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."

Comments

Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[HiThere]

To disclaim social involvement is shameless lying when they are involved in everything from tax structure to allocation of funds.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Molly Lipton]

That would be economic and fiscal policy, dear. I have to agree that corporations should stay out of social policy, however. Corporate leaders involved in the political maneuvering we hear so much about are extremely wealthy individuals whose experience is largely limited to the upper echelons of urban, business society. How can people like this possibly represent the majority of Americans? The fact is they can't. Rather than taking our moral lessons from Steve Ballmer and the rest of the elitist business class, we should go to our local diners, town halls, and places of worship to find the way in the complex social environment of the modern world. It is regular people, not urban elites we should be listening to!

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[MrDomino]

How the hell is this insightful? Budget concerns != social issues; there's a slight difference between a corporation being concerned about how much it will be taxed and a corporation supporting a bill on, say, abortion. That's not to say there's a problem with doing either, but they are not the same thing.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than taking our moral lessons from Steve Ballmer and the rest of the elitist business class, we should go to our local diners, town halls, and places of worship to find the way in the complex social environment of the modern world. It is regular people, not urban elites we should be listening to!

Which is exactly why the founders gave a limited set of enumerated powers to the federal government and left the rest to the states, localities and the people themselves. We continue to ignore constitutionally-limited government at our peril.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Economic and fiscal policy IS social policy, dear, no matter how much you may try to pretend it's not. To suggest otherwise is disingenous.

And no matter how much you don't like it, corporations call the tune on everything these days, from economic policy to social legislation to national defense. Why? Because the outcome of that liegislation affects them too. And they've got more resources than you or I can muster to get their way.

Don't like it? Start working for legislation that will change the legal status of corporations. Oterwise, they'll just continue to shove laws you don't like down your throat, and there's not a damn thing you or I can do about it.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[bmw]

I totally agree that people need to have meetings and discuss things like this but I think that we're seeing less and less of this in places like local diners, town halls, etc. In this day and age it is the internet that is our meeting place. Of course, this has both benefits and drawbacks. We are no longer limited by space or by geography but at the same time I think there is something lacking when you can't meet someone physically, in person. The use of computers and the internet is exciting but our reliance on them is a bit sad. What kind of life is sitting in front of a computer screen for 16 hours a day?

(BTW, I work in IT and am one of those people sitting on front of said computer screens all day.)

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[grumpygrodyguy]

We should go to our local diners, town halls, and places of worship to find the way in the complex social environment of the modern world. It is regular people, not urban elites we should be listening to!

I have been listening, and the answer was George W. Bush. Praising the morality of people who willingly elect such a jackass is worse than being one of those people. In the 50s, when blue-collar workers actually represented the things you described you might have had a point. But now all you have is middle-of-nowhere towns, built on industries that have long-since been shipped oversees. Leaving a vacuum filled with people who's only source of income is to send their kids into the military. When your only source of pride is megalomania, religious flagwaving egotism, and the 'membership' into the 'Big Fat Christian Gun-Toting Whiteman kicks the Worlds Ass' Society, well...I'd say the world would be better off without you.

A very large portion of this country is dangerously psychotic.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Artifakt]

The internet's anonymity totally destroys its use as a social forum when it comes to town hall style meetings. That marvelous same anonymity that keeps anyone else from knowing you're black, or a woman, or whatever, and disenfranchising you for it.
It also keeps you from knowing if the other person is a minor (and so not subject to the law you may be debating), or doesn't pay any taxes in the area (and so won't have to pay the costs for the 'solution' they are advocating), or alternately is a lifelong resident (and will be protected from the new law by a grandfather clause) or any of a thousand other factors that might be relevant to empowering an informed public.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[rsborg]

That would be economic and fiscal policy, dear.

Semantics.

There's this fictitious line between social/fiscal/political that is just rediculous. See, fiscal policy impacts people, and is therefore to some extent, social policy. Same with political policy.

The biggest canard, however, is the belief that corporations don't already impact social policy... that's historical revisionism of the grandest scale. Things like HR policies, work environments makes a big difference for the many people who work for the corporations, not to mention their families and relatives.

I'm not saying it's Microsoft's responsibility to support or oppose certain legislation, but to say that corporations should stay out of certain areas because "they shouldn't impact social policy" is bullshit. The reality of today's situation flies in the face of that idealist view.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Lemmy Caution]

As long as corporations employ people who are affected by social legislation, then the difference truly is slight. Despite every impression to the contrary, first and foremost a corporation is a network of relationships among real live human beings; the money is simply an abstraction of certain types of value.

Historically, the very first laws against child labor (in the UK) were brought into existence at the behest of a coalition of factory owners, who wanted to stop the practice, but could not do so unilaterally and remain competitive: the only way that they could have the practice stop was to remove the possibility of competitive advantage from employing children. Likewise, Microsoft has gay and lesbian employees and shareholders, and their well-being is directly affected by the absence of this legislation.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[h4rm0ny]

Oddly, all the things you list as negatives, I think of as positive. The Internet stops you knowing if the person talking is a minor? Good - maybe we shouldn't use our age to discount opinions. Doesn't pay taxes in your area? Shouldn't matter - they still have to argue against the consequences to convince those who do. We should be able to accept the truth from Mickey Mouse if it is the truth. And likewise, we should be able to use rational argument against those who would otherwise use volume, intimidation or mobs to drown us out.

Reducing people to making their case in a written form where we can read at our own pace, re-read at our leisure and respond without the pressure of being interrupted, lays bare that which we should be basing our decisions on - the ideas and the logic, not the people.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[SuperBanana]

To disclaim social involvement is shameless lying when they are involved in everything from tax structure to allocation of funds

Actually, corporate tax share is around 2% these days. Used to be 50% back in the 1950's. Your taxes have gone up because corporate taxes have gone down or been evaded through thousands of tax loopholes, like foreign-head-office corporations.

Sounds like "representation without taxation" to me- and nothing infuriates me more than to see those "this truck pays $10,000 in taxes a year" stickers- when each load out of hundreds is worth at least that.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[EpsCylonB]

I agree with a lot of what you have said. It is interesting that a country that prides itself on liberty, freedom and democracy has always had such a large military. There is an element of crypto fascism in america.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It is regular people, not urban elites we should be listening to!

The idea that "urban elites" are somehow a separate group from "regular people" is one of the stupidest ideas politics has ever had inflicted on it.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[God! Awful 2]

Oddly, all the things you list as negatives, I think of as positive. The Internet stops you knowing if the person talking is a minor? Good - maybe we shouldn't use our age to discount opinions.

Debating with a 25 year old about politics may or may not be a waste of time, depending on how smart & open-minded they are. However, arguing with a 10 year old about politics is always a waste of time.

