Slashdot Mirror
Steve Ballmer Responds to Discrimination Issue
sriram_2001 writes "In a long email to all Microsoft employees, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer laid out the reasons for Microsoft changing its stance to neutral on the anti-discrimination bill. He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations and that the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow. Also, far from caving in to Rev.Hutcherson, Microsoft told him to take a hike when he asked them to fire 2 employees for testifying during the legislation consideration period. He goes on to explain how though he personally supports the bill, a lot of employees and shareholders don't. Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
To disclaim social involvement is shameless lying when they are involved in everything from tax structure to allocation of funds.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.
-- Sig down
"Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
They may as well. They're the only ones with any influence other than organized religions.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
So it's not just my PC that lacks resources.
Now, on to another topic, Ballmer mentions "soul searching" in his letter. Let's take bets on how long until he finds it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I will laugh:p Not showing full all out support for a bill which tips the playing field in one direction or another (regardlessof whether for or against minorities, imo) is a GOOD thing (imo). I don't consider myself racist; or stupid; but comeon, tilting it one way is just as bad as tilting the other.
Isn't this a WA only issue? So somebody got hold of an email that was sent to employees, it is hardly earth shattering technology reporting.
I like the fact that Balmer questions whether or not corporations should even be involved in social issues. The big answer is no. I'm so sick of these rich SOBs in Hollywood and CEOs pushing their agendas on everyone else because they've got the money. No thanks I can think on my own Bill.
here.
Quite a nice lively discussion. I've gone back over it a few times now.
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
I prefer "Rube Godwin's Law": anytime someone comes up with an outlandish contraption, someone asks "But can you go back in time and kill Hitler with it?".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This is not a business issue, it's a social one. The mission of Microsoft (and every other publicly held corporation) is to increase profits and to increase their share price. Sponsoring pro-gay legislation doesn't seem to do this. If anything, it hurts their business -- the fact is that many people in America are opposed to pro-gay legislation. These people could very well decide to cancel their relationship with Microsoft because of the company's support for a bill like this.
While it's very StarFleet of Microsoft to be standing up for downtrodden personage(x)...
/ 13 34248&tid=109&tid=98&tid=155
I find it very scary, that a corporation, has taken to *backing* legislation, as a *statesperson* ordinarly would.
Yet another example, of Corporations dominating politics... this time it's for good.... next time Microsoft gets to patent "clean breathable oxygen".
ie : No matter how magnanimous, Microsoft cares to be, with it's deep pockets (read no matter how much Microsoft tries to distract public attention away from it's being a repressive Monopoly, with non-Computer related actions)... at the end of the day, Microsoft, still, stifles the Computer industry with an iron grip.
Backing space ships, backing "equality legislation"... is simply a device to drum up some good publicity and distract attention away from the fact, that, Microsoft *is* a repressive Monopoly.
Don't beleive me ? Ask the Danish.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/15
You read it here first folks
>He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations Which legislations are they focusing on instead?
I wonder if the Linux version of this is "Caldera red hats Minorities!" I've also heard rumors that Apple shoes minorities. Just don't tell Steve.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues
you mean those pesky antitrust laws meant to protect the people?
vodka, straight up, thank you!
So I guess if this were the 1960's Microsoft should have not supported legislation that ended racial discrimination too? Just because "many people in America are opposed" to it does not make it wrong.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Apparently Google thinks otherwise.
http://google.org/
Philanthropic = humanitarian.
Humanatarian = "[devotion] to the promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms" (Thanks dictionary.com)
Microsoft has never done anything but get involved in social issues. Who the fuck does Ballmer think he's kidding?
Microsoft has bought wholesale into the media-generated myth that religious issues matter to the majority of the populace, and made a conscious decision to allow a vocal but fundamentally powerless minority to dictate their corporate policy. Unbelievable.
What the courts couldn't do, a member of the American Taliban managed to accomplish with a few meetings and one veiled threat. I'm horrified, yet impressed as well.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
Don't forget the AARP, the NRA, and other huge large "special interest" groups. But what do I know. I'm a Political Troll (tm)!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Microsoft realized that while they have a lot of money, they don't have an unlimited supply of political capital.
Rather than take a PR hit trying to change social policy for other companies, they chose to use their limited political capital on issues which more directly affect their ability to separate users from their money.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
It shouldn't be, but it is true. Anytime any business is done in this country, government is involved. It is inevitable that everyone has to pay to play at some level. More and more, when people think of social change, they only think of government lobbying. They think less and less of doing charitable works with their own money and time. And hooking social change to political processes hasn't been good for progressive movements and it sure as hell is going to suck delivering for all those new conservative welfare queens.
I was surprised to learn that Microsoft even had a position on legislation that doesn't directly impact the company's bottom line.
Originally I was pissed that they withdrew support, because as a zillion-dollar company, they should be working toward social betterment. But then I asked myself "If they were originally against gay rights, wouldn't you *want* them to pull out?" And so yeah. I guess you can't win either way. Damn. I'm going to go kill myself.
It's one thing to say that you want to remain neutral on social issues, but it's another to support one and then drop it on the guise that you're trying to be neutral, dropping support is a statement, it's not neutral.
Wrong. This holds to the idea that "only whites can deal with whites", "only Asians with Asians", etc. A sort of apartheid when dealing with customers! You are also dealing with just the small part of the staff that works with the public....
"The best person does not always have to be hired in every case"
The best person must be hired, period.
"especially when the wider company or society would suffer because of it"
Certainly the wider company suffers because, by putting real qualifications on the back burner, you have increased incompetance. A lot of problems: the bottom line suffers, and you have a lot of resentment of incompetants who were hired for their skin color. Society suffers too.
"Nowadays people are smart enough to look at the "big picture"."
Not if the "big picture" involves discriminating against applicants just for their skin color.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
... here
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Even if you take for granted that gay "rights" are equivalent to racial discrimination, the only way that the execs in Microsoft should be sponsoring pro-gay legislation is personally - not while representing the company. Shareholders are not in agreement over whether this is a just plan of action, and it does not lead to increased profits.
I think that this statement from the letter sums of the problem rather well:
"What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly-held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?"We have dealt with this same question in my company where the leaders in the company have strong feelings about social issues and are tempted to use the power of the corporation to foist those opinions on the employees. I think Ballmer gets it right when he indicates that Microsoft has an interest in taking a stance on legislative issues that affect the business in terms of competitiveness and other less-social concerns. A company as large as Microsoft has employees that will have opinions on social issues that cover the entire spectrum. It's threatening to employees for the corporation to take a public position on these kinds of personal issues. I think that it's healthy for corporations to set a tone for it's workers that focus on cultivating a work environment focused on productivity and cooperation. I applaud Ballmer.
Microsoft using scarcity of resources as an excuse is something I find dififcult to accept.
Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues.
Right, Ballmer. Now, would you explain what does it mean by lobbying since government is a part of society?
"Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
I think this is the best reason to back off. However much I support anti-discrimination, it bothers me that a company is trynig to sway the government one way or another. It has come to the point where I think politicians (from both parties) care more about what corporations think than the people. This is a very bad thing because corporations and politicians usually don't have the same interests that the people do.
Why the hell do you have to try to spin this thing? How is it that anti-discrimination all of a sudden means pro-gay? That's akin to saying that pro-choice is anti-life.
I for one think that Ballmer wrote a fairly good response, though he probably had some editing help. Microsoft isn't always the enemy people.
The anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow. For a moment there, i thought that microsoft was a multi-billion doller company with huge and a vast number of signifigant influences that the corporation could use in helping this bill. My Bad.
*Balmer dancing around getting sweaty once more* ,Discrimination ,Discrimination ,Discrimination ,Discrimination ,...Discrimination ,Discrimination ,Developers , Developers uh Discrimination , ,
Discrimination
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
The grandparent raises a good point, there is still a lot of prejudice against homosexuals. Just look at what - or should I say who - pressured to get this response. "... Rev. Ken Hutcherson
Expect to see this kook run for office at some point in the future.
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
The crux of this bullsh*t argument is that Microsoft can't support antidiscrimination legislation because it cannot speak for the bigots on its staff or amongst its shareholders. Evidently the arguments of bigots get equal weight at MS. So spineless!
By caving in this situation they've encouraged the religious right to pressure other large corporations to reverse their stance on nondiscrimination bills.
First of all gay rights are equivelent to racial rights rooted in the civil rights movement in the 1960's. That argument has already been settled.
So what you are saying is that corporations should just treat people like sources of income and care only about them when they are coughing up money? Pardon the Star Trek reference, but one does not think corporations will survive based on the Rules of Acquisition.
Also, you might look into the concept of Socially Responsible Investing where entities are given investors' money based on their social actions well. Plenty of mutual funds have come into existence based on this concept.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
microsoft is a company, a monopolistic one at that.
why does anyone care what they think about politics?
why are they involved in politics?
this is scary stuff.....
I can see 10 years from now...
'the united states of microsoft'
microsoft: stay the f--k out of my life and the life of others.
it wasn't sent to "all microsoft employees"
it was a regional "all ms fte" email. employees outside the immediate blast zone got it second-hand from contacts inside the zone. yes, I work for MS outside the US.
Shouldn't it just be illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring practices unless it's some criterion relevant to job performance?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Ballmer has one message for the public, another for bigots in private meetings, and a bottom line: no support for a law developed to require it. Like Arafat talking diplomat in English, and jihad in Arabic; Bush with the "uniter" ads and homophobe Amendments. Can't spare the resources from their $BILLions in profits to protect their "valued employees" from bigots who'll burn them at the stake when the law allows. What a cowardly pack of lies - some powermonger suburban bigots open their mouths, and suddenly access to the best labor is a fuzzy "social issue". Maybe it's time some poser OSS evangelist shows Ballmer the light: God wants Windows source opened.
