Microsoft Abandons Gay Rights Bill

andrewagill writes "Microsoft has withdrawn support from a bill that would "protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination" of the other usual suspects. Odd, given their previous accolades from the GLBT community, and their prior public support for the bill."

Comments

What does he have on you, Bill?

[TripMaster Monkey]

From the article in The Stranger:

The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch.

You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary security holes in their products. :P

Seriously, though, this is a MAJOR issue...Microsoft withdraws its support on a subject it's been championing for years, becuse of threats from one rabidly evangelistic, gay-hating preacher??? Just what exactly does Ken Hutcherson have on Bill anyway? For the life of me, I don't understand why Bill didn't just tell him to fuck off. He should have ordered that Ken be dragged out back and shot (fun fact: it's legal for him to do that in Redmond). But no...he just caves, despite the fact that Microsoft owns the consumer market, and Ken's followers could no longer 'boycott' the use of Microsoft's products than they could 'boycott' the use of oxygen.

I almost feel sorry for Microsoft. Almost.

It's going to be interesting to see how Microsoft wriggles out of this one...although I would have much rather they called Ken's bluff...the 'boycott' would have been even more interesting to watch.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood why homosexuals require special protection beyond those already offered by existing laws. What's next, a law that protects left handed people? What about a specific law to protect those that choose to be monosexual (probably a good portion of the /. crowd)?

Discrimination law really shouldn't cover something that is a choice (if you argue that being homosexual is a choice) and if it's a medical condition, then let it be covered under the disabilities act.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

ah yes the modern liberal. Find one judge somewhere to overturn precedent, legislation, etc. Which is why all of the right wing lackeys are now crapping themselves trying to do stupid things like amend the constitution.

If the constitution actually mattered anymore, then people might have some understanding of the rather large and expansive role individual states are supposed to have in governing themselves, rather than some hippie judge in California making a decision that affects state law in Indiana. But now that both republicans and democrats have abandoned any consistency in their defense of the constitution, that is all out the window.

How about this, let states decide how they will regulate things that are clearly within their constitutional bounds to regulate. Then see what happens. I happen to be conservative, but I bet that states that allow equal protections for gays will not implode into centers of beastiality as predicted by the hard right.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Rei]

State constitutions are not beyond reach of SCOTUS. State constitutions must be compliant with the US constitution, and the ultimate interpreter of the US constitution is the supreme court. You can argue about their interpretations, of course, but the fact remains that it is their call.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Rei]

I don't support redefinining marriage

Oh, really? Ok, then, lets make it so that interracial marriages are banned again. Sound good?

Heck, lets go further: blacks can't marry, period. Sound better?

Heck, lets go even further: women are chattel. Sound even better?

If these don't sound better, than you *do* support redefining marriage - you just don't support redefining it from its current state. And you do this because of *your* viewpoint, which conflicts with *my* viewpoint. Seing as my stance doesn't harm *you*, and makes me a "separate but equal" category, what grounds do you have to hold your view? Is it your church? *My* church disagrees. Is it your personal tastes? *My* personal tastes disagree. Etc.

I don't ask that you like me. I don't ask that you like my partner. I don't *want* you in my private life. All I ask is that you accept that we have a right to be treated like everyone else, that *our* view on marriage is different than yours (but that this is a country of individual freedoms and not a doctrinal state), and that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no. The state historically has NOT defined marriage--the church has. And churches have been marrying gay people for a very long time.

The state merely decides what benefits people get. If it uses marriage as a determinant, it doesn't have to define it--the people already got married in their church and they AND their church are happy about it.

This whole "gay marriage" label is a misnomer. Gays can already get married. They frequently do. I've attended several gay weddings. No police came in and broke the thing up. There was a minister, and exchange of vows, a kiss, and cheering. Then they were married.

This is about BENEFITS for gay couples WHO ARE ALREADY MARRIED.

Frankly I'd be happy if the state didn't recognize ANYONE'S marriage. It's a religious issue, they shouldn't touch it.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about BENEFITS for gay couples WHO ARE ALREADY MARRIED

Well said. The real reason for giving benefits for a married couple is that *The society owes a debt to the married couple* in the sense that the married couple will be giving birth to good children, bring them up, and contribute to the more smoother functioning of society. That is why the society helps the married couple by giving tax breaks etc. (heard lot of stories like in europe, australia where the govt encourages couple to have children, whereas countries like china discourage couple to have children) What does the gay couple do? can they be normal parents to a child? if they adopted for their peace of mind, think about the state of the child. they adopt. Is it a natural for a child to have same sex parents. That is why gays should not even think about marriage rights. It is a fetish, let them have it, I dont care, but dont talk about rights.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[rworne]

At the aquarium where I work we have a gay domestic couple of penguins. They live together, have hatched an egg given to them together. It's really cool.

