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andrewagill writes "Microsoft has withdrawn support from a bill that would "protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual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?

[swilde23]

despite the fact that Microsoft owns the consumer market

Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

He has noting on him.

The bill was basically stalled as many other unrelated things got tacked onto it. The spirit of the bill was so diluted it was useless.

MS will support a new bill, which adheres to the original with none of the extra fluff.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Dav3K]

Heh...ironically enough, that is PRECISELY what gay and lesbian people are after - to be treated like everybody else. Too bad you missed the memo on how that currently is NOT the case...

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[(54)T-Dub]

Likewise, I imagine there are a lot of gay people who don't want special rights, they just want to be treated like everyone else.

I don't really see an anti-discrimination law as "special rights". It's not Affirmitive Action or anything.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Fancia]

Homosexuality is neither a choice (that's long ago been proven scientifically), nor is it particularly a disability. Furthermore, as it's entirely unrelated to capacity to perform most any given job or what have you, there is no reason that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference should be permissable.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[override11]

Guy + Guy = Bad Girl + Guy = Normal Girl + Girl = good (its perfectly natural) Cant they just make guy on guy luvin illegal?

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[AviLazar]

Girl + Guy + Girl = (as my lesbian hippy friend says) "Dreamy"

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[FuzzieNorn]

As I'm sure you know, generally the argument revolves around the basis of consent .. the argument in our society is that underage children aren't able to consent to sex in an informed manner, and that animals aren't able to consent to sex with humans at all.

Obviously homosexuality doesn't figure into that at all, because all people involved are obviously just as capable of consenting as heterosexual partners.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, for a moment there i swore you were saying 2 guys equals a bad girl..

**shiver**

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[eno2001]

I, for one, champion the rights of 3M1C (three men and a cat) marriages! In this day and age, the artificial limits we impose on sexuality vis-a-vis marriage should be done away with completely. However, I will say that there should be strict laws regarding Republicans and Libertarians. They should be restricted to non-sexual cohabitation rights with members of the same sex only. This will eventually eliminate them from the gene pool. Thank you very much.

Man am I thirsty!

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[learn fast]

Thank god. I for one can't go anywhere without certainly gay people peering at me in the most odd way.

I've installed locks on all my doors and windows so those goddamned gays can't sneak in and get up to no good. One look at those pillows, your curtains and you know you've been hit by the gays.

I've tried to do my part in my community by trying to keep tabs on them. I've taken some surveillance at the local YMCA. I've swept the mall and tried on some red swimware. Yet gay people keep decidedly peering at me in the most peculiar way.

We must stop the gay conspiracy and the gay media conspiracy, with their forced-redecoration squads running amok, frightening children and installing remarkably tasteful yet a little too frilly curtain vestments on every doorway and awning in this whole country. They want to take away our rights, to have our own curtains. The gay media conspiracy keeps a lid on it, however.

I urge you to ban gay marriage/civil unions in your state or your curtains may be next!

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Warpedcow]

Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?

More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.

http://www.domawatch.org has good information.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[tverbeek]

The point is that Microsoft's market share is secure enough that they can do things that their customers wouldn't necessarily approve of; the Rev. and Mrs. Goodfaith are still going to buy a PC with MS Windows and MS Office, regardless.

I can't believe MS is really afraid of a religious-right boycott, especially when they're still the darlings of the other side of the Republican party (the economic right).

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Monf]

I disagree- discrimination based on sexual orientation does exist, just as discrimination based on gender exists.

As to #1: I don't believe that sexual orientation is "simple" to hide. It is a large part of who we are, straight or gay, and comes out in our personalities. The whole point, which you obviously missed, is that A PERSON SHOULDN'T HAVE TO HIDE their sexual orientation.

As to #2: This has nothing to do with having sex at work. In most work places, religious ceremonies are not appropriate, and are not performed at the workplace. Yet we DO prohibit discrimination based on religion. So what's your point?

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[swilde23]

I do hope your are joking, because I assume the person you are replying to was. Maybe I am just needing more sleep.

In the eyes of those states legislation, two girls is just as offensive (and unlawful) as two guys.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Monkelectric]

Me either ... MS isnt afraid of the friggin EU, let alone a single preacher.

Someone very big must have threatened them, or, more likely, we simply don't know the story here. I think a boycott would have been GREAT for MS. Firt of all: we all know that conservative christians are the least likely to be MS customers -- second of all: MS would get to look like a good guy for once by doing the right thing -- and thats great publicity.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Golias]

As one who does not agree with your point, I wish more people would address your argument, instead of simply modding you down as Flamebait or whatever.

Getting to the argument:

It would be entirely inapropriate for a non-Christian boss to expect you to "hide" all signs of your Christian faith while at work. It's a part of who you are, and even applying social pressure within the office on you to not express that part of yourself is descriminatory against your religion. If you have to live in dread every day that somebody might discover you are a Christian (perhaps even hear a rumor about it) and your chances of promotion or advancement within the company would be damaged by it, then you are being descriminated against, even though you shouldn't be expressing your religion at work anyway!

Secondly, your statement, "nobody is getting fired, nobody strikes out at an interview because he/she is GLBT" is completely untrue. Even in states which have laws against such descrimination, it still happens. Companies lose lawsuits every year over this issue, so unless you are prepared to believe that the courts awarded damages for trumped-up charges in every single one of those cases, it obviously is something which goes on.

Finally, when you say "Sex isn't a non-variable," what on Earth does that mean and what does it have to do with human rights?

For the record: I'm a Christian myself, but I recognize that the rules of my church and the rules of my country ought not be the same thing, as my country governs millions of people who are not part of my church.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

I say treat them the same - -that means NO special laws or consideration. Just like everybody else.

If you're talking marriage, then that's a different animal.

Please be consistent from one senetence of your post to the next.

Federal law assignes some 1,080 benefits to married couples. Gays and Lesbians are excluded from those benefits. That is clearly not treating the same! They don't want special laws or consideration; they want to be treated just like everybody else.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Mysticalfruit]

Need I say more? http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?produc tid=286

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[xalres]

This is just hearsay so take it as such. My uncle works in a brain spectrometry lab at UCSD. In one of the experiments (or whatever) they did, there was a noticeable physical difference when comparring the brain structure of homosexuals to heterosexuals.

This lead me to believe that it's not a choice for most. I've tried to explain this to christians I know but I get the same "fingers in the ears" response they all give when something calls one of their beliefs into question.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Shalda]

Can you please explain to me why Microsoft ought to care one way or another? They're a public company; their only obligation is to make money for their shareholders. They have absolutely no business getting involved in social issues. They should stick to making software.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[UCRowerG]

Sounds to me like gay and lesbian people (as represented by the movement, not the individual people) are not wanting to be treated like everyone else, they want to be special. They want political clout, they want marches, they want to throw their personal preferences into the living room of the other 80% of the population.

Yep, that's right. Gays want to join that special club of people who don't have to worry about being attacked on the street or in their own homes. They want to have those special rights like hospital visits and the ability to make medical decisions should their long-term partner become incapacitated. Let's not forget about the special right to keep a job without fear of harassment or being laid off for "poor performance," or any of the other hundreds of "special" rights the rest of the country takes for granted.

If you're talking marriage, then that's a different animal. Explain to me why 3 men and a cat can't get married but 2 men can? Marriage is either a social and evolutionary construct between each sex or it's just a club. I support equal rights as far as survivor's beneifts, insurance, etc, but not changing the definition of a 4-thousand+ year institution simply because some of my fellow americans are stupid and hurt gay people.

When a cat can understand the concept of marriage, its rights and responsabilities, and becomes a valid citizen of the country it lives in, then it should be granted marriage rights. Until then, a cat is a cat, and people are people.

Double check your history. Gay relationships are out of fashion only in the current time. Historically in many cultures they have been accepted and even praised.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Fancia]

Simon LeVay's experiments, in the early 1990s, are quite famous; he determined that homosexuality is the result of physiological changes in the mother's womb, under certain conditions.* In experiments with rats it was found to be related to certain parts of the brain; INAH3 was the one that one experiment focused on, if I recall correctly. It was found to have developed differently in homosexual male rats than in heterosexual rats, and was similar in size to a female's. *It seems related to stress the mother undergoes during pregnancy; among other things, a strong correlation has been noticed between rates of homosexuality and catastrophic events or war conditions in specific areas.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Rei]

Um, no. Marches and political clout are to *precisely* get us what you already have. I must have missed the memo about how we're trying to take over the world or something. We're not trying to legislate how we're thought of; we just want the same *rights*.

What rights? Lets just look at marriage rights, shall we? Here's just a handful.

* Access to social security after a spouse's death
* Access to health ensurance through the spouse's workplace
* The right to custody of children after divorce
* Visitation rights for non-biological children
* Joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
* Bereveament leave after death of a spouse
* Burial determination after the death of a spouse
* Domestic violence intervention
* Sick leave to care for a spouse or non-biological child
* Legal validation of a long term relationship
* Ability to live in neighborhoods deemed "families only"
* Access to life insurance in spouse's workplace
* Access to survivor benefits in case of emergency
* Access to spouse's crime victims' recovery benefits
* Ability to file wrongful death claims
* Right to shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
* Ability to file joint home and auto insurance policies
* Joint rental leases with automatic renewal if spouse dies or leaves
* Access to adopting children
* Automatic inheritance of shared assets after spouse's death
* Automatic inheritance of retirement savings tax-free after spouse's death
* Automatic exemption of property tax increases on shared assets gained after spouse's death
* Ability to file joint tax returns
* Access to tax breaks for married couples
* Assumption of spouse's pension after death
* Ability to file joint bankruptcy
* Ability to collect unemployment benefit after leaving a job to relocate because of spouse's job move
* Ability to transfer property from one spouse to aother without transfer tax consequences
* Access to fostering children
* Automatic next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions and hospital visitation status
* Immigration and residency priority for spouses from other countries
* Ability to invoke spousal privilege in a court of law
* Access to reduced rate memberships at health clubs, social clubs, organizations.
* Prison visitation rights

Many, many more.

We're tired of being second class citizens. Sick of it, really. I can just picture you, back in the 1960s, claiming that blacks "just want political clout and to march". It's the same sort of tripe that they got then, and we're taking it now.

Marriage is not "a different animal". First off, just from a technical perspective, civil unions are generally pretty worthless. the most important benefits are at the federal level. Many private benefits are simply based on the word "marriage" as well (private organizations have the right to exclude same sex couples if they want, and few would argue them that, despite what Fox News and the like tell you; the issue is that many organizations simply want a legal status, and use whatever the government decides is "married"). Civil unions are "consolation prize"; separate-but-equal (but not really equal) really sucks.

But most importantly of all: It is not *your* institution. Because *your* church, or whatnot, says that it's wrong, means nothing to me. My partner and I were married in a Unitarian church; they recognize and honor same sex marriages. Who are *you* to say that my religion's viewpoint is of lesser value than your own?

The American Anthropological Society completely disagrees with the notion that marriage has always been as it is now, and that same sex marriages are either ahistorical or harmful. Hundreds of societies throughout history have had them. Up until recently, interracial marriages were illegal in the US. Before that, marriages between African Americans were banned, period. For the

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anubis350]

my dogs hump eachother all the time, isn't that natural?

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.

if girl + girl is good, guy + guy can be good too.

I have a helluva lot of female friends who think so anyway. Girl-on-girl is hot to many guys, but a lot of girls (that I know at least) are just as turned on by guy-on-guy as guys are by girl-on-girl.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[RichardX]

I say treat them the same - -that means NO special laws or consideration. Just like everybody else.

Absolutely!
Which is why they should be able to get married, and to live and work without fear of discrimination.

As for the marriage issue, I think a lot of people don't understand that marriage is far more than just an indication to society of two people being long term partners. There's a whole shedload of legal implications, such as ability to follow your partner to different places with a career change, or implications for what can be left in the event of your partner's death (especially from a taxation point of view), even implications for access to your partner under certain medical care situations. IANAL, so I can't fill you in on the details.. I'm also referring more to the situation in the UK, but I'm sure it's much the same in the US.
Anybody with more legal knowledge care to comment?

Explain to me why 3 men and a cat can't get married but 2 men can?
Hint: Cats aren't human. Humans are.
Furthermore a cat is incapable of consenting to such a union.

If marriage has got anything to do with ability to reproduce then anybody incapable of reproduction shouldn't be able to marry.

On the other hand, if it doesn't have anything to do with reproduction, then why are you so worried about letting same sex couples marry?
If you feel it would devalue "normal" marriages, then you need to take a close look at mariage statistics. They really can't get much more devalued than they already are.

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?

[cayenne8]

"Girl + Girl = good (its perfectly natural)"

As long as there is a straight guy in the room with them running the video camera......and they're both good looking...

:-D

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[ManoMarks]

They're only "activist" if they don't decide in your favor, at least as far as Rightists in the U.S. are concerned.

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?

[MAdMaxOr]

> that's long ago been proven scientifically

I wish that whenever people say that they'd reference the relevant journal articles.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Rs_Conqueror]

Lets take a look at that statement shall we?

Here you say::

Homosexuality is neither a choice (that's long ago been proven scientifically), nor is it particularly a disability.

Therefore homosexuality is genetic.

And yet here you say::

There is no reason that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference should be permissable.

Therefore homosexuality is a preference. But wait! Didn't you just say it was scientifically proven to be genetic? Get your story straight and come back to me later.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[tomhudson]

I've swept the mall and tried on some red swimware. Yet gay people keep decidedly peering at me in the most peculiar way.

Dude, it's not just the gays looking at you funny in those red swim trunks. When you tried to "enhance your manhood", you put the tennis balls in the back of the trunks instead of the front. You looked freaking scary!

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Altus]

I dont have a problem with that...

as far as I am concerned wrong is wrong... even if the supermajority disagrees.

What if Utah passed a state constitutional amendment that let the authorities run roughshod over your rights... tap your phones, put cameras in your house, break in at any time to search and seize your property.

that would be unconstitutional and I would expect the federal courts to overturn the beliefs of the supermajority in Utah.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Mumpsman]

they want to throw their personal preferences into the living room of the other 80% of the population.

So...say a hmosexual man has a "personal preference" for hairy, well endowed biker dudes. Now say that I, a heterosexual man, have a personal preference for girls in bikinis. If by "into the living room" you are talking about TV (and not say books or radio or any of the other things that americans do in living rooms), then I would say that TV sexualizes girls in bikinis WAY MORE than hairy, well endowed biker dudes. At least, that's how it works on the beer comercials I watch.

Seriously, you make it sound like the gays are just banging down you door so they can have sex in front of your grandmother. "We're here, we're queer, we're high on poppers and X and looking for you to fist us!"

