Thursday, October 2, 2008

Rich Devos Contributes $100,000 to Prevent Recognition of Gay Marriage By the State of Florida: Protesters Appear Outside Amway Arena


Bigotry comes in many different forms in our day and age. Gay rights have increasingly been recognized by various state legislators and courts. Class warfare between gay rights advocates and anti-gay organizations have been more and more common. Many people believe that gay bigotry is Biblical. One such person is Amway co-founder Rich Devos, Billionaire former owner of the Orlando Magic who over shadows all affairs Amway. (Mr. Devos transferred ownership to his children with Bob Vander Weide being named official owner.)

Alticor, the parent company of Quixtar/Amway Global has recently engaged in an Accreditation of the tool and function businesses ran by their “top of the pyramid” kingpin distributors. A core part of their effort is to outlaw intolerance and bigotry is the implementation of a “Right to Differ” rule that states intolerance will no longer be accepted from Amway podiums, training materials or distributor recordings. Well known distributors like Dexter Yager have in years past used these venues to preach hatred against others to include non-distributors.

Amway is correct in enacting their right to differ rules, but at the very same time, their co-founder--by his own actions--has sought to stifle recognition of gay marriage. There seems to be very little tolerance in the heart of the Amway co-founder for homosexual and lesbian couples in the face of the “Right to Differ” rules being invoked against Amway kingpin distributors and their down line followers.

There is news that pro-gay protesters have appeared outside of the Amway Arena in Orlando, Florida, where gays and their supporters have protested what they feel is Amway funded bigotry. Their right to differ, they feel, is being ignored by Devos. Devos, I might point out has stepped down as President of Amway and lives out his retirement years giving speeches and controlling the purse strings of his Republican causes which have helped keep Amway operating in the face of recent Tool Scam scandals and a IBO rebellion of up to 100,000 distributors.

Amway has always promoted leadership and emulation of its leaders. If Mr. Devos's leadership is to be followed, then religious intolerance and bigotry is promoted to the devotees of the Amway's product based pyramid scheme (known to the rest of the world as the American Scam). This is a question of hypocrisy of the highest order. I am not trying to represent that homosexuality is either good or bad, but it just happens to be an increasingly accepted fact of life in our society for which legal protections are becoming common place. Our legal system increasingly seeks to prevent discrimination in housing, jobs, health insurance, religion and social and religious organizations--especially those which receive federal funding.


Amway has in the past requested and received tax concessions from law makers and the federal government. (Click here, here and here for more details.) I suggest that public intolerance by Rich Devos seeks to disenfranchise gays and lesbians and that any further requests for “special status” by Amway be carefully examined. Is Amway serious about enforcing its own “right to differ” rules and allow openly gay people to participate in their pyramid scheme? If Amway distributors are prevented from making anti-gay and anti-hate speech from the Amway stage, isn't it highly inappropriate for Mr. Devos to use his Amway profits to crusade against gay rights? Could protesters be coming to your next Amway rally?

7 comments:

tex said...

Yes, no, and no.

Anonymous said...

Just a few thoughts from another dumb conservative :)

1. "Many people believe that gay bigotry is Biblical." No, we don't. Although unfortunately, some Christians don't act as they should.
We DO believe that homosexuality is a sinful practice, as scripture is clear on the issue. Marriage is holy. Do you blame us for asking the question, "Should homosexuality and marriage go together?" We answer, no. (this is a historically sound interpretation of various passages. Some say that evangelicals are wrong on the issues, but that is a lot of evangelicals over hundreds of years. Scripture is clear). For a resource on this, see: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/07/ji-packer-on-homosexuality.html#links

We do NOT advocate being a bigot towards homosexuals any more than we would advocate being a bigot towards a stripper or a continuous liar. Stripping is sinful and lying is sinful. There are laws against lying (perjury) and there are laws against stripping (age limits for one [you can't hire a 15 yr. old]; it is not to be done in public, etc). We believe murder is sinful, and there are laws against that as well. Understanding that we believe that homosexuality is sinful, do you really think that it is surprising that there are laws against it (there are no laws against being homosexual. But you can't marry. The government tends not to outlaw sin in and of itself, but they suppress it. See the stripper example, they suppress it (a certain age, in a certain place). It doesn't seem, to me at least, that one who uses the political system to sustain those laws is a bigot. It seems... logical.