--
make install -not war
Ballmer raises an interesting question. On the one hand, there is the principle of Adam Smith that states that through pursuing your own personal gain you are benefiting society, and on the other hand there are the people who believe that corporations should have as little to do with society as possible. Myself, I side with the former. Corporations are huge presences in our societies and should therefore be conscious of their social impact. A good corporation is as philanthropic as it is profitable.
must really have them running scared:-).
Now look, i'm no Bush fan, but those are some strong words. Where do you get off chastising people you don't even know like that? Didn't it ever occur to you that people might disagree with you without being evil?
By the way, your dig at all Christians is really hateful and ignorant. Bush supporters don't have a monopoly on bigotry, you know.
He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations and that the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow.
However, they *do* have the resources for
(1) anything to do with stifling Linux growth
(2) anthing maintaining or increasing software patent power
(3) anything that allows them to lock users into Windows
Sorry, discrimination is just a minor annoyance when compared to the massive profits at stake here.
The ironic thing in all of this is that discrimination towards homosexuality is based on the belief it is a choice which has strong evidence against it (i.e. the fact gay rats can literally be manufactured and there is data from WWII-era German births providing a link to the same phenomena in humans). They also somehow believe people wake up one morning and say "I want to be a member of the most vocally hated minority in the US." and such.
The ironic twist is that, assuming being gay is a choice, the same arguments against gay rights based on choice also negate civil rights based on religion. You choose to be Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/etc. so why should they get protection based on that then?
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
That is another problem when there are explicit policies to hire people for nonsensical criteria (skin color, etc). A pall ends up hanging over everyone of that race, with people thinking "he/she is one of those who is not really qualified" whether or not he/she really is qualified, or is one of those "tokens" hired only to fill a diversity rainbow.
If you hire only on excellence, this vanishes.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I really don't like Microsoft. And I like Bill Gates even less. But I have to admit that this is a pretty good idea. I've worked in corporations enough to know that things like this just become another large program in the place to stifle any sort of individuality or freedom of thought.
The idea is good, but the implementation is always just LOUSY in a corporation, as they make generic blanket rules that never make any sort of rational sense.
And before a million people flame me for being racist... my skin isn't white.
Not likeley. Their only other choices are a platform associated with socialists and cutsey penguins and a platform associated with tutleneck-wearing artists and grubby students. "These people" wouldn't be able to stomach either of those.
Take a look at this NYT writeup from Friday. I don't know how much confidence you want to put in an 'anonymous source', but it does seem like the excuses MS is using (limited resources, focus, should corps meddle in social policy) are just that: excuses.
y .h tml
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22ga
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
If you live on the West or East Coast, religious issues may not matter to the majority of the populace, but if you've lived in Middle America or been in the military, you understand that while religious issues don't matter to everyone, they are hugely important across broad swaths of America.
I don't like it, but in my experience the upward climb of reactionary religion in America is far more widespread nationally than it is where I live (California). If anything, the mainstream media has been very slow in understanding this trend towards religious illiberalism.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Being black is not a choice or something you can control. Who you choose to engage in sexual relations with IS a choice and IS something you can control. Sorry, the argument has not been settled.
I pity Microsoft shareholders. They must be begging on the streets right now. What? You say Microsoft has billion dollars in cash? Impossible. So, what's this no resources excuse then?
the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow.
Really. Microsoft, with $50B USD in the bank, didn't have the resources to follow this and support it. Riiiiiiight....
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.
If they are to have no voice in Congress they should not be taxed. "No taxation without representation" is one of the principles behind the birth of the United States.
And don't give me this corporations are evil crap and corporations pay no taxes crap. I've had serveral friends start their own business, and I've seen them pay plenty of taxes and act in a way balancing competitiveness and morality. Their companies have just as much right to send their Congressman a letter as I do.
Also don't be hypocritical. When a congressman proposes some dumb-ass legislation that in unpopular around here and someone like IBM steps up to oppose it we all cheer.
just because you and all your slashdot friends agree does NOT mean you are in the majority
My hat goes off to you -- your cynicism is awe inspiring.
If companies now act as a defacto government in almost every major country in the world (to come extent or another) then perhaps they ought to get involved in social issues. We can harp all we want that companies ought to get their noses out of society, but that is far too idealistic for me -- it will never happen; Pandora's box has been opened and it can't be closed. So, if companies now act as a government, or at least influence it far beyond the average individual, we may very well see something akin to the old (and still present) labour unions who fight for their members (compny employees), or more likely, for their own self-serving interests.
To an extent, this already occurs in Japan where some unions are run by the company whose employees they protect (I believed they are termed 'House Unions').
Just my two cents, pence, yen, yuan, or rupees.
Sorry babe, but it has. Ever hear of Coretta Scott King? If not, she is the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. so what she says on the civil rights movement carries a bit more weight than a bunch of screaming "Christians" engaging in a reaction formation.
And you failed to explain how gay rats being created from birth. It's a little hard for male rats to 'choose' to have a reflex only females have.
Nice try though. I'll give to a C- for effort.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
I hate Microsoft's software and their business tactics, but I actually liked Ballmer's letter. He is personally in favor of diversity and will do everything possible to ensure that Microsoft is a diverse environment. But he will not use the vehicle of the Microsoft corporation to advance any particular social policy because (1) this is not appropriate and (2) because his personal views might be different than the personal views of others (employees, shareholders) with a financial stake. This is a moderate approach that I find hard to criticize.
Holy crap! Flamebait? I was trying for a strained-but-plausible historical connection to incite discussion... :(
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Stop trying to justify racism.
More importantly, the NYT writeup quotes Washington State Representative Murray in saying that Microsoft promised him support this year and executed the about face during the legislative session - not before.
If they had quietly but public stated before the session that they had different priorities this year, we'd still be angry with them - we just wouldn't be out for blood.
Microsoft's mid-session compromise is what killed this, had they chose to abandon thier allies earlier on, there might have been a chance to recover.
Of course, it's up to you all if you want to accept the word of a Politician over Steve Ballmer. I admit, it does sound kind of like a coin flip...
What does this button d$#%* NO CARRIER
Microsoft collapsing like a house of cards when some halfwit cult leader threatened them with a "boycott".
Great article in the Stranger about Microsoft caving in.
Problem is that, without legislation like this, it's still quite likely for the most well-behaved of homosexuals to get fired if their redneck, bigoted boss finds out what they've been doing in their own time.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Microsoft is a software company. Software and homosexual marriage are completely unrelated. End of story. Right?
In that, I think it was completely right by Microsoft to take a neutral stance in this issue. It doesn't matter if every single employee actually supported this bill -- in that case, they can support it personally, not by representation from a company dealing with completely unrelated things.
Check the Bill of Rights. Corporations are made up of individuals, each one of which retains these rights. Corporations cannot do a thing without these individuals acting.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Corporations try to change laws all the time. That is getting into social issues. Corporations donate millions of dollars to politicians. That is getting into social issues. Cop out. The day Corporations lose their first amendment rights will be a great day for us humans.
Choose the best regardless of race.
That's perfect, in principle. The problem comes when the spinning wheels of that principle hit the hot asphalt of reality.
"Of course I hire programmers based on excellence. That's why I don't hire women, because they aren't as good at programming."
In reality, many people are racist, sexist, or otherwise likely to discriminate. Many of those poeple hold positions of authority. And very few of those will overtly state their biases so that they can be removed from the decision-making process in pursuit of your ideal.
We have made great strides in the past half century reducing racism. Unfortunately by vilifying it and making it unacceptable we have also made racism more subtle. Long gone are the days when you'd see a "Now Hiring" sign in a window with "No Coloreds" written below it, but the mentality behind that sign is harder to get rid of, and is going to take more time.
This is why "diversity" ends up being our poor metric of choice. Ideally, people hire the best people for the job. In reality, a sizeable organization that consistantly hires male WAPSs in spite of the pool of applicants, that might indicates something. They probably aren't going to tell you if it does, and the only other method we have developed is the lawsuit.
It isn't perfect. It isn't fair. If it seems a little bit like the National Guard forcing people to give up their seats for someone else, maybe it is. Racism is a tough problem like that.
The enemies of Democracy are
What??? I'm pro gay rights, but who gives a crap what the widow of MLK thinks?
Anyway, "Argument by authority" is a logic flaw. Citing an authority is not an argument.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Above all else about being black or a woman or whatever, that's fine. You can't control your race. Being gay, in my opinion, is a choice.
Regardless, chosen or not, is the bigger story: WHO THE HELL CARES. I don't want to know your sexual preference. More than that, I don't want my kids knowing that you like to pound your putt into someone with the same organs. And why the hell do we need parades marching, telling us that you enjoy doing that.
That's the whole gay agenda, and the part I oppose. The whole "in-your-face" bullshit that preaches 'tolerance,' but is really just forceful, and you have no choice but to 'tolerate.'
Quite frankly: Shut up, go away, and I don't care WHAT your sexual preference is. It has no place in the workplace and I will shun those who lament about it.
It's possible for corporations to write various ethics into their charters, in which case the corp. would have an interest aside from profits.
However Microsoft, to the best of my knowledge, has not done this. If a person is going to buy stock, it's fair to let them know what they're buying.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
My mother is deeply involved in our church, and recently hosted two refugees from North Korea.
They had to flee their homeland as they were wanted 'Politcal Criminals'. Their crime was organizing an underground Christian church in a town not far from Pyongyang. Already two others from the church had been arrested and tried for 'Political Incitement' and a string of other bogus crimes.
In North Korea, practising Christianity is a crime - it is likened to a 'Social Cancer' and carries heavy penalties.