Please let me know if I'm way off base here and living in one of the fortunate 20% of households whom the gays have decided, like a limp-wristed G-d on passover, to spare this indignity.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[rpresser]

American democracy has a long tradition of protecting the minority from the majority. I guess that no longer sits well with you? When can I expect the death camps to begin?

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Activist Judges? Please explain to me what an activist judge is. As far as my study of law is concerned, judges evaluate laws and determine their legitimacy as a balance against over-reaching legislatures. Are you claiming that these judges are ignoring precedent or US legal theory like the SCOTUS did in Bush vs. Gore?

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Warpedcow]

They're only "activist" if they don't decide in your favor, at least as far as Rightists in the U.S. are concerned.

I would contend that what you say is an unfair generalization. I consider it "activist" when a judge looks at FOREIGN LAWS to decide their rulings, or when they rule against the will of the people and decide to legislate from the bench. Judges should only judge the law in question with respect to the US Constitution (or state constitution, for state laws) and NOTHING ELSE - and without completely changing the meaning of language as well.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[h4rm0ny]

The point is that Microsoft's market share is

Surely not - shouldn't the real point be why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?

That's the issue as far as I'm concerned. Has the US ideals of democracy sunk so low that this is just a given now and not worthy of comment?

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Altus]

Yea... the never of these activist judges... thinking they have the right to CHECK or BALANCE the power of congressional legislation.

The NERVE of them... its like they think they have some kind of right to do it!

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

The religious right just wants to enshrine hatred above the law. But state amendments and state laws both fall just as easily to a federal decision.

Keep it up. Until we see a symbolic excommunication of Jim Phelps (I don't CARE that he's not catholic), I'll paint all christians like him.

Let's Godwin this: there were probably members of the nazi party who were horrified at what was happening to the jews too. This didn't obligate anyone to give a damn and listen to both sides of the party line.

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.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Dogun]

Here's a better question:
What legitimate interest is it for the state to say that a woman and another woman or a man and a man cannot marry?

It's discrimination against gays in an odd way. Pairwise, as opposed to individual discrimination. In my book, that's still a problem.

I support the grandparent's view that the government should recognize unions and get out of the marriage industry.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Colonel Angus]

The earliest records we have of marriage ceremonies is 2350 BCE in Mesopotamia and had little to do with love or religion in any way, shape or form.

It was intended to bind women (yes, more than one) to a man so that any children born to that woman were guaranteed to be of the man's seed. They were simply baby makers. Property of the men to continue their lineage. If the woman was failing to produce offspring the man was allowed to give her back.

In Greece and Rome the married men were free to satisfy their sexual urges however they saw fit. Concubines, prostitutes and, if they so desired, male lovers.

As Catholicism gained influence in Europe it became necessary for a wedding to be performed by a priest for it to be a legally recognized marriage. It wasn't until the 1500's that marriage was written into canon law as a sacrament.

So your vision of marriage is essentially a 500 year old institution. While for the previous 3500 men were free to marry many women and cavort on the side with ladies of the night. Which is it? The real traditional marriage or the one that you've been told to think is traditional when it's anything but?

From http://www.christiangays.com/marriage/rite.shtml

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Rei]

Um, no it isn't. Lesbians have a lower rate of STD transmission (which I think you were alluding to) than straight women do. So, apparently by your logic, women should only be allowed to marry other women.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Col. Blackwolf]

I have a helluva lot of female friends who think so anyway. Girl-on-girl is hot to many guys, but a lot of girls (that I know at least) are just as turned on by guy-on-guy as guys are by girl-on-girl.

Most of the girls I know think that that's a waste of 2 perfectly good guys attention that could be focussed on them instead. Preferably at the same time ;)

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Arker]

I don't really see an anti-discrimination law as "special rights".

Then you need to look closer, or take off your blinders, or something.

Assault someone because they're wearing yellow or very nearly any other stupid reason in the world, and it's assault. Assault that SAME person with a slightly different, similarly stupid motivation (skin tone, religous jewelry, presumed or acknowledged sexual orientation) and suddenly it's a "hate crime" with far more severe consequences.

If the law isn't taking assault seriously enough, then we should change that - not cook up extra "thought crime" statutes to tack on. And the use of the phrase "thought crime" here is completely apt - we're talking about a law that criminalises the thought behind the crime, rather than the act itself. This is a very very very bad precedent, regardless of any other aspects of it - thought crimes are a category of laws that should never be made, for any purpose whatsoever, period.

I agree wholeheartedly with all genuine efforts toward legal equality. The State shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with defining, recognising, rewarding or penalising marriage. Propose eliminating those privileges and I'll back you. Propose expanding those privileges to cover new classes instead, and I'll fight you every step of the way.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[ifwm]

The judges who ruled affirmative action to be constitutional were activist. Nowhere in the constitution does it allow for discrimination based on "race" but that didn't matter.

They allow discrimination. Now, I don't care what your political leanings are, intentionally hamstringing someone based on something they cannot control is wrong. Period.

And worse, it should be unconstitutional but it's not.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[mad.frog]

At the aquarium where I work we have a gay domestic couple of penguins.

Obligatory Daily Show quote: "Just because it happens in nature, does not make it natural, buster!"

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Catskul]

All issues aside here.

No they arnt. If you think that "lot[s] of girls are just as turned on by ..." then you must have been exposed to an extremely untypical group of women.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Xtifr]

According to America (the book) by John Stewart, et al.:

1. A judicial activist sees the Constitution as a living document that can be adapted and re-interpreted to protect the needs of a changing society, such as "marriage between sodomites" and "impulse abortions."

2. A strict constructionist interpets the Constitution according to the language and original intent of the text at the time of its writing, in much the same way as a fundamentalist views the Bible. Fortunately for strict constructionists, they have been endowed by God with the super-human gift of being able to read the minds of people who died 200 years ago. Naturally, they use this power only for good.

HTH, HAND :)

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

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. I can marry pretty much any woman I want, he can marry pretty much any woman I want. We are equal under the law in every way. Our desires may be different, but it's doubelespeek to say that the law treats us differently.

It is a shame if some place chooses to fire a worker just because they are gay. On the same hand, what is keeping an employer from fireing me just because he dosen't like my face? Should I have special protection from being fired for being unattractive?

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?

[123abc987]

I have had horrible luck linking into PubMed, but here goes:
Homosexuality[MESH] (brain OR genetic)

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[skiflyer]

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. I can marry pretty much any woman I want, he can marry pretty much any woman I want. We are equal under the law in every way. Our desires may be different, but it's doubelespeek to say that the law treats us differently.

That's just intellectual dishonesty... you're phrasing things in dishonest ways to prove a false point.

You can marry pretty much any person you want.
A homesexual person cannot.

Trying to use semantics to prove a point is just petty and useless.

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?

[selsine]

Wait arn't you protected again unlawful dismissal? Like being dismissed for the way you look?

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[radish]

On the same hand, what is keeping an employer from fireing me just because he dosen't like my face?

The law.

Should I have special protection from being fired for being unattractive?

You already do.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[NeoOokami]

It's insightful because he's pointing out that it's sad that it TAKES corporate backing to get a human rights bill passed. Microsoft is free to decide to act as they like, it's just sad that the bill like this could suffer just because there's less money being thrown in it's direction.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[yali]

At the aquarium where I work we have a gay domestic couple of penguins... It's really cool.

Be careful turning to nature for guidance as to what is morally acceptable, lest you be cornered into defending nonstop drake-on-drake necrophilia. Better to just say "I'm cool with that" than to turn to avian examples.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I REALLY want to ban same race marriages.

Genetically it's barely a step away from incest, and an abomination!

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[NeoOokami]

Yeah, I hate it when corporations get involved with social issues. I mean think about all those charity donations. A corporation should only care about cut throat business and profit and stop trying to help people. :\ Seriously though, there's a perfectly valid branch of business ethics that argues that businesses and corporations have an obligation to help the community. There's also a completely opposite view of course. Both have their arguments. I for one don't mind a business helping out the world.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[j-turkey]

They're only "activist" if they don't decide in your favor, at least as far as Rightists in the U.S. are concerned.

Thank you! I'm glad that someone else is dismissing the term "activist judge" as a conservative rallying cry. As much as I support queer rights (as well as human rights in general), the first time I heard the term "activist judge", I understood the concern that federal judges may not have been deciding on an issue of law, rather, may have tried to decide on the right thing to do. I'm not saying that I agreed with the conservative sentiment, but I understand the concern and the potential appearance of the decision.

However, when the term was used again in the Terri Schaivo case by Bill Frist and Tom DeLay, it was so obviously bullshit that (IMO) it totally devalued their original use of the term...especially because (historically, at least) the legislative and executive branches of the government don't get to make a law for one person that only affects one person. (Sorry, the Terri Schaivo case a big trolling point and I hate to bring it up, but it's the only other time I've heard the term "activist judge" used -- I won't talk about it any further outside of this context.)

The thing that I really take away from it is that no matter what side of an issue you sit on, it just doesn't seem right to break the system to get your way, because ultimately, someone else will justify breaking the system to get their way and you may not like it. Was the system broken by anyone in the LGBT case? I honestly don't know, but at the time, the concern was valid, and deserved some consideration. Interestingly enough, (and depending on your point of view) my comment about breaking the system could be applied to both sides of either case where the term "activist judge" was thrown around. I guess it just comes down to a golden rule: "Don't be a dick." I guess we have quite a few politicians who could care less about that.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[fr2asbury]

Oh let's see. The right to inheritance, the right to visit and make descisions for your spouse in the hospital, the right to file your taxes as a married couple, certain states have married only property rights with regards to real estate. Gay and lesbian people who want to get married know the list of rights and privledges much better than I do (a straight divorced guy), but I'm sure there's many more.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Rei]

Actually, the world isn't that simple. There is a continuum between male and female, and a surpring number of children are born into it ("intersexed") to some degree. For those with true hermaphroditism, to a significant degree (somewhat rare, but still extant), often the call between "male" and "female" might as well be made by the toss of the coin. Historically, most of them would be made into girls, because it was traditional practice to perform surgery right away, and the surgery is easier. Nowadays, this is largely rejected - there have been very high rates of gender identity disorder among such children, and even those who don't have problems with their assigned gender, often grow up quite mad at having the procedure done to them without their consent.

These aren't just "little differences" or mutations that "look like" male or female. The gonads can often be intermediary between testes and ovaries. There can be an organ intermediary between a penis and clitoris. The uretrha can be at its base or even on its side. Etc. Where do you draw the line?

If you're going to say chromosomes, think again. In fact, there are many women out there with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome). They're XY, but for all effective purposes, they seem like normal women (although are usually infertile; rarer conditions have led to fertile XY women). A minor genetic defect leads their androgen receptors to not bind to early developmental androgens, causing the body not to masculinize. Should these women only be allowed to marry other women? There are many other cases - other types of XY women, XX men, and things like XXY, XYY, etc. One case of a perfectly normal seeming XY woman was traced down to a mere *two* base pair mutation.

Humanity tends to gravitate toward two extremes, but that doesn't change the fact that gender is a continuum. Draconian binary laws aren't appropriate for such situations.

Besides, even if there was some sort of absolute "difference", some unbridgable chasm: who are you to say that marriage must be between two "different" entities? Many cultures throughout history have completely disagreed with you.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[StikyPad]

Federal law assignes some 1,080 benefits to married couples.

If they're willing to put up with years and years of misery just for some so-called federal benefits, I say let 'em. They have just as much a right to be unhappy as the rest of us.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[bushidocoder]

What's the best solution? Get the government out of the marriage business, period. Leave the status of "married" up to the church. Each church has the right to decide whether or not marriages from another church are valid. Governments should only deal with "unions", as far as rights and privileges go; a union should be a legal status, and a marriage a private one.

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). The government should take whatever benefits they have historically given married couples and make up a new type of union with exactly those benefits, and allow them universally to all couples of either gender.

As a rational member of society, I believe that I do not have the right to dictate to you what is love. I don't have the right to infringe on you whatever I may believe. As a Catholic, though, I believe that homosexual relationships are wrong (when sex is involved). No one can shake my belief on this, because 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.

America allows me the right to passionately believe what I do, but it only works when the rights of all of its citizens are defended. When the government calls it marriage, I feel compelled to try and intervene somehow because I believe that the weakening of the instition of marriage is the cause of many of today's problems, and in my eyes this weakens it further by taking the word and dilluting it even further from what it was meant to be. If it was just called something else, I'd support it fully.

I can't describe in words why such a trivial thing like renaming the civil act means so much to me. Perhaps its because true faith in modern society is so dilluted already - sure there's a conservative political movement, but there are few things less Christian than a mass of people who declare a person who declare one form of sinner is less human than another form of sinner, who endlessly warmonger to solve some feeling of vengeance that seems to endlessly beat in their chest, and try to evangelize publically while ignoring the teachings of their own faith in their own homes. Regardless of motive, the worlds of religion and politics were never meant to be such close bedfellows and any time you try to secularize a thing such as marriage which has existed for thousands of years in various incarnations, but all of them religious, you're going to end up in trouble. Encourage people to set up families with tax benefits and everything else, but secularize it AWAY from marriage and stop trying to poach a sacrament that millions consider holy that predates my own religion - that solves a number of conflicts various religions have with the implementation of secular marriage and is the only solution that truly seperates church from state.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

I don't have the right to marry a man, neither does a gay guy. All I'm saying is that under tha law we are equal. Neither one of us has rights not granted to the other one.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[mirio]

Well, technically under the law gay people have all the rights of straight people. A gay man has the right to marry a woman and two straight men may not marry. I'm not saying it's right, but equality does exist. What you're talking about is extending the rights of everyone, which is something I have no problem with.

And while were on the subject, why is polygamy a felony in many states? I may not agree with it, but I see it as an equal cause to gay marriage (not to mention the fact that there are religious freedom implications with polygamy).

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[bani]

OTOH equating it with religious freedom is a perfect analogy. For instance jews being treated as subhuman merely for their beliefs.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[SpryGuy]

More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.

Even more specifically, they're afraid that knowledgable and competent judges will rightly find their bigoted and pointless laws in violation of constitutional protections, and over-turn them. So they have to circumvent the fact that the courts aren't packed with reactionary bigots by encoding their own bigotry and ignorance right into the constitution itself.

It wasn't activist judges that made gay marriage legal in Massachusettes. A valid court case was brought before the judges and the judges rightly ruled that there was no constitutional reason to not grant the civil licence, and turned the issue back to the legislature to rectify. Which they did. And gee, the sky didn't fall.

Equal Protection under the law: it's for everybody.