2. Let's talk about "tolerance." I'll be short...really short. You need to tolerate DeVos's view, whether you agree with him or not. This is the heart of tolerance. You can't "tolerate" until you disagree! (Why do people forget this?) DeVos is tolerant; he disagrees with homosexuals, as he does with strippers or liars or any other people involved in sinful lifestyles, but he as a citizen is willing to contribute his money towards suppressing the advancement of what he believes (and remember, you should tolerate his view!!) is sinful practice. Marriage should be between one man and one woman, according to his view. Is it wrong for him to support those who support this view politically? I would think it to be highly INtolerant of you to say so.

For some interesting comments on tolerance, see Don Carson (a leading Evangelical theologian) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PVJlnvVeSM

Thanks for allowing my $.02, I'm glad that you are tolerating my view!


PSS. Your blog is needed. Although I do not participate in any of the rallies, CDs., or other things, I am a profitable IBO. I have barely any downline, but I sell a lot of stuff at product expos. I read marketing books...not motivational books!! I read entrepreneur.com. Its free and I don't pay my upline for it! When it comes down to it, if one can avoid the tools, one has a much better chance of being profitable. Anyway, that's just a thought.

quixtarisacult said...

anonymous...

I think your views of who should be tolerated go one step too far. When is it okay to be tolerant of bigots? To extrapolate your argument, should we have been tolerant of Nazi Germany? Should an American company have sponsor the entire German Nazi team in the 1936 Olympics? (Reference the fact that Amway sponsored the entire Communist China National Team in the just completed Olympic games.) Is it intolerant to condemn bigotry anywhere it is encountered?

Somewhere someone must put their foot down and call aces aces and spades spades. If Rich Devos wants to be a Archie Bunker and spend some of his Amway profits on suppressing Gay rights I guess he can. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry, no matter what label one puts on it. Christianity just happens to be one label put on it in this instance.

Mr. Devos seeks to have his Christian views enforced by the State of Florida. That is where they cross over from being merely his belief into bigotry.

That is why there is a separation of Church and State in this country.

Laws cannot be made based upon the narrow viewpoint of a religious belief or creed. Mr. Devos seeks to use his money and influence to have the separate State adopt and impose his views on others and effectively prevent married gay couples from receiving equal treatment by the State.

At one time, Slavery was viewed as a biblicaly sound principle as well. This has been found to be about as wrong as one can get. Having the Government enforce religious doctrine by and through the State is wrong. Enforcing morality through law and government does not and will not work.

Tolerance for people who are different is fine. Tolerance for people who have no tolerance is not. By your line of reasoning, we should be tolerant of Nazis and the KKK. To not be tolerant of them would be intolerance in your convoluted reasoning. Your argument that I should be tolerant of Bigot Devos is not a valid argument. You cannot be tolerant of bigots.

I appreciate your comments about the need for my web site. Hey, I am glad that you've found a niche in the retail sales of products now that Amway has relaxed rules regarding sales at events and the like. Sounds like you haven't gone down the road of recruit, recruit and recruit. I have said before that selling of products is the only justification for MLM direct selling businesses. Self consumption models invoke the illegal pyramid business model.

I appreciate the time and thought you put into your comment, even though we seem to disagree on the primary subject matter. There is nothing wrong with having Christian beliefs. It just so happens that our country is governed by laws, not of person, or religious creed. What if Muslims were allowed to push their religious views upon our populace? Actually I am forced to be tolerant of intolerant people, but I don't have to remain quiet about it.

QIAC

Anonymous said...

QIAC:
Allow me to briefly follow up. I don't have much time tonight, I'd love to put more thought into this post...maybe I'll follow up again another night.

First of all, thanks for posting my comments, and thanks for putting thought into a reply.

