Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ken Garff Honda Boycott {Calif Prop-8 discussion}

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ken Garff Honda Boycott {Calif Prop-8 discussion}

    Californians Against Hate plans to launch a boycott of Salt Lake City-based Ken Garff Automotive Group, a licensed dealer for the Honda GX, in retaliation for $100,000 donated to pro-Prop 8 forces by the spouse of the car company's CEO.

    Reports the Salt Lake Tribune.
    Last edited by echamberlain; 02-11-2009, 10:52 AM. Reason: Added relevance.

  • #2
    Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott

    Wow. What a devisive and non-CNG topic!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott

      This is just an example of one of our principle freedoms. If you like either side of the question or don't like either side of the question, be thankful you can peacefully express your opinion.

      Yes, this is a CNG forum and should stay that as such -- that is also freedom of expression


      Larrycng U.S. Navy Vet
      Last edited by larrycng; 02-11-2009, 08:40 AM. Reason: add final comment

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott

        Due to the political nature of the post, I moved it to the Lounge.

        Todd
        CNG Vehicle - 2002 Honda Civic GX
        CNGPrices.com - The latest prices at CNG stations near you
        AltFuelPrices.com - Prices and station locations for CNG, E85, Biodiesel and more!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott

          I've been boycotting Ken Garff for the past 3 years. I have a Benz and their service sucks. After my last visit when they didn't find a problem that was clearly under warranty and then charged me a diagnostic fee, I vowed to never return to them or buy a car from them. found a really good independent Benz shop in SLC (Werner's).

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott

            It appears that the "Californians against Hate" hypocrites hate anyone who disagrees with them, including apparently a majority Californian's (at least those who live outside of San Francisco).

            Frankly, I couldn't care less; if they want to boycott Garff Honda, let them- I doubt they come to SLC much anyway, which is fine with me. These gay activists are destroying all the public support they might have built up over the last decades with these stupid antics.

            I personally have nothing against gays as long as they respect my privacy. As far as Im concerned, they chose a deviant lifestyle and should take responsibility of all that goes with that choice. IMHO, homosexuality will never be normal or acceptable, at least according to Darwin.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott

              While I'll never understand the gay lifestyle, or whatever it's called these days, I also didn't agree with Prop 8. It was more about the religious factions making sure those gays couldn't use their word 'marriage' than anything else. In California, a Domestic Partnership (which is still perfectly legal/valid) is identical to a Marriage in virtually every way except name. Outlawing them using the word marriage was a ridiculous waste of the legislative/judicial process, and a serious waste of a LOT of campaign financing. I firmly believe Prop 8 WAS driven by hate, unfamiliarity, and misunderstanding.

              The Darwin comment is actually rather ludicrous. Basing the validity of the marriage based on reproduction and evolution would effectively mean that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, that doesn't have children is unacceptable.

              EDIT: That aside, I also find it rather offensive to have so many NON-CALIFORNIA residents/companies spending so much money/interest in California's political affairs.
              Last edited by CraziFuzzy; 02-11-2009, 07:17 PM.
              1997 Factory Crown Victoria w/ extended tanks ~~ Clunkerized!
              2000 Bi-Fuel Expedition --> ~~ Sold ~~ <--

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott

                To vote in free conscious or donate money to a cause that one believes in; does not translate to being a discriminator. It does not mean that you will be fired from your job if you are gay. It does not mean that people have the right to harass you if you are gay. It simply means that through a democratic vote, a decision to alter the definition of marriage as exercised for mileniums of time should be amended. People on both sides of this issue spent money and voted. However, you only see one side of the aisle really over stepping bounds. Using scare tactics of posting personal information and inviting people to harass donors is closer to being a hurtful discriminator.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott

                  For me, my problem wasn't necessarily about whether one side or the other was right or wrong, but more of whether it was something that should be a law at all. I honestly believe marriage, domestic partnerships, and what have you, are nothing more than a contractual agreement between two parties to share in all ups and downs of life. I don't feel that it is the government's place to decide WHO you can make said agreement with, and in California, this is still the case. I also feel that the concept of only 2 parties in said agreement is also overly restrictive, though I'm sure a large part of our Utah community here have strong reservations about that as well. All this law did was specify what you can CALL that agreement, which, IMO, is a pointlessly restrictive law, and unfairly restrictive to a subset of the community, therefore making it both discriminatory, AND unnecessary. If anything, the state constitution should not have ANY definition for marriage, as it is primarily a religious definition, and can vary greatly from religion to religion.