I find this situation abhorrent, as I know you do too.
But I find your attitude far worse - for you, Sir, are a hypocrite.
Our government is not and should not be christian. The majority of americans may currently be of some christian denomination but, that does not negate the rights of the minority. Majority rule - minority rights.
Furthermore, most of the founding fathers were deists. Deist believe in god but reject christianity. See http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm for a good overview of the religious views that the USA was founded on.
For an eye opening look at how civil rights are being eroded by christianity look here:http://www.theocracywatch.org/
Really, just try thinking for once.
Sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
That I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you try it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of Sodomy
Don't worry if you feel ashamed; it's been around for years
Thousands more than can be named are interested in rears
Don't worry about Hell, no harm will come to your soul
We're not all Pentecostal, but everybody's got an asshole
Let me tell ya 'bout Sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
That I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you try it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of Sodomy
It might just improve your sex; it's a hard act to follow
A fact that fundamentalists find difficult to swallow
So join me as I sing of an activty that's fun
Open up your ring, and try it front to bum
bum bum
bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum
Sodomy
You must think it very odd of me
That I enjoy the act of sodomy
You might call the wrath of God on me
But if you try it then you might agree
That you enjoy the act of Sodomy
SODOMY!!!
From the movie "Meet the Feebles"
The Only Reason Anyone is discussing this is because of the electronic voting fraud that has taken place, and the fact that the executive, the senate, and soon everything fucking else will be 03w3n3d by the fucking religious fanatics who are MURDERING PEOPLE around the fucking world.
REMOVE ELECTRONICS, FIX THE FUCKING ELECTION
ELECT REAL FUCKING LEADERS
Or live in the SHIT FUCK DEATH CULT WORLD you created.
Her being an authoritative source is moot since she was in the middle of the mess in the 1960s and can also make an empirical judgment.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Is this exactly true? The omission implies that it is legal and OK to discriminate against those who are not women or minorities.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues.
An interesting question, and it quickly becomes a sword that cuts both ways.
Should a corporation become involved in government when it comes to social issues? Does not the government already represent the people? If a corporation, made of the people already represented, speaks up is that not giving some people a double voice? That does seem unfair.
The other cut of that blade is that if it is unfair for corporations to act on social issues it is also unfair for them to act on any other government issue. The government already represents the people, and letting corporations lobby, donate, etc, is giving some people more representation than others.
So, Balmer, if you think MS should stay out of social issues when those issues are being considered as law, then perhaps you should take your own advice and shut down the entire Microsoft lobbying machine?
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Yes, but this isn't something that affects MS's bottom line in any way. They can't claim publicity, because it's an issue that the pulic (for right or wrong) doesn't support. So it's not like a charity donation. And it certainly doesn't really amount to business.
As a publicly traded company, spending money on things that don't help or possibly harm the business can be construed a breach of fiduciary responsibility.
So to sum up, this is not something MS has any business doing. That's not to say Ballmer can't cash out some of his stock options and continue the fight. If this is an issue he supports, that's what he should do. But he shouldn't be using company cash to pursue his own agenda that doesn't have anything to do with the company.
"A very large portion of this country is dangerously psychotic."
And, this posting proves it, beyond all doubt.
"Shouldn't it just be illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring practices unless it's some criterion relevant to job performance?" Anywhere where there is a union and "closed shop", you can be fired for not "volunteering" to give your money to political candidates (or for not joining the union) Another situation that has nothing to do with job performance issues.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
"Homosexuality is a sin"
People do not wake up one morning and decide to be homosexual. It is who they are. If so, and you believe we are all made by your god, did he/she deliberately make them sinners?
"Every deviant lifestyle"
Do you mean just homosexuality? Or do you mean homosexuality, sex outside marriage, following another religion (or none)? Who decides what is "deviant"? Are, for example, S&M enthusiasts "deviant". Should they also be prosecuted for it, because someone find it offensive? I personally find christianity offensive. Does that mean all christians should be prosecuted? Your views are not the only ones in this world. Why should everyone be made to fall in line with them?
"All the changes in society will harm the USA"
. Black people gaining the same rights are whites? How did that social change harm the USA? The Sufferagette movement?
"The USA no longer values life."
This, sadly, is correct. In regard to Mrs Shivo, is lying on a bed being fed by a machine considered life? Would you say that she *HAD* to be kept alive, even if she would never progress from that state? Further more, may I add that the USA still has the death penalty, but I dont often hear arguements against it with the same "pro-life" stance.
"Old fashioned values"
. What do you mean? Slavery (condoned in the bible), torture (approved by the church on many occasions) and so forth? Do you really want to go back to that? There was a time when christianity set the laws - it was called the Dark Ages.
"the deeply held beliefs of any employee"
Just as long as that employee is a christian, no doubt.
Your sex acts should happen outside office for most jobs, but people commonly express love and sexuality in everyday life and it's stupid to expect them to stop while at work. Would an attractively dressed woman "catch shit" from you at work? How about a coworker with a picture of his wife and children on his desk? Someone kissing a date in the company cafeteria during lunch break?
If not, I don't see how you can complain about gays doing similar things. Personally, I would be offended by these things (start with thinking about "attractively dressed". yuck!), but I understand that it's easier for me to avert my gaze than for them to be constantly repressed and forced not to be themselves. I am sure all of us offended other people before and would never be happy if we were forced to live by all of their rules.
In reduced circumstances like these, that's all it boils down to. You can argue finer point when there are less important things on the line.
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
With regard to the Republican administration and Microsoft's gay employees, etc. I'd call 'em a "kiss up, kick down" kind of company....
Busines is business -- it's nothing persional.
"He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations and that the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow."
Oh, I see... Your monopoly with 40 billion in the bank "doesn't have the resources to follow this issue."
ROFLMAO!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It hardly "works": Apple computers do not meet the needs of most workplaces, so few have them. Also, "just works" is a limitation. People want computers that also play and create and do a lot more things.
Genocide is a Crime against Humanity. Murder is a crime, theft is a crime, rape is a crime... America sitting on its hands while scores of people across the world die is a Crime against Humanity. Prioritizing oil over the planet is a Crime against Humanity. Our inconvenience over two to three dollars a gallon, when some people can't afford a shack, nutritional food, or even some clean water could be considered a crime.
Homosexuality? About as much a crime as Heterosexuality. We all make the same mistakes, we just don't all find the same sexual partners attractive. Honestly I don't see how that's contributing to moral decline in America, unless of course you want to put all of Humanity on trial in which case self-examination becomes the utmost priority.
Another example of the 'tolerant' left. You can have an opinion, but mine is wrong.
Anyway, you didn't really address my point, so maybe you can see the sanity in my message: there is no rational reason that I need to know, at the workplace, what your preference for sexual intercourse and desire is. And when it comes to the gay agenda in the public schools, there is absolutely no reason to promote it.
Bill! Is that you? Still sore about getting all that flack for sexually harassing your employees when you were Governor and President?
I wish you all your success in your effort to offer corporations tax breaks for providing waterbeds in a mirror-ceilinged room adjacent to the corporate suite.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
shareholders
shareholders
shareholders
I actually agree with MS's stand on this one, strangely enough. But not just for the reasons MS listed.
Fact is, I don't agree with antidiscrimination laws. I think the person or persons who own a business should be capable of discriminating against anyone based on any criteria they want. Skin color, religion, politics, number of piercings, whatever. They own the business, they get to decide who works there no matter how ridiculous the requirements are, so long as they obey the Constitution or any derivative laws. Note that while the Constitution provides a basis for barring discrimination within GOVERNMENT, it does no such thing - doesn't even hint at it - when it comes to the activities of private citizens.
In fact, a case could be made that discrimination is a protected right for citizens of this country. The argument over whether or not it's fair is irrelevent; the Constitution affords no proection against discrimination by private parties.
If you don't like this, you can change the Constitution. Hell, if people can ban alchohol for 14 years it seems that getting an anti-discrimination amendment into the Constitution shouldn't be nearly as difficult.
For this reason I see no legal basis for laws against discrimination when it comes to private enterprises, and I think all such laws are invalid on their face. I would take the opposite point of view were there an actual amendment barring instances of private discrimination.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Do gays have no rights? They are citizens (as opposed to illegal immigrants) and enjoy the same rights as anyone else. To me, claiming "special rights" could be extended to nerds being picked-on at school.
What the most vocal gay rights activists seem to want is to force acceptance of their choices by the majority via legislation. Some people are understanding, others are not.
Recognized civil unions are the solution to the legal matter of non-"married" partners (what about an adult child living and caring for his/her infirm parent, brothers or sisters living together, etc,) but neither side wants to back down from their rhetoric.
What does this have to do with my "rights online"?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
"He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations and that the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow."
I am truly afraid to ask which ones are getting more focus. UberDMCA? USA PATRIOT 2?
"He goes on to explain how though he personally supports the bill, a lot of employees and shareholders don't."
You mean the share-holders weren't aware of MSFT's hiring practices before they purchased the stock? Their problem, not his. Heck, a lot of stock holders are probably in favor of MSFT skirting around anti-trust laws, but that doesn't make it right.
And as for the opinion of his employees, they're hypocrites if they feel that way. The bill is about preventing employers from doing whatever they want for any reason, feelings of the employees be damned. If they were against the bill and, therefore, truly in favor of employers being able to walk all over their employees for any reason, then they don't have a moral leg to stand on trying to dictate the practices of their employer.
"Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
Intellectual property laws aren't a social issue? I'd say there are more people downloading MP3s in the world than there are homosexuals, closeted or otherwise.
Calling the large portion of this country "psychotic" just because they idiologically and politically disagree with you does more damage than good to your obvious leftish agenda.