Here is the short of my reply for the evening:
In regard to tolerance, because this seems to be an important issue - My point here will simply be, that those who call for tolerance are often the most intolerant. You played into my hands with your argumentation. Allow me to explain.

DeVos's belief system (can I say 'moral system'?), based on _______(insert Scripture?), makes him act as he acts (whatever that action may be). His belief system makes him desire to protect marriage. Therefore, he reacts by taking political action to show how gay marriage is "wrong" and how the government should proceed in this action.

Your belief system (can I say 'moral system'?), based on ______ (insert), makes you react against DeVos's action. Your belief system labels him as a "bigot." Therefore you react against it and show how this is "wrong" and how DeVos should not proceed in this action. You call DeVos "intolerant."


My question: do you see the parallels?
You both have taken action based on a belief system.
You want to stop what you refer to as "bigotry." This bigotry, in your moral system, is wrong.
DeVos wants to stop what he might refer to as "sinful unions." This sinful union, in his moral system, is wrong.
You desire to stop DeVos, based on your belief.
DeVos desires to stop the homosexual agenda, based on his belief.
You call DeVos a bigot for trying to stop the homosexual agenda.
Could we not call you a bigot for trying to stop DeVos' agenda?

Should I tolerate you trying to stop the "bigot"? Yes, of course. Should you tolerate DeVos trying to stop "sinful unions"? I'd say so.

You brought up an interesting point with the Nazis. This also is a vital issue. The current trend in America is to "Tolerate Everything." But this simply can not take place...even as you pointed it out! Sure, we can't tolerate everything...and this is really my point...even if I seem to play devil's advocate at times. I think my definition of tolerance might be different than yours. Tolerance seems to mean allowing someone to hold a belief, no matter what it is. I don't think that I necessarily need to allow them to extrapolate their beliefs. For instance, if one (hitler for example) sincerely believes that murder is fine, then I'll allow him to believe it but I also think I'd try to stop him. In trying to stop him I'm not being intolerant...I'm simply acting on my belief system.

Our intolerace is based on a moral system. Your is based on yours. You believe that communism is wrong, so you would not tolerate someone sponsoring the communists. Guess what? Some Chinese people (leaders, etc.) sincerely believe that capitalism is wrong. Who is right? Hitler honestly believed that his position was right and true. Should we tolerate him? I would say yes. Allow him to hold the belief, but I would not allow him to act on those beliefs. But, this is based on SOMETHING. It has to be based on something.

There must be a standard. There has to be. I would argue, that the standard for what we tolerate and what we do not tolerate must be scripture. Without scripture, every single argument you might propose falls because it is baseless. There is no foundation higher than yourself to base that conviction on.

Why was Hitler wrong in what he did? Can you prove it? And where do you get your moral direction from?
Hitler thought he was right. He was a man. How are you, as a man, supposed to stand on your moral system and declare him wrong? Why is your moral system better?
I would argue that the only basis one can have is a basis from God, and that basis is Scripture. Otherwise, we stand on shaky ground.

So, this really isn't about tolerance. I can tolerate the fact that you disagree with me (we have to disagree in order to tolerate...I don't "tolerate" those whom I agree with). But I don't have to like it and I can fight against it.
I tolerate Hitler...in that I disagree with him but recognize his right to his opinions. Yet, as a Christian I believe that he is wrong and his actions are sinful. I will do what I can politically to stop his actions (I understand that he's dead, but I'm using the present tense for argumentation).

My point is that DeVos tolerates them, but he believes it is sinful, and he will do what he can to stop sin. I will do the same. But that doesn't make me intolerant any more than you are intolerant.

Philosophy aside. The tolerance issue can get confusing...especially when people define it differently. The really really HUGE point which I'm trying to make is that in arguments such as this, one must have a standard or basis on which they hold their beliefs. Otherwise we are dealing with an even plane. If there is not basis for direction, then no one can really prove that Hitler's actions were wrong. DeVos can't prove that homosexual marriages are wrong. I can't prove that stripping or lying is wrong. Why? Because other humans would disagree with us. The battlefield for credibility then becomes "I'm more wise than you...even though we are both humans." Unless there is a "personal absolute," one can not come to a solid moral decision. To quote a friend of mine, "Without God, a personal absolute, you cannot get to an 'ought.'"