You know, at the local state prison we have lots of "gay" couples. Trick is, you release them into their natural habitat they ungay themselves rather quickly (at least those who weren't gay to begin with).

Are the penguins gay because that is their choice, or is it because of natural urges for procreation and the lack of potential mates?

Toss 22 penguins in an exhibit and make 10 of them female. What the hell are the 2 leftover males going to do assuming penguins are monogamous?

Sure, I can accept that homosexuality occurs in nature - but I don't see a whole lot of it. At least not on the scale it occurs in human society.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a religion that teaches you that by default you are DAMNED to eternal suffering and torment because you are inherently WRONG unless you accept some external source of salvation. I would like to make it my life's work to dismantle this life-destroying belief.

No, it's a religion that says Love Me, your God and ohh by the way.. do not act like runting beasts... I made you for something different. Nobody, by default is damned to eternal suffering. It is the "actions" of a person which loses the grace of God.

You will find that the result of your radical secularism is the death of Mankind. Because, in reality, we all are morally culpable for the suffering of our fellow humans.

Your shoes, your food, your computer, and your house were all bought at a price. And that price today is slavery, inequity, child labor, and racism among others.

Mercy and suffering are tied together, without which we all really do deserve death.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[sirReal.83.]

Your world view stems from a stale novel written by Anonymous Coward. My view stems from compassion and understanding. Thank you, come again.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Arker]

Laws based on intent are part of our legal heritage.

True to a degree. And those have always been among the most problematic legal distinctions, the ones that encourage corruption and the rule of men rather than law.

You see, a court simply isn't competent to determine a persons motivation in many cases. Judges and juries are no more qualified than the rest of us to read a mans mind, or look into his heart.

Your explanation of manslaughter and murder is incomplete and thus misleading. The old law on the subject relied not on mind reading, but on actions - a man who stood up on the spot and proclaimed his action was guilty of manslaughter - a man who tried to conceal his act and escape justice was guilty of murder. This is an immenently workable system. The abstraction behind it, of course, is what is called mens rea - but mens rea cannot be directly ascertained, but only guessed at based on ones actions.

Now in modern times we've twisted this horribly. A man who stands up and takes responsibility for his action will be punished MORESO than one who simply keeps his mouth shut, in most situations.

There is a difference between spray-painting "Nirvana rocks" on the back of your school and spray-painting "DIE JEWS DIE" on a synagogue.

There's a difference? Well obviously, there are several. The question is what are those differences, how significant are they, from whose point of view?

Objectively, they are both acts of vandalism, crimes against property. The difference in the words being spelled are very unlikely to be significant at all in any objective evaluation - the cost to repair the damage is going to be the same either way.

In the minds of the vandals, they are also likely to be nearly identical acts too. Once we get here, though, we can argue interminably with no way to ever settle the issue - unless of course the vandals tell us what they were thinking. Even then, though, that really settles nothing. Because we've already entered the realm of thought-crime, and the smart vandals, when caught, will keep their mouths shut or tell us what we want to hear.

It may well be that in the minds of some other person that sees the words there is a difference - but if we determine that we can punish people for how other people choose to respond to their words, we've abandoned anything even approximating a concern with justice or law.

I've been assaulted for being a 'filthy jew.' I've been assaulted for being 'queer.' I've been assaulted because someone resented how much attention I was getting from a girl he thought was his. I can assure you that for me, they were very equivelant experiences - but the more important point is that, regardless of my reaction, they were objectively the same crime.

Do you really want to live in a society where someone elses emotional reaction to your words determine the legality of your speech? I certainly don't. Neither do I want to live in a society where assault is tolerated - just as long as the assaulters are careful to avoid choosing the politically protected classes as their victims? I don't like that either, but unfortunately we're well down the path to both of those realities already.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[amliebsch]

Just because you are ignorant of the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license

These are not minority protections. They are legal privileges. Desirable things, understandably, but it is nothing like the right to speak, or vote, or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that it is.

Your whole rant was completely ignorant, I have to say. We're talking about the civil rights of individuals and equal protection under the law. Such things should never be put to public vote, as they are in herent in the whole idea of the constitution, and to the very idea of what it means to be free.

Please, just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean am I ignorant. And I do disagree. If such things are beyond the reach of any vote, then from where comes their legitimacy? Even the Constitution is not a dictator. It can be changed through democratic processes. It must be able to be changed, else we are living in a dictatorship. I will not tolerate living even in a benevolent dictatorship. You talk about freedom as though it means being able to feel good about yourself. The idea of freedom, to me, means that I have some say in every single aspect of my governance. Period.

but they should not have any say in which people should be targeted by punitive denials of civil liberties just because they don't like them.

You have not made the case that marriage is a civil liberty.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[flink]

A gay person has every right I have, right now. It is just as illegal to punch me in the face as it is to punch him in the face.

