American Multinational Oil Company Says 'no' To Homosexual Age

[jmjtina]

American multinational oil company says 'No' to homosexual agenda

 

This vote marks the 14th year in a row that the company has refused to cave in to the demands of gay activists for special rights for homosexuals.

ExxonMobil said it already prohibits "all forms of discrimination" and "believes the proposal is unnecessary."

 

 

[4588686]

:vomit:

[homeschoolmom]

The subject line really confused me... What is the "homosexual age"?

[Ice_nine]

haha I think it was probably supposed to be "homosexual agenda" and got cut off

[Brother Adam]

:vomit:

 

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I don't think they actually did this to make a statement.

[GeorgiiMichael]

This was a really disjointed article and didn't really flow. It was unnecessarily long and rehashed the main point at least 4 times. The quotes from people who have nothing to do with ExxonMobile seemed out of place and definitely didn't add anything of value to the content of the article.

 

1/10, would not read again.

[Basilisa Marie]

The proposal, voted down by 81 percent of ExxonMobil's shareholders on May 30 read, "The Shareholders request that ExxonMobil amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to substantially implement the policy."

This vote marks the 14th year in a row that the company has refused to cave in to the demands of gay activists for special rights for homosexuals.

ExxonMobil said it already prohibits "all forms of discrimination" and "believes the proposal is unnecessary."

 

 

1. Sounds like this is a non-issue, because Exxon Mobil is already an EEO, so it can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender. 

2. There's no such thing as a homosexual agenda, unless you're talking about the general collective feeling among non-heterosexuals that they should be given the exact same civil liberties as heterosexuals, but even then I think it's silly to act like it's a giant conspiracy.  

3. Sounds an awful lot like the people who were against the ERA because women are already afforded equal protection under the law and don't need a separate amendment. 

[Socrates]

Thanks JMJTina.  I'll make it a point to buy Exxon gas.

[jmjtina]

If it was a non-issue, there wouldn't be any point to amend it's policy.

 

It's not a conspiracy. They are actually pretty open about it, the LGBT president is VERY vocal about it. It's one thing to be discrimated against for your sexual orientation, another to bully people into silence or out of business for their beliefs. Quite frankly, Canda is a prime example.

 

And if you are "blind" to the agressive behavior of the LGBT community & it's bullying tactics, then ignorance must be bliss. That attitude is the very reason why they get away with such bullying, including the media.

 

Your welcome Socrates. I knew you'd be holding the fort down. :cheers:

[4588686]

Thanks JMJTina.  I'll make it a point to buy Exxon gas.

 

 

I'm sure your kids will appreciate your cavalier attitude about empowering a corporation that is actively destroying their future  :hehe2:

[4588686]

If it was a non-issue, there wouldn't be any point to amend it's policy.

 

It's not a conspiracy. They are actually pretty open about it, the LGBT president is VERY vocal about it. It's one thing to be discrimated against for your sexual orientation, another to bully people into silence or out of business for their beliefs. Quite frankly, Canda is a prime example.

 

And if you are "blind" to the agressive behavior of the LGBT community & it's bullying tactics, then ignorance must be bliss. That attitude is the very reason why they get away with such bullying, including the media.

 

Your welcome Socrates. I knew you'd be holding the fort down. :cheers:

 

 

I didn't know that there was a LGBT president.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I notice that the proposal was voted down by shareholders. Given that it is a publicly traded company that means that the vote itself represents the owners' collective wishes. Ownership which, you remember, you could be a part of for about $90, right this second.

 

That being said, the vast majority of their shares are held by other major corporations and mutual funds. Here is a list of all major shareholders.

 

So, taking all that into account, it is not really so much "ExxonMobil rejected such and such a proposal" as much as it is "The Vanguard Group, State Street Corporation, BlackRock Institutional Trust, etc., etc., etc., rejected such and such a proposal on behalf of ExxonMobil." 

 

At the end of the day it is not particularly relevant, but I do think it is worth noting for the sake of accuracy.

[Socrates]

I'm sure your kids will appreciate your cavalier attitude about empowering a corporation that is actively destroying their future  :hehe2:

 

So how exactly is Exxon actively destroying my kids' future?  

Is it by being insufficiently supportive of homosexuality, or is it the fact that they drill for oil?

 

Or is it some other secret plot I'm not privy to?

[Basilisa Marie]

If it was a non-issue, there wouldn't be any point to amend it's policy.

 

It's not a conspiracy. They are actually pretty open about it, the LGBT president is VERY vocal about it. It's one thing to be discrimated against for your sexual orientation, another to bully people into silence or out of business for their beliefs. Quite frankly, Canda is a prime example.

 

And if you are "blind" to the agressive behavior of the LGBT community & it's bullying tactics, then ignorance must be bliss. That attitude is the very reason why they get away with such bullying, including the media.

 

Your welcome Socrates. I knew you'd be holding the fort down. :cheers:

 

Yes, ignorance must indeed be bliss. :|