Religious right-wing bigots hate that, though, which is why they're going through and trying to circumvent rational judicial rulings by encoding their hateful bigotry into the very constitutions themselves.

There's a reason the founding fathers put the Bill of Rights in there and stated over and over again that the Constitution and its amendments were there to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". Civil Rights should never be put up to a popular vote. An individuals basic and fundamental rights should never be subjected to mob rule.

It should be noted that when interracial marriage was legalized, over 90% of the population was against interracial marriage. It should also be noted that virtually all of the histrionic gnashing of teeth about the disaster that "changing marriage" would unleash upon the country that we're seeing over the gay marriage issue is almost identical to the same crap that was spewed by foes of interracial marriage several decades ago.

And yes, marriage is a civil right. Among the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license are such things as freedom from being compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the freedom from having the government break up your family and deport a spouse because they're not a citizen. These are rights that are not available in any other way, through any other legal document that can ever be drawn up.

The simple fact is that these laws are not only pointlessly punitive encoding of ignorant bigotry into law, but they're violations of religious freedom. My religion, and the religions of a great many people, does not prohibit same-sex unions or marriages. The only real justifications ever cited against same-sex marriages are religious in nature. Why should the dogma of one religion be encoded into law (or the constitution) and not another? The state, as yet, has cited absolutely no compelling reason for denying gay couples a civil marriage license.

As long as two athiests who cannot have children (like my friends Mark and Jennifer) can go down to the justice of the peace and get a marriage license with nothing more than the required fee and two witnesses, then I can see no rational, reasonable, or ethical justification for denying the same exact right to a gay couple.

But that's just my two cents.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Rei]

Flash back: 50 years in the south:

"Why should only same-race couples be able to marry the ones they love?"

Because, by definition, that's what marriage IS.

Flash back: 150 years in the south:

"Why should only white couples be allowed to marry the ones they love?"

Because, by definition, that's what marriage IS.

Flash back: 250 years in America:

"Why should women become chattel, and men their effective owner?"

Because, by definition, that's what marriage IS.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[SpryGuy]

An individual's civil rights are not subject to your approval. If we waited for the masses to vote for things like equal rights for african-americans, they'd still be in chains. Civil rights for minorities are rarely won by popular vote, and "mob rule" would be a horrible way to determine who gets what rights anyway.

Federal courts haven't been arbitrarily reading their own values into the constitution. The constitution has a pretty clear "equal protection" clause, and is pretty clear about separating church and state (if not explicitly in the constitution, then in the subsequent writings of the authors thereof, Thomas Jefferson in particular was very clear about the concept).

If a state super-majority were to decide to strip people of color of their right to vote, the Judiciary would have ever right to step in and say "no, that's wrong", and they'd be absolutely right to do so. That's not being an "activist judge" (the latest code-word for a judge who decides something based on reason and logic rather than on the speaker's prejudices and wishes). That's a judge doing their job. Just because a judge comes to a decision you don't personally like or feel comfortable with, doesn't mean they're being "activist" or in fact that they are wrong.

The judges coming down on the side of treating gays and gay couples equally under the law are making the correct decisions. You don't have to like it, and that is your choice and your right. But that doesn't mean that the judges are wrong.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[GlassHeart]

Assault someone because they're wearing yellow or very nearly any other stupid reason in the world, and it's assault. Assault that SAME person with a slightly different, similarly stupid motivation (skin tone, religous jewelry, presumed or acknowledged sexual orientation) and suddenly it's a "hate crime" with far more severe consequences.

That's not really different in principle than classifying homicide into murder and manslaughter, and then each into various degrees. For whatever reason, premeditated killings receive a harsher sentence than accidental or self-defense killings. Knowingly killing a police officer can similarly carry a much harsher penalty. Intention has always mattered.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[tverbeek]

why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?

Because there's opposition to it that has the financial backing of big companies. Money is required to accomplish anything (good or bad) in U.S. politics.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[StikyPad]

Homosexuality is neither a choice (that's long ago been proven scientifically), nor is it particularly a disability.

I know plenty of women who are attracted to other women, but choose to pursue relationships strictly with men. Social pressure? Perhaps. It's still a choice. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but there's always a choice when it comes to behavior, regardless of our genetic predispositions. I might be more susceptible to alcohol addiction than someone else, but that doesn't mean I'll allow myself to become an addict, or give in to the addiction, depending on how you want to view it. (And I'm not saying that being gay is morally equivelant to being an alcoholic, I'm just talking about predispositions).

Are some people born predisposed to having a same-sex attraction? No doubt. Have others had bad experiences with the opposite sex and found they can relate better to the same sex? I'm sure of it. To say everyone arrives at the same place in the same way is ridiculously arrogant.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[rizzo420]

if you are implying that the judges of the supreme court for massachusetts over-stepped the majority opinion of the population of massachusetts, you are wrong. what they did was take the state constitution and looked to see where it defined marriage as that of a man and a woman. it didn't. they then went and said that any laws stating that marriage between a man and a woman were unconstitutional according to their state constitution. just because the majority disagrees with their decision doesn't mean they're wrong.

the issue of gay marriage is far far more than hurt feelings, uncomfortable situations and disapproval of others. it has to do with tax rights, inheritance rights, the right to visit your partner in the hospital. our country has a very strict separation of church and state. just because christians believe that gays are sinners by definition does not mean that the government believes so. oh yeah, and that separate of church and state is in the FEDERAL constitution. it is not harmful to children to be raised by a gay couple. that has not be proven, nor will it ever be since it's false. what it does do is teach children the ability to accept people who are different, something it seems like you need to learn to do yourself...

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not finaicial backing but vocal support of the bill. The law being proposed is actually an employment discrimination bill which will affect large companies in Washington State. So it makes a lot of sense to get backing of our large companies in the state. The irony here is that Microsoft has always had a progressive non discrimination policy and has supported this bill for many years. They just added trans-gender to that very same policy this year. So, it's a shock that they coward to this pastor because they were afraid of getting dragged into this social issue.

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?

[Stween]

Most of the girls I know think that that's a waste of 2 perfectly good guys attention that could be focussed on them instead. Preferably at the same time ;)You're referring to the girls you see on a daily basis -- the ones in the dirty movies -- aren't you?

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[uberdave]

At the aquarium... we have... penguins. It's really cool.

I would hope so. Penguins are a polar species. "Really cool" is what their natural environment is all about.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[bani]

Nope. The violence against jews is excused by "they control all the media/money/wealth/etc", "jews rape babies","jews drink blood" etc. Quite clearly justified by arguing against jewish actions and not merely beliefs.

So there's no difference at all.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[SpryGuy]

Nice regurgitation of right-wing talking points there.

That a justice might use foreign laws as one aspect in the justification of their decision doesn't bother me in the least, and I'm not sure why it bothers you. OBviously they came to the result of their decision based on the constitution and thoughtful deliberation. In the explaination of the decisions, I think it's perfectly fine to cite any source they want to in an attempt to make it clear why they decided the way they did.

And as for ruling against the will of the people, THAT IS THE JOB OF JUSTICES. Otherwise it'd just be put up to popular vote.

I point out that many of the best decisions have been against majority opinion, in many cases against super-majority opinion. Decisions like the abolishment of segregation or the legalization of interracial marriage. Nobody today really looks back on those as bad decisions (unless they're an unrepetant racist), but at the time, they were wildly unpopular. More than 90% of the people were against the legalization of interracial marriage.

That number is somewhat less for gay marriage (70-something percent at last poll, I think) today, and the people opposing it today are just as wrong as the people opposing interracial marriage were back in the 50's. It's only a matter of time, but sooner or later, same sex marriage will be legal... just like it's becoming in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and across Scandanavia.

And even in the case of the Vermont decision on gay marriage, the judges did NOT "legislate from the bench". A legitimate case was brought before them, and the judges found no constitutional backing for denying the same sex couples equal protection and rights under the law, so they TURNED IT BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE to rectify the issue as they saw fit. The Legislature there decided to rectify with civil unions. It was a very heated debate then, but now nobody cares. The sky didn't fall. It's similar in Massachucettes. All this strong opposition, but they decided to pass gay marriage, and it's done, and really, the sky didn't fall.

All this opposition is manufactured outrage and once it's all done, nobody will care, and twenty years down the pike everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.

And as for changing the meaning of language, that's just B.S. The definition of marriage changes constantly, generation to generation. Besides, gay marriage doens't affect one single church or religious institution in any way. The fact is that "marriage", the word, applies to two completely separate things... the religious ceremony (untouched by allowing gay marriages), and a civil licence that grants rights and responsibilities to two partners in society.

I have two friends, Mark and Jennifer. They are both athiests. He had a vasectomy, and she is unable to bear children due to cervical cancer which cause the removal of her uterus. THey met and fell in love. They got married by walking down to the city hall with the correct fee, and two witnesses, and got their marriage license.

As long as it's perfectly legal for those two to get married, you'll have a very hard time justifing or rationalizing your reasons for wanting to deny the same right to Bill and Ted, or Jane and Marsha.

You don't have to like it. But your dislike of it is no justification for denying over a thousand very real rights to other people you don't even know.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Nopal]

That's just intellectual dishonesty... you're phrasing things in dishonest ways to prove a false point.

You can marry pretty much any person you want. A homesexual person cannot.

Funny that you mention intellectual dishonesty and then you commit it on your very next sentence. No one can just marry pretty much anyone else.

The poster, just like you or I, cannot marry any person he wants. I can't certainly marry my sister, or my mom, or a married woman, or a 10-year old, or two women, or Bob down the street. Can you? Can a gay man? Can a straight man? Can a bisexual man? Can a sheep-loving man?

It's not a "semantics" trick. It's the very defintion of equality. I suggest that you look it up. You seem to be the one that's trying to change the widely accepted meaning of the English language to suit your views.

If you feel like you must make a case for gay marriage, do it with honesty. For example, if you believe that for marriage all you should need is love then you can make an argument that two men can love each other. IMHO it would be the wrong argument to make, but at least it would be an honest argument.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[dillon_rinker]

Check out the Bill of Rights. Now check out the people involved in its creation. Not a poor man in the bunch, by the standards of the times.

Learn this in your bones before you try to make any changes in the world: GOVERNMENT IS BY THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL, FOR THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL. (That's descriptive, not prescriptive, by the way.)

It's kinda pointless trying to change a system that you don't understand; your actions my even be counter-productive. Once you've understood the purpose of the system, you can begin to see that it is rational and internally consistent. THEN you can begin to formulate your plans to change it.

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?

[vsprintf]

Unless this preacher is able to get his followers to switch to Macs or spend a few months learning to run GNU/Linux, then he has no real clout on this issue.

Gott mit SuSE. (Sorry, I couldn't help but recall some recent celebrations or resist the straight line - double groaner.)

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[kalidasa]

Marriage was always a civil contract; the solemnization of marriages as religious sacraments comes much later.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[SpryGuy]

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.

The right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the right to not have your spouse deported because they are not a citizen are very much liek the right to speak or vote or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that they are not.

I put it to you that you disagree with me precisely because you are ignorant. Ignorant of the impact on gay people of these punative laws that deny them, their spouses, and their children the same rights and protections that you and others take for granted.

You talk about freedom as though it means being able to feel good about yourself.

Nowhere have I said anything that would lead any reasonable person to that conclusion. That is your invention and your attempt to inject motivations and words into me that you have prepared talking points to tear down.

I talk about freedom as it is, or at least should be: equal treatment under the law for all individuals. I think that I should have, just like you, some say in every single aspect of my governance, period. But I also think that just because you don't like who I love and share my life with, that you cannot and should not be able to deny me the same rights you enjoy, in the same way you enjoy them. Similarly, I should not be denied the same rights you enjoy becuase the color of my skin is different than yours.

And as to your last point, marriage is most definitely a civil liberty. It is a civil license that grants rights that can be obtained in no other way, such as the aforementioned rights of immigration and the right to not be compelled to testify against your spouse. Those are very obviously civil rights, limiting the government's ability to meddle in my personal relationship and partership without any valid reason for doing so. Unless and until you can provide a compelling reason for the state to be able to come in and break up my relationship, but to NOT be able to do the same to YOUR relationship, you have not proven your case.

And the burden, dear friend, is on you and those who would try and deny me equal rights and equal protection... not for me to prove I am somehow worth of being treated equally.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Combinare]

As a gay man, I wholehearted support your right to believe anything you wish. What I don't understand is why you think you have the right to "share" with me what you think of my "lifestyle," unless I've specifically asked you to do so. I wouldn't dream of telling any religious person, whatever their religion or denomination, what I think of their religion. Why should you be held to a different standard?

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?

[codeviking]

That's simply the way it is. In our modern society you are not allowed to stand against anything unless it's Christianity. I am a Christian, by the way, and have been involved in many of these types of conversations. I've concluded that people will just block out whatever you have to say, so it's really pointless to try and explain yourself.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no no no...2 girls == less women for us men. We need to encourage male homosexuality and discourage female homosexuality to ensure that us true heteros have our share of women

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.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[spacecowboy420]

Wow, so that's it - you guys simply don't get it.

It ISN'T about hating Christians, it is disapproving of actions of those that would inflict THEIR world view - "How things should be" on others. I am absolutely cool with anyone of any religion even though I disagree with the very concept of organized religion. This is simply because MY view is just another view and just as valid.

Any public policy should be unbiased in all ways including religion or you affect the freedoms of those that believe otherwise. Good policy is devoid of any influence except those of the public. Some of the public is gay and wants to marry another gay person, some are Christians and feel homosexualality is a sin - and most of the public just simply doesn't care as long as you don't mess with them.

Christians like to do things that are ONLY rational if you believe in their religion.

If I told you that religion is bullshit. The bible is just mothergoose written by unsophisticated cultists long, long ago and that we have much more plausible answers now so now it is illegal to do unnatural things like believing in a "Holy Ghost" or empty morality and I am going to ammend the constitution to reflect the removal of your right to practice Christanity - you would hate non-Christians wouldn't you?

Oh wait...

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[TheWormThatFlies]

No they arnt. If you think that "lot[s] of girls are just as turned on by ..." then you must have been exposed to an extremely untypical group of women.

Bwahahahaha! Please, look up "slash fanfiction" on Google.

I think that's a sufficiently large number to be called "a lot".

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

>As a gay man, I wholehearted support your right to believe anything you wish. What I don't understand is
>why you think you have the right to "share" with me what you think of my "lifestyle," unless I've specifically asked you to do so.

I couldn't care less laws for (group name) except for:

a. I shouldn't be forced in the workforce to go through sensitivity training towards ____ (insert your group, race, religion) when my demographic receives no such preferential treatment.

b. No special extra rights should be granted to any group. In other words, do not discriminate aganst everyone else. This means that group X can not have a special government office while other groups do not. For example, if there is a congressional woman's office, then there must be a congressional men's office or better yet have not special demographic group office at all.