The only psychotic thing is modding this parent as insightful.
Why in the "F" word does Microsoft need to focus on legislation? What is Microsoft, a government agency? Is it the legislative branch of the U.S. government? What is this, the United States of Microsoft? I can almost see it now:
Yeah, I think this is exactly the direction Microsoft would pursue if they could. 1984. Bill Gates is watching you.I'm an American and proud of what this country SHOULD be. I am ashamed of what this country has become. Honestly, have you ever considered that the majority of people in power are whores to corporate interests.
Actually that's a very nasty thing to say so I'll apologize. Most prostitutes don't deserve to be lumped together with the political low lives in Washington DC.
I don't think the poster meant to tear down all Christians only the far right zealots that have perverted our political process. They have embarked on a campaign of lies and half truths. They spin their religious beliefs into the political system in an attempt to paint anyone who does not share their set of values into Godless scum that have no values themselves.
The fact is that the reason you're beginning to hear the kind of statements that you objected to is because the far right is guilty of EXACTLY what you are complaining about.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Quick memo to anyone considering dropping Microsoft products solely because of an insufficiently negative stance on gay rights: The damn Linux hippies are a bunch of Communists,! If they're not stopped they'll soon usher in One World Government, take your guns away, and turn your kids gay! Use the only ideologically pure operating system out there, which promotes the best of America, Capitalism, and Apple Pie.
That's right, folks. Buy SCO Unix today!
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
They didn't have the resources? What? Are they down to their last trillion in cash?
to their credit, they have stay out of social issues and until recently (about 5 years ago), stayed out of politics. IMHO, if you ignore the way they have conducted their primary business (stepping way over the line to aquire and maintain their monopoly), they are the ideal of a corporation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Since it seems that American society exists only to serve the purposes of corporations then obviously they are more than involved already. Without corportations civilisation might be in danger of running rampant in the streets of the US of A!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Sorry, but there is scientific data that is much more convincing than an uninformed conclusion people wake up one morning and decided to become a member of the most vocally hated minority. It has nothing to do with tolerance.
You are correct in that there is no reason to know. But I have yet to meet many people like Jim Carrey's old In Living Color character that would walk up to people and go "Hi. I'm Gay" when introducing himself. Most of the time it comes from things like a slip of the tongue or doing normal things like putting up pictures of a loved one on the desk.
As for schools, there is no "promotion" of homosexuality because that implies that the recruitment theory is generally valid which it is not. What schools should be doing is teaching that being gay is not a 'disease' or 'amoral' and things to help these kids stop killing themselves. Or do gay teens and pre-teens deserve to die in your opinion?
And by the way, there is no "Gay Agenda". So drop the conspiracy theory bullshit.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
it's not important to Microsoft.
While I would normally agree with this stance, it also has the effect of making their software crap since they spend no serious efforts making it better - they just add more failure-prone and insecure "features".
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
That whole "special rights" argument is tired not to mention innacurate. I do not think having the right to see your romantic partner in the hospital is a "special" right. Nor do I think estate inheritance backdoors like the ones enjoyed by spouses is one either. If anything, married people enjoy 1049 "special rights" granted by the federal government alone.
As for "forcing" things, then you are saying SCOTUS "forced" desegration onto the south as well because the majority there did not want it. The majority != infalibility.
The problem with civil unions is that reaction formation indulging "religious" folk still see it as a threat. I personally see marriage as a mere word that is interchangible with "civil union". The religious conservatives portray marriage as "under attack" even when Vermont did pass Civil Unions into law.
These so-called marriage "protection" amendments like those past in the Sinister Eleven last November killed everything. The one in Ohio even went so far as to turn felony wife-beating into a misdemeanor in a good chunk of cases. Say your Uncle is single and gave your father a durable power of attorney to handle his medical care and so forth in the event of his incapacitation. That would be null and void under many of these laws and amendments too.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
All numbers in thousands
That makes it $65 billion. With something like 40,000 Microsoft employees, I would say that makes them have more than enough resources.
Maybe psychotic was the wrong word. But I must agree with some sentiment that was expressed.
For example... A large portion of the country believes that the X-Files represents real FBI cases. (I read the results of a survey once.)
Smart people are the minority.
(and I'm not making any political statements in this message.)
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
unless of course you want to put all of Humanity on trial I hope we carry this out somewhere that doesn't have the death penalty.
I have yet to meet many people like Jim Carrey's old In Living Color character that would walk up to people and go "Hi. I'm Gay" when introducing himself.
Except for the 'Gay Pride Parade.' And 'Gay Day' at Disney. On an individual level, maybe you're right (but not entirely). However, as a group, they are as loud about their sexual partners as anybody.
Most of the time it comes from things like a slip of the tongue or doing normal things like putting up pictures of a loved one on the desk.
That wouldn't bother me. I used to work with someone who was only suspected of being homosexual. Quite frankly, he never told anyone at work, and we never knew. It's none of my business. If anyone I knew 'accidentally' slipped word that they were gay, I wouldn't respect them any less.
However, don't tell me that everyone is quiet and reserved. I know several people who think it's everyone else's business whose peter he puffed last night.
Obviously you can't deny that there are 'reformed homosexuals' who are now heterosexual, but I don't have the gall to think that several incidents therefore disprove your point too.
All three APAs (American Psychology Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychoanalytic Assocation) agree that there homoseuxality is not a pathology. Therefore there is no credible treatment for it.
The cases you refer too are alo liberally seasoned with cases of the so-called reparative therapy not working and the individual reverting back to their normal state or they develop a true patohlogy like GAD, Depression, or one of the lovely personality disorders.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
the right to see your romantic partner in the hospital is a "special" right
So, how is "family member" defined by law? Would the civil union idea fix this?
As for "forcing" things, then you are saying SCOTUS "forced" desegration onto the south as well because the majority there did not want it. The majority != infalibility.
Nice mix of obscure terms combined with programmer lingo there (not to mention the false, but convenient dramatic analogy). Care to explain the whole concept in a nutshell or are you going to provide twelve links to verbose web pages with a slant towards your viewpoint?
You Americans are quite amusing what with your black/white world viewpoints and everything.
I'm in Montreal, fairly liberal and not gay.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So, how is "family member" defined by law? Would the civil union idea fix this?
As a bloodline relative or spouse. Civil Union would fix this but the conservatives will not allow it.
Care to explain the whole concept in a nutshell or are you going to provide twelve links to verbose web pages with a slant towards your viewpoint?
SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States. In their decision of the case Brown v Board of Education, laws of segregation were negated so no more "this for the whites and that for the 'coloreds'".
The south was violently opposed to racial integration. By your logic of gay rights being "forced onto the majority" makes the push for them wrong. The push for civil rights was "forced onto the majority" as well so you say they are/were wrong too.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Although I agree with almost everything else you said, this statement struck me as funny. Funny, not stupid, because it made me realize that my assumption that the statement was from the other side of aisle is no doubt based on as much logic as your assumption. Nevertheless, I thought it worthwhile to point out that this statement (that corporations are only interested in profit) is not necessarily leftist or rightist, just wrong.
(In case you're wondering why I think it's from a rightist point of view is that when the GP poster said "corporations are only interested in profit", when obviously not all corporations are, I assumed that the poster was of the opinion that they should only be interested in profit. Nevertheless, I realize that this is an assumption.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Just ask them. They are also indestructible and really safe drivers. The problem is everyone else doesn't know what they are doing.
The opposite is true. If you are treating someone fairly regardless of race, you are not practicing racism whatsoever. If we do as you want, and punish someone for their skin color because of unrelated individuals in "society", we are practicing racism. Besides, society is based in the actions of individuals. How can society "ensure equal opportunity for people of all races" unless it is done at the hiring level?
"Complaining about it seems rather petty to me. And anyway, as a white male, I've never noticed reverse discrimination having any meaningful impact on my ability to find work"
All this means is that the quota policies are not being really implemented in the places where you worked. If they were, you would have known it.
"I quite suspect it is an illusion in the minds of those..."
It is not an "illusion": it all comes from reading the actual policies, and finding out about places where they actually are implemented: discrimination happens here. No surprise: the policies are trying to do that.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
How do you think a country stays free? Freedom will occasionally need to be defended. A large well equipped military prevents all but the craziest from attacking you by raising the cost of fighting for them. The best fight is one that you can win without raising your hand.
You are thinking like a robot. In human costs, what you are asking for is to discriminate against some innocent individuals because other innocent individuals are being discriminated against. This does not bring balance: it tips things even farther along the "injustice" scale by adding even more discriminated-against individuals.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I saw this first-hand a few jobs ago. A black female with a hispanic surname was in charge of the QA department. Rather than do her job, she dealt Amway from her desk. Everyone knew it, and she made no effort to hide the fact that if you worked for her, how much Amway you bought was reflected in your performance review. HR and Legal swatted away people's concerns by letting us know that they knew what she was doing, and if she weren't so "protected" she would have been fired long ago. As it stood, her thrice-protected status made her nearly invulnerable. Sickening.
THAT is why anti-discrimination laws are wrong - because they give overly litigious people one more excuse to sue. Oh, and something libertarian about how it's my business and I can hire whom I please. If I miss out on a great engineer who also happens to be gay, then that's MY problem, not society's; some other company will hire him if he's that good.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
They should never be involved in such issues, nor in politics, then again if that was the law then M$ would have nothing to do
Step out of the box and enjoy life
I'm paraphrasing (and not very eloquently) a passage I read by Andrew Sullivan but can't locate for the life of me. He was traveling with a woman who remarked that she didn't have a problem with gay people as long as they didn't talk about it and kept their private lives to themselves. He responded, "But you talk about your private life all the time. Why should gay people not be allowed to?" When she said that she had not talked about her private life, he said, "In the past 5 minutes, I learned that you have a husband, that you're on your way to pick up your kids to take them to sports practice, during which you will visit your husband's sister."