                  You are right, I do only see one side as overstepping any bounds, however, I feel it is the obligation of the proponents for any bill to argue both the merits, and necessity, of any new laws. I feel they did not meet this burden with Prop 8, which was my main opposition for the bill. I know many Californians who are staunchly against homosexuality, but still voted no on the bill, based on the lack of this necessity. They all basically said the same thing as rtry9a: "I personally have nothing against gays as long as they respect my privacy." Except they actually walk the walk, and return that respect for privacy.
                  1997 Factory Crown Victoria w/ extended tanks ~~ Clunkerized!
                  2000 Bi-Fuel Expedition --> ~~ Sold ~~ <--

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott

                    To paraphrase an eminent gentleman from the past, we have the best laws, and government, that money can buy.
                    It is the responsibility of each individual to study the facts, all of the facts, (not spins) of proposition on the ballot and the positions and beliefs of each candidate; then vote what they individually we feel would be in the best interest of the country or state, as the case may be. Bottom line, get rid of the &$#@*( special interest groups and the lobbyists that plague our government

                    Next promote the grass roots movement to expanded use of CNG vehicles and CNG interfrastructure.

                    Larrycng

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott {Calif Prop-8 discussion}

                      Crazyfuzzy,

                      I fully understand your opinion About the whole "marriage" issue. I see things a little differently. The problem here is keeping the sanctity of the family intact. As I see it, the marriage contract is primarily about raising kids in a stable environment, with religious and legal overtones. I believe that gays should have every constitutional right and privilege that the rest of the population enjoys, which includes the legal recognition of their partnerships, but to call a liaison between two homosexuals a marriage is pushing the basic childbearing issue in a family.

                      The real driver behind this whole movement is not the marriage certificate, it is a legal maneuver to recognize homosexuality. Where the amendment has passed (Mass), kids in public schools are now required to read gay-friendly literature and are exposed to any of a number of propaganda sources. That weakens the basic structure of our society, the family. It is also the reason why the LDS church, along with many others, opposes the constant efforts of this deviant minority to legalize their lifestyle and promote its public acceptance. I have no problem with the certificate itself, I do have a problem with the legal recognition of homosexuality.

                      fwiw, Darwin said in effect that any (genetic) trait that weakens a species ability to reproduce weakens that species and, through attrition, evolution involves losing those weak traits in the gene pool and keeping those that improve reproductive efficiencies; it should also include behavioral abnormalities that have the same effect.

                      An interesting factoid, the Socialized countries (and liberals in particular) have a very low birthrate in the US and Europe; the societies with a higher birthrate (latin and moslem) are gaining numerical dominance and will eventually overtake the World- it is already apparent in our Southern border states and in the Middle east/Indonesia. I suspect our racial and social identities will eventually change as well.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott {Calif Prop-8 discussion}

                        The voters of California agree that a SINGLE SENTENCE be added to the state constitution. That sentence does just one thing . . . in about 14 words. It defines a legal marraige (as recognized by the State) as that which is between a man and a woman.

                        Prop. 8 DOES NOT take away any exhisting rights, privliges, or accomadations afforded to members of a homosexual life style.

                        But for those of you who do want to make this issue political, I suggest that you boycott Black (African-American) business, churches, social and political leaders. No other voting block approved of Prop. 8 with such overwhelming support as did Black voters of California -- about 70%. Or is it too politically incorrect for one minority group (homosexuals) to go after another miniority group (African-Americans)? It can't always be the White Man's fault.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott {Calif Prop-8 discussion}

                          The Lounge seems to have degenerated into name calling and politics only...can we at least slip CNG into the rants somewhere.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A few gentle reminders

                            So far so good, let's keep the dialog civil
                            http://cngchat.com/index.php?pid=9#respectdiversity
                            http://cngchat.com/index.php?pid=9#personalattacks

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ken Garff Honda Boycott {Calif Prop-8 discussion}

                              It looks like the boycott may be off anyways.
                              I saw this on the news last night:
                              http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story...csc6bsAcQ.cspx
                              www.CNGUtah.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X