Yeah, but that is samll consolation if it happens all the time anyway. The guy that beats you up this week isn't going to care that some stranger that did it last week got punished. It's not gonna help if the homophobic cops don't take you case seriously.

That's why we have all these marches and activism. The marches aren't for the bigots, they're not even necessarily for the friendly straight people. They're a chance for everyone to get together and say "Hey, it's tough, but we're all still here and we're all still ok." For some people it's the only day out of the year they can express their sexuality in public without fear.

The laws are necessary because it's a matter of health and public safety. Do you think most school districts would cover queer issues in health class or sex ed if there weren't a state law requireing them to? The point is to raise awareness, expose people to different ways of living, and hopefully the next generation will grow up a little more tollerant than this one. Hopefully there'll be a few less teen suicides. Hopefully, a few less kids will get dragged behind trucks or tied to trees.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't agree with you more. I believe that marriage is an institution of religion, and that the term marriage should be applied to couples who are wed by an accepted religion (no scientology or cults, please).

So where do you draw the line between legitimate religion and cults? As far as I'm concerned, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Moonies, Catholics and ultra-right Protestants are just as much of a cult as Scientologists. Have you seen how filthy rich the Catholic church is? Looked like a for-profit organization last time I visited the vatican in Rome!

That said, as a strong atheist, I don't see why my marriage should be dictated by a religion, or not be marriage at all. (I'm straight, by the way.) Whether or not the gov't is involved, marriage still exists at a cultural level not necessarily connected to a religion. If you want to keep the government out AND religion out, then I say do away with the concept of marriage all together. You can still use the naming, in your own religious context, but we'll need to do away with ALL the benefits and rights given to married couples. Each man/woman for themself. It would make things harder for some people, but easier for others that feel like they're getting the "single tax".

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[glaucopis]

...part of faith is the idea that there are some things whose correctness is established by God, and not subject to my review or approval. When my conscience interferes with my faith (as it does here), I believe that my conscience is malformed.

I'm a Catholic too, and, for what it's worth, I have a completely different response when my conscience differs with what you refer to as "faith," but what I would just call the Church's teachings. Personally I find faith to be a lot bigger than either the Bible or the Church and not nearly so dependent on humans with human prejudices. I'm not trying to write off the importance of the Church's collected wisdom -- I love the Church's age and ritual and commitment to its beliefs (even when I disagree with them) and efforts to make the world a better place. I simply acknowledge that humans are fallible, even those who devote themselves to a lifetime of service to God, and I feel strongly that the oft repeated statement that homosexuality is a sin is one of these mistakes.

I started reading the Bible this Lent. Admittedly I'm only up to 1 Chronicles (I'm a slow reader; so kill me), but so far I have only read one explicitly antigay verse (and one calling the wearing of women's clothing by men to be an abomination, if you want to count anti-transgendered verses, too) and a couple of hundred forbidding the worship of idols. Even if God inspired every single word in the Bible, clearly he's more interested in preventing idol worship than in condemning gays. I realize that there aren't millions of idol worshipers running around today for the Church to vent its righteous fury on, but I fail to understand why this one lonely little verse, and the one other I know of in Paul's letters, makes gays the enemy of God. If we were to go by a simple count of words devoted to each abomination, eating pork is far worse in God's eyes than sleeping with someone of the same sex -- so why does the Church act like those in favor of gay marriage are seeking to destroy all morality?

I don't know. Maybe I'm just upset that if I were to fall in love with a woman and want to marry her in my church, it would be forbidden, whereas I could marry any unmarried non-blood-related man there for any frivolous reason I chose without a word of objection from anyone. Your commitment to your faith and the Church leads you to oppose any change to its current marriage rules; my commitment to my faith and the Church envelopes me in a constant struggle, because I know the Church only values me so long as I toe its silly homophobic line. So I do agree with you that civil and religious marriages should be established as separate institutions, but I hope that someday the Church will take a good look at its teachings and decide to extend the sacrament of marriage to gay partitioners, too. Civil marriage is obviously a more pressing issue for the majority of gays, but having part of yourself perpetually denied by your religion can be as bad as lacking all of the rights granted by civil marriage.

Back scratching politics

[metoc]

Odds are dropping support for this bill was necessary to get support for a bill they really want passed (anti-open source, take over the world, etc.).

People can be right arseholes about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

People can be right assholes about this. Having been told to my face by my manager "look, we'd really love to keep you on but I'm afraid there's no legal protection to you if we fire you over your homosexuality, so we're forced to let you go. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there's ANYTHING we can do for you."

And you thought Microsoft were the kings of doublespeak & twisted convoluted logic.

Unfortunately, legal protections can only go so far. If someone wants to fire an employee because they don't like the employee's partner, then they'll find a reason quickly enough.