This has led the USA down the noneding path of identifying each and every demographic group and then having a protracted battle as to if and what should be done to add specific laws, regulations, government offices, etc for that group.

Re:What does he have on you, Bill?

[geekpuppySEA]

Obligatory quote from evolutionary psych courses: Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it should happen in human society. "Is is not ought."

Bad.

[DarkHelmet]

At the April 4 meeting, Smith told members of GLEAM, the gay and lesbian employees group at Microsoft, that the company had switched its official stance to "neutral" on the bill, and took personal responsibility for the decision.

Followed by

An Apple a day keeps the bigot away?

As much as I am for civil rights and gay marriage, this is inflammatory. Just because Microsoft changed their stance from pro to neutral (not against), this makes them bigoted? I don't buy that. I don't buy that at all.

This is the same kind of black and white reasoning that George W. Bush uses. "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Just because someone wants to back away from the battle, doesn't mean all of a sudden that they're on the side of the religious right.

I know it's in-fashion to bash Microsoft on this site, but the fellow who wrote this article takes any sort of GBLA equality achievements with a grain of salt. Kind of like giving a donation to a charity the first time around, and being called stingy for not doing so every time.

Sure, it's disappointing that they backed off. Sure, I hope they change their mind, and I hope plenty of people call them. But to call them bigoted for turning neutral (and not against) is simply going too far.

Re:Bad.

[rpdillon]

Right on.

I think the answer to most discrimination issues *is* to be totally neutral (not to discrimination, but to whatever basis people are using to dicriminate). Black? White? Latino? Gay? Lesbian? Bi? I don't care...how well can you program? What experience do you have unit testing? Are you familiar with functional programming methods?

I'm usually against MS, but on this, I agree...they shouldn't have a position on issues like this; these issues are personal and irrelevant to the business. Making it out like they're suddenly a "bad guy" because of THIS, of all things, is kind of absurd.

Re:Bad.

[Monf]

"a country that (in case you missed the last election) is rabidly against the gay rights movement."

wtf?

it's not the country, it's an irritatingly loud, trolling, flamebating mob of right-wing religous fundamentalist extremist zealots...

Re:Bad.

[Sarkohma]

Being gay is wrong. It says so in the Bible.

The Bible also says that it is alright to sell women into slavery and other ludicrous things. I understand that you believe strongly in the documents of your faith, but I really doubt that Jesus would approve of discrimination towards anyone for any reason, or any form of hate, even if they are a "sinner"

Re:Bad.

[mrisaacs]

You are entitled to your belief and opinion. You are not entitled to inflict them on others whose beliefs and opinions differ from your own. I come from a religeous background as well, but mine does not include an intolerance for Gays or Lesbians. Why should your religeous belief trump mine?

Gays and Lesbians are not asking for special treatment, they are asking for equal treatment under the law.

If you replace Gay/Lesbian with Black, Oriental, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Christian, etc., you should see my point.

You don't need to change your view. You need to realize that not everyone shares it, and that even if you are the majority, you live in a society that should aspire to protect its minorities.

Intolerance has lead to more grief in this world than anything else.

Re:Bad.

[tc]

Being gay is wrong. It says so in the Bible. Just because "your" views may differ doesn't mean that I am a bigot, homophobe, or anything else. It simply means that I am Christian.

Just because it's your religious belief, doesn't mean it's not bigoted. Being a Christian is not a free pass. The origin of your belief is irrelevant - if you believe that being gay is wrong, then are are a bigot, more or less by definition.

This is one problem with religions in general. They teach people to discriminate - homosexuality is a frequent target, but some religions also discriminate against women or ethnic minorities. When they do those things, it's bigotry. Just because it's religiously motivated doesn't make it any less repellant.

Your analogy with stealing is flawed. Theft affects others, which is why we consider it wrong (and make it criminal). Being gay does not, and frankly shouldn't be anyone else's business.

Re:Bad.

[Quantum Skyline]

Being a Christian is not a free pass. The origin of your belief is irrelevant - if you believe that being gay is wrong, then are are a bigot, more or less by definition.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Bible say to hate the sin and not the sinner? As far as I know, its ok to be gay and be a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but it is not ok to perform homosexual acts. (I can't speak about other Christian denominations.)

Re:Bad.

[tc]

It's an accurate word to use. If it makes you uncomfortable to be described that way then the solution is not to attempt to redefine the word to include a 'religion exemption', but instead to question your own position.

Uh...

[sjrstory]

Anyone else read this as Microsoft Abandons Gay Bill?

Re:Uh...

[Jakeypants]

Well, I made a similar mistake. I thought Gay Rights Bill was a new Microsoft mascot that went the way of Bob.

But

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is still gay.

Entirely Predictable

[Harodotus]

That Microsoft did this actually this was fairly predictable, even though I too am a strong advocate of gay rights.

Regardless of TFA says, what I think happened is that there is a some major customer of Microsoft software is strongly anti-gay rights (like the Bush run federal government or a large corporation or a major customer who allies itself with the religious right extremists mentioned in TFA) told Microsoft that they wouldn't purchase X 10s of thousands of copies of Office if Microsoft undermined their anti-gay political policies / laws.

Microsoft wants to be known as socially responsible, but faced with a reduction of revenue, their greed took precedent and they became non-political on this issue. Of course they can't publicly admit this backroom concession.

Surely no one here would be surprised that Microsoft went for the money before social responsibility. Heck most companies would do the same thing if enough money was at stake.

Re:Entirely Predictable

[DaHat]

What is this... 'social responsibility' you speak of?

Rather than blaming greed... did you ever consider that maybe they did what was best for their shareholders and employees?

Re:Entirely Predictable

[hey]

So you are saying:
they are whores with no principles.

I agree.

Re:Entirely Predictable

[bluprint]

What theory says they should "advance the public good", $this_way ?

Certainly, any action that helps people, doesn't help all people the same amount. And increasing value for shareholders and employees is helpful to those people. Nothing says they have to help people in some particular manner that you get to choose dynamically.

Re:Entirely Predictable

[cybermage]

I think you give the grand parent too much credit in granting the premise that Corporate charters are granted to "advance the public good" at all. That might have been the intent 200+ years ago when they were debating creating a national bank; but, Corporations are all about shielding their owners from liability, unearned income (i.e., profit), and self-preservation.

Because of the generally selfish nature of the artificial entities we call Corporations, one would expect that we will always advocate for legislation that is in their best interest, often at cross-purposes to the "public good."

I would suggest that Corporations have no place in the political/legislative process what-so-ever -- advocating neither for nor against legislation; and, interestingly, that is also in the interest of share-holders as profits are not wasted on advocacy.

As an aside, would the Free State Project support passing a gay-rights bill in New Hampshire; or, is that not the kind of Liberty you have in mind?

They are beginning to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Mac OS X as a threat (rightly, in my opinion), so they are now attacking the problem at the source.

Re:They are beginning to see...

[NanoGator]

"...Mac OS X as a threat (rightly, in my opinion), so they are now attacking the problem at the source."

Oh, enough with the FUD. Just because OSX was built from eunuchs doesn't mean that it appeals only to gays!

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.).

Wrong angle

[chill]

What bothers me is that one corporate entity seemingly has so much influence over the legislative process. Specifically, a law that is totally unrelated to their industry.

I understand the RIAA/MPAA and Copyright legislation, but Microsoft and Gay Rights? WTF?

Now, instead of "Write Your Congressman!" are we supposed to call MS Tech Support?

-Charles

Re:Wrong angle

[TummyX]

Specifically, a law that is totally unrelated to their industry


Considering the law in no small part had to do with discrimination in employment situations, I would imagine it is totally related to companies that...you know.....employ people.

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.

Oh man

[The Bungi]

Microsoft abandons gays? That's a great agline. Just what the doctor ordered, in case there weren't enough things to flame them about.

Now I'll listen to the zealots ticking off the reasons "M$ is teh suxx0rz" and including "they hate fagz" as well, like most of they care.

I have to wonder why this is on the Slashdot front page, and why it's not followed by a list of companies like IBM, Novell, Sun and Red Hat and what their attitude is towards gays and lesbians.

But wait, actually I don't.

Re:Oh man

[Kyrene]

Actually, IBM is a huge supporter:

http://www-306.ibm.com/employment/us/diverse/award s.shtml

Re:Oh man

[nvrrobx]

I know you're actually trolling, but to those who care about other great companies for gay and lesbian employees, here's a good link:

http://www.businessreform.com/article.php?articleI D=11076&ofid=2&ruser=yes

The Advocate also publishes a list of the top ten companies to work for every year. Here's the list for 2000 (The 2004 list doesn't seem to be archived on their site):

http://web.archive.org/web/20040215174655/http://w ww.advocate.com/html/stories/823/823_topten.asp

The HRC (The Human Rights Campaign) also maintains such a list, the annual State of the Workplace:

http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publicati ons1/State_of_the_Workplace/SOTW_03.pdf

and the Corporate Equality Index:

http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publicati ons1/Corporate_Equality_Index2/2004CEIReport.pdf

If you don't like the subject matter, don't read further into it, but some people around here might actually be interested.

Full Article here

[jasonla]

The full article can be found here:
http://www.thestranger.com/2005-04-21/feature.html

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.

Re:Huh

[Fnkmaster]

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

Allow me to explain. We measure its relevance using a unit known to some as the US Dollar, to others as the "greenback". Legislation in this country needs to be lobbied for. Politicians don't know shit, and don't have much of an incentive to learn about shit unless there is somebody breathing down their neck, using the carrot-and-stick approach to get them to pay attention to an issue. The people who do this, lobbyists, have to be paid by somebody. Since corporations have a lot of money and a common goal within the organization can be easily set, it's pretty straightforward to see how they might hire lobbyists and give them the tools (payola money) to work their trade.

Now you may think in an ideal democracy this isn't how things would work, but that's not the world we live in. Professional, trade, and random interest groups can certainly wield the same power by swinging some dollars around, and representing some bloc of citizens. But without some sort of organized, funded umbrella organization, it is difficult to get your opinion heard by politicians.

So, perhaps it's a little more clear now why Microsoft throwing their weight behind this cause might be relevant?

Re:Huh

[east coast]

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

Exactly! Another great Slashdot paradox. If the RIAA was supporting legislation that "protects the interests of their artists" we'd have people up in arms about a corporation being able to support and advance legislation. On the other hand we have MS who withdraws political support and we have the same people chanting "how can they let this happen?".

By all accounts MS already runs a pretty open office with support for their gay employees. Why should MS bother to get involved at all? MS isn't really a problem in this case and as far as I'm concerned the further you can distance corporations from politicians the better.

okay, i'll bite...

[radarsat1]

okay.... i'll ask....

what the hell does a software company have to do with promoting gay rights? i don't remember any questions to that effect the last time i installed windows...

*hands up in the air..*

*rolls eyes..*

*walks away...*

Re:okay, i'll bite...

[computerme]

its because software companies have these things called people. Only they are not "things" they are human beings and should be treated as such...

and hint hint... treating your people BETTER usually results in BETTER software with BETTER profits...

Wrong.

[sulli]

A neutral stance on an anti-discrimination bill may not be bigoted if the company had never thought of it before. But if the company changes its position from in favor to neutral, understanding that this might kill the bill, this is clearly a bigoted position.

There is no excuse for discrimination against gays. Microsoft of all companies should know that.

Re:Wrong.

[garcia]

You truly are nuts if you took what I said to be anything other than blantant sarcasm.

Apple Stickers

[Anne_Nonymous]

I guess Bill was pissed about all those rainbow Apple stickers from the 80's showing up on his car.

Alternative Headline:

[CaryTheSane]

Bill Bails on Gay Bill.

Re:Could it be that business interests...

[tomhudson]

Of course. They're worried about competition from lesbian linux.

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.

Microsoft?

[bill_mcgonigle]

To listen to the commentary here, the gay community is entirely using Apple computers.

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.

This passes for journalism?

[TechnoLust]

Some online rag I've never heard of posts a story and doesn't cite specific sources, some blogger links to said online rag, /. links to blog and posts Microsoft hates gays!

Can anyone actually confirm that MS pulled support of this?

Re:This passes for journalism?

[xnderxnder]

The "online rag" looks like a local weekly.. and seems to I dunno, quote sources. Is it less worthy 'cause you didn't see it in the New York Times?

Some sources from the article:

Ed Murray, a gay Democrat representing Capitol Hill and the prime sponsor of the bill, confirmed that Smith also told him about the pressure from Hutcherson during an awkward and at times heated March 29 conference call in which they discussed the company's decision to end its active support for the bill.

[Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary] told members of GLEAM, the gay and lesbian employees group at Microsoft, that the company had switched its official stance to "neutral" on the bill, and took personal responsibility for the decision.

I'd quote more, but, y'know, RTFA.

Re:This passes for journalism?

[Qrlx]

it's possible that gannon technically meets the definition of reporter.

but there's a much more accurate term for a reporter like gannon; that term is 'shill.'

there's nothing baffling about a homosexual outing another homosexual. gannon's softball questions serve to aid and abet a fiercely anti-homosexual administration. in other words, he's a hypocrite. it is the hypocrisy, not the homosexuality, which is bothersome. among other unanswered questions, such as how and why did an ex-prostitute hack for a small time rag get into white house briefings while career reporers from established papers were denied access.

Re:How are gays discriminated against at work?

[Mr. Mikey]

I take it you never saw the movie "Philadelphia" ?

Let's say you have a picture of your partner on your desk. You might be told that personal pictures are "inappropriate"... even though others have pictures of their wives or husbands on their desks. You might be passed over for promotion, get your hours cut, or fired for "poor performance" or "poor attitude."

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"...

You take that back!

[RatBastard]

Windows is still gay.

You take that back! You take that back right now! How DARE you insult homosexuals like that!

We are talking about the Stranger here

[Static_Neurotoxin]

This is an "Alterative" ad based weekly paper here in Seattle. In my opinion, it's journalistic integrity is slightly above the Weekly World News and roughly that of the Readers Digest.

Not to say they haven't been right in the past, but their slant is a far left leaning urban newspaper. I imagine their evidence is pretty much Microsoft withdrawing support and a pastor claiming credit.

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...)

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

[Mr. Mikey]

So, tell us... what test will you adminster to determine whether a couple is "normal" or not? Who gets to decide?

Feh... being gay is as abnormal as being left-handed.

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.