-a

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[JimBobJoe]

But now all you have is middle-of-nowhere towns, built on industries that have long-since been shipped oversees. Leaving a vacuum filled with people who's only source of income is to send their kids into the military.

I am struggling to find this fact (last read in the Economist) but the top states for servicemen were New Jersey, California and Texas.

I'm not disagreeing that you have lots of servicemen come from rural areas...but, in addition, a lot more are 1st generation Americans, whose immigrant parents are not on solid financial footing, and are living in the blue states.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[magarity]

Good - maybe we shouldn't use our age to discount opinions

I disagree; back when I was a teenager, I was a font of wisdom. Now I'm puzzled by quite a lot. We should definitely discount the opinions of middle aged and older people.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Master of Transhuman]

Well, now's the time to bring up Bill's famous quote about how Microsoft could hire twice as many women as men for half the pay to do the grunt work because "they're only women".

It's in the book "Hard Drive".

Always wondered what Melinda thought about that...but then, when a woman get s chance to marry a billionaire, feminism is the last thing on her mind.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Mazem]

megalomania, religious flagwaving egotism, and the 'membership' into the 'Big Fat Christian Gun-Toting Whiteman kicks the Worlds Ass' Society

Fuck Yeah! (not quite work safe)

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Reducing people to making their case in a written form where we can read at our own pace, re-read at our leisure and respond without the pressure of being interrupted, lays bare that which we should be basing our decisions on - the ideas and the logic, not the people."

I couldn't agree more with your post but there is the danger that intrests other than your community get injected. Just look at all the astroturfing going on and if you don't think it would happen if legislation is on the line think again. This relies on the attention span of the reader to spot those things. Given the average American attention span of a gnat I shudder to think what can happen.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[DickBreath]

It's in the book "Hard Drive".

Now why couldn't they have named that book "Big Hard Di_k", and left it to the imagination which letter to fill in?

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I was thinking that maybe the GP just picked the wrong examples, and that I could present some ideas where the person making the argument was just as important as the argument itself. I could probably still do this, but I don't think it speaks to the idea as well.

The thing about democracy is that there are many issues on which reasonable people can disagree. There are also issues where the priorities involved change from location to location. One of the most visible things about politics is that a few people who really care can make a bigger difference than a majority who aren't that concerned. Anonymity on the Internet means that a small group of people can stand on a soapbox anywhere and everywhere at the same time, drowning out rational discussion by the vast majority. These people can put themselves at the center of a policy debate in a city where they don't live, and where the policy will never effect them, forcing the issue upon a large group of people who don't agree, but who have better things to do than get into a bitter debate with a fanatic. The issue is best discussed by the people who it will effect, because they are the only ones who have to live with the consequences.

Your point is valid that reasoning and logic stand up no matter who presents them, but public issues are not always about reason and logic. Plus, many people are skilled at presenting persuasive arguments, which often intentionally leave out important details. One part of the bullshit detector that we use to know which arguments to question is knowing the agenda of the person presenting the argument. I expect an environmental report from the Nature Conservancy to be biased differently than one from a developer, and I can view each accordingly.

that which we should be basing our decisions on - the ideas and the logic, not the people.

Of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Ultimately, social policy is about helping people get along. Helping them be happy and be productive. It is all about the people. Reason and logic can help us choose the best actions, but sometimes intuition and emotion are the best way to deal with people in the face of conflicting interests, lack of information, and limitted predictability.
(Yes, I know I was taking that quote out of context.)

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[ramblin billy]

I have to disagree. Throughout human history major advances in the awareness of our shared humanity have come from the dreamers at the edges of our cultures. Any idea starts with a few people. If the idea is strong enough and true enough, other people with ability will take up its cause. There was a first time that 2 or 3 men acted together in defiance of the dominant temporal power to assert their rights. As time went by, humanity began to develop the concepts of equality, fairness, and the rights of individuals. Always there were men who had a vision of a better way and such was the power of their vision that other men agreed. These men, often at peril of their lives, challenged us to make a better world. Enough men have taken the challenge through the ages for our civilization to flourish. Just about two hundred and thirty years ago a group of these men with visions found themselves together and they changed the fabric of human interaction forever. They had the idea that each individual man had a right to his own life - and that if enough men of like mind would stand beside them they could make a place without kings or lords - where each man was master of his own destiny. Of course, they wrote the Constitution, rebelled against the lawful government, and took up arms. At that moment those few men defined the moral and ethical beliefs that have shaped our country's journey towards real equality and civil liberty.

Sometimes the journey isn't easy and we've paid the price as individuals and as a nation. We are still embarked on the journey. We are a contentious species and there will always be those who resist change out of fear, or hate, or greed. With a struggle we abolished slavery. As a country we recognized the absolute rationality of tolerance and freedom of expression. We uphold each person's inalienable right to believe and act how they will - restricted only by the compact of laws he accepts as a citizen. Now women and men of all races are equal voting partners in our society. We are judged on our words and our deeds without regard to the family or country of our birth. Together we have decided that discrimination is wrong. You can not be denied the privileges of your citizenship due to race, age, sex, religion, or beliefs. Everyone has the same right to be heard, worship as they will, and choose their lifestyle. We have all agreed with those men with the visions - we have nurtured and enhanced that vision towards its natural realization, even through the inevitable upheaval of change. And we have paid the price with our hearts and our blood.

There are times in the life of ourselves or our country which demand the absolute best we can do. A time of change when we can each aspire to that vision that we take for granted so much of the time. A time when we can be better than the ordinary and the average and look to the dreamers for our inspiration. A time to put aside the fear and ignorance - to reject the transparent attempts at misdirection, manipulation, and control. It's time for us to remember how this country got started and prove that all the sacrifices of Americans to keep it strong have not been wasted. It's time to stand up for the freedom and equality of ALL Americans.

billy - would you go to the users to decide your security policy?

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[ccady]

...arguing with a 10 year old about politics is always a waste of time.

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."

I know ten-year-olds who hold more intelligent opinions than many twenty-five year olds.

Your statement was blatently ageist and you should be rethinking it.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[AndyS]

Perhaps it is improved?

If Microsoft are seen as a fantastic place to work by gay, bisexual, and transgendered employees, then that might be an advantage over short sighted competitors. If those competitors were forced by this law into being just as nice, then it would hurt Microsoft. Maybe.

This is assuming that Microsoft's support for gay and transgendered employees has comparatively little cost.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Kineel]

Another knee-jerk liberal who fears religious fanatics with guns.

To quote PJ O'Rourke - "Many people forget that this country was founded by religious fanatics with Guns."