Huh

[JeffSh]

I'm not sure I understand how a corporations support, or lack there of, for social political issues is relevant..

I suppose this is analogous to Henry Ford's philosophy for why he paid his workers well, in some respects, but Henry Ford didn't throw his weight behind legislation and bills for workers, did he?

i think seperation of corporation from government is more important than the seperation of church and state in some respects. Who cares what bills or legislation they do or don't support. I think a company's best influence on society can be made through their own internal HR and resource practices..

i don't know, seems a bit silly to me.

Amazing.

[RatBastard]

The truley amazing thing about this is that MS is scared of someone. Just think about that for a second. The biggest software company in the world, with a monopoly on the desktop and office suite markets scared of someone. Anyone.

It makes one wonder if there is something rotten in Redmond.

On the plus side...

[FhnuZoag]

Actually, that's interesting. If Microsoft had followed through with this, would we in the FOSS, non-Microsoft using community have found ourselves flooded with a tide of anti-gay software users?

I suppose that's a silver lining to this cloud.

eh?

[Ubi_NL]

I didn't know corporations had anything to say over which laws are passed in parlement. I know we jest on how the government is 0wned by MegaCorps, but to see it brought as bluntly as this (on a topic that doesn't really interfere with their businessplan!!!) is a bit scary. It is possibly even more scary that not a whole lot of posters seems to notice this fact, and apparently accept that the CEO of a company can pass laws in parlement.

Re:Could it be that business interests...

[theodicey]

Actually, aside from the basic human rights issue of anti-discrimination, being gay-friendly is in microsoft's business interests.

Gay customers buy a lot of computers, and they tend to be cultural trend-setters or bellweathers, i.e. the people who Microsoft is trying to attract from Apple.

Also, large companies have a real interest in ensuring that their homebase becomes a culturally vibrant area which attracts professionals and creative types. Gay-friendly laws encourage cultural vibrancy and improve the hiring pool, since people won't live in cities with a reputation for intolerance. Just look at Procter & Gamble's opposition to the Ohio anti-gay constitutional amendment.

(Although, being based in Cleveland, P&G had a little more incentive than MS...)

US has turned more concervative

[master_p]

And Microsoft, since one of the largest companies, follows the trends. By offering support to religious conservatism, MS gets benefits from Bush's government, and the republicans enforce their agenta on a wider basis.

Re:Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's US

[middlemen]

Atleast people are allowed to be gay in USA. In India a court in New Delhi declared being gay a crime punishable by law.

At the risk of sounding like a Troll

[cOdEgUru]

I must say this and hope that someone will answer me:

I look at Ken Hutcherson's website. He is the pastor who supposedly pressured Microsoft in pulling support. He looks middle aged and has a Church in WA. Thats all fine, but the guy is African American.

How can someone who has seen and experienced discrimination, who has been at the bitter end of it, turn around and support discrimination against a group of people who are different not because of the color of their skin, but because of the choices they made, or their genes (depends on who you ask).

This is almost like Gandhi's grand son discriminating against a british kid because he is poor,white and powerless.

Either way, it sucks and I truly wish Bill would have the balls to tell him to fuck off. Not because I resonate with gay rights, and neither because I am not religious..purely because discrimination is wrong.

Re:At the risk of sounding like a Troll

[CTachyon]

There's been this bitter rivalry in the civil rights sphere between Coretta Scott King (widow of the late Martin Luther King) and Alveda Celeste King (niece of the same). CSK is strongly pro-gay and considers her support of gay rights a continuation of her late husband's work -- which is probably an accurate assessment considering MLK's staunch support of Bayard Rustin during Strom Thurmond's smear campaign against him. (Bayard Rustin being the behind-the-scenes organizer of the 1963 March, and an openly gay black man.) ACK, on the other hand, is strongly anti-gay and also claims to be following in her uncle's footsteps. Unfortunately, it reflects a rather deep schism.

Would that make us likely to switch to windows?

[Petrus]

Although this is definitely a positive development, is it not very courageous just ot go to neutral. Before I'll support Windows again, I'll wait first for a complete change on number of other family rights issues.

If this is a gay list, mod me down.

P.S.: Number of times I realized that I would need a setup option kf "the lowest score first" ? Can we add that into the choices?

Petrus

Re:Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's US

[amliebsch]

Regardless of what is sufficient to be a normal environment, I tend to believe that "mother and father" is necessary. I can be persuaded the other way, though, by empirical evidence.

Missed economic opportunities here?

[Dark Paladin]

True story:

I was talking with my brother in law, who works in a car shop. Somehow the topic of VW came up, and he made an interesting comment:

Him: Man, I can always tell a gay guy when he walks in the door. If He's using an Apple computer while he's waiting, and is driving a VW Beetle or Golf - especially the Beetles! - or has one of those Apple Computer logos on their car - they are a flaming homo. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Me (while looking up something on my Powerbook): Hm. Interesting. By the way, that's my Beetle parked outside. I'd better call my wife and tell her my secret's out.