His point is obvious, that in casual conversation with other people, even those we don't know on a friend or acquaintance level, we drop lots of details about our personal life. This is no different in the work place. For example, while I never discussed details of home life with my coworkers in my current job, or my previous job, I knew if they were married, or had significant others, if they had children, the general ages of their children, what they did over the weekend, where they went on vacation, etc.
If you're queer, you can't take part in those conversations unless you are prepared for people to know that you are queer. Think about how many times in a given week you talk about your spouse, significant other, and some of your plans for the evening (i.e. going out to a movie, dinner, etc) in casual conversation. Now, imagine censoring that all into the most bland conversation possible. That's the situation with a queer person.
So, yes, while your sexuality isn't something immediately noticable, such as ethnicity, it is something that takes quite a bit of effort to completely conceal.
You also ignore the fact that chance meetings occur outside the workplace, and if you think rumors don't fly, then you're completely naive. So, consider that when you're on a date with someone, you can't hold hands, walk closely, or share a quick kiss for the fear of being discovered by someone you know or knows someone you know at work.
You, and others, seem to be under the false impression that these laws are going to allow queer people to makeout in the copy room with no job-related repercussions. Straight people can't engage in such behavior, why should queers? These laws are supposed to allow queer people to have some sort of normal social interaction with co-workers and with their partners without the suffocating fear of discovery.
Humorless sig goes here.
Although it is true that many who are against gay rights (I am not one of them) use the concept of homosexuality as a choice to distinguish it from other civil rights issues, there is also a contingent who believe that it is a disease. So, arguing against it being a choice (I still wonder who would choose to be ostricized) will probably never work, as even if you can convince these people that some people are just born this way, then they will begin to consider it a genetic defect.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You nailed it right on the head once again, Doc.
It's one thing to have a couple employees testify as private citizens, and another entirely to testify on behalf of Microsoft. If they stated that they were testifying on behalf of Microsoft-without authority to do so-they should be reprimanded.
Gay Rights is a very divisive issue. One that can alienate employees, shareholders and customers alike. Microsoft is doing what any corporation should do, try to stay out of the public fight, regardless of their internal policies.
Publicly supporting one side of a divisive issue or another --whether it's politics, abortion, gay rights etc..-- is suicidal for a corporation, as it needlessly alienates a large portion of the public --customers or otherwise-- from their goods or services.
"[Balmer] explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations and that the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow. Also, far from caving in to Rev.Hutcherson, Microsoft told him to take a hike when he asked them to fire 2 employees for testifying during the legislation consideration period."
This is total horseshit and corporate PR covering up what actually happened. If you read the NY Times article, there's at least 3 pieces of solid evidence demonstrating that MS pulled their support at exactly the time that Hutccherson was meeting with a VP threatening a boycott.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
actually they DON'T have "faith" in "government" per se
that's why they're concerned with getting all the whores and corruptons out of OFFICE
and in making the media accountable for their laziness, distortions, and irresponsibility.
just because the two "sides" are at heads doesn't mean that the left is just as crazy as the right-wing zealots.
just listen to the rhetoric of either side: it's completely, totally different in style and content. the two partys' conventions demonstrated this very clearly.
or, familiarize yourself with the different styles of the left and right blogospheres. one is full of fear, intimidation and bigotry. one isn't. and no, the void left there ISn'T filled by some kind of maniacal faith in government.
in fact it's obvious that the Government has failed so many people-- especially people who aren't ultrarich--- and that's why people are campaigning for change. the big-spending and government autocracy are symptoms of the RIGHT, not the left. (have a look at the national debt)
So, how is "family member" defined by law? Would the civil union idea fix this?
As a bloodline relative or spouse. Civil Union would fix this but the conservatives will not allow it.
Then the course of action is clear - you need to have guys like Andrew Sullivan on TV to stifle the stereotype. "Your" fringe groups are battling with "their" fringe groups. Sometimes this can be a financially rewarding relationship that is self-perpetuating even though the "advocates" appear to be on different sides of an issue.
Yes, I live in fantasyland.
"I want to be a member of the most vocally hated minority in the US."
Gays aren't the most vocally hated minority in the US.
See, it's not *always* cool to crack jokes about someone being gay. Not in all contexts.
That privilege is still reserved for transsexuals.
Also, yes. In this case, I embrace my cowardice. Guess why.
I'm proud of our track record on diversity issues. We were one of the first companies to provide domestic partner benefits, or to include sexual orientation in our anti-discrimination policies. And just this year, we became one of the few companies to include gender identity or expression in our protection policies.
There have been several news stories that imply that Microsoft changed its position on an anti-discrimination bill, HB 1515, because of pressure from a conservative religious group. I want to make it clear that that is not the case.
Does anyone see anything problematic with Ballmer's statement from above? Obviously the domestic partner policies came about from pressure from the left, and they acted on that pressure. But he feels that acting on pressure from the right requires an apology and an explanation. The left has so brilliantly controlled and defined the tone of dialogue in society that the leftist can now boldly proclaim:
"I am a compassionate leftist, and because I am so compassionate and caring, to question any of the radical changes I want to make to society renders you a reactionary, hateful, close-minded bigot." To experience first-hand the left's dedication to diveristy of ideas and free-speech one needs only express a conservative view on any college campus to which one will most likely be yelled down, assaulted, your car vandalized, or called awful names. In my experience, "peace activists" are among the most violent people you will encounter.
On a side note, ever notice that because religiousity is associated with the right, the term "anti-religious bigot" or "religiphobe" does not exist in the vernacular? So if one is on the left one has a license to openly mock,denigrade, and make prejudgements about religious people without fear of being called ugly names like "homophobe". It is a beautiful arrangement.
I am puzzled as to why leftists are not disturbed or troubled by leftist activist groups pressuring corporations or other instutions to change their behavior or policies to mold them into the left's image. I can only assume that it is not the blanket concept of activist groups pressuring corporations, it is non-leftist groups pressuring corporations they find troubling.
"College is purely a financial investment...pay X to get a return of Y. Don't expect to find wisdom there." -JK
They all do. When any sex or race (or other) quota system is in play, individuals get denied a fair shake because they do not meet the quota's requirements.
"There are no quota systems that say "don't hire Bob Jones""
The quotas tend to discriminate against the wrong sex and race. Not on personal names that happen to be similar to that Catholic university.
"I'm not sure if you just haven't thought this through..."
That's a fair question for you. Perhaps you did not realise it that when quotas discriminate against abstract groups, there are actual living human beings who end up affected by it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Genocide is a Crime against Humanity.
A genocide against black Africans by the Arab government is occuring in the Sudan now. But since the perpetrators of the genocide are non-westerners, so the world media, the United Nations, and the world's Marxists/leftists don't care.
Your entire post typifies classic Marxism: that the world can always be broken down into an economic struggle. Economic inequity is the source of all human suffering. One must be a PhD in the humanities to believe such nonsense. Human suffering has always been and always will be caused by human evil, not economics. The people of third world countries don't starve for lack of money or good will. They starve because of they are ruled by corrupt governments who pocket all of the ecnomic aid money. One need not look any further than Saddam's food or oil scam. Let me clarify...the existance of the United Nations increases, not decreases, human suffering. Leftists often mock religious people for their faith in something that cannot be seen. Actually, believing in something that can't be seen actually takes LESS faith than to believe in something that has repeatedly, demonstrably, been shown to be a failure in the world...marxism/communism and the United Nations.
Homosexuality? About as much a crime as Heterosexuality
I don't think homosexuality should be criminalized , but acceptance of, and promotion of, are two different things.
"College is purely a financial investment...pay X to get a return of Y. Don't expect to find wisdom there." -JK
Google cache of Wikipedia Godwin's Law explained (Wiki isn't working well at the moment)
Why would a woman who happens to be attractive catch shit from me for her beauty? If she were flaunting her looks, that'd be a different story. It's one thing to dress well, it's quite another for her to dress with the purpose of making men stare at her body and other women jealous.
As for the picture of the family, what's wrong with that? I don't know anyone who would actually bring in a picture of them doing more than hugging their wife. Most people, myself included, would not be offended by a picture of two gay men just hugging each other.
As for public displays of affection in the cafeteria, again people should be discrete. What sets most people off about homosexuals is their behavior is not normal and so many are not discrete about it.
Homosexuality is not normal, it is abberant behavior and ironically it is only religions like Christianity which give homosexuals inherent worth as humans. From a biological perspective, a homosexual is worthless because they are genetic dead ends. I am a conservative Christian and have been around many homosexuals. Some of them I really like as people, many I find are too sensitive, too quick to stereotype and too disrespectful of others. In a way though, they are just a canary in the coal mine about the direction that American society in general is headed.
I am a calvinist, not an arminian legalist. Homosexuality is not much of a moral problem because it is a "canary in the coal mine" moral problem for society. Romans 1 warns that as a nation turns away from God, it will become a major problem because God turns people over to their own evil lusts and allows them to grow even more depraved. We conservative Christians (that is a religious statement, not political) are not monolithic. The calvinist-leaning among us are the ones who tend to look at homosexuality's growth in America and say to America as a whole: repent.
The reason that homosexuality was not a problem in America for the first 100-150 years of its existance was that America was a more Godly nation. No amount of legislating morality will make us Godly, just legalistic and then we'll end up roasting alongside the Pharisees who did the same thing in ancient Israel. The rule of thumb is that the more a nation struggles with homosexuality, the more that the nation as a whole has moved away from God.