It truly astounds me to hear people curse the very society that gave them the freedom to speak out without fear in the first place.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[CRCulver]

Minors are not empowered in politics. If you want to fight ageism, you should first lobby your representatives to get rid of a minimum voting age (a pipe dream), and then get back to us about how we should listen to minors, mkay?

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Artifakt]

Let's see: Is not affected by the law in question, and can hide that fact?
Wont have to pay for the law in question, and can hide that fact?
Is in a special interest group that has a special exemption from the law, and can hide that fact?

And you think of this as an unadulterated positive? You really don't think anonymity can be used for any bad purposes?
It's time to put the politically aware curse on you: May you go through 20 years of trying to implement your position in the real world, only to realize that the people who are lining you up against the wall are just applying a minor extension of what you advocated.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[h4rm0ny]

I hope someone Mods you up because as you're AC some people might miss your reply. You make a very good counter to what I said, but I have a few answers for you. ;)

The chief thrust of my argument should have been that debate in a written format is naturally less vulnerable to rhetoric (in the traditional sense) than confrontational argument in person. You are absolutely right that presuasive people can distort the truth by omissions, straw-man arguments and all the usual tricks. But the volume techniques of talking over them, interrupting, platform-hogging, threatening body-language, heckling, etc, are mitigated or annulled when debating in a near-essay style like us. Furthermore, much persuasive argument depends on the listener not being able to re-read and analyse what is said. If I slip a couple of body-blows that I couldn't justify into a larger argument against you, then conversationally, you can either try and nitpick (meaning you get hit by the big point) or let them slip through. Well, that still happens in a written format, but as I've said, it's mitigated.

I like your point about knowing the arguer being an important part of knowing whether to trust his or her arguments, but I think it is not a safe technique - we should relinquish our own judgement only as a last resort because those we trust can let us down. The Green Party in the UK had people join who were found to be members of the British Intelligence agency, as did CND. It is naive to think that there are not people out there smart enough to take this approach. There are also many people who, though genuinely sincere, I would rather not have on my side in an argument. The debate is what matters and where the source is important it should be referenced. In your example of the reports, I would expect both to be attributed to their sources before people were able to consider them as evidence.

Ultimately, the only way to reliably sway people to your argument, is to have a sufficiently educated and intelligent audience that they can see the rhetoric for what it is. This of course assumes that you are in fact right, but I think a conditon that favours this is a good thing. I believe this condition is enhanced on the Internet for the reasons above.

You have a valid point about people drowning others out - with sufficient motivation, a small group can sound large. But this is a problem with both modes of communication and in a written debate like this, they can at least not stop the other point of view from being put.

(Yes, I know I was taking that quote out of context.)

Damn right you were. ;) But on the Internet I can take the time to point it out without diminishing the main thrust of my argument. :D

Addendum: I've re-read my post and realized that it comes across as if I were taking your post as a direct argument to mine and I realize that it wasn't. I agree with what you say, and am merely making a supplementary point that the anonymity is not (I believe) the problem it might seem. Essay style debate on the Internet (not IRC ;) still has great advantages over face-to-face. But it's not an either or. Perhaps the best process would be. Internet debate, followed by live meeting, followed by post-meeting Internet debate, repeat until decision == true.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[packeteer]

If they are so stupid then why can't they arguement fall over on its own merit? I dont see a problem with being mistaken while you argue with a 10 year old about politics thinking the 10 year old is really just a dumb adult.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[mcrbids]

Your statement was blatently ageist and you should be rethinking it.

There's a certain, very clear truth to "ageism". Or, perhaps, you should be taking a good, hard look one of the biggest opponents to "ageism".

Sorry, but there's a reason why people aren't legally considered adults until their 18. There's a reason why there's a drinking age. There's a reason why a 21 year old can't be elected President of the U.S.

With time comes experience, and with experience, judgement.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Ryvar]

but the top states for servicemen were New Jersey, California and Texas.

Hello and well met! My name is Mr. Population Of A Given State As Defined By Percentage Of The Total US Population. What can I do for you today?

--Ryv

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[the gnat]

Sorry, but there's a reason why people aren't legally considered adults until their 18. There's a reason why there's a drinking age.

The fact that these aren't even the same in the USA should be proof enough that the distinctions we draw based on age are both arbitrary and unfair. Besides, the reason for the drinking age is that the states caved into (unconstitutional) pressure from a crusading, moralizing Transportation Secretary by the name of Liddy Dole. (Not one of the Reagan administration's greater legacies.)

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Harinezumi]

Why is it relevant how a particular law affects someone who advocates it? The only thing that should matter to you when you are discussing a particular law is how that law affects you and whether the law makes sense from your frame of reference.

I think it is safe to assume that those whom the law helps (or whom it doesn't harm) will advocate for it, and those whom it hurts will advocate against it, and that truth will come out of the discussion if the discussion stays rational for the duration.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[deanc]

Rather than taking our moral lessons from Steve Ballmer and the rest of the elitist business class, we should go to our local diners

Would these be the local diners that black people weren't allowed to eat in until relatively recently?

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[swimin]

Is arguing with a 17 necessarily a waste of time?

And does open-mindedness increase with age?

Both of these are rhetorical questions. The point being that the most people get less open-minded as they get older, and that its quite possible that a 12 year old could be one of the best possible debate partners while your supposed 40-year (guessing here) would be the worst.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[jschottm]

I cry for the moderation system.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[swimin]

Why is the 10 year old necessarily going to equate to a young adult. Sometimes a fresh view on the world, and asking the right "whys" (instead of mindlessly saying "its always been done that way") allows for much better debating. I hate when even anti-ageists, are also ageist

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[ignavus]

Babies are born knowing everything. Children still know just about everything. Adolescents know pretty much everything. People in their 20s know a surprising amount. People in their 30s still know a lot. People in their 40s. don't know much. And people in their 50s and 60s don't know anything.

From which I conclude: the less you know, the wiser you become.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[sumdumass]

A ten year old isn't able to uunderstand the result of thier actions. They are incapable of understanding that what seems right isn't always right or wouldn't negativly effect somethign else.

There might be a few ten year olds capable of discerning the result but in general they cannot. This has been ilistrated so many times that laws have been put in place to stop them form having to make these decisions. In most if not all places in the US, you have to be 18 or 19 to vote. About the same age to be living on your own. The same age to make the decision to smoke or use tobaco. 21 years of age to buy alcohol and consume alcohol.

The ability to make these decisions are simular to the ability to debate them. I'm sure you might get some resonable responces but it should be confused with thier ability.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[snorklewacker]

Yunno, at times I think of rural America about as kindly as Lars Von Trier (director of Dogville), but ... who would you blame for gutting these towns and turning them into the rustbelts? Many would point at the big gleaming steel towers, somewhere toward the top.