We had a bit of a laugh over that - finding that one big honking exception to a stereotype can usually blow someone's bubble pretty quick.

Makes you wonder if MS doesn't realize that there's an untap market in the Gay and Lesbian community by continuing to show their support.

I guess what strikes me odd about the whole story is that for 12 years, MS has supported the Gay and Lesbian community, even winning awards for their support. They gave their support to a bill that basically says "Just like you can't discriminate against people for their gender, religion, ethnic background, or favorite M&M, you can't discriminate if they are a guy who likes to get it on with another guy, or a girl who thinks other girls are 'teh sexy'".

Then, one guy pops up, says "You know, God hates fags, and if you support this bill then we're going to tell the other Christian groups not to buy Microsoft."

As a Christian myself (yeah, not a terribly deeply practicing one - you won't see me making a birthday cake to Jesus and waiting for Him to blow out the candles on Christmas), I find the actions of Mr. Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond to be incredibly offensive, bigoted, and against everything that Christ stood for. (You know, the whole thing of "Judge not unrighteously lest ye be judged", or "I am not come to treat the well, but the sick", or "Get the hell out of my face, you damned dirty ape" - no, wait, wrong religious figure - my bad).

MS can't have it both ways. Either they support the Gay and Lesbian community, and show that there are some things more important than money - and to be honest, how many ministers are going to rise up and start buying Apple's just because MS states publicly they don't give a damn if two guys are getting hot and heavy in the bedroom? 1% of all ministers? 10%?

The loss of good faith, and a reputation of aligning themselves with people of bigoted views will probably do far more damage in the long run than "holding the course" and continuing their support of House Bill 1515.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. If nothing else, if MS doesn't stand up and do the right thing, then I guess I'll be looking for that copy of iWork instead of MS Office for my next office suite upgrade.

Re:How are gays discriminated against at work?

[kin_korn_karn]

Sure, you can be gay at work without anyone knowing... if you never talk about your personal life... and you laugh along with everyone else when someone makes a "faggot" joke... and you express the same level of admiration for this week's actress or calendar model of choice... and you never refer to your partner in any way that sounds like you aren't "just friends"...

replace gay with atheist and faggot with heathen and you have my life. Here in the midwest, I find myself having to pretend to be a christian just to survive, sometimes.

Re:How are gays discriminated against at work?

[Anonymous Coward]

My Brother-in-law used to work as a contractor at Microsoft. Once, while in the middle of a technical confrontation with a full-time employee, the full-time employee cursed at him based on his homosexuality. My brother-in-law shrugged it off but another coworker reported the incident and within a week, the full-time-employee was fired without severance.

Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson

[WhiplashII]

I do realize that you were joking, but...

Over the years I have come to realize that we really needs the weirdos on the far right fighting the weirdos on the far left - the constant turmoil prevents complacency, and lets us adapt to new situations more quickly.

It is a real pain sometimes, agreed. (Although of course you and I would differ on which group does more damage...)

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[lheal]

• There is no difference at all. None.

Huh? That's absurd on its face. It may be that there ought to be no legal difference, but to claim that there is no difference at the emotional level defies logic and biology.

Men and women are different. Men and women feel different things when they are "in love". To say that gay men and women feel the same things, and that those feelings are the same as straights feel, is a logical contradiction.

You're taking irony literally. Allow me to help.

[Mars Ultor]

Girl + Girl = good (its perfectly natural)

See that was the part of the post where you were supposed to infer that they were joking.

I believe that he was pointing out the irony that many times, men who speak bad about gay (guy + guy) sex are the same guys who grab a porno or penthouse featuring lesbian (girl + girl) scenes, to which they have no objection.

Since text doesn't convey emotion or emphasis very well, I find it helpful to reread a post a few times before replying.

If I'm wrong and the grandparent was serious, then that same line I just cited proves my point anyway.

Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson

[Porter Doran]

Not standing up for this "pastor" -- but you've got that quote all wrong. What he is saying is that Blacks require protection in law because of their historical mistreatment by laws -- in our very Constitution they are to be counted one-fifth a citizen for representational purposes. Then he is saying that homosexuals do not require protection in law because they have not been historically mistreated by laws -- for exampe, "homosexuals have never been considered one-fifth of a human being" by our Constitution. Better to understand with whom you disagree before commencing argument.

Good.

[pyth]

I thought we were supposed to be against companies lobbying the government to have their way? Then this is good!

Re:Good.

[pyth]

That's exactly what conservative wackos say when a billionaire decides to stand up for "family values" and such.

