof that NOM doesn't want corporations to remain "neutral" as they claim, they want corporations to push their anti-gay agenda which leads me to...
As a shareholder, I don't want gay identity politics interfering with the business plan or the core values of the company.
Barb, Please provide the URL. Notice that sexual orientation and gender identity are not mentioned anywhere in this published policy: http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/sbc.pdf
Leviticus (or death to gays if you prefer): I'd think that a shareholder would like to see them taking steps to avoid costly discrimination lawsuits.
Ahem....."costly" is a relative term, Amends, and one which I daresay almost anyone would rather confront while standing in Exxon's shoes.
But knock yourselves out.
14th beat me to it.... NOM has said repeatedly that they want companies to stay neutral, yet they cheer when a company agrees with their side.
This is great and I will remember this when I need gas. Remember these people are a drain on all of us thanks to their disgusting sexual habits.
Because they deliberately practice unhealthy sex acts they pass the cost onto all of us. It costs more to insure them. Why should I have to pay more in health insurance costs to cover someone else? If happy Hank wants to bang smiling Sam in the you know where why is it my fiscal responsibility?
It has been shown that when the get their sexual preferences covered the costs are passed onto all of us. The rest of us pay higher rates. When they were forced to buy individual insurance they either had to pay the extra risks or were uninsurable. By piggybacking onto business plans they passed on the costs to the rest of us.
In other words the want the right to practice their sex as long as someone else is paying the bill.
EXXON shareholders voted overwhelmingly to remain neutral on this subject so that means they agreed with NOM; is that right? Marriage Corruption supporters have just admitted that there is no middle ground in their war on human decency; either you are standing with them, or you are standing against them.
It's woth noting that NOM does not condone companies taking a stance on political issues. I believe this is an exception because well, most CEO's are donors to the Democrat party and promote socially liberal values.
I wish companies would stay out of the political areana but whatever.
or actually...scratch that, not socially liberal values...but liberal values in general.
typo: arena*
Homosexual orientation shouldn't be grounds for firing,but being in a homosexual relationship should be.
Now I know where I will be purchasing gasoline for my car (if the prices are reasonable).
Nobody cares what you do in your bedroom. Keep that stuff out of the boardroom!
Exxon is kind of a fair weather friend. They do support the gay agenda in other countries.
From Exxon's website:
"Benefit coverage for spouses is based on legally recognized spousal relationships in the individual countries where we operate. In the United States, we have adopted the definition of spouse used in federal law. Employees in countries where national law recognizes same-sex relationships receive spousal benefits under ExxonMobil programs."
"I wasn't aware that Exxon/Mobil employees could be fired solely for being heterosexual. You're okay with that?"
I'm good with that; I'm a great employee. They'd be stupid for firing me for being heterosexual, but that's how it goes with employment at will.
@OvercameSSA
Yeah, I'm sure you'd be totally OK with it if your gay boss fired you for being straight.
The last thing we need is another law that says all somebody has to do to get promoted, or hired, is to be in position to claim they are coverd by said law.
Everybody knows how this will end:
a) You did not hire me because I'm a ...
b) You did not premote me because I'm a ...
c) You are only complaining about my attendence record because I'm a ...
I spend $6000 per year on gas. Not a dime of it will be spent at Exxon or Mobil retailers. And there are millions who feel the same.
"Homosexual orientation shouldn't be grounds for firing,but being in a homosexual relationship should be."
More proof that the NOMers want to do more than stop gays and lesbians from marrying. They won't be happy until gays and lesbians have zero rights or protections under the law. NOM would never admit to it officially... thankfully their readers are a bit more willing to admit their true agenda.
"I spend $6000 per year on gas. Not a dime of it will be spent at Exxon or Mobil retailers. And there are millions who feel the same."
And there are hundreds of millions who disagree with you.
Just ask J.C. Penny's
@14
That's fantastic. Unfortunately, it will be another 50 years before your own boycott starts catching on.
They've discovered enough oil under U.S. soil to last us a good 2 centuries.
The thing with starbucks, anyone can make coffee and it isn't really vital in everyday life. 43,000 doesn't sound like a lot, but it's enough to put one store out of business.
Regardless. Obvious double standard. The leftists cheers starbucks but flip the bird to Exxon? The reasons are also obvious. They are an oil company so no matter what position they take, they'll always be dubbed "evil". But it's also ironic since Big Oil is one of Obama's biggest donors.
heh heh.
Great point in comment #16, Randy.
I don't know what the SSMers here are talking about, but Exxon *IS* remaining neutral.
SSMers view a company's decision to not give a special status to sexual preference as taking the "anti-gay" side.
Like you said, that simply shows that SSMers see no middle ground, whatsoever.
Unless a company is uttlerly prostrate to the LGBT lobby, it is their enemy.
It is very simple.
The marriage corruption movement is precisely targeted as an assault upon the single irreplaceable institution of human civilization.
It is an inexpressibly evil, cynical, solipsistic experiment in gaming the legal system as part of a coordinated strategy of media brainwashing.
It didn't work.
But the marriage corruption movement still hash;t figured out that it has lost yet.
That is because they still haven't figured out how to count to five.
Therefore we have a few cleanup operations in front of us this November.
Especially important is a solid win in MN.
GO MN!
Let's win it by TEN!