On the other hand, the first person to call me a "big city elite" can be dismissed as a dumb hayseed like all the rest. Usually more effective when the brushoff is verbal, as in "well I guess this snob here has nothing to learn from such a hick as you, so good day sir"

Nothing like shutdown of debate to resolve issues. Well, at least it resolves my stress.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[vyrus128]

The fact that you feel the need to post this suggests that you are concerned about your own ability to discern whether the person you are arguing with is a 10-year-old. Does that mean it is a waste of time for you to argue with them, or for them to argue with you?

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Jim_Callahan]

Preturbations in atmospheric density which cause stars to twinkle inspire poetry, and thus affect society. Should aerodynamics be included in your great amorphous lump with social, fiscal, and political policy? the lines are drawn where they are drawn for convenience of discussion. Tearing apart the fabric of language will not, i assure you, convince anyone (outside of slashdot moderators, of course, who are what I like to call "fish in a barrel"). I should know, I've tried it.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[geminidomino]

You offered a good point there, but the "guilt by association" link to NAMBLA makes it suspect.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[bsdrawkcab]

I disagree; back when I was a teenager, I was a font of wisdom. Now I'm puzzled by quite a lot. We should definitely discount the opinions of middle aged and older people.

Clever retort, but would you seriously argue that meritorious ideas are found solely among the aged? At some point you have to evaluate a position for its content and not its advocate. Why should the young be excluded from this process?

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[God! Awful 2]

Is arguing with a 17 necessarily a waste of time? And does open-mindedness increase with age? Both of these are rhetorical questions. The point being that the most people get less open-minded as they get older, and that its quite possible that a 12 year old could be one of the best possible debate partners while your supposed 40-year (guessing here) would be the worst.

Look... Arguing with *anyone* may very well turn out to be a waste of time. For any given individual, it depends on a lot of factors, and I certainly don't mean to imply that every 40 year old can hold an intelligent discussion. But statistically speaking, the chances of meeting a 10 year old with the life experience and critical thinking skills to have an intelligent discussion about something like politics is fairly insignificant.

-a

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[madmancarman]

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."

You're right, those are better generalizations. Thanks, kid!

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[God! Awful 2]

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

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[2short]

PJ is a smart and funny guy. But in that quote he's being a humorist at the expense of being a historian.

In short, the founders weren't religious fanatics. They were perhaps some of the least religious people of their time, and they certainly feared religious fanatacism. They tried hard to set up the government so as to keep religion out of it.

Religious fanatics do all sorts of nasty things, and they can't be reasoned with; fearing them is hardly a knee-jerk reaction.

And if you think it's unreasonable to fear religious fanatics when they have guns, you have not been paying attention.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[God! Awful 2]

If they are so stupid then why can't they arguement fall over on its own merit? I dont see a problem with being mistaken while you argue with a 10 year old about politics thinking the 10 year old is really just a dumb adult.

10 year olds aren't necessarily stupid... just immature.

I guess it's a question of what you think the point of debating with someone is in the first place. I guess it's either:

a) to win the argument
b) to learn something new
c) to solidify your own knowledge of something by explaining it to someone else

Well:

a) Winning an argument against a 10 year old is fairly unsatisfying. They lack sufficient critical thinking skills to accept a complicated argument on its own merits. If you do convince them, it is probably not via sound logic.

b) 10 year olds are unlikely to be able to teach me something interesting that I don't already know. If they do, then it is probably not through debate.

c) The topic areas where I would like to be able to clarify my opinion in my own mind, are far beyond the knowledge of a typical 10 year old.

-a

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[sadomikeyism]

... In the 50s, when blue-collar workers actually represented the things you described you might have had a point. But now all you have is middle-of-nowhere towns, built on industries that have long-since been shipped oversees. Leaving a vacuum filled with people who's only source of income is to send their kids into the military. ...

Do I detect one more blue state denizen of a major metropolitan area who knows something between jack and squat about the 'red state' america he so easily disparages in a way that would be considered racist if he were talking about a minority? You apparently don't know anything about what you are saying, and the venom and hate you exude in saying it evinces someone who is a prime candidate for a hate group or for committing hate crime (but so long as you hate white people, it is apparently legal). It takes a lot of hate to tell someone you've never met that the world would be better off without them, and a lot of ignorance, too.

Such hate seems to me to leave you on the verge of psychosis, dangerously, even. I would suggest a 12 step program to get over the fact that you lost the last two presidential elections and help you cope with the fact that your opinions are politically obsolete. Repeat after me:

"Amorphous, asexual, aracial non-supernatural power, give me the strength to change my hate of others into constructive focus on my own failings, to accept the opinions and weaknesses of others who are being the imperfect human beings we all are, and the wisdom to recognise when I am too emotionally vested in a political issue because of the manipulative propaganda of political parties and groups that tell me they are working in my interest."

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[sadomikeyism]

Contrary to claims, more degreed people voted for Bush than for Kerry. The only class of degreed people who voted for Kerry more than Bush were those with Masters degrees. Furthermore, most: business owners, military officers, and engineers voted for Bush (all successful, educated, and talented above average). You need to get over your urban superiority complex.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[JimBobJoe]

I should have added that those states were contributing servicemen to the army in proportions that exceeded that of their percentage of the US population.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yeah, to call it ageism is like accusing someone of discrimination when they won't let a 3 foot tall guy work as a bouncer at a night-club.

Kids can raise some interesting points but it's hard to see how someone can contribute to an adult political discussion if they simply don't have experience. That said, age of course is no guarantee of wisdom.

BTW. I clicked the link at work. I'd better explain my visiting a boy-love site to my boss before he asks.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[phlinn]

"You are a god damned Idiot. Allow me to prove this mathematically, if I may. Think of yourself ten years ago. Were you smart back then? No, you were a god damned idiot! Thing is, you're just as much of an idiot now, it's just going to take you another 10 years to realize it." Red Vs. Blue, PSA on tattoos. I may not have gotten the quote exactly right unfortunately, but I don't have time to play it back right now to check.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Alsee]

Wish to pay you the sincerest form of flattery. I hope to steal and echo many of your words and ideas. I have saved a copy of your post for further study.

In the arena of logic and reason I have repeatedly left gay marriage opponents speechless without a leg to stand on. The legislature is perfectly able to pass laws discriminating between adults and children, discriminating between cattle and humans, discriminating between one person and two people (or 42 people). The legislature simply cannot create a constitutionally valid law to discriminate on the basis of race or gender or religion. Leagally the text of any law attempting to ban gay marriage is no different than a law attempting to ban interracial marriage - it simply uses unconstitutional gender language rather than unconstitutional color language. I point out that no church is forced to preform any ceremony that it does not wish to preform. That this is about the law and legal definitions and not about religion. That a man and woman have always been able to obtain a *civil union* at city hall and that a civil union is legally a marriage.