If we accept that the likes of Bill Gates may use their influence in politics, then we cannot honestly use the abuse-of-power rhetoric against the conservative rich guys.

If we are to be fair, then there are two exclusive modes we can pick on this specific issue: 1) Freedom, or 2) Regulation.

Critics say that political freedom circumvents democracy by weighing votes with wealth, and brings us closer to a plutocracy.

There are problems with regulation, too.

But far more dangerous than either choice is if we decide to regulate political actions based on their content.

Historical experience tells us that this is how democracies turn into dictatorships. It is probably a symptom of bad things to come, rather than a cause.

You may recall that the Nazi party was elected partly because the average Joe was afraid of having his job stolen (out-sourced) by the evil rich people. [In their case, it was percieved that rich = Jew].

In light of that, possibly the best thing we can do is to have people stop feeling strongly about the rich. No jealousy, no hatred.

Gah

[CTachyon]

One of the perks of being a programmer is that, normally, coding is a refuge from thinking about this kind of crap. GCC doesn't give a fliegende kinderscheisse that I'm gay.

For a while I couldn't read the newspaper without getting a knot in my stomach, and just looking at the Opinion section can give me a headache these days without even reading it. Between what my own state is up to and the creepy backlash building up at the national level, I've decided that sticking it out in the U.S. just isn't worth it and I'm currently saving up to move to Vancouver.

Now, though, the insanity is even making its way onto the Slashdot front page. Tech companies being gay-friendly has always just been a given in the back of my mind. The fact that the biggest of them all is backing off due to outside pressure has me worried even more. I can't shake the feeling that there's something big and scary happening here in the U.S. right now, and the backlash against gay rights is only the tip of it.

Re:Gah

[tbradshaw]

As a fellow Kansan, I just want to apologize.

It's not that it's my fault, but I'm absolutely ashamed that something this obviously wrong made it into our state constitution. But it was easy to have rose-colored glasses here at Kansas State University where I had the pleasure of honking for Vote NO protests as I left campus, and I was more than happy to spend two weeks of my weekly libertarian talk radio show (Freedom to Choose, KSDB Manhattan) talking about just how assinine this ammendment was. I just couldn't convince myself that something so obviously *wrong* could end up passing.

I don't blame you for leaving. I'm a libertarian heterosexual white male in Kansas (read: "unthreatened"), and even I am uncomfortable with the change in political climate in Kansas and other "conservative" states.

After I'm finished here at Kansas State, I'll be leaving too. I've always been proud to be a Kansan, because I've had a great life and everyone that I'm around here in Kansas is phenominal. But first Fred Phelps, and now this.

I'll be happy to leave. Geeks are a remarkedly tolerant people. I hope Kansas gets the "brain drain" it deserves.

Who cares?

[DM9290]

Microsoft can't even vote.

Should anyone care whether or not a corporation "supports" a bill? (especially a publically traded corporation).

Isn't it more important to know what the citizens support?

Corporations (especially publically traded ones) will "support" whatever appears to benefit their bottom line. What does that say about a law's merit?

Corporations dont even care about the economy in general.

If a law was to increase the GDP by an additional 2% (beyond its expected growth under the status quo) but result in an additional 20% re-distribution of all wealth more equally you can bet most corporations would oppose it (especially the largest ones).

Discrimination?

[IrishWonder]

Looks like there's too much buzz going on about different minorities rights. If you sum up all those minorities they will probably constitute more than the so-called "majority", the poor people who just happen not to fall under any of those "minority" categories. As a result, those minority rights are very often used by the members of such "minorities" to get the benefits they wouldn't have otherwise got. Tell a black/homosexual/whatever other minority member his performance is poor, only referring to his professional level, and very often they'd use their "minority" rights as a cover up. (Please don't get me wrong, I am not accusing every "minority" person of abusing the laws protecting their rights but it's a fact that these things happen a lot) Heck, I'm starting a group for white heterosexual rights protection! I do realize saying things like this can get me lynched on here but this is what I think and it's my right to voice it.

So would youinclude Justice Scalia?

[A nonymous Coward]

When the rest of the court decided to condemn the Texas anti-sodomy law as an invasion of privacy, he voted to keep it because he just plain didn't like letting queers sodomize each other.

Would that be activism, bunky?

Re:So would youinclude Justice Scalia?

[ifwm]

Yup. What were you hoping for an inconsistency? Judges rule on matters of LAW. In this case, calling him an activist judge is perfectly appropriate.

This comes with responsibilities as well.

[Timmy D Programmer]

There are Responsibilities as well.

Responsibility for your spouses debts accrued during the marriage.
Responsibility for their medical expenses.
Substantially Higher Income Taxes
Breaking up becomes incredibly expensive



Also relating to the previous remark:

There is no such thing as "Familys Only" neighborhoods in the US. That is already illegal.