As a Christian, this saddens me because there is no easy solution for the masses. We aren't the "next Israel," we aren't the "greatest nation" and we most certainly aren't right with God. In the words of Paul, we "are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Look at the way we encourage sociopathic behavior in corporations and call it good. See how the corporate culture causes people to use and abuse each other for a mere bonus! Greed is held up as a virtue rather than vice, people toss out their children and spouses for "self-realization" with a newer, cheaper lover. We tolerate corruption that rots our nation's institutions like a termite-infected tree and we high five many of those who lead the way. Look at Donald Trump, the man is a monster according to the commandment to love others and keep them safe. He throws out little old ladies from their family homes so that he can build a limo parking lot for his casino! Yet many idolize him and he's actually got a modest following in our country.
This is the real problem. Our corporate and political cultures revel in blatant evil and dare to call it righteousness. It is because we do this that we have forgotten the true righteous core of God's morality and God in His anger has basically walked away from America. It didn't begin with men secretly but
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
How much resource would it have taken to just leave their position in favor of the bill alone? It doesn't mean they'd have to spend time and money lobbying for it.
The lesson to be learned is how not to do things. The ruling class in Sweden is rapaciously greedy, resulting in a huge tax burden for the ruled.
This is a civil rights issue. To describe it as "social policy" is disgusting in its own right.
whenever people use the word "dear," it reminds me of my mother. god I hate that bitch.
it's quite possible bill and steve didn't need to be pressured to take the positions they have on gays, diversity, benefits, etc. gay friends and gay employees might have been all that was neccesary to "pressure" them into any action.
see: Michael Jackson
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
why in the world would anyone be disturbed by the promotion of their own agenda? all the discussion and debate in the world won't form a consensus, it's just cats vs dogs.
Your comment would be valid if the US military was used for defending freedom and deterring attacks. However, the US is invading countries and killing thousands of civilians.
And it's just as likely for a well-behaved Christian to get fired if their liberal, bigoted boss finds out what they've been doing on their own time. What's your point?
The point is the above is already illegal while firing someone for begin gay is not (my assumption based on the legislation). The point of the legislation is to extend anti-discrimination laws to also protect gays. Currently descrimination based on sex, race, religion, is already illegal. They are tring to add sexual orientation to the list of things you cannot legally discriminate for.
I guess I support this legislation as you shouldn't be able to discriminate for this, but what is up with having a list of things you cannot discriminate against? Doesn't having such a list of things basically imply it is legal to discriminate as long as the thing you want to discriminate against isn't on the list?
I guess without this list some jack-ass lawyers could bring lawsuits against a company who fires someone for stealing from the company as that would be discriminating against thieves. However, if we are supposed to be such a free and open society (and as much as we like to say such things we really aren't compared with other places) wouldn't it make more sense to create a list of things you can discriminate against and anything that isn't on that list is illegal. If there are things which can be used as a basis for discrimination legally at least the politicians should have to list them and answer for that instead of just listing a few things which the majority agree with as illegal.
"Sarcasam"
Off topic but I'd also like to congratulate all fellow catholics on the choice of the new pope. Comforting to know the in-fallible direct link to god says its a sin to use condoms even in Africa for the purpose of preventing the spread of AIDS.
"End Sarcasam"
Whenever I hear idiots like our new pope say such things (or say being gay is a sin), I just roll my eyes and smile. I've long ago given up the idea of almost any major religion having anything to do with spiritualality. Its just a group of bigots trying to spread thier views. OK, a bit harsh and probably a bit out of line, but for all the good things most mainstream religions have as core beliefs its seems almost all of them have been corrupted by thier leaders over time. If you really want to be "religious" take the time to actually study all major religious texts (bible, koran, tora, etc) and come to your own decisions. Believing any one human is infallible and speaks for any god is a recipe for disaster and has been proven so throughout history.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
I refuse to place the blame for the inadequaces of human action in the realm of "evil." People have the power to make a difference if they actively chose to make the effort. Countless movements reveal that such power exists to mold the world in a more positive image than is often portrayed. Certainly evil, violence, and suffering exists throughout history, but this is not a justification for its continued existance. Corrupt governments are, indeed, a problem in the world that creates and maintains suffering. The United Nations, however, is an organization that could have the potential to act in protecting people of the world if only it was given enough respect by its participants and maintained an interested leader in such peace-prospects for it to actually produce those ideal results. As it is, the five permanent members, for example, frequently shoot down any acts which do not immediately benefit them in any way or could possibly hinder their efforts/nationalism. This is a major problem in the system, though I would not profess to know a solution that would solve this problem without the nations' mindset being changed at its source...such a thing would take time and considerable effort by *all* people, not just policians and their corporate backers. My original post was kept simplistic, in which case perhaps you attribute it to pure Marxism, but that is not my entire perspective. I understand the problems today are complex and have no knee-jerk reaction any politician would enjoy endorsing, or public promoting, but change is possible and to believe otherwise serves only to doom our world to inevitable collapse while justifying the suffering of others for one's own advancement. As for Homosexuality... the right to adopt, the right to visit spouses in the hospital, the right to obtain work-related benefits are not promoting homosexuality, it is providing very basic rights between those who love and care for one another. What, exactly, do you entail "promotes" homosexuality?
Sigh, ok, I'll bite.
s hit-courtsey-of-the-aclu/ which is something of a pejorative term to say the least.
It's pretty obvious that you have a problem with gay people - I mean you call them "sexual deviants" on your web site http://www.blindmindseye.com/2005/04/23/more-bull
This issue is not about being "polite and well behaved" which from your post appears to mean "not remind me that they exist". This issue is about people's freedom to work without a threat, explicit or implied that they could be fired on account of their sexuality.
People's sexuality is not some disposable, distinct part of their lives. If your sexual orientation is that of heterosexuality do you really regard your wife to be some distant part of your life? Do you never talk about your wife, what you did at the weekend or what you're doing after work with your co-workers?
In the workplace, people simply do not function with one another without at some point asking about their non-work lives. If a gay/lesbian person mentions their boyfriend or girlfriend and therefore implicitly lets their co-worker know about their sexual orientation, they should not be in fear of their job.
I find it bizzare that you seize upon the notion of someone being "rude" by using the example of a cliched gay slogan (that I'm yet to hear a single gay person use naturally). So to reiterate, this issue is not about "throw[ing] it in peoples' faces" (whatever that means) it's about people trying to get on with their lives, have normal conversations and not get fired as a result.
I am trying hard to remember the last time US used it's armed forced to defend itself.
I think it may have been in WWII but even then we ended up attacking germany even though the japanese attacked us.
evil is as evil does
This is pure brain-washing. Everytime I hear about people defending the war, the words they use come STRAIGHT from bush speech writers' rhetoric, word by word. When will people open their eyes..
The rest of us need to change because you won't?
You're Jewish as well?
Microsoft has supported this legislation every year it's been on the table. This year they pulled their support. Why? The reason has nothing to do with politics or morals, it's simply money.
This year the bill version proposed contained a significant new clause. Under this new provision, employers would have been held liable from the moment of a complaint report to implement remedial action prior to any investigation of the allegation. They would have been forced into a defacto status in response to any complaint without due process in an investigation of those complaints. Instead of 'liberating' the workplace, it would have forced such draconian corporate sensitivity measures as to cripple any company smaller than Microsoft, and would have exposed Microsoft's financial assets to litigation. In liberal Washington state courts it's doubtful that any fraudulent claims would be rescinded or repaid.
Microsoft has poured a lot of time and resources into the Gay community, but instead of a commendation got a gun stuck in their backs and told to empty their pockets. That's why Microsoft backed away from this "equal rights" bill this year, and it's disgusting that the Gay community has chosen to stick the blame on a frankly irrelevant local pastor rather than take a serious look at the consequences of their actions.
the same arguments against gay rights based on choice also negate civil rights based on religion
You'll find that many of the most vocal opponents of gay rights aren't all that interested in freedom of religion either (so long as they're on top). The same religious views that make them so sure that gays are going straight to hell also make them want to convert people to the "one true way"(tm) through whatever means necessary.
True, but when you try to work against them or even just ignore them, they cry anti-Christianity and other such bullshit.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
But it's perfectly OK to be as antisocial as they want. ;-)
*ducks...*
Sorry, but this is clearly nothing more than Quid Pro Quo to the Bush administration. After basically letting MS off completely from the gov't case, MS is simply bending to Bush's side (in other words, they are simply kissing the gov'ts a**). How ironic.
It is unlikely Balmer would be swayed by simply a threat from a minister but certainly would from Bush. Especially if he thought it would keep the gov't off their back.
sorry, this shouldn't have been posted at this level of the thread, but on a comment below it. sorry! if a mod could just delete it...
I can't say I've come across the specific term "pro-religious bigot" in the vernacular either. That must mean that there are none!
Or it could be that the absence of one specific possible term could be used doesn't really tell you anything at all about the way people are thinking.
There is a good reason why they are afraid of discovery whether they realize it or not. The general public views it as socially unacceptable, immoral, and wrong. No one will force them to change as it is their choice to behave the way they do but when they do something that is not socially acceptable they have to be prepared to face the consequences just like a child molester knows that if word gets out (especially in prison) as to what he/she did the public is going to be all over the person. I'm not advocating murder or any other harsh reactions but the gays and lesbians need to remember they are a minority and not just any minority like those who prefer black bubble gum(just an example of course :) ), but those who prefer intercourse with the same sex that many people agree is socially unacceptable. I'm sure the gays and lesbians let rumors fly when they see one of their straight friends do something off the wall but being homosexual is pretty high up on the rumor scale due to what the lifestyle entails and society's views on the matter.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
I hope Mr. Ballmer & Co. remember this the next time they herd all their employees into the company's annual sales pitch for donations to United Way (or whatever their charity of choice is).