But while cold logic may often win in the courts, it often fails to win hearts. Rather than merely a battle of 'liberal' and 'conservative' looking to defeat each other, we need more unifying and winning of hearts and values. We need passion and vision and conviction, we need to say this *is* a conservative American value. Striving for Liberty and Equality and Tolerance is the oldest and most fundamental American value. That our laws cannot be racially discriminatory, cannot be gender discriminatory, cannot be religion descriminatory.

The most powerful figure of the 1960's civil rights movement was Martin Luther King. His 'I have a Dream' speech was passion and vision and values. That is something we need more of. I see several elements from King's speech echoed in your post.

-

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Alsee]

a) Winning an argument against a 10 year old is fairly unsatisfying.

Perhaps, but if your information is accurate and your logic and reasoning is valid, then what more powerful way is there to affect an issue than to shape the development of our youth?

As for (b) and (c), your typical 10 year old is not going to engage in such a discussion in the first place. Any 10 year old who does so is by definition exceptional. If a child takes an interest in a subject the internet makes it quite easy for them to spend quite a bit of time reading a vast array of arguments on both sides of an issue. They may not have expernce, but they can certainly adsorb and synthisize information and arguments on a specific subject far exceeding the actual experience of a random adult on an arbitrary subject. An exceptional child with an exceptional viewpoint may just make an exceptional point.

Sometimes out of the mouth of babes come pearls of wisdom. Odd connections and innocence and honesty and challenging 'obvious' assumptions. No ulterior motives, no vested interest, no mental gymnastics pseudologic when people are simply set in their ways, no spin, no pro-Bush/antiBush or whatever. Kids have a habit of cutting through all the bullshit and asking the tough honest question that stabs at the heart of the matter. Sometimes the truth really is simple when you cut through the BS.

Even an exceptionaly wrong argument may just provoke an exceptional insight in you when explainign why it is wrong. You do not learn and gain insight by rehashing the same old arguments. You learn more from the exceptional (even the exceptional and wrong) than from the ordinary.

I for one would consider it a facinating opportunity if a 10 year old seriously took up an issue. Sure I'll lose interest quite quickly if they have nothing thought provoking to say, but that happens all too often with adults anyway. Chuckle.

-

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[notasheep]

Some nice points. However, the Internet doesn't solve the "volume, intimidation or mobs to drown us out" scenario. Slashdot itself is full of threads where logical, coherent posts are "drowned out" by the hundreds and hundreds of people firing off short-sighted, knee-jerk responses.

Add to that the fact that if you're discussing a state/regional-specific issue you'll likely have no idea if the chatter is coming from a special interest group located outside of the state/region or not.

It seems you believe Internet discussions happen in a moderated debate fashion - they don't.

The biggest drawback to the lack of face-to-face discussion is that anonymity gives people intellectual "beer muscles". Anonymity can play a role in our society (whistleblowing for one), but it shouldn't play a role in the discourse surrounding public policy.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[MrResistor]

Sorry, but 10 year olds rarely actually hold opinions, they just repeat whatever opinions their primary caregiver has expressed in their presence.

That's true of some 25 year olds, too, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and we chose 18. At least the 25 year old has had the opportunity to gain some life experience, and might be able to actually understand the opinions they profess.

I suggest you try a little experiment, and see if any of these uber-smart 10 year olds can actually defend any of their opinions. I strongly suspect you'll be disappointed.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[God! Awful 2]

Perhaps, but if your information is accurate and your logic and reasoning is valid, then what more powerful way is there to affect an issue than to shape the development of our youth?

Ahh... but isn't it much more rewarding to shape the development of your own child rather than some anonymous 10 year old on the internet?

I mean, if I could teach 100 kids with a single post then maybe... but doing it one by one is a long hard slog.

As for (b) and (c), your typical 10 year old is not going to engage in such a discussion in the first place. Any 10 year old who does so is by definition exceptional.

I tend to disagree. Not being qualified to enter an argument has never stopped anyone before. Just ask any troll.

I have noticed that kids go through a series of intellectual stages as they mature. As they learn new things, they often become 100% convinced of them. But the next year, they may be 100% convinced of something else. (It's a bit like that scene in the bar from Good Will Hunting.)

I doubt that your average amateur thinker really has a fully-fleshed out view of the world until their mid twenties.

They may not have expernce, but they can certainly adsorb and synthisize information and arguments on a specific subject far exceeding the actual experience of a random adult on an arbitrary subject. An exceptional child with an exceptional viewpoint may just make an exceptional point.

I really doubt that. Even if they do research something on the web, 10 year olds just don't have the necessary skills to think critically. If you tell them something new (be it right or wrong), they are just going to parrot it back to you later.

-a

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[vivian]

I have always wondered why it is in the US, that when you turn 18, you are old enough to be put on a front line and shoot someone, or get killed trying, yet you are not considered responsible enough to drink a beer. It always seemed grossly unjust to me.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[h4rm0ny]

First off, IANA10YO.

However, surely all of this is redundant. The original point was that an argument should stand on its own merit, not on your view of the one who makes it. If people are now arguing that ten year olds should be barred from the discussion because they can't make a strong argument then you've added a unnecessary extra layer. There are many reasons why someone might produce a weak argument and none of them would be without exception. So we should just come back to looking at an argument itself and saying, this makes sense or this does not.

And by the way, *cough*Ender's Game*cough* ;)

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Artifakt]

Your safe assumption isn't, and isn't true either. Your second "safe assumption" that you didn't bother to label an assumption is also false.

Why on earth do you think it is safe to assume that all the advocates for and against a position honestly hold those views for the same reasons they are stating, rather than other reasons? History shows that is a tremendously unsafe assumption to make.
The hidden assumption is shown in your remark about the discussion staying rational. There has never yet been a point in time whan a large group of people got together over a political issue and the discussion achieved total rationality, let alone had a chance of staying that way for the duration without at least occasional slips.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[sumdumass]

Actualy, 18 used to be the legal age in most states. They moved it just before i turned 17. There was all kinds of reports at how many acctident were not happening compared to before when it was at 18. Evedently alot of accidents (and other mishaps) happened because 18 years of age was still a little too early and the teens were not responcible enough.

I'm not too sure if that isn't the chicken and egg concept though. Teens are still going to drink but have added presure of not only getting themselve in trouble but whoever got them the alcohol. Alot of time they are supervised when drinking and someone puts a stop to stupid behavior before it gets too far out of hand. Sure some gets by and shit happens but there are several element introduced now that just weren't there when 18 was the legal age.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[God! Awful 2]

Of course an argument should stand on its own merit. I am merely observing a correlation that saves me from wasting some time.