Good for them

[Just Some Guy]

Since there's currently no litmus test for what constitutes a committed gay relationship (ie marriage), it seems like a bureaucratic nightmare to distinguish between two same-gender friends and a gay couple. For example, there are a lot of single-family residences that don't allow unrelated inhabitants. How does the apartment manager get to decide whether to allow two guys that show up wanting to rent a unit?

Yeah, I know that's not the best example in the world, but I meant that to demonstrate the millions of ways this could turn into a lawyer-friendly fiasco in record time. If you extend insurance benefits to gay partners (despite their current lack of legal status), do you have to extend it to unmarried straight partners as well? Do gay couples have to file their taxes together, or can they keep the huge tax benefits of filing singly, and if the latter, isn't that discrimination against unmarried straight couples? Do religious groups have to hire gay people even if they are strongly against it? Accept gay volunteers to non-paid positions?

Honestly, either go with gay marriage (or civil unions or some other process of establishing a legal basis in a relationship) or forget these stupid halfway laws that can't possibly be fairly enforced.

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.

Something doesn't seem right

[00squirrel]

From TFA:

The radical right activist reportedly told Microsoft it had better pull its support for the gays or anti-gay bigots would launch a nationwide boycott of Microsoft, and guess what - Microsoft caved. A single anti-gay jerk, and Microsoft chose to reverse over ten years of policy and bash gays.

Ok, is it just me or does that paragraph just not make sense. Microsoft has millions of customers, and I hardly thing one voice (no matter how loud or how Christian) threatening to boycott is going to make Microsoft do anything, let along change their political stance. I mean, nearly every Slashdotter has been boycotting Microsoft for years, and it hasn't made them do anything!

Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson

[TripMaster Monkey]

I would imagine there are a lot of bible-thumpers who would never hurt another human being, gay or not. And until told otherwise, I'd assume this pastor is one of them.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but here's a quote from the good Pastor, during the Senate Hearing on HB1515, on March 22nd:

"Homosexuals have never been considered one-fifth of a human being,"

(He then went on to say that homosexuals want to molest young boys.)

Sorry, but with that sort of intolerance, this man has no right to call himself a servant of God.

All his parishoners should be ashamed.

Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson

[kin_korn_karn]

why don't real christians band together and have fuckers like him excommunicated and arrested?

I suspect it's because more people that call themselves "christian" agree with him than you think they do.

In my mind, just being a christian is endorsement of this guy and Fred Phelps and George W. Bush and all of the other fundamentalist cocksuckers out there that want to throw out the constitution and replace it with the bible.

Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson

[AviLazar]

While I am not Christian myself, I think I find the statement: In my mind, just being a christian is endorsement of this guy: wholly offensive. Just because there are a bunch of rotten apples in the position of power/leadership in the Christian community does not mean the entire community (or the faith) is bad.

For your convenience, I am Jewish.

Other then that, a good lynchin of bastards who want to take away the rights of others because they are different (and pose no real threat to anyone else) wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson

[GreyWolf3000]

There really isn't much "we" can do. The minute we got up on a podium and rail against some other movement we would become exactly what we attacked.

The best response to this from a Christian standpoint would be to show grace and love to homosexuals, and ignore the rest of the crowds that want an excuse to attack Christianity because of their intolerance.

But you have demonstrated your own variety of intolerance, which I wish you could see, because there are so many more like you out there who cannot see themselves objectively.

Christians should not discriminate against homosexuals, but non-Christians should not pick apart their neighbors belief structures. Just because I think some activity is wrong doesn't mean I can't be around someone who engages in that activity. Hell, I'll be the first to admit I've also engaged in immoral sexual conduct. Did God damn me to hell? He could have, but He chose not to. The same offer is extended to everyone.

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:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson

[AviLazar]

They all agree with him, whether they know it or not.

You gotta really stop with the "they all" comments. Not every Christian person has a problem with gays. There might be a legitimate poll out there that gives rough numbers - but I would bet that you couldn't legitmately say "most". It tends to be that the bigots who don't want gays to get equal rights are the loudest voices - while most of us are like "Hey I hope the best for gays...now let me go back to watching Enterprise." Don't let a bunch of loud mouths make you think all of Christiandom is a bad thing.

Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson

[eaolson]

there are a lot of...sane Christians

Unfortunately the reasonable middle isn't the ones out picketing the funerals of gay people. (Fred Phelps) They're not the one's on TV saying that a gay couple adopting a kid is "violence against the child." (The late Pope) They're not the ones that are saying gay people should be put in jail. (2004 Texas GOP platform)

The reasonable middle is fairly silent on these issues, and so it is the whackjob-fringe groups that get all the press and the air time.

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.

Re:Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson

[nokojones]

Christians, which I'm assuming you call yourself, follow the teachings of Christ, which are found in the Gospels, not in Leviticus, which is the ancient and somewhat barbaric text you get your 'abomination' from. Paul (whose teachings frequently bear little resemblance to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels) also had a thing against homosexuals, along with fornicators, adulterers, the effeminate, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. (1 Cor. 6:9-10) That really doesn't leave a lot of people that he doesn't revile - including Jesus (who BTW didn't preach 'reviling', but love), whose first miracle, after all, was to turn water into wine. If you'd like to find a group that most closely follows the teaching of Paul as stated here I suggest you join Al-Qaeda.

Re:Quite honestly...

[guardian alpha]

So let me get this straight: You feel that corporations should have a say in politics and be able to sway the opinion of laws and legislation. You also feel that a company taking a neutral stance against a political subject rather than a "for or against" stance, is alienating a customer base?

Why on earth is a company taking a neutral stance on politics a bad thing? You want to kick and scream if RIAA and MPAA start acting like government/law officials because it's detrimental to YOUR way of life, but when a company comes along that decides to pull it's pro/con statements back and let the government handle government work, you get zealot-like and swear off an entire Operating System.

If you want companies to start sticking their hands in everything the government does, then I'm afraid you are in for a rude awakening when you realise the full impact that Microsoft has had on the government descision torwards gay-rights; no impact at all.

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

[cowscows]

The biggest problem with that argument is that there aren't enough people (normal or otherwise) looking to adopt kids. You might not think having a gay couple as foster parents is "normal", or even good, but you'd have a hard time convincing an informed person that growing up in an orphanage is better.

It's about time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Christian-bashing was getting lonely as being the only socially acceptable form of discrimination in this country.

Re:Quite honestly...

[Kyrene]

The point isn't that they should have a say, or should be forced to take a stance. The point is that they MADE a stance, and now they're backing down from it--and from pressure from a religious leader, no less. That's not being neutral in the least.

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

[drinkypoo]

Hello, you are a bigot. Most of the homosexuals I know who would consider raising children are considerably better people than, well, than I suspect you are given what you just said about them.

Guess what? Foster kids are like any other kids. What they need is what any other kid needs, they just need more of some things if they are older because they have been raised by people who didn't want them or weren't fit to have them. What makes homosexuals any less fit to provide that? What makes homosexuals abnormal? Answer: only your bigotry.

Want some supporrting evidence? Straight people have kids that grow up to be gay. I'm not talking about abused children here either. But, basically your whole thought process is predicated upon the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuals, which is an inherently prejudiced concept. YOU ARE A BIGOT. YOU HAVE NO HIGH GROUND.

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.

Wants to Weasle out of Contract

[lilmouse]

100 posts in, and you still haven't given the obvious answer to this!

What does he have on Bill? Well, when the head of MS starts desperately following bizarre orders from Evangelicals, you realize he's gotta be looking for allies. My guess is, his contract is expiring soon, and he's looking for a loophole.

Now, we know Satan's contracts are even tighter than MS's, so Bill's trying to get some extra-judicial help. That's all.

--LWM

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.

Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[eno2001]

This pastor is a disgrace. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are actually very disturbed people who are in denial. They can't accept that two people of the same gender can experience love and commemorate that love in marriage. Here is is folks, the plain truth:

The love that two men or two women feel for each other is no different than the love that a heterosexual couple experiences. There is no difference at all. None. That same warm indescribably wonderful feeling that a hetero remembers (I'm straight, so I know what it feels like) feeling on their wedding day is no different from what a gay man or a lesbian woman would feel on their wedding day. But our sick society is trying to deny that love can be experienced outside of a heterosexual relationship. It makes them so uncomfortable that they cover their ears and scream loudly, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening! I'm not listening"!

I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.

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.

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[beanlover]

I am opposed to gay marriage. I am not disturbed or in denial. I am a Christian.

The issue is the definition of marriage. It's not just a legal concept. If it were then Christians wouldn't care. I don't care if gays get a driver's license because that is just a legal concept. Marriage is an institution established by God as being between a man and a woman. That is why us Jesus-freak, Bible-thumpin' intolerants have such an issue with "gay marriage". It represents biblical principles that are sacred to us. Allowing gays to be "married" goes against those principles.

Now...if gays want to be civilly-united so they can have all the legal, state-created rights afforded to those that are married then I say go for it. I have no problem with that because that is just a legal concept.

Radical gays that have a political agenda are pushing this as a social deconstruction device. This country was founded on biblical principles. Anti-God types want to undo that so they have to deconstruct our current way of life so they can reconstruct it based on their way.

Currently our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God are enumerated in our founding documents as a legal concept. That means the government can't touch them for any reason. As soon as God is removed from every aspect of our goverment and way of life then our rights will have to default to be granted to us by the government and therefore changeable.

It's not just about homophobia (which I do not suffer from)...that is just a convenient, emotional label used when the folks with the deconstruction agenda are presented with the facts I stated above.

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[GreyWolf3000]

This pastor is a disgrace. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are actually very disturbed people who are in denial. They can't accept that two people of the same gender can experience love and commemorate that love in marriage. Here is is folks, the plain truth:

How about I give you a different version of plain truth, claim that it is in fact you who are in denial, and we can end up no where closer to a solution, but I can feel better about myself. Here it goes:

The relationship that you gentiles call "love" is not even a shadow of what Christians experience through God. Instead of being fixated on the partner meeting the needs of the other, Christian marriages, bound by selflessness and grace, grow into something far deeper than your average heathen could even understand. So it's no wonder why you equate the "love" that heterosexuals enjoy to that of the homosexuals--neither is really love!

Now, I hope you don't think I was completely serious, I was just trying to show that in such subjective matters, trying to give everyone the "plain truth" is useless, because perception is greater than fact. You, for instance, seem to have enjoyed both homosexual and heterosexual marriages first hand, since you can equate them neatly.

I think I have a better solution: let people believe what they will, and ensure that free speech protects our right to change their minds when we believe they are wrong. Leave the government out of marriage!

I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.

Homophobia is rampant within the Christian community, but that doesn't mean that the proper Christian viewpoint is that homosexuality is OK. They should show homosexuals every bit of grace and love they can in spite of a different sexual orientation. The Bible claims that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God--I don't see why simply considering homosexuality to be a sin is so bigoted if it merely puts us all in the same boat!

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[Reignking]

Do you have a problem with non-Christians, straight couples getting married, then?

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[emilymildew]

You got your religion in my government!

You got your government in my religion!

Seriously. When the state is "marrying" people, you don't get to dictate based on religious beliefs who is and isn't allowed to do it just because it isn't what your god intended. Sorry.

State does civil, your churches do marrying. Make it so, otherwise, keep your mouth shut and your morals away from me.

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[UCRowerG]

The issue is the definition of marriage. It's not just a legal concept.

You have hit the nail on the head there. I think the biggest confusion arises because gays are fighting for the legal word "marriage" while conservative religious groups are fighting to preserve the religious significance of "marriage." Setting aside the whole freedom of religion thing and that not every religion claims gays are wrong (this is a majority christian country after all), civil unions start to look like a promising compromise. There is only one drawback to this solution, and it's something we've seen just last century. There is no such thing as "separate but equal". Perhaps civil unions would be a best first step, but I am sure we will see problems arise just as we did when segregation was lawful. In the end either way, no church is required to hold a ceremony or recognize a gay union. That's a breach of freedom of religion. But i do strongly support a legal union of some sort available to whomever wants it.

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[xiaomonkey]

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.

I'm wondering, is your point of view based on just cultural stereotypes, or do you have an evidence to back this up?

I would argue that any two people, regardless of whether they are male or female, probably have idiosyncrasies in the way they experience love. But, the claim that there is something necessarily very different between a couple consisting of a woman and a man and couples consisting of either a man and a another man or a woman and another woman reeks of sexism.

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[eno2001]

But marriage is a celebration of love and has been extended outside of Christianity. Buhddists get married. Moonies get married. Pagans get married. They all do it to celebrate their love for one another. That is the key purpose of marriage. It says to the rest of society, "Person A loves Person B and Person B loves Person A". If marriage was specifically a religious concept, then that would mean all the atheists who are married should consider their marriages null and void. Obviously this is not the case. If marriage is meant to raise up the emotion of love, then it should be extended to all people who experience romantic love. Leave religion out of it.

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[Experiment 626]

This pastor is a disgrace. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are actually very disturbed people who are in denial.

How amazingly arrogant. To categorically assume that anyone who might dare to think differently than you about a complex and controversial social topic must automatically be doing so because they are "very disturbed" and "in denial". Which side of this debate is supposed to be the closed-minded and intolerant ones again?

The love that two men or two women feel for each other is no different than the love that a heterosexual couple experiences.

What about the love a man feels for his seven wives, or for a goat, or for some member of his immediate family? Some people will say as long as everybody involved is okay with it, whatever floats their boats. Others might find unconventional relationships to be immoral or aberrent. Such questions can be particularly controversial when the issue of marriage is added, since it juxtaposes what is originally a religous ceremony with a lifestyle that is at odds with the teachings of the predominant religion in America. Depending upon one's values, they might find themselves on either side of such a debate, but only those too ignorant to consider others' perspectives, such as yourself, could be accused of covering their ears and screaming loudly, 'I'm not listening!'

I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.

At least you admit your intolerance is based out of your hate for those who think differently than you do. But, when it comes to people who think their way is the "plain truth", that everyone else must be "very disturbed" and who "hate" such people, are they really any different from you at all?

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[CosmeticLobotamy]

I like how you slipped "genetic" in there. But you didn't quite go far enough. Some of them have kids from previous relationships that technically qualify just as well as straight blended families, so you should throw some more arbitrary constraints on it. I recommend "the genetic offspring of not-currently-gay parents". That oughtta cover it. You've still got that gaping hole around infertile straight couples and straight couples that would just prefer to adopt, but that's okay. Thinking is for fags, anyway.

Re:Trip Master Monkey's Got it Right

[snorklewacker]

> Two men cannot get married (nor two women) because a marriage is between a man and a woman.