And most things like Joint Loans, and Health clubs, are typically available to unmarried couples anyhow (Bad business to do otherwise)

I do agree with the idea, but don't exaggurate the reasons, the legit reasons are plety good enough.

NO, IT IS NOT THE SAME MARKET

[alizard]

We're not talking about the entire US population, we're talking about the subset of computer owners. (about 1/3 of the population doesn't use computers)

The gay/lesbian market is a hell of a lot more computer literate than the zombies in the Religious Right. A typical fundie told to boycott MS? Does this person even own a computer? If yes... do you see him switching to Apple? REALLY? It isn't like he's going to be able to depend on his fellow church members for local support.

Gays and lesbians have a lot more disposable income, i.e. they've got the money to buy Macs and they've got to be tired of dealing with Microcrap. Why should they give their money to a political enemy?

Talk this up to your lesbian and gay and Deomcratic activist friends. Every one who switches out of MS is a kick in the balls to Bill Gates. The only question about is... "Did Microsoft shoot itself in the foot or the head?"

Let's do what we can to make sure it's a head shot.

Too bad that Linux isn't really ready for the home user, (only zealots think so - I'm writing this from a Fedora Core box) because this would be the biggest Open Source opportunity in the US ever seen if it was.

Not the only one

[MsWillow]

Where I used to work, there were laws that protected against being fired because you're gay ... but no such laws over being TS. I tried to skate, and just let everybody think I must have been gay, but eventually caved and came out as a tryke (transsexual dyke, the proverbial lesbian woman trapped in a male body). That's when heads of *other* departments started fabricating complaints, trying to fake a "reason" to fire me.

Eventually, after being given nothing to do in months, yet being written up for not doing anything, I was graciously "asked" to resign. That was so transparent that I was even allowed to collect unemployment.

Laws won't change people.

distortion is in the eye of the beholder

[davidwr]

I consider a federal judge who ... distorts the language away from it's original meaning when it was written, to be an activist judge.

Original meaning is not always clear, and distortion is in the eye of the beholder.

Remember, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court said the Civil-War ammendments of the US Constition did not require integrated schools.

Half a century later, in Brown v. Topeka, they reversed themselves.

Historically speaking, Plessy was probably closer to the original meaning of these ammendments. Was the mid-20th-century Court an activist court? Possibly, but in this particular case I think it's a good thing.

A very practical definition of an activist judge is any judge that interprets the Constitution in a way the complainer doesn't like.

No. It only seems like that sometimes.

[Barlo_Mung_42]

In theory, the roll of public companies in society isn't just to make money for a few people. Most corporations have a mission statement that spells out why they should be granted these special "personhood" rights. In that statement is often more than just money making. There is almost always a fuzzy "Values" section where they say what good they will bring to the world in exchange for these rights. Wouldn't it be a better world if more companies attempted to live up to there own values?

Re:This is fine with me

[RichardX]

What part of "equal rights" don't you understand?
It's not about special recognition, it's about equal rights. The right to marriage, for example.

A married couple pays a damn site less tax than an unmarried couple. Therefore gay couples are forced to pay far more in taxes than an equivalent hetero couple, and as a result have less disposable income.
Seeking to fix issues like that is hardly asking for special recognition.

Re:Think of lawsuit prevention

[Billly Gates]

I am not anti gay but let me tell you a story?

My brother works for a fortune 500 company which will remain nameless. This company opened a call center in Orlando for customer ordering and customer service calls.

The call center manager found a new job and gave the 2 week notice that he was quiting. The director chose his secretary to replace him?? Not only was she not qualified to be a secretary but she got the position from banging the director on the side.

Eventually the VP of HR found out about this and written up the call center director and threatened to fire him and he also fired the secretary who was promoted to manager.

The secretary then sued because she was hispanic and discriminated agaisnt. She won 1.3 million dollars!

Now tell me how frivilious lawsuits agaisnt wrongfull termination are not out of control?

I am not saying gays and lesbians should not have equal rights. I am only saying the more laws try to help the more lawyers will use them to hurt the people they are supposed to help.

For example I have aspergers which is a mild form of autism. Many employers wont hire me because I could sue the company for wrongfull termination. In other words the Americans with dissabilities act helps me in alot of ways but hurts me in the liability obbsessed corporate world.

I could see a lesbian or gay employee rightfully terminated but using a bs case like the one stated above to try to sue Microsoft. If you have a good lawyer more than likely you will win.

Just because they have a policy to protect gay and lesbian workers does not mean they can not be sued friviously.

Re:This is fine with me

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

How do you reconcile that our current marriage laws give special treatment to heterosexual couples over gay couples? Aren't heterosexual couples just as sinful as homosexual couples, why are they given special treatment by state endorsement?