-a

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[h4rm0ny]

Of course an argument should stand on its own merit. I am merely observing a correlation that saves me from wasting some time.

Well put, but given that we are discussing Internet debate then it is probably quicker to identify poor reasoning than it is to reliably determine a poster's age. Unless we are suggesting age-limited forums, in which case we might want to move this argument from the highly-hypothetical realms and consider what effort would be required by actually implementing this, and weigh it against the trial of tolerating the legions of political ten year olds. Yes, I've fallen to exageration to make my point, but really, if a ten year old feels motivated to post opinions on political matters (let alone more than once), then fine by me. I'll just read the posts and value them accordingly.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[God! Awful 2]

Well put, but given that we are discussing Internet debate then it is probably quicker to identify poor reasoning than it is to reliably determine a poster's age.

Hmmm... IIRC this whole thread arose because many antecedent posts ago, you said that the anonymity of the Internet is a blessing, not a curse.

Well, in some ways it is a blessing because I can come online and satisfy my occasional need to debate people without fear of repercussions.

But as for ensuring the quality of the debate, I find it is a curse. Sure, I guess I will notice after awhile if I am debating with a 10 year old. But it is still nice to have the insta-filter.

-a

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[h4rm0ny]

Hmmm... IIRC this whole thread arose because many antecedent posts ago, you said that the anonymity of the Internet is a blessing, not a curse.

Hmmm, I haven't checked, but I think I just highlighted the advantages of anonymity. There are risks, but I think on-balance anonimity is a blessing not a curse. Bearing in mind that it is voluntary anonymity, of course.

Well, if you want to avoid 10 year olds, I'm sure /. is the right place to do it. ;)

-H.

Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy

[Harinezumi]

Why exactly would I care what someone presenting an argument actually believes in? An argument should be evaluated on its own merits if one is to evaluate it rationally. A discussion, especially one of such grave importance as the discussion of law, should not be a contest between people, but a contest of ideas. It is precisely that tendency to put people ahead of ideas that makes rational debate degenerate into manipulative rhetoric and mindless sloganeering.

And no, that was not a hidden assumption, that was an indication of purpose. Too much of our current policy is made by charlatans and for idiots. I believe that the format of discussion should be manipulated in such a way as to minimize the impact of rhetoric, demagoguery, and other attempts at emotional manipulation. Policy should be implemented because it makes sense, not because of the personalities pushing it.

Why is this a question?

[ivoras]

whether corporations should get involved in social issues

No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.

Re:Why is this a question?

[AtariAmarok]

"No they should not"

Whether or not they do should be up to those involved, and those alone. A corporation is just an organization of persons, and shouldn't persons be able to choose what issues they get involved with?

Re:Why is this a question?

[Anonymous Coward]

"and by definitions have no interests except profits"

That makes them, by definition, sociopaths.

I don't know why, but somehow I find that a fitting description for most (bigger) buisinesses ....

Re:Why is this a question?

[base_chakra]

No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.

Yes, large corporations should maintain their present trend of social unaccountability.

Re:Why is this a question?

[Lord Kano]

Actually, corporations do have incentives to involve in social issues, as perception of integrity is important to company brands which consumers respond to.

Microsoft is so large, it no longer has to worry about public perceptions.

I suspect that they may be more concerned about employee morale.

LK

Re:Why is this a question?

[Dr Kool, PhD]

A corporation held by a single person can obviously do whatever it feels like. Microsoft is publicly held though, meaning thousands of people own stakes in the company (probably more like millions of people in this case). Every Microsoft shareholder is not going to agree with supporting a pro-gay bill like this. Now you can say "too bad, majority rule" but that brings up another issue -- in the prospectus issued by Microsoft to potential shareholders, I see nothing about the company being on a mission to support pro-gay legislation. Since supporting pro-gay legislation is an expense that does not lead to increased profits, shareholders could probably say they have been duped.

Re:Why is this a question?

[seanadams.com]

No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.

Do you know what "by definition" means? On slashdot it seems to mean "really" or "obviously". In reality it means "because the definition says so". I'll help you: here's the definition of "corporation".

A corp is just a legal construct - minimally just a few papers in a drawer somewhere. They can be put to whatever purpose their owners like. Microsoft is perfectly free to support gay rights legislation if that's what shareholders want.

Re:Why is this a question?

[AHumbleOpinion]

No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.

And individuals petitioning congress never have self-centered motivations and propose things beneficial to themselves but harmful to society overall? And none of these individuals have loads of money?

Re:Why is this a question?

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

By all accounts, corporations should focus solely on profits.

However, when they exist, they create social problems, while providing social benefits in the form of goods. Unemployment, pollution, deforestation as well as a host of others. There is no greater example of this than Wal-mart.

Thus, they, too, should help in alleviating the problems they help to create, whether ot not this affects their bottom line. Had businesses not meddled in social issues, the African-Americans might still be fighting for civil rights now.

Re:Why is this a question?

[JeffSh]

here here!

I agree completely. Corporations should not be involved in LEGISLATING social issues. Corporations CAN be involved so far as their HR, and employee relation practices allow them to be..

for instance, a corporation can help enact social change through supporting open employment practices (hiring gay folks), providing healthcare to gay families, or whatever other social issues a company may want to support themselves.

This is a much more effective way, because they can control it. A corporation getting involved in the legislation of social issues is bizarre, and personally I comment Microsoft for the bold statement that they've made.

They're actually having their lawyers back off of something. Most of the time, reactionary neophytes would be stunned by such a thing, but most slashdot readers will still find a way to villify Microsoft regardless of what they do.

Re:Why is this a question?

[AtariAmarok]

"Every Microsoft shareholder is not going to agree with supporting a pro-gay bill like this"

Then the shareholders deal with it through the usual means of controlling the direction of the corporation. It's all taken care of: provided enough of them are antigay.

"in the prospectus issued by Microsoft to potential shareholders, I see nothing about the company being on a mission to support pro-gay legislation"

You don't see every single little activity shown on the prospectus.

"Since supporting pro-gay legislation is an expense that does not lead to increased profits, shareholders could probably say they have been duped"

And then they can take action.

Re:Why is this a question?

[AtariAmarok]

"No. Each person in that organization has one vote when election time rolls around. Using a corporation to double your leverage (or have your point of view re-represented after you've had your say) is just flat out wrong."

What you are saying is that if a person is in both the Sierra Club and the ACLU, the Sierra Club can speak out on issues, but the second organization (the ACLU) cannot, because the Sierra Club already did.

Makes sense? Not at all.

Re:Why is this a question?