San Francisco said otherwise. Uh oh, cognitive dissonance time. It's like that robot from star trek. "ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL! DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

I wasn't going to get nearly this snarky until I saw that I was arguing against the same old soft-pedalled bigotry. Well I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to stand for hemming and hawing while injustice takes place. People are losing their homes because the inheritance goes to parents. People are losing their health because their partner can't insure them. And on and on, because people like YOU will gladly crush others so you can enjoy your precious definitions.

Re:How are gays discriminated against at work?

[AviLazar]

Religion is a choice - and sexual orientation is not a choice. It is an urge - and while some people are confused, some people go both ways, etc it is really a feeling. For me, just thinking about kissing another guy is totally revolting and makes me want to puke - so no I really don't have a choice about my sexual orientation. I have friends, who are gay and lesbian, who agree with me - to them kissing someone of the opposite sex is revolting. I do not know your sexual orientation - but lets assume you are a straight male...Would you go with another male? Why not? And don't tell me "cause i don't want to" - explain it. I explained my reasoning - I feel nautious and sick thinking about it - along the lines of having sex with an animal. But that is my biology.

The thing is with gay rights - people don't want to have to hide it - just like people don't want to have to hide their religion. THe same rights that protect religion should protect sexual orientation - no matter if you think it is a choice or not a choice (even more so if it is not a choice). Also, gay rights needs to be fought for because many states do not allow gays to get married with their significant others. How unfair is that.

As for proving if you are gay or not...a private investigator follows you for a few months -- eventually you will get caught. And, obviously, there are the stereotypical gays which scream gay at a mile away.

How the hell...

[Begemot]

...micro and soft becomes an expert in sexuality?

I'm kinda glad that this happened.

[kid_icarus75]

Who would really want thousands of Evangelical Christians switching over to Linux anyways? I don't want to use a mail client called "Creationism."

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:How are gays discriminated against at work?

[DevNull Ogre]

The part about uneven application of rules ("no personal pictures"), reduced hours, and layoffs certainly *is* discrimination.

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

[drinkypoo]

You can't really claim that the idea of there being "something wrong with homosexuals" is "inherently prejudiced", rather it's a fact of biology.

You know, most children don't actually see their parents reproduce. They see everything but the important bits, namely the act of putting the baby in, and taking the baby out. Thus, the ability to reproduce is arguably not a very important part of child-rearing. Also, many children are only children. I have two half brothers but they were both well into their childhoods when I was born, and they weren't around at until I was three or four. Thus my parents' ability to reproduce had no impact on my existence after the fact that I had been born, unless you count that my mom became [more] unbalanced emotionally after my birth. If THAT is what kids who are raised by gay parents are missing, it would be a huge boon.

This is of course why they adopt, which is a good thing.

So if you think that, why bother crafting such a goofy argument above? Guess what? A gay couple not being able to reproduce IS normal! What more do you want? Also, there are heterosexual couples that cannot have children for one or more of a variety of reasons. Should they not have children because they are abnormal? The whole argument is just stupid.

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.

Bullshit

[donutello]

Microsoft continues to be a huge supporter of gay rights. Withdrawing support from one piece of legislation (there's no reason they should have been involved in it in the first place and they are not opposing it, they are just withdrawing from the battle) does not suddenly make them "supporters of religious conservativism". They are a business. If an activity they indulge in, which is unrelated to their business, has the potential to cause them to lose a large amount of their business, it's the responsible thing to do to not let that happen.

I didn't see Apple or IBM or Google or any of the other companies Slashdotters love, offer any support to any gay rights legislation. Microsoft is the only one that did, and now, sadly, they are being forced to withdraw from the battle.

Incredible.

[Aeron65432]

Has anyone actually RTFA?

The guy has twisted and distorted Microsoft's position into his opinion that Microsoft hates gays.

He is very biased, unfactual, and a blogger. I don't think you'd hear this kind of ranting from CNN or CBS.

And slashdot accepts him and his opinion as credible news?

Teh Sun ruined my grammer

[t_allardyce]

Did anyone read this like a tabloid line: Microsoft abandons Bill Gates because hes pro-gay-rights?

I think most of Europe has gay-rights discrimination laws but we're just a bunch of stoners and drunks...

Discrimination

[OwnedByTwoCats]

1. 1. Homosexuality is neither a choice (that's long ago been proven scientifically), nor is it particularly a disability.
   
   That's not really true. Human beings are patterned to pursue things that cause them pleasure the same as Pavlov's dogs.

My experience, many moons ago, was that I knew that I was attracted to women long before I had experienced sexual ecstacy with a woman. Which contradicts your assertion that it is all learned.

I presume that gays and lesbians, for the most part, have had pretty similar experiences.

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

[Guppy06]

"Atleast people are allowed to be gay in USA."

Give it a few weeks. In a country where the majorities in 11 states enacted constitutional amendments aimed against them, I figure it's only a matter of time until a truly democratic process does exactly what you're talking about.

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:Companies are private organizations

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If you look at the DSM-III, before the 4th edition, you will see homosexuality listed as a disease.

Historically, psychology and medicine in general, has a piss poor record for determining what is and isn't a disease. This is the same discipline that pushed frontal lobotomies as a valid "treatment" right up until the 60's.

Why is it states are passing referendums, public referendums, where homosexual marrige is outlawed by votes over 80%?

Because the U.S. is full of prejudiced, racist, intolerant, uneducated, fuckheads.

The republican party found one single issue they can bank on. As long as the republicans supply a candidate who is for defending marrige as defined between a man and a woman, they will keep winning elections. It is the ONLY reason bush won the last election.

You're probably right. But just because most people are unethical and want to tell other people what is and is not morally right and wrong (as if they were some sort of authority) a few of us like to vote our consciences, even if we are a minority. You see a hundred years ago the majority of people thought black people were an inferior race. Two hundred years ago the majority of people thought women were inferior to men, weaker and less intelligent and should not be allowed to own property of their own. Four hundred years ago anyone who said the earth revolved around the sun was declared an evil heretic who had to be burned to protect society.

The majority is not always right. The Bill of rights exists to protect the people from the government and the minorities from the majorities. Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner." It is the reason for the limits on the government's power.

You see just because you are a prejudiced mental reject does not mean that if some day prejudiced mental rejects are in the minority open-minded people should be able to discriminate against them in the workplace if their religion does not get in the way of their job.

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.

Re:What I don't get....

[blueZhift]

What I don't get is how all of these anti-gay defense of marriage laws and ammendments are supposed to make my marriage stronger. How does denying someone else's rights, defend mine? This whole wave of anti-gay legislation is just evidence of what happens when religion gets mixed up with our laws. Specifically, marriage is considered to be religious sacrament by the religions I know of, not a civil law. Unfortunately, in the minds of many in the U.S., this religious sacrament _is_ a part of the law. Truthfully, _all_ marriages are civil unions as far as the state is concerned, but not all civil unions are marriages with regard to religions. Indeed, as I understand it, the Catholic church would not recognize a marriage between Catholics that only consisted of the joining by the Justice of the Peace (or similar civil official), but not the actual marriage sacrament involving a priest. And this is fair, no one is saying that the state should force any religions to recognize and sanction unions that go counter to those religions' beliefs.

I'm a Christian and I really don't know if the gay unions are right or not. But I do know that Jesus would not want me to mistreat gay people or diminish their human dignity. Jesus would treat gays with the same love and compassion that he showed the many outcasts he encountered during his time on Earth as recorded in scripture. Sadly, many of those pushing the current anti-gay agenda seem to be devoid of much in the way of compassion.

seperate that state and church

[SiggyRadiation]

In Holland a minister is not allowed to wed a couple in church before that couple has been to their city-hall where a government-official weds them solely for the law.

This means that any wedding must be before the civil cervant and people can choose wether or not also wed in their church. The churches can choose wether or not to allow a marriage, based on their own criteria but the state must wed gays and straights alike.

This cuts the civil responsibilities from the ministers and pastors (who should not even want them) and it cuts the religious discussion from the state's duties and the rights that state grants to married people.

As a religious person you can call a gay married couple anything you like. For example: "a-gay-couple-that-thinks-they-are-married-but-the y-are not" but the state and the judiciary are going to have to treat them as a married couple.

I see this as a very good thing.

Siggy.

Re:I wonder...

[ElyseMyers]

You could always cut your hair -- its definately not the same thing as being a minority. that you cannot change. sheesh

*Democracy* at work

[gnuman99]

Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?

Hey, that's what you get by having majorities imposing laws on minorities. Never worked and never will.

In Canada there is the Charter of Rights And Freedoms. Especially look at #15.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In Canada, the Supreme Court rules that the current marriage act discriminates against gay/lesbians on this basis (ie. don't have the same rights under the law). http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/09 /scoc-gaymarriage041209.html

Gay marriage is already law in many provinces now, but it is be voted federally soon.

Re:*Democracy* at work

[larkost]

How exactly is granting groups the same rights as others "submitting to them"? The original story is about a law that just prevents discrimination in things like hiring on the basis of sexual preference. No matter how I twist it, I can't come up with a reasonable viewpoint where that is a minority dominating the majority.

Now on a broader view there have been a number of arguments that movement like the ones to have homosexual civil unions or marriages are infringing on the beliefs of others who want to keep marriage "sacred". I have a hard time understanding this as in no case I am aware of are heterosexual unions being discouraged or altered in any way, they are just loosing their status as "the only".

On the other hand, the (inheritors of the) Christian Coalition is definitely trying to push their views that only heterosexual relationships are OK, and they are trying to do so through the law. Now I don't feel I have any legal right to challenge what is taught in churches, the same way that I don't feel that there is any legal right out there for people to challenge what goes on in people's bedrooms (murder, abuse, etc... not included).

On the specific subject of marrige, I have yet to hear a reasoned argument about why a homosexual couple should not be allowed to marry that does not base itself on one of three grounds:
[list]
[*]religious grounds (God said so... and it says so in only this one sentence of this translation of the Bible).
[*]tradition (this is more often than not really the first one in disguise)
[*]it would encourage the "homosexual lifestyle": promiscuity, sexual orgies, drugs, and usually vague other bad things (clearly unmarried heterosexuals don't do that... and wouldn't marriage/commitment tend to settle people down, even assuming that this was a valid stereotype in the fist place?... oh, and another disguise for the first one)
[/list]

I have never seen a homosexual activist try and force someone into becoming a homosexual, but the reverse is commonly not true.... So... whom is trampling on who's rights?

Is that a decent answer?

PS... you have no legal rights to try and force the general culture to change, or not to change. The whole idea of the bill of rights was to keep this majority culture from crushing other opinions. A group is currently trying to use the law system to keep the culture from changing. We saw this same exact scenario when black and white people started marrying... with the exact same arguments and process (first it went bad, then it slowly got better).

Re:*Democracy* at work

[flyingsquid]

Gay marriage is already law in many provinces now, but it is be voted federally soon.

And just look at what's happened to Canada! Total chaos! Two dollar coins, people speaking in French, and decriminalized marijuana! I hear there are even places where polar bears roam the streets at will- is THAT the kind of cesspool of degeneracy we want America to become? Tastefully decorated, perhaps, but at the cost of being overrun by polar bears and stoned French separatists?

Re:*Democracy* at work

[maxpublic]

If it is allowed against the will of the majority, it takes their freedom of self-detemination

Perhaps you should look up the word "self-determination". It has nothing to do with whether or not some other person has the right to get legally married.

Max

Re:*Democracy* at work

[Anonymous Coward]

[*]religious grounds (God said so... and it says so in only this one sentence of this translation of the Bible).
Try five. Homosexuality is among the only things in the Bible with complete and total consistency -- all five times homosexuality is mentioned it is condemned.

Re:*Democracy* at work

[skeptictank]

A marriage is not a union of two people. It is a union of two families. The purpose of marriage is not to provide you or anyone else with companionship, it's to provide as many resources as possible to raise children. You can get compansionship and love without getting married. Marriage is about having and raising children, that's it. If you don't want to have and raise children there is no point in getting married. It exist because it almost always takes the resources of two families to successfully teach and raise kids over the course of 20 years to be adult human beings. As such marriage, has and should continue to have a special legal status in any society that wants to still exits in several generation.

Re:How are gays discriminated against at work?

[Zenithal]

Others see the "no pictures of gay lovers" rule as applicable to all persons, gay or straight, and thus...

Come on, that's completely pointless argument. Within this context "gay lovers" is a synonym for wife or husband. You've moved the discrimination from one part of the sentence to the other. I invoke Catch-22.

As for "people with bad attitudes", it's par for the course to site a different reason for dismissal than the real reason. What discrimination is all about is the real reasoning, and I think that's pretty clear to everyone. Once again you've picked a technicality in the wording of the argument and completely failed to discuss the spirit.

Eureka!

[TamMan2000]

But you see, the very act of gay sex is considered harmful to both parties. That's why your argument is flawed.

Yes! I've got it now... You are oh so right.

Things that are harmful should be illegal... I don't know why I didn't see it that way before.

Lets outlaw fatty foods, and smoking, and drinking too, those are all harmful to the parties partaking of them.

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).

Re:To Reply To All Of You

[AviLazar]

1. you need to fundementally prove this. You cannot just state it to be so and then have it be true.

How can I prove something that is not there? Prove to me that it is a choice. For me it is not a choice. Yes I could force myself to go to a guy, kiss him and try and have sex with him...then again, I could also take a knife and stab my hand with it, then take the knife and poke my eye out. So since my sexuality is not a choice, (the same of my friends/acquaintences), then it is a logical assumption that it is not about a choice - it is how you feel.

As for protection - if there is supposed to be this separation of church and state - how is the church getting the state to pass anti-gay laws. Same as usual - state is run by people, people have beliefs, people vote and lobby on these beliefs. I do not think religious rights should be removed (Thats insane) but I think sexuality rights should be on the same level as religious rights.

So what *does* the law say...

[lpangelrob2]

For the record, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, but I'm puzzled at times by the divisive attitude of some pastors in the evangelical church. (I'm more puzzled that the media often doesn't report the full story of what those pastors say, choosing to linger on inciting charges of anti-gay bashing) Face it, homosexuality was widespread in the culture at the time of the New Testament. It isn't new.

If you're a believer, you're expected to remain sexually pure... to not have a hint of sexual immorality. It really is that black and white.

If you're a government, the Bible says *nothing* about it.

I've heard arguments about how allowing gays to marry would induce the fall of society, and I just don't buy into that substructure-type view of society. Gay people will get married, life goes on.

Furthermore, this country was built on equality, and as the child of immigrants seeking freedom, I respect that view.

Anyways, there's always a lot of un-Christ-like flaming when this subject comes up... I'd rather just put it behind us and get back to love, because it's pretty clear that discrimination and flaming isn't making things any clearer.

Re:Companies are private organizations

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Mmm-hmmmm. So you want to tell 80% of the people to go fuck themselves?