Re:Hipocrisy as Work

[StandardDeviant]

Nah, I'm just as pissed that Microsoft
has their fingers so deeply in the legislative
process that a threatened product boycott could
stall legislation as I am at the cryptofascist
Neanderthals from the Religious Wrong having so much
clout. :( Jesus wept.

Re:Yer both wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

white (or at least the same color as both potential parents),

Which means if you're an interracial couple, or intersectarian, you're screwed.

Great posting.

Re:You're taking irony literally. Allow me to help

[assassinator42]

I don't see where you get the idea Christians think girl/girl is better than guy/guy. I doubt you'll find many, if any, Christians that would condemn guy/guy and not girl/girl.

I'm proud of my fellow geeks

[spludge]

I read through this thread, and although I see many flames and trolls I also see a lot of geeks reasoning this issue in a logical way and not accepting the standard anti-gay marriage arguments. In general this is one of the huge strengths of geeks. We think for ourselves and we are not willing to accept what the majority might think.

Myself, I think that gay marriage rights make a lot of sense. I think that if you sit down and think about this issue and put aside your prejudices then it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. I leave it to the rest of this thread and to the sites out there to help you convince yourself of this.

I am proud of my fellow geeks.

Re:You're taking irony literally. Allow me to help

[Elwood P Dowd]

You've never actually read the Bible, or you'd realise that it isn't oral and anal sex that's condemned, but homosexuality, be it guy-guy or girl-girl. (Islam does actually explicitly teach that anal sex is sinful.)

The bible is boring, so no, never read the whole thing, but typically the only support folks can come up with for their homophobia is one passage in Leviticus that says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is an abomination". Why they pay so much attention to that, but ignore all 613 of the Mitzvahs, I'll never quite understand. I've never heard a similar quotation regarding lesbianism.

Re:You already have!

[Combinare]

The more I read this, the more I wonder what in the world you read, because it certainly wasn't what I wrote. I never said anything about anything being superior to anything else. I said I wouldn't dream of walking up to an individual leaving a church and volunteering my opinion of his religion. There are a great many religious people who believe--as the individual I replied to does--that somehow he has the "right" to share his beliefs about his idea of my "lifestyle."

Re:Hipocrisy as Work

[Yosho]

Well, of course. I like it when corporations promote things that I like. I don't like it when they promote things that I don't like. What's hypcritical about that?

Re:How are gays discriminated against at work?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting as AC for reasons that should be quite obvious if you think about it.)

Possibly, yes, homosexuals and other minority groups should be slightly more tolerant of others opinions.

An explanation:
On Tuesday, I came out to friends and selected family members. I have Gender Identity Disorder(male to female). And just after I came out, I started to take the first few steps I could towards my transition. One of those made me extremely sensitive to gender-based words and also made me realize exactly how much I was affected by this, and one of the repercussions thereof was realizing that really no one without the same disorder could know what I was going through. So I started snapping at people, even though they were trying to be as nice and understanding as possible. I've stopped now, but it was a hard day.

I think that's sort of what the homosexual community is plagued by-the fact that those who are not homosexual do not know what they are experiencing. But they're doing well, anyway-I think homosexual marriage rights are really their last battle. And no, I don't think they deserve preferential treatment-once they are accepted at large into society(which they are very close to becoming.)

But...at the same time, I can tell homosexuals that they have it much, much easier then I do-much, much easier. And I'm far from being accepted(hence part of posting AC). And I think my group does need preferential treatment, because our condition encompasses so much, but we don't have the tolerance problem if we come out and make the transition, as we'll have fought it out by then, in the process of questioning and rediscovering everything.

Just offering a minority viewpoint that doesn't seem to be very well represented in this conversation.

Re:Entirely Predictable

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. The idea being that people won't patronize businesses that persecute customers or employees. We'll never know if that will work in practice, because it's never been tried. The gist of the idea is to get people to realize that they're wrong voluntarily instead of forcing it down their throats. It's much more likely to really get through to them that way.

Notice how many businesses make a point of mentioning that they not only tolerate diversity, but encourage it. The reason is that it's good business sense. There's a better chance of good ideas coming out of a great big pool of ideas than a small pool. Also, you tend to learn a lot more about each other and respect each other much more when you work together.

When I was in college, I worked at a coffee shop whose owner would only hire people who at least appeared to agree with her political views. She went out of business when a new shop moved into town (not Starbucks) that actively recruited people with diverse backgrounds. They still make the best drinks in town. Granted, that's not proof that diversity == successful business, but their employees are a lot more interesting, and better workers, than most of the people I worked with.

Yeah, but non-christians resent you...

[geekpuppySEA]

I'll pick apart your belief structures when they mean discrimination with impunity towards me and everyone I know. Not to mention social license to beat the shit out of me and my friends.

Fuck that and fuck everyone you're making cowardly excuses for.