[Artifakt]

Here's one of the actual legal arguements for your assertion, as near as this non-lawyer can make out.
Corporations are fictitious persons under law. They are legally protected for always putting profits first, so long as they stay within the letter of the law. Real persons don't have that same legal protection (If they did, Martha Stwewart's past charitable acts wouldn't have been relevant testimony in court at her sentencing hearing - individual persons would have the right to always put profit first within the law without it possibly adversely affecting legal penalties down the road).
Ergo, if corporations have a human level right to address social issues, they lose the right to be regarded as upstanding entities while still placing profit first or the law has now made corporations a superior class of person to real persons.

Re:Why is this a question?

[heffrey]

I believe that in US law coporations have the same legal rights as individuals which seems pretty screwed up to me.

Re:Why is this a question?

[britneys 9th husband]

Sometimes a corporation can increase its profits by affecting social policy...

A gambling company convinces more states to legalize gambling.

A private prison company promotes getting "tough on crime."

Alcohol and cigarette companies might oppose marijuana legalization to limit the competition.

A gun company might support weakening the gun control laws.

Gay porn producers might promote tolerance of gay people.

Divorce lawyers might bash gays so they will be pressured into doomed marriages to opposite-sex spouses.

The National Association of Realtors promotes the "American value of homeownership."

Wine distributors convince Congress that the world will fall apart if wineries can ship their own wine across state lines.

Re:Why is this a question?

[John Seminal]

whether corporations should get involved in social issues

No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.

I agree a corporation is not a real person. They should have no voice on social issues. Now the CEO of the corporation should be allowed to say whatever he wants as a private citizen. But when a corporation takes the position of forcing legislation, it harms people.

Plus, when I buy windows, I don't want my money going to support a cause I oppose. It is one thing if Gates takes his money to support issues. It is another thing if he takes the companies money to support an issue.

Re:Why is this a question?

[Artifakt]

As per my response to the originating poster, how is making corporations legally superior as fictitious persons to real living persons a good thing? If I have the choice of the present trend or of declaring corporations to make up their own, superior tier of society, socially accountable only to other superior entities, but not to individuals, I'll take the present mess, thank you. Your arguement seems to sum up to "A little poisoning the environment is bad, so we should breed the poisoners into giant radioactive fire breathing lizards and turn them loose on Tokyo with an army of shield lawyers"

Re:Why is this a question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why do they have many of the same rights in the eyes of the law, with none of the responsibilities?

I do agree with you, but corporate personhood is the biggest pile of bullshit.

Re:Why is this a question?

[andreMA]

I agree completely. Corporations should not be involved in LEGISLATING social issues. Corporations CAN be involved so far as their HR, and employee relation practices allow them to be.

Wow. Lucidity. On Slashdot?

Re:Why is this a question?

[AtariAmarok]

"Then why do they have many of the same rights in the eyes of the law, with none of the responsibilities?"

Yet, they can't vote either. So much of the "protection" from personhood is as a shield from frivolous lawsuits. This is a major reason why so many small businesses decide to incorporate. Perhaps, get rid of the frivolous lawsuit problem?

Re:Why is this a question?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least those individuals are citizens. Corporations are not people (whatever the law says) and the way they behave is what would be called psychopathic in a person. Corporations do not and should not have "rights".

Re:Why is this a question?

[m50d]

No. But very few of them are entirely lacking any empathy at all for their fellow man, few of them would kill if it server their overall interests. Wheras corporations are, and would. Which is what makes them scary.

Re:Why is this a question?

[m50d]

That's because it's exactly true. Businesses are sociopaths. It's time we got rid of them.

Re:Why is this a question?

[ScentCone]

They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.

This is considered insightful?

Firstly, there are all sorts of non-profit corporations that conduct their entire operations around, and are chartered specifically because of "social" issues. Secondly, there's no reason in the world that a coporation can't expressly get started, and attract investment, under the banner of seeking growth and profit while supporting a particular set of values. For example, defense contractors are pretty clear that they consider supporting national defense to be a worthy engagement. Or an advertising agency may be incorporated, and even publicly held, while doing things like choosing not to advertise tobacco products or market fast cars to teenagers.

Those are value judgements, not made in a vacuum, and the landscape against which those decisions are weighed is called "society."

Your trolling repetition of the lefty notion that all businesses will take a profit no matter what, with no thought to any other factor, is either insulting to the intelligence of your audience here (though some twits did mod it up), or reflects serious gullibility and lack of information on your part.

There are no corporations without the people that operate them. These are people with their own money and careers at stake, investors with things to lose, and employees with jobs at stake. No people, no corporation. No corporation, no employment of those people or worthwhile investment for grandma's 401k mutual funds, either. But those corporately chartered groups of investors and their employees can and do conduct their affairs with the whole spectrum of motivations, and societal viewpoints. Just like there are plenty of individuals who are abusive idiots (say campus-newspaper-stealing "free speech activists"), and who think that their own actions are appropriate, never mind what "society" says. There are idiots that wait tables, and idiots that sit on corporate boards. That doesn't mean that forming a corporation in any way dictates what the dozen people on a board of directors will do about steering the company's ethics.

A corporation is a legal and accounting tool, just like a will, a marriage license, a trust fund, or the charter of a student grant program. They are as they do, and you can't make sweeping general statements about what they are "by definitions," as you put it, any more than you can about what all marriages are, or all grants. Corporations are made of up people, as is society. That makes them a subset of society, and intimately bound to it.

+5 insightful. Yeesh, we have a long way to go, here, don't we.

Re:Why is this a question?

[Artifakt]

You posted the link, so I'll work with it:

1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Corporations have a separate right. In particular The ones that are incorporated for profit can persue maximizing their profits by any means that is within the letter of the law, and it is not later held against them in court if they (or one of their agencies) break(s) a law.
You as an individual don't have that right. If you break the law, your past conduct with regard to social involvement is relevant to your sentencing. A history of charitable actions can mitigate your sentence, and demonstrating that you were historically focused only on profit can aggrievate your sentence, as well as taking away some of your legal defenses during your trial (i.e. greed can itself be offered as a motive to explain why you might have done the dirty deed).
Corporations are supposed to have liabilities that offset their extra rights. Not being able to support any legislation irrelevant to their bottom line is one of those balancing liabilities for a for profit corporation.

With that said, your definition is really irrelevant (although in this case, that first clause is a pretty accurate summation of much of the law). The court's definition of what corporation means, as actually written in lawbook and precident, is the only one that really matters, and in particular, the court's definition including the modifying term 'for profit' and not just of one word taken out of that context.
The poster you were responding to was correct - for Microsoft, based on the articles of incorporation they chose to use, they are a for profit corporation, with both an actual duty to persue a profit and special liabilities if they go outside of that persuit.
That makes your last two sentences utterly false. If the shareholders want to support any legislation they are free to sell some Microsoft stock and set up a non-profit corporation to lobby for their cause, but no, they are not free to turn Microsoft towards a non-profit cause and still expect it to enjoy its normal legal protections as a for profit.