If they're wrong I'll gladly tell 99% of the population. Numbers don't make you any more right. Especially when that large percentage is trying to tell me what to do regarding my personal life or doing anything that is not their concern. I'm not gay, but I should go fuck a guy just to piss you self-righteous wankers off. You don't know what is right and what is wrong and the christian bible tells you so (if you happen to be christian, just an educated guess). Look to your own actions and leave others to theirs.

It is not going to happen. It is going to make for more violence.

Hopefully whomever initiates the violence is prepared for the consequences. You see in some places being christian is enough to get you murdered. Some day that may be the case in the U.S. In the U.S. currently the law forbids discriminating against christians, don't worry once the Bill of rights is tossed out, nothing will protect you from being fired for your beliefs either, or even for just being the wrong sect of christian (whichever ones don't win). I hope you enjoy it.

Black is not a choice. Homosexuality is.

Homosexuality is as much of a choice as choosing to believe that the earth revolves around the sun.

It is no different than people who want to have sex with children, or people who want to have sex with animals.

Children and animals cannot consent in an informed way. It is a completely separate issue and in no way analogous.

I'm sorry you can't deal with your own homosexual feelings and believe in some superstitions that make you think you will be punished for it. Maybe you should turn of the nice man on the 700 club and actually think for your own self. Please don't reproduce.

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.

Re:How are gays discriminated against at work?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Dear Lord, you're dense. Keep your moral judgments to yourself. If your faith has you believe homosexuality is a sin, I don't care. Don't bring it into my workplace or into my laws. You share that space with everyone, and your supposed moral superiority doesn't mean shit. After all, whose to say I'm not morally superior to you. This is a secular country, the state has NO OPINION on moral issues. The definition of marriage or the acceptability of homosexuality are moral questions. I could debate the idiocy of your theology here on /. and walk away, not caring if you maintain a brain-damaged world-view. However, if you intend to step on my liberty of conscience through law or economic discrimination, prepare for a fight.

No workplace has a rule about "no pictures of gay lovers" and that's the problem. The discrimination isn't codified so one can make a rational choice about where to work, if it were, very few people would work there and the business would likely face boycotts by consumers and shareholders. The "bad attitude" excuse is really just blaming the victim. Because the employer allows a predetory and descriminatory environment, a perfectly normal adverse reaction is conveinently labled a "bad attitude".

Your word games here are the same tripe trotted about by the White Citizen's Councils back in the 60's. Your attempt to pervert US law to allow for legal descrimination based on religious views is treason. And I do mean treason. Being a Southerner, I've heard this crap muttered under the breath of rednecks all my life. I usually don't care what idiots mutter, but if you fools actually manage to codify your sectarian views into law, expect me to be duty bound by the Constitution and as an American to resist by any means necessary.

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.

Re:NO, IT IS NOT THE SAME MARKET

[ifwm]

"The gay/lesbian market is a hell of a lot more computer literate than the zombies in the Religious Right" Proof? Of course not.

Is it just me

[suitepotato]

or is everything on this site a segue waiting to happen to bash Microsoft?

1. Microsoft is not the government, they are a private civilian business.
2. Gays are not being discriminated against and persecuted nearly as much as some claim, I know, a number of my family and friends are gay and they're not suffering any of these things in the states they live in across the USA. In fact, most have found being gay is considered cool more often than not which they also find creepy and wish you straights would leave them the hell alone.
3. It's the height of hypcrisy to lambaste MS for everything under the sun, then expect them to go to the mat for your pet politics and socialism.

This battle is not going to play out one way or another based on Microsoft. Why don't we just blame them retroactively for the Holocaust because Bill hasn't invented a time machine to send Homeland Security agents back to assassinate Hitler, or blame Bill Gates for proton decay?

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.

Re:this is crap

[jjohnson]

you're already equal to the rest of us, just like women and blacks

Not knowing what you said, you said it.

And you know why...

[The Woodworker]

If you're queer, you buy a Mac. It's all about color coordination.

Corporate power

[Kenrod]

Just yesterday I was reading on Slashdot about how evil corporations were, about how they should not be allowed involvement in government or political campaigns.

But today many of the same people (I'm sure) are bitching about Microsoft's decision to stay out of this gay rights legislative battle.

Lesson learned: Corporate power is OK as long as they're fighting on my side.

Hypocrites.

Re:This is fine with me

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

I think this is very true. As much as a disagree with the lifestyle all sin is equal in God's eyes.

You Sir, have very skillfully said what I had been stumbling for words for.

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.

Re:Fuck the Church and Its Moral Values

[nsayer]

I was quite pleased the Pope passed away; he truly deserved that.

Deserved what? To live to a ripe old age and die of natural causes and be mourned by a quarter of the planet's population when he was gone? Hell, I'll take a helping of that too, please.

Oh, fer...

[Tony]

You've *got* to be kidding. Christians are one of the least-discriminated-against groups in this country. At the moment, the most-bashed group is the liberals. Fundamentalist Christians also get slammed, but *not* Christians, as a general rule.

With the fundamentalists, it isn't so much their religion that gets slammed, but the willful ignorance that goes along with it. "Intelligent design" is *not* science, no matter how many times you say them in the same sentence. Getting upset at gay couples for wanting the same recognition as non-gay couples is not socially fair, no matter how much anal sex or cunnilingus upsets your delicate sensibilities. And unfortunately, fundamentalists are one of the groups to do the most discriminating.

That's the difference. There are many Christians I hold in great esteem, and would not dare (or even want) to impugn their beliefs. I don't even believe fundamentalists are real Christians; I believe they are a cult.

But that's perhaps a kneejerk reaction to those fundamentalists who believe Mormonism, Catholicism, and Unitarianism are "just" cults.

Amendment IX: A presumption of liberty

[tepples]

Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution

Look at Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Many would argue that "others retained by the people" include the right to perform consensual gay sex acts on private property.

Thought crimes?

[thelen]

If the law isn't taking assault seriously enough, then we should change that - not cook up extra "thought crime" statutes to tack on. And the use of the phrase "thought crime" here is completely apt - we're talking about a law that criminalises the thought behind the crime, rather than the act itself. This is a very very very bad precedent,

Courts routinely take into account the reasoning and motivations of the accused in determining what sort of charge to levy and the severity of the penalty. What is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder if not the difference of the killer's mental state? Hate crimes are a natural extension of the well established precedent that some actions can be made worse when combined with a dispicable motive.

let's be equal - don't recognize any marraiges

[davidwr]

The ultimate in marraige equality is to not have any government recognition of them at all.

If a religious groups wants to marry a couple, fine, but nobody else has to recognize it.

If a couple want the "benefits" of marraige, have their lawyers draft a 50-page "financial merger and caretaking of minor children and durable power of attorney" agreement and file it at the courthouse.

As for social security survivor's benefits, sorry, no marraige, no widow's benefits. As for private pension survivor's benefits, that's up to the company doing the pension. Remaining 401(k) balances would be covered by beneficiary clauses or go to the estate.

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?

The bill just died in the WA senate

[Anonymous Coward]

25-24.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_stor y. asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20XGR%20Gay%20Rights

The advantage of having a huge company and a near monopoly is the ability to do whatever you choose. Want to put out a low quality product? Sure go for it! Want to support a social cause? Sure go for it! Want to drop said cause like a hot potato? Sure go for it. The consequences are all the same.

None.

Eleven states

[daveo0331]

Those eleven states were specifically chosen by the people supporting those laws as the most likely states to pass such a thing. Let's take a look at the list:

Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan, and Oregon

All but the last two are red states. Some on the list are among the reddest states in the country. Getting an anti-gay-marriage initiative passed in Oklahoma or Georgia is a lot different from getting one passed in Massachusetts or California. By choosing those eleven states, they are now able to go around saying "Look, 11 of 11 states voted to ban gay marriage!" They're hoping they can build momentum based on people not thinking about this.

Re:How are gays discriminated against at work?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Murder is a violation of the right to life. Giving money to relieve AIDS is also part of a foriegn policy which does not rely on moral proclamations, although both of these actions may be considered moral by some, they have valid reasons which are not. Your assertion that because the government makes decisions which you evaluate with a moral component, means that it does as well is ignorant and illogical. The Supreme Court of Mass. struck down the no-gay marriage law because there was only a moral (religious) interest and not any state interest served by the law.

The government makes decisions based on law and rights. We are a secular state, so the morality or lack thereof doesn't enter the equation. Where it does, we have judges to point out that the legislature isn't doing their job.

You're "sour grapes" assertion simply shows your ignorance about the legal and political theories that led to the founding of our nation. One would think that someone who loved their country would take the time to figure out why it has the laws it does and just what those "original meanings" are.

The Founding Fathers discussed this very issue, what happens when you have a government that isn't concerned about morals? They decided that if society couldn't produce moral enough people to run a government, there were bigger problems than the design of the Federal government. You really should go read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers sometime, they debate this very subject in detail.

I hate to break the news to you, but George Washington is the least important character in the formation of the US legal system and said a lot of dumb things, you'd be much better off ignoring anything the man said with regard to our laws or the Constitution. The two quotes from Adams do not support the view you think they support. I'm familiar with both. The first is in regard to the moral government point in the previous paragraph. His point there was that the Federal government could not be depended upon to enforce that only moral men served or that those who served would remain moral. If you'd read it IN CONTEXT, you'd see that it supports my position and undermines your own.

The second quote by Adams has no bearing. It's self-congratulatory and was simply stating that the actions and ideology of the Founding Fathers was in line with Christian principles. Not that they were made because of Christian principles, there's a large difference there.

Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Pulitzer prize + Bancroft prize) supports these views and provides the context your posts have so desperately missed.

While we're pulling out 200 year old quotes, I notice that you don't have any Jefferson. I wonder why that would be? Oh, and where's mention of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1796 and signed by John Adams:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

It is discrimination and my opining on your word games stand. Given how badly you understand legal theory or US history, I can't take your claim that it's not discrimination seriously. In the examples given, the courts would see otherwise.

bigotry...

[bani]

"Why is it states are passing referendums, public referendums, where homosexual marrige is outlawed by votes over 80%??"

Oh come on now. Certain southern states recently put up referendums to repeal laws banning interracial marriage . Guess what? A significant percentage of the population voted to keep the bans

So when BS like discrimination against homosexuals or jews or muslims come up, I no longer wonder why. The answer is that a disturbingly large percentage of the american population are bigoted fucktards. There's millions of real-life archie bunkers out there, chewing away on their fat cigars and whining about queers and blacks and jews.

Go ahead and mod me down. The truth hurts, but modding down doesnt make the truth go away.

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.

Hipocrisy as Work

[mirio]

Anyone notice the rampant hypocrisy here with folks being upset by this?

Since when are Slashdot readers fans of multinational corporations influencing government legislation? Oh, I guess when the bill they're pushing coincides with your personal beliefs, huh?

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: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?

Good news for Apple?

[SirBruce]

Maybe millions of GLBT and GLBT-friendly computer users will boycott Microsoft and start buying Macs?

Bruce

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.

The Other Side

[Khomar]

Homosexuality is neither a choice (that's long ago been proven scientifically)

There have been studies that seem to indicate this, however the methods and sample populations used make their conclusions dubious at best (a high number of known criminals, for example)

Furthermore, as it's entirely unrelated to capacity to perform most any given job or what have you, there is no reason that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference should be permissable.

Here you come to the real crux of the matter. It is entirely related to the job of a pastor. Think about it. Most Christian churches in this country teach that homosexuality is a sin akin to drunkenness, marital infidelity, and stealing. Just as you would not want to hire a pastor who was a drunk because he would be a bad example to the congregation, so you would not want to hire someone whose lifestyle exhibits what the church teaches as a moral wrong. This law would make it impossible for churches to reject candidates whose lifestyles are those of a homosexual despite the fact that it is opposition to their religious teachings (protected by the constitution) and really common sense. Do you want to hire someone who actively stands for something your organization is expressly against? To put it another way, would you want to hire a development manager that encouraged their developers to write slow, unmanagable code?

The Bible expressly teaches that elders (pastors are considered elders in most churches) of a church should lead lives that are "beyond reproach". This means that whether the candidate's lifestyle is characterized by being a habitual liar, glutton, drunk, adulterer, or homosexual, they are disqualified from service in the church.

On another note, it should be added that homosexuals can qualify as elders if they do not practice homosexuality. I have listed many other sins to make the point that we all are flawed and tempted to what the Bible teaches as wrong, but just because you are tempted to behave in such a way does not mean that you must behave as such. The proclamations in the Bible are not any stronger against homosexuality than any other sin. There is no room for "homo-phobia" in Christianity. The expectations for those tempted toward homosexuality are no different than those who are tempted to cheat or steal. Both are expected to live lives of repentance and obedience to scripture if they are to seek a pastorate or elder.

Re:Companies are private organizations

[Phyvo]

But just because most people are unethical and want to tell other people what is and is not morally right and wrong (as if they were some sort of authority) In case you didn't notice, your statement is telling people it is morally wrong to say what is and isn't morally wrong. Therefore, by your own definition, your statement is unethical. You must realize that there is freedom of speech in this country. Sure, people will abuse it, preachers and protesters of every kind might do nothing more then hurl insults at each other. But, I, like you, are entitled to at least an opinion, and am entitled to speak that opinion.

It's a state law...

[Run4yourlives]

Bush wouldn't really give a damn about it.

Gay and tired of hearing it

[f-f-f-f-fuuubar]

Again and again, the "special rights" argument. It is empty, without substance, existing only to provide seemingly-reasonable talking points for the unthinking.

To borrow from a post I and another gay man made on another website earlier this year:

Let's take one example of the "protected class" status that you claim I have. Say you and I work for the same employer, one who provides some level of health insurance coverage to employees. Is it acceptable with you if I am, in effect, forced indirectly to subsidize the insurance plan of your spouse and children because you have a "normal" family, while I am denied the opportunity to add my partner/lover or the child of my partner to my policy? Remember, you're getting your extra piece of the pie; the money to pay your family premium has to come from somewhere. Should you divorce your wife and marry another woman with children, I would indirectly contribute to their coverage as well.

When you and I retire, your wife at the time (let's say wife #4 by now, a younger woman) would likely share your retirement benefits. If you precede her in death, the benefits to her will most likely continue. My non-sharable, non-transferable benefits, however, will cease entirely upon my death, even while your widow's checks may continue for several more decades -- just another piece of the pie that she deserves, obviously, for loving a person of the opposite sex. In some cases, more than one of your ex-wives could also draw certain benefits based upon your employment record and retirement plans.

