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."
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.
No - but they do have a monopoly on religious bigotry...Compared to Muslims, they OWN that market...if for no other reason then they were first...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
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
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 don't forget Religious Conservatives, who'd kill to control your oil (If you're not Christian).
I voted Bush as the lesser of two evils
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You still voted for evil.
Really no comparison to Anonymous denial Cowardice lies.
--
make install -not war
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.
What a crock of shit! You are making a horrible generalization. How about "arguing with a libertarian is always a waste of time" or "arguing with a senior citizen is always a waste of time."
Fine, so it's a generalization. Nothing is really black and white. But when a generalization is true 98-99% of the time, I'm willing to call it a fact.
There are other classes of people with whom I consider debating a waste of time. E.g. religious nutcases, senior citizens with dementia.
I know ten-year-olds who hold more intelligent opinions than many twenty-five year olds.
Fine... and those are probably some of the 25 year olds that I don't really want to talk with either.
-a
Who cares about having "inclination"?
Isn't one of the defining characteristics of maturity and/or morality that of self-discipline in the face of 'primal' instincts and/or emotion?
One thing you neglect to realize is that you have ALWAYS had the choice to be homosexual, heterosexual, non-sexual (either through abstinence or procedure), or whatever have you. Just because you have not felt 'inclined' to address the decision, being perfectly happy with your current sexual situation, does not mean the option to choose didn't exist.
Now, specifically, it is my religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. If you're familiar with the Sodom and Ghomorrah incident depicted in the bible, you have to realize incident would STRONGLY suggest that God doesn't really look highly upon homosexuality. This is not to say that he would never accept and love those who have homosexual 'inclinations', only that he detests the act.
Self-discipline is a recurring requirement of my religion, as it is with most religions. It would be equally required that person X abstain from homosexuality regardless of his/her inclinations as it would be for person Y to abstain from extramarital sexual relations with someone regardless of his/her inclinations.
Obviously, though, nobody is forced to adhere to my personal beliefs, or even that of Christianity (whichever flavor you tend to prefer). But the argument rests that regardless of 'inclination', participating in homosexual acts IS a choice.
If you need proof of this, I know several people, including my own brother, who ascribed to being homosexual in their early years of life who have now, through self-discipline, been able to not only be in a heterosexual relationship, but even marriage, kids, family vacations... Temptations from time to time? You bet. Are they happy? You bet.
Now, this does not mean that I support the heavy discrimination of people of non-heterosexual orientation. This country does value its freedom to choose things, and it needs to protect people's choices (those that don't go against law anyways) from aggregious actions. These include termination of employment, personal injury, blah blah blah, but I don't think that those who actively participate in homosexuality and aknowledge it openly should be surprised that people around them might 'treat them differently'.
In all likelihood, those people may find a homosexual's actions to be detestable, much like a serial killer, or child molester... both of which maintian that their actions are mandated by 'inclination' in most cases by the way. As such, there may be cases where a boss ends up 'not liking' someone based on sexual orientation, and I can't possibly see how that can be helped. As we all know, not being liked by the community you work with can create a hostile environment, both with the person not liked as well as the rest of the community, which I think cannot be helped. To expect anything less would be absurd.
And then back to my original point, in order for someone with homosexual 'inclinations' to remedy the situation is to DECIDE not to act upon or embrace those 'inclinations' of homosexuality. If your moral code does not look down upon homosexuality, and you can live with ridicule from people whose moral code(s) do then so be it. But just as it is not expected that my moral code be forced upon everyone else (ie. homosexuality is bad), it is equally absurd to suggest that another moral code (ie. homosexuality is good/normal) should be forced upon me. Sure, it will create conflicts, but then I hope that in all cases that differences can be settled with civility... but the conflicts will ALWAYS exist.