The office is no different than anything other place where people gather. People mention their spouses, significant others, etc...
If a homosexual uses the correct pronoun for his or her partner, is he or she "throwing" his or her sexuality in your face?
It's already mentioned that in several states, even "well-behaved" (your definition) homosexuals can fired for no other reasons that what happens in their bedrooms.
I've worked in small and large offices, and in all of them I had to hide my sexuality. Even though I hate the label, I am bisexual (meaning attracted to both genders). Most of my current and former co-workers would tell you that I'm a heterosexual; and yes some of them would have not talked to me if they had known the truth. I'd like to go through life using the correct pronouns. However considering the attitudes of some people, I guess that's too much to ask for.
I currently live in a state that does not protect me against discrimation based on my sexual orientation. I would like to know that if I'm fired, it's based on my job performance and not my personal life.
William B. Gate III is gay.
He married his current "wife - ie female" only to evade
the good Reverend and the masterbating flock.
He even has tried to kill his daughter 20 times since birth,
only because she is a girl; if "she" had been a "he" then
he would have done the dirty and butt fucked the bastard
till death - like his father William B. Gates II, tried to do
William B. Gates III - ask Billy's mother (she's a lesbo btw).
I suspect that Balmer is masterbating before a picture
of the Pope Benidick now, squirting blood, as a sign of
faithfullnes and adherence to doctrine. A Men.
Toodles
Sorry dude, but gay male rats can be manufactured in a lab quite easily (They are gay because they have a sex reflex only normal femals possess and they will allow themselves to be mounted) and a UCLA study found measurable brain physiological differences.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
democracy (which we invade entire contries to push forward in the world) is suppose to be rule by the people. Corporations NEVER (read my lips) represent the needs of the people. And, no, the rich aren't "the people". Yeah, our social values are diverse and mostly religiously based. That's why we vote on issues. We could have alot of good values and ideals to show the world if we could just implement them properly.
Power to the Penguin!
I think someone further up pointed out that being gay is much more like belonging to a certain religion. In fact, you could say that it is very close to that, since many churches now make it a point of doctrine whether or not they support gay couples.
I know people like the ones you're describing. I know that it's pretty disturbing to see people doing big, life-changing things for the wrong reasons. But in America, we don't ask you whether you're truly devout before defending your right to practice your religion. Why should we be required to find out whether or not you're "really" gay?
Some say that we shouldn't be so liberal granting religious protections to strange and even agnostic religions. But time and time again, we have come to affirm that the first amendment constitutes the promise of total religious freedom, even if we don't understand or find completely vile a single protected faith. I honestly don't see why this promise does not extend to gay rights. Maybe for more insight you could ask your local reconciling church.
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
Fire all the Faggots; all the gay men and lesbians until they agree to give into morally exceptable practices, such as sleeping and having sex with members of the opposite sex. Gays have enough rights, what do you people want, for them to be able to publicly embrace and swap spit? Screw that, get rid of em NOW. they will all BURN in hell.
Wugga Wugga Wugga I am the CEO of Microsoft Wugga Wugga CEO, thats me Wugga Wugga Look Ma, I am CEO of Microsoft Wugga Wugga Wugga Bow down before me, for I am THE CEO Wugga Wugga Did I mention I am the CEO of this company? Wugga Wugga Wugga Wugga I....love....this....company Yeahhhhhhhh.......
And how does that require a military that costs more than the next three largest spenders combined? When was the last time any of the large European countries been invaded? They don't have nearly the size of military that we do.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. For example, Thomas Jefferson, the originator of the phrase 'separation of church and state' did the following after he came up with that phrase:
In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to "assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church" and to "provide annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest". He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in "promoting Christianity."
When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building. President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.
Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services;
Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive "the patronage of the government";
Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word "God" in its motto;
While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, "In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson."
You can find quotes or actions by every one of the supposedly Deist founding fatehrs that indicate that they approved of Christianity in public life. Fact is, it isn't a Christian nation now, but it was, and may be again. I personally am not in favor of such things, but the only legal bar to them is the one that comes from twentieth-century court rulings that can be reversed at any time. The seperation of church and state as we understand it today is not as sacred, or as safe, as you think it is.
That will solve a problem. Every marriage from now on should be a civil union where two partners are united in order to do whatever they want, however they want. If they pay their taxes and obey the law, they should be left alone. People who want to be married and united under a holy spirit, should go to church. We live in the 21st century with new standards and higher expectations in terms of our civilization. Let's prove the rest of the world that we are actually moving forward. If we make sure that every union is recognized under the law, we can save tons of money and go on with our lives.
Seriously, how much of our money should be wasted before we realize that everybody is equal? I really do not care if Bob and Dave live together, have a family, and share benefits. If you do not like that, do not invite them to your family dinners. If your church does not allow that, then expell them from our church. You may not like what they do in bed, but it should be none of your fucking business to begin with. Everybody should be equal in the eyes of the law and we should make sure that every united couple has access to the same benefits as straight couples. If Bob and Dave adopt a child, then their family should be treated just as any other. How are they different from the rest? I hear religious freaks say that being gay is not normal, but what is? Caring adults slipping cocks down young boys' throats? Give me a break. The standard of normality varies from person to person. What is sinful for you, sounds like a lot of fun to me :)
I just don't see it how a gay person is defferent from a straight person. All of us are in the same shit with only one life. Let's make the best out of it.
Please, if you're going to bring up a piece of governmental theatrics to bolster your opinion, at least spell the poor woman's name correctly. Terri Schiavo.
That's not a good reason, that's just a reason. Social norms change, and they have been changing with respect to sexuality; I would argue that those who think queers are unacceptable, immoral, and wrong are in the minority, possibly slight majority. At one point it was socially unacceptable to marry outside of one's ethnicity, and it was considered unacceptable, immoral, and wrong. Yet that changed. Why? Because society changed, as it is changing now. Using arguments like yours, the tyranny of the majority, to justify the treatment that gays receive at the hands of straight people is dangerous.
The real question you should be asking is, is it proper to treat gays as second class citizens when they have done nothing to harm other people? The child molester example is in no way analogous to the current topic because the child molester hurt an innocent, and therefore are receiving the punishment that society deems appropriate. Gays hurt no one.
Humorless sig goes here.
The memo clearly stated that the pastor demanded that these people be terminated. Nowhere does it mention that this demand was solicited by Microsoft. I'm finding it hard to understand exactly what you're getting at.
Also, you're blaming the entire group for what usually amounts to on-the-fringe leadership that thinks they can get away with it. There's a parallel between this and the fundies that are running the country. Not every Christian is a zealot, but the zealots have the moxy to get on tv and unreasonably demand things.
There's no difference in the gay community either, so stop generalizing.
That provision was garbage though. How could one possibly hope to comply and enforce something like that.
Corporations mightn't have any responsibility to social issues but "persons" certainly do
'plex
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
I AM an urban elite, you insensitive clod!
So don't call your post "what you do not see" when you're a racehorse going down a narrow track yourself. Everybody is guilty of playing dirty politics. You want to talk about Clinton? Good president, played dirty as hell. It's how you get shit done, how you advance your agenda.
Sorta.
It grants Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Since the 1930s this right has been interpreted broadly, when you're talking about commerce that might sometimes be interstate, Congress can regulate.
Therefore lawyers and judges today agree that Congress can regulate workplace discrimination. And point to the Constitution to support it.
So I guess if this were the 1960's Microsoft should have not supported legislation that ended racial discrimination too? Just because "many people in America are opposed" to it does not make it wrong.
But ethics and morals don't enter into it. If corporations could legally grind your body into paste and make a profit from it, they would do it without flintching. If slavery were legal and profitable, they'd in for that, too.
i suspect you would find that graduates of decent universities (for example, the ivy league, stanford, university of chicago, and the like) voted decisively for kerry in all age groups. having a degree from some cow college in kansas doesn't make you educated or talented.
and engineers? computer janitors are most definitely not more educated or talented than the general population. they're like auto mechanics without the capacity for manual labor.
I am a christian. Our nation is christian. We were founded on christian ideals. The only reason there is a seperation of church and state is not to keep religion out of government, but to keep government out of the church.
"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." - George Washington
"And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions." - Thomas Jefferson
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
It certainly doesn't sound that way to me. The founding fathers were well aware of the problems caused by integrating Church and State, and seemed to have a dim view in general of the trappings of organised religion.
What the heck are you talking about? ;-)
;-)
If you want to pass legislation that says that companies can't discriminate based on sexual orientation then you'd better be prepared to have the same set of rules applied to you that are applied to everyone else who falls into a legally protected class. That means that your personal activities will be scrutinized as far as they apply to your work activities.
So if there is a law saying companies CANNOT consider your personal activities, then you have to worry about companies considering your personal activities. But if there is no such law (so companies are free to do this at will), then you are safe and don't have to worry about companies doing this?!?!?!?!
I'll assume you are actually a pretty smart person, but you were just "out screwing around all night" so you aren't really thinking clearly
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Why should anyone discriminate unfairly at all? If religious people want to believe all kinds of things, good, but they need to realise that not all of it has a place in a civilised society.
It doesn't matter what sex/color/religion/whatever the rejectee is. As long as you document why you rejected him/her and document what your standards are, you've got the paper trail to defend yourself.
Your old company should have written her up a few times and then fired her ass for cause. Cost too much to defend against a lawsuit? Well, how much were they paying this woman to sit around and sell Amway?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
The ONLY reason MS even gave a shit about this issue was because if you are not for gay whatever, you are obviously bigoted assholes.