And if, before your death, you needed government assistance for nursing home care, your wife would not lose her home. If I needed the same care, however, I would be forced to liquidate my assets, including the home I may have shared with a same-sex partner for 50 years. Even if the house is in both names, I could be forced to sell my portion, effectively throwing him out on the street unless he was able to buy the house again, this time at its appreciated value. (Although it would not happen in my own family, legal wrangling by a deceased partner's biological family sometimes bankrupts the surviving partner, regardless of the safeguards they had in place.)

The notion that to be gay means that gay marriage is automatically supported is reductionist...but unsurprising.

My partner and I don't care about "marriage." What we want is to not be treated as though our ten-year committment is somehow going to ruin society if it's recognized in any way.

We just want to not be treated differently. Whether you call it marriage is up to you. Activists insisting on same-gender "marriage" vs. calling it something else are missing the point. Acting as though any progress towards equality is insufficient if the label doesn't come along is not only childish, it's unrealistic and counterproductive. Society is not going to evolve because you throw a tantrum. You have only to look at the history of the civil rights movement to learn.

It's grimly amusing to reflect on the notion that the anti-gay-marriage crowd isn't worried about the ever-increasing divorce rate. But that is the classic tactic of the demagogue: conflate the issues, muddy the waters with emotionally loaded terminology, and go after the more vulnerable.

Personally, I'm tired of having to beg for crumbs from society's table and endure the abuse. Antigay prejudice (yes, PREJUDICE) is pretty much the last respectable prejudice in America (though there's still some room for anti-immigrant sentiment). And the "pro-gay-marriage" activists play right into the hands of the bigots.

Cracker Barrel got away with firing people for being gay for over a decade before they decided the adverse publicity had become too much. Several wrongful termination lawsuits got tossed out; the employees had no recourse other than to go get another job and hope that their potential new employers weren't bigoted.
- "Why did you leave your last job?"
- "Well, sir, I was fired for

Re:human right?

[kalidasa]

What about the human right to employ whom I please?

You mean the human right to only employe whites, because you do not please to hire blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or South Asians? No, that's not a human right.

Don't confuse criticism with discrimination

[Mr. Mikey]

When people disagree with you, that's not automatically discrimination. When you can't codify your whole religion into the law of the land, that isn't persecution.

Christians are in the majority. A minority of that majority want to turn the US into a theocracy. The rest of us object... but don't confuse that objection with either discrimination or persecution.

Acceptable to bash Christians? You wish...

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: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.

Re:This is fine with me

[BeatlesForum.com]

I do not live under the Law of Moses - I am saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. Therefore, my guidelines for living are outlined in the New Testament:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature." (Ro 1:26)

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

[northcat]

Nice troll. Tell the full fucking story. The Supreme Court of India actually sent a notice to the Central government and the Delhi state government questioning the constitutionality of a law that punishes homosexuality. It's almost the opposite of what you say. Here's a source.

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

[_merlin]

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.)

Re:Another reason

[Bitsy Boffin]

Here are three reasons...
1. What the hell does marriage have to do with evolution?! Do you honestly believe that the only way people can breed is if they get married? Answer me this, Bill and Bob get married, how, in your mind, does this magically enable them to pass thier genes on - does one of them suddenly grow a uterous?!

2. Explain homosexuality in any of the other species that exhibit it. You know your argument that evolution says that homosexuality cannot exist in nature? Well, I just contradticted it.

3. Who the hell are you to tell somebody else, who you have never met, who will probably never meet you, who will have zero impact on you, who they may or may not become legally bound to with all the rights and privileges associated with that.

Look, sexuality is not a genetic thing, it's not a learned thing, it's just a specific setting on a scale for each individual.

Some of us are heavily pegged towards the hetero end, some of us towards the homo end, most of us are on the hetero side of the center, a few more on the homo side of the center and a handful of us are smack bang in the middle.

It's not something to be changed, it's just diversity in action.

I don't think anybody can seriously say that that are 100% hetero or 100% homo, our species is not built that way - we need human contact and at the end of the day it doesn't matter which gender.

As for the marriage debate - GET RID OF THE RELIGION and everything becomes simple, gay people and straight people deserve to have the same legal rights, privileges and processes available to them, marriage included.

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.

_I_ think the bill was too specific

[leonbrooks]

Microsoft is a bit of a passion fingers. Maybe they want a bill which endorses anal rape between non-consenting (and often underage) companies? With whips, broken glass and upside down in a tub.

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."

Gay penguins?

[Colonel Cholling]

At the aquarium where I work we have a gay domestic couple of penguins.

Which is the real reason Microsoft withdrew their support for gay rights.

Re:Think of lawsuit prevention

[NutscrapeSucks]

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

They are not out of control because you told a rambling and pointless anecdote.

I rather doubt that anyone could get $1.3M from a Fortune 500 legal department simply for being hispanic. Either there was substantial evidence of discrimination, or (more likely) this chick had some very good dirt on someone up high.

Re:Think of lawsuit prevention

[Billly Gates]

The director himself resigned after the incident and claimed the workplace was too hostile. Of course the chick had dirt from someone high up because the director was this chicks boyfriend.

My guess is the director backed up every allegation so he could get some of the settlement. F*ckin prick.

But yes the story is %100 true and the name of the company is FedEx.

They are appealing the case and because the director gave nothing but high performance reviews for the secretary so it showed there was no evidence to fire her. It must be because she was hispanic right? .. rolls eyes.

But lawsuits are very common in any corporation and yes they are out of control. Walmart has something like 250+ lawsuits agaisnt it at the moment and most of them deal with labor issues from inside the company.

I have seen workers who were fired outright for poor performance and not showing up for work only to complain to HR for sexual harrasment so they get rehired. Sadly it works.

I work at Busch Gardens right now in the traffic department and I see lawsuits occur almost on a weekly basis for all sorts of silly things. For example someone crosses the street outside the park and ignores the signs for the park entrance and gets hit by a car. Its the parks fault pay me a million dollars. Or someone hits another car in the parking lot. Oh, its not the drivers fault who happens to be using a cell phone and drinking a beer while leaving. Its the parks fault because someone needs to be in each parking lane observing and controlling traffic. That prick won the case too and cut our whole budget and we had to fire... you guessed... traffic controllers so the park is now less safe. Pay me money. Funny I do not see trafic controllers at the local grocery store lot soley to prevent collisions? Why here?

I mean where does it end?

Even if a lawsuit is not likely most hope for a chance for another chance at the job or hope for a settlement.

Wow..

[I_redwolf]

You know.. it's clear to me that America truly isn't a place of freedom anymore. It's more free than other places but this country is looking more oligarchy everyday. Wonder how long it can last until some fresh blood needs to be spilled.

I'm Christian, i'm male, i'm straight, i'm black, i'm American. I don't give a shit if two males or two females want to marry. Not my business and if god has a problem with it. Let god do the judging, i'm too busy trying to survive.

What really gets me is that regardless of religion. If you can't follow the simple commandments and rationalize them on the basis of your own ideology. How fucking faithful and true to your religion are you? "Love thy neighbhor? Yeah.. only if they aren't gay."

You fucking hypocrites, the same book you live by talks about people like you. The same book talks about praising false idols (ie: the pope). I mean, even before the new ones burial plot could sink people are already over their mourning and cheering a new pope and for what?! Religious leadership? You need a leader to talk to your god, to steer you to holiness?

You "religious" people disgust me. Stop walking around in the dark or you'll be left in the dark. How about you all take a minute and re-read the bible? Any bible, any religion. You don't have to get far to see the message.

Treat people the way you want to be treated, love thy neighbor.. You don't need a church, wherever two or more gather. I'll be there.

I mean jesus christ.. seriously.. JESUS CHRIST.. help these people.

Re:Wow..

[I_redwolf]

I'm not a traditional "Christian" and I don't follow the Bible literally. That would make me a fool. I do believe in god, I do believe in several simple messages from every bible. Those messages are the ones I've said above.

I don't care about all the other "lessons" or stories, morals, etc. They are entirely irrelevant to live what I believe is virtuous and righteous lifestyle.

Contradiction would be believing in what I believe and fleeing from that belief when it becomes tested. I'm not one of those people. The bible may be a stupid fucking book but my faith isn't in a book.

That is the whole point.

Re:You already have!

[AmoHongos]

Atheism is not a religion.

The word "atheism" itself tells you that.

"A" means "without," and "theism" means a belief in a higher power.

Re: penguins

[Dr. GeneMachine]

So, let me summarize:
a) microsoft retracts its support for an antidiscrimination bill regarding homosexuals
b)penguins, on the other hand have TEH GAY and, as if this wasn't enough, are whoring and pimping sons-of-a-bitches.

Now, folks, the penguin is a common symbol, not to say heraldic animal for what? That's right, folks, we're talking bout linux here.
Am I the only one seeing the potential for new, unprecedented trolling and flaming? Ahhh, how I love the smell of napalm in the morning....

Re:This is fine with me

[harlows_monkeys]

I am saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. Therefore, my guidelines for living are outlined in the New Testament:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)

Well, that's what one particular translation into English says. The King James edition says:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

The English Standard Version translation says:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That word that the KJ edition translates as effeminate, and that your ediition gives as homosexuals, and that the ESV gives as "men who practice homosexuality" is the greek word malakos, which refers to boys who served as live-in prostitutes for wealthy men (who usually had wives). Basically, boys kept purely for sexual purposes. The word your edition has translated as sodomite actually meant a male temple prostitute.

In other words, saying that 1 Cor 9 condemns homosexuality is about as ridiculous as saying that it condemns hererosexuality because it condemns adultry. All it actually condems is homosexuality in the context of certain kinds of prostitution.

Question: if you actually believe the Bible, why don't you think it is important enough to actually read in the original language? It always puzzles me that people can believe that this book records the actual will of God, but not care enough to want to discover what it says.

Re:NO Marraige should be government approved.

[tokabola]

It CLEARLY was not the other way around as most of founding fathers of this great nation not only were Christian,

Which country do you live in? It can't be the US, because most of it's founders were Deists, not Christians. Religious morals should not be laws, sins should not be crimes. Obviously actions harmful to another, like murder, rape, theft, etc should be illegal. But there are many laws in this country that are purely Christian in origin. The anti sodomy laws, for instance. Why should it be illegal in 48 states for one consenting adult to perform oral sex on another?

I agree that the government has no business regulating marriage. They should neither ban marriage, nor enforce it. Churches should not be prevented from marrying two or more gay people, not should they force churches to marry two (or more) gay people.

The government shouldn't even be preventing bigamy. This doesn't mean I condone the practice of coercing women to marry the way some hard-line Mormons do. But marriage, and sexuality, are personal choices and what two (or more) freely consenting adults do is not the governments business.

I think I like your idea of getting the government out of the marriage business entirely. But I think you are very wrong about the separation of church and state being only one way. That leaves too much room for one religion to force it's beliefs on others. It allows an attitude of "You can whatever god you want but you have to follow my god's rules", and that's not true freedom of religion.

Don't tell me I'm a victim if a girl gives me a BJ, because I certainly don't think I'm a victim (I think I'm damn lucky). Without a victim there should be no crime.

Tommy

You don't understand Evolution.

[Reservoir Penguin]

It doesn't work on individuals, it works on populations. Worker bees dobnt breed but the genes still exist in bee species, because its god for the species as a whole to have them. Same with homosexuals who are smarter and more creative than general polulation. They are just more specialized humans.

Re:Companies are private organizations

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Assuming that people who think like you are the only ones capable of determining right and wrong is very prejudiced and close-minded.

Except that while I might be right or wrong, I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything because of my beliefs, while people who want to pass legislation against homosexuality are trying to do just that, make moral decisions for others (something you may have notices Jesus specifically mentions a few times as an immoral thing.)

You have got to be kidding me. Logically that doesn't demonstrate anything. But I bet it sounded cool in you head, right?

Well cooler than "cool in you head." Not go read the previous threads so that you can understand what I was talking about.

homosexuality, beastiality and pedophilia all come down to having sex with something that is not natural

Try reading sometime. You will quickly learn that animals have homosexual relations in many different species. It sounds pretty "natural" to me.

People also consent to be shot in the head and fed poison from time to time too.

If someone wants to shoot themselves in the head, or have a friend do it, or eat poison, who are you to force them not to? Are you god to tell others what is right and wrong? No. You're not. So butt out any worry about your own actions.

he could actually earnestly believe that it is wrong

What makes you think these two things are mutually exclusive? Lots of gay people think that homosexuality is wrong. Statistically, most become catholics and continue to have sex with members of the same sex and feel guilty about it.

I need to keep reminding myself that you are right and just about everyone else is wrong.

No just remind yourself that you don't know what is right and wrong and that you are fallible. Then leave everyone else alone to do what they think is right.

Re:To Reply To All Of You

[AviLazar]

Though both may have been something because of how a person was raised.

Two brothers, roughly born the same time. One is gay one is straight. I guess mom had a greater influence on the gay one right? Prove that its nurture and not nature? What about the rough and tough dad who raises his son to be a ladies-man, only to find out one day that his son is gay? What about the gay parents who raise a straight child?

For me to say "I am white" it is easy to look at my skin and make that judgement

I had a friend in HS. I thought he was white. His skin was white, he had blue eyes, brown hair, a white persons facial features - did not look african american. His mom and dad are black. People look at me and say I am white...I am middle eastern which is Asian. Physical appearance is not a needed qualifier of what you are.

So you have your conundrum, you want your choice to be true to the extent you feel this is a civil rights issue and that your rights are being denied

Can two men go to any court townhouse in this country and say "I want to marry my lover, who is also a man."? Nope. They cannot - it's a civil rights issue. A person does not have to prove they are gay by some genetic testing, they just have to live the life and that is proof enough. A straight guy is not going to have sex with men unless he is gay (or bi-sexual)

Christianity at this point, though I consider it a choice of the environment I was raised in.

That is called being raised by "nurture".

You are obviously not going to listen to what I have to say. Keep believing that a person chooses to be gay, keep believing that there is no civil rights issues - that gay people are treated just the same as everyone else. It is really a shame though that you think that. It does not matter if oyu think it is a persons choice or not a persons choice - if a person is gay they have less rights then if they were straight. There cannot be an argument about that - and if you choose to do so then you are very very very blind to what is going on in our country and the world.

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.

Everyone Is Missing The Point...

[piecewise]

You know what's really wrong with this picture?

We actually talk about how important it is that a COMPANY endorse legislation. We don't talk about how many Americans agree or disagree - but which companies are supporting the resolution or the people behind it.

This is wrong. And it's wrong to treat LGBT as second-class citizens, which is what we're doing. It's funny how conservatives harp about "moral values," yet they seem to be pretty selective on which moral values they consider worthy of discuss. It's their buzzword - and it's pathetic.