Allow me to give just a few references to end this post.
1. http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/5669/nm/The+Doctrine+of+the+Christian+Life+(A+Theology+of+Lordship)+(Hardcover)?utm_SOURCE+MWARD&utm_medium=blogpartners

2. http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1997But.htm

3. Don Carson, "The Gagging of God:" http://www.amazon.com/Gagging-God-D-Carson/dp/031047910X

Again, thanks for allowing me to post. I'll make a note here at the end that I did not cover/reply to all of your argumentations. For now, though, this post will do.

quixtarisacult said...

anonymous...

The entire issue is much bigger than you or me. I still stand by what I said earlier on this matter. Personally I don't believe there is anything overtly wrong about what Rich Devos has done in regard to his support of groups opposed to the recognition of gay marriage. That is covered by freedom of expression and speech. (Although speakers at Amway rallies no longer possess these same freedoms.)

My criticism comes from the standpoint of how this action and view stands in conflict with Amway Global's new "Right to Differ" rules with Amway distributors being barred from making disparaging statements against those who are fundamentally different but just happen to believe in Amway.

Amway seeks to require their own downline adherents to not publicly promote anything other than a quiet tolerance of anyone who just happens to be different.

I ask you, is it okay to take the podium at one of your upcoming rallies and publicly encourage exclusion of married gay couples from the many benefits that other hetro-sexual married couples enjoy? You obviously can't say that they don't have to right to pursue the Amway dream? If they can pursue the Amway dream, why can't they pursue the right to be treated like other married couples?

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of Mr. Devos's position. What is okay and good for him, is not okay and good for the Amway distributors to do. Intolerance and hate speech has been part and parcel of the history of Amway, but that will no longer be tolerated! Charismatic figures like Dexter Yager will no longer be able to preach their hatred of others from the Amway pulpit; Right?

Why should Mr. Devos's anti gay rhetoric then be tolerated? Don't many Amway devotees idolize and seek to emulate him? Had Mr. Devos followed Amway's own "right to differ" rules and then he wouldn't have exposed himself to the fire storm of his own anti-gay public views. Possibly he should have done what Amway distributors now must do, keep these matters private. Why is it that what is good now for Amway isn't good for the country?

Had Amway not have invoked and forced upon its distributor pool the right to differ rules Mr. Devos public stance for the sanctity of marriage and the opposition of gay marriage would have gone unnoticed by me. It is not so much the bigotry of Mr. Devos that I am trying to point out, but the hypocrisy!

It goes too far for anyone to say that I or anyone else must be tolerant of intolerant bigots. That is taking tolerance one step too far. The intolerant one here is Mr. Devos. You seem to think I should be tolerant of Mr. Devos's intolerance. I am forced to be tolerant by the bounds of law, not by the bounds of tolerance for intolerance.

I am not an Amway distributor, I am not bound to to be quiet on issues involving an hypocrite who happens to be a hypocritical bigot.

You are an apologist, anonymous. Again, I thank you for you views which you spent a considerable amount of your time to explain. I have a hard time understanding why Amway continually shoots itself in the foot on everything? For instance, the very same week that Amway lawyers go to court to allege that MonaVie has made unsubstantiated claims for its products, many shampeople tipping videos appear on You Tube which point out the hypocrisy of their own allegations against MonaVie.

Amway chisels their "right to differ" rules in stone for their organization while it's founding father has gay rights activist protesting outside of the Amway Arena in protest for his own anti-gay very public views which he uses his Amway profits to support.

Should Amway withdraw their right to differ rules in support of Rich Devos? Seems like they support a double standard!

Anonymous said...

We are all sinners. Even DeVos.

As Jesus said: If there is one without sin throw the first rock...

quixtarisacult said...

Anonymous...

Yes we are all sinners, so should we all be bigots? Your logic defies reason.