Jews couldn't work in the government
then they could be fired for being a Jew
then they couldn't work in the media
then they were legally banned from any business that didn't want to serve them
They they were required to wear the Star of David on their clothing at all times (like homosexuals, who were required to wear an upside-down pink triangle)
then they couldn't own their own businesses
then they couldn't live where they wanted
then they were stripped of all their material goods of any value
then they were moved to concentration camps
then they were efficiently murdered.
The Holocaust should stand as a stark reminder that we must ensure no group ever gets treated this way again. If you can ban homosexuals from the workplace then you can ban them from a business. How long before we start putting them in jail again (like up to the 1950s) for being who they are?
BTW, President Bush has stated that homosexuality is a sickness and homosexuals are mentally ill. Hitler said the same thing about the Jews.
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams You pull this from the Treaty of Tripoli? Yeah, THAT is a winner. And based upon that let's not only remove any sense of Christianity from government and schools and anything public, but try and remove Christianity from everything personal as well? I am not cleagy, but my influence counts just as much as the next guy. Congress will enact no law.....
I've always wondered about this ... people who believe being gay is a choice, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you make the choice yourself to be gay, so you're speaking from personal experience? Or have you discussed this issue with enough gay people that you'd consider yourself an expert on the topic?
It's always seemed funny to me that the people who have a problem with homosexuality seem to know so much about it, to the point of knowing what's going on in someone else's head and in their lives. I, on the other hand, can speak from first hand experience when I say it wasn't a choice for me. And I think I know myself a little better than you do.
And speaking of choice ... if that should be the determining factor as to whether it's ok to discriminate, then certainly religion would be a prime candidate for discrimination. After all, we're not born with that, are we?
More than that, I don't want my kids knowing that you like to pound your putt into someone with the same organs.
Now, with that reference to your kids you just threw your orientation into MY face. Maybe I don't really care to know that you "pound your putt" into someone with different sex organs. And that's the whole point, just making a simple statement like that reveals a lot about a person. If you can talk about your kids, why I can't I talk about how my partner and I just bought a house?
Here's a challenge for you. Go a full week without making any type of reference in conversation or doing any sort of action that would let anyone know your sexual orientation. That means not talking about your family or any activity you did with them, not appearing in public with them, not letting anyone see any photos of your kids, taking off your "My child is an honor student" bumper sticker off your minivan, etc. Try that and then get back to us on how that went, Ok? Because remember, any of those things is throwing your sexual orientation in someone else's face, who really doesn't care and doesn't want to hear about it.
I don't remember saying that Christianity should be removed from everything personal, in fact I passionately believe that people should be free to practice the religion of their choice*.
And sure, as a member of a religion, your views are as valid as anybody else's, and your contribution will help shape the views and ethics of the country.
However, I do belive that it's not in any country's best interests to involve religion in the running of government - I think there are enough examples throughout history to show it's not a good idea.
* Well, within reason. I don't agree that religious belief is a valid excuse to break the law - by shooting abortion doctors, flying aeroplanes into buildings, killing young women who bring 'shame' to the family etc... - but I think most reasonable people of any belief system would agree with me there.
Homosexuality may not be a choice, but in any case, homosexual behavior *is* a choice.
And you apparently get off on it
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
they have to be prepared to face the consequences just like a child molester
:) ), but those who prefer intercourse with the same sex that many people agree is socially unacceptable. I'm sure the gays and lesbians let rumors fly when they see one of their straight friends do something off the wall but being homosexual is pretty high up on the rumor scale due to what the lifestyle entails and society's views on the matter.
:) ), but those who prefer intercourse outside their race that many people agree is socially unacceptable. I'm sure people in interracial relationships let rumors fly when they see one of their straight friends do something off the wall but havign an interracial relationship is pretty high up on the rumor scale due to what the lifestyle entails and society's views on the matter.
Child molester? CHILD MOLESTER??
[snip stream of profanities and insults]
Someone who commits a crime is going to be going to prison. I think it's kinda reasonable to fire them when they fail to show up for work for several years. Being in prison and failing to show up for work kinda tends to negatively impact one's job performance and is a perfectly reasonable grounds to fire someone.
A better example would be to cite an interracial couple. That is still considered by some to be socially unacceptable, and it was in fact illegal or even criminal in one third of all US states as recently as the 1960's.
You are certainly free to consider interracial marriage as socially unacceptable, immoral, and wrong if you wish. You are even perfectly free to believe that they are going to hell. However it does not affect their job performance and it is not valid grounds to fire someone.
I'm not advocating murder or any other harsh reactions but the gays and lesbians need to remember they are a minority and not just any minority like those who prefer black bubble gum(just an example of course
I'm not advocating murder or any other harsh reactions but the interracial couples need to remember they are a minority and not just any minority like those who prefer black bubble gum(just an example of course
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Really, just try thinking for once.
That's an unreasonable demand to make of someone like OP. OP made if fairly clear that they prefer believing to thinking.
Many, many environmental contaminants function as hormone mimics. Both the right wing and the left wing would have a fit if there were found to be a positive correlation between exposure in the womb or during early puberty and defects. However, I can't see either side supporting research to confirm or deny that.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It used to be in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders before lobbying took it out.
Will there be a politically correct rush to support all the molesters and turd eaters if they can organized and get their problems re-flagged by the time DSM V is published?
SUch research is impossible unless it was made compulsury and ethical guidelines were suspended.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
If they are not involved with social policy, why do they have Ralph Reed on retainer?
I'd like to see some links to where the research you mention was conducted. I've seen evidence to the contrary.
Why do kids become Hari Krishnas? Not many people want to be around a person who wears yellow robes, shaves his hair, and goes around chanting and ringing bells. Why do people become motor cycle gang members? Few wish to befriend or be around a person who wears leather clothes, sports a beard and long hair, guzzles beer, and wears tattoos. Why do people dye their hair blue, wear nose rings, get their belly buttons pierced, or get tattoos at all? If you look around, perhaps 10% or so of the population is 'different by choice' (and among adolescents, the percentage is certainly higher).
Why would this be? Doesn't everyone want to be like everybody else? Not really.
It can be exciting to stand out in a crowd. Having the only blue hair in school gives you an identity. You can stand out with relatively modest effort. You don't have to be a great athlete or do well academically, you can be talked about and get noticed.
Likewise, you can 'be someone' if you declare yourself to be 'gay' -- everyone will talk about you. Suddenly you'll have an 'identity.' You used to be just another nerdy W.A.S.P. -- suddenly you're a member of a beleaguered minority. You now have purpose and comradery (with other gays).
And your evidence does not explain why male rats can literally be manufactured. These rats do not "choose" to have a reflex, present in females only under normal conditions, that involves sexual activity (A certain part of the back, when grabbed, causes the rat to reflexively rear-up for mounting) and they will allow themselves ot be mounted. Conversely, lesbian rats can be manufactured as well. They lack the reflex at that point and will mount other female rats.
Germany provided converging evidence in humans since replicating the way it is done with rats is illegal and unethical.
It also does not explain why a study done at UCLA found measurable differences in brain physiology too.
And by your logic then, all religious protections need to be removed. Since people have chosen them, they should not be protexted.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Until I see the evidence, there isn't much use in my 'explaining' it. Please provide a link, or at least a reference as to who did this research, so that I can personally examine it. If you could provide this, I'd much appreciate it. It sounds very interesting.
If the study is really nothing more than pressing on their backs to force them to have an 'arch up' reaction so that other male rats can have sex with them, that doesn't really seem to prove anything about the rats being born gay. I already know that many animals express homosexual behaviour. Despite the denial of many "straight" people, homosexual sex is every bit as pleasureable as straight sex. Animals just enjoy sexual pleasure, and don't really think so much about where they can get it from. This doesn't necessarily mean they were born gay -- just horny. I'll refrain, however, from making any judgement until reading the real study, as opposed to your summary.
The closest thing I can find to it is this. For an exact reference to what one of my professors uses in her Experimental Psychology course, I am going to have to wait until she returns to campus in July.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Since you can't seem to produce your evidence, I'll put some more of mine forth. Here's a study of rats done at Berkeley that would seem to call into question much of the 'evidence' used to support the 'gay gene' theory.
Here's another good analysis of the 3 major studies most often cited in support of genetic 'gayness', and why they are so flawed.
As for why religion needs protection... Religions don't need protection from descrimination from the general population. It needs protection from government intervention. If someone doesn't want to hire me because I'm Buddhist, I'm really not terribly concerned. There are many other employers that aren't so narrow, and even if I can't find one, as long as my real rights are respected I'm free to be a self-determined entrepenuer. Please note that I don't consider anything but self-employment a right. No one owes me anything. If, however, the government doesn't allow me to vote because I'm Buddhist then we have problems. Religions need protection from government intervention. Why? Religions have historically been used by government as a tool to manupulate the unthinking masses. Religion is a very dangerous thing -- especially in the hands of government. It is a two edged sword.
This study by Dr. Ingebog Ward "Parental Stress Feminizes and Demasculizes the Behavior of Males" was done way back in January, 1972! I can find almost nothing anywhere else referring to it. Google only brings up 3 hits, 1 of which is the reference you already gave. If this is really that earth-shaking, you'd think there would be more readily available on it. I'd like to see, for example, if anyone has been able to reproduce these results.
Since she does not work the spring semester and has already left since her obligations for winter semester have been met, I cannot get the exact one until July.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
It is the frivolous lawsuits that are the problem, and these are too common. Just a couple of weeks ago, Ford LOST a lawsuit because some drunk maniac was speeding and flipped an SUV.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Ever heard "Amarok" ?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Other countries with more complete health and school records could provide a more practical or complete data set for research. But as I mentioned, neither the right wing nor the left wing want to really find out the cause. Both have agendas that would be disturbed by a visit to reality.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.