Re:Why is this a question?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are blinded by your support of the bill. Would you be saying the same things if Microsoft were supporting a gay marriage ban in Washington? I think not.

The fact of the matter is that many Slashdotters are already upset that Microsoft is effectively dictating operating system choice; those that work in business basically have to stick with Windows in all but the most interesting jobs. Do you really want Microsoft [shareholders] to have such power in dictating social legislation as well? Do you really want Microsoft [shareholders] paying big bucks to help decide the devisive social issues of the day? I certainly don't.

The heart of the matter is that I don't trust Microsoft to choose the "correct stance" -- I trust the democratic process.

Re:Why is this a question?

[kurzweilfreak]

Perhaps if they weren't, maybe then those seats would be filled with people that actually gave a flying fuck about this country rather greedy assholes.

Re:Why is this a question?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Corporations do not and should not have "rights".

If they are taxed they have rights.

Re:Why is this a question?

[MerlinTheWizard]

No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.

They are not persons, but they are led and managed by persons. Now if you take your argument and change "corporations" to "corporation managers", there you are: they are persons, and your argument is naught. Should managers get involved in social issues? They *are* real persons (well, we should hope most of them are. ;-) ).

Re:Why is this a question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those same value judgments might be more rightly labeled as ethics. A government, built for the people, must be careful about its collective ethical policies because a significant group may disagree about the moral conclusions it draws. In America, we happen to value freedom of religion, whereas other countries might think that such a freedom is detrimental to the people. Similarly, a corporation's ethical policies (especially if it is publicly-held) should be careful about its own moral conclusions. As you pointed out, the corporations are formed out of people (just as the government is formed out of people). The corporation's purpose is to serve the interests of its constituent members. I don't think the point of joining a corporation is to serve some great ideal, but to obtain money for its members (for whatever purpose the members see fit), including socially-driven corporations. The real difference between the corporation and the government is that a corporation has voluntary membership (at least) or invitation-only membership (at most) -- the corporation can pick people who conform to its ideals. The government must accept people irrespective of their ideals and then attempt to initiate them into its ethical outlook. A corporation is therefore a bit more dangerous than a government, since it includes like-minded people (with similar ethical systems) and thus needs that reference definition. Without it, the corporation is really just the collection of many like-minded individuals working to establish their ethical values as most important (forget about the relativism ... check out the new relativists of the 20th century, especially with respect to non-methodological relativism). And that's not really a corporation at all (no matter if it is called a corporation) ... its a social movement, like Democracy and Nazism.

Re:Why is this a question?

[Infernal Device]

individual persons would have the right to always put profit first within the law We already have that right. One does not have to consider the social costs when making a decision if one does not wish to. without it possibly adversely affecting legal penalties down the road If one is within the law, then those legal issues do not arise; at least not in a prosecutable sense (one can still get sued for all kinds of stuff). Codes of ethics are not legally binding outside of a given industry, unless one has signed a contract to follow them.

Re:Why is this a question?

[myowntrueself]

And so corporations should not be enslaved -- owned by other people.

The emancipation of the corporation!

Freedom for the corporation!

Do not deprive a person of life, liberty or property! *Liberty* gentlemen, *Liberty* means not being 'owned' by shareholders or a board of directors!

Take it to its logical conclusion or don't take it at all.

Re:Why is this a question?

[Raindance]

To be brief, I think your rebuttal doesn't take into account corporations' fiduciary obligation to their shareholders.

Yes, to be precise, corporations have a legal obligation to carry out their shareholders' wishes. Most people tend to invest to gain money and prioritize that above most anything else-- this has created somewhat of an unfortunate legal and cultural precedent that they shall prioritize shareholder returns above all else. Or, in other words, that corporations, discounting statistically irrelevant minorities, shall "have no [significant] interests except profits."

So that's the argument by precedent why the grandparent is right. There's also the argument by experience-- look around you. Are you living in a world where corporations on the whole tend to value social responsibility above profit-taking?

No? I didn't think so.

Re:Why is this a question?

[Urbansquid]

Firstly, I feel the need to challenge your linear view of the political spectrum. Accusing the poster of leftist ideals for what is an obvious fact is curious.

The corporation was, at first, a gift from the people, chartered to do something specific, (build a bridge, provide water, etc), and then disassembled. The 14th amendment and consecutive judicial decisions granted the rights of human beings to the corporation while stripping them away from African Americans. Through a series of legal decisions corporations have since been required to place profits above all competing interests. (And yes, if the fine is smaller than the potential profit, history has taught us that the corporation will break the rules and take the hit for short term gain.)

The fact that the corporation is comprised of many people is another obvious truth but by dismissing the top down control system in place, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the elite within the boardroom steer the behemoth, not the employees. Those in charge have a very narrow mandate (profit), all of this talk of corporate values seems to be pulling us away from the reality that the board is concerned with profits first and everything else as a distant second. (No money, no people, no corporation.)

I wish I had your optimism as to the corporate form, but I choose to remain extremely wary about man made machine that would maximize profits while ignoring as many externalizations as possible. I don't know that large scale socialist institutions are required to control them, but I do see the corporation for what it is. Not designed for the betterment of the average citizen, but rather to maximize profit for a very narrow spectrum of interests.

Re:Why is this a question?

[ScentCone]

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I'm not disputing (or even really talking about) the corp's obligation to its investors. Rather, my point (taking into context the overall thread, and the GP in particular) was that there's nothing at all stopping a corporation from explicitly telling its investors that part of its management (or sales, or manufacturing, etc) strategy is to keep in mind Social Issue X. That, and rewarding the investors, are not mutually exclusive. And, the post to which I originally responded implied, I think, that there can't be a sense of any purpose, beyond profits, in a corporation. I don't find that to be true, certainly not enough to account for the tone of the comment in question.

Are you living in a world where corporations on the whole tend to value social responsibility above profit-taking?

Ah, the old canard of "social responsibility." I find that actually to be a bit of a platitude, really, in how it's used. Because that means whatever anyone wants it to mean, and never (especially in the context of a semi-debate, such as on slashdot) what your audience thinks it means. For some people that means only setting up offices in cities with laws on the books mandating multilingual street signs. For other people it means only setting up offices in states with serious stances on illegal immigrants. Social? In what circles? Responsible? To what people, with which set of values?

Re:Why is this a question?

[Raindance]

I agree with you that there can be- and are- corporations who have have a sense of purpose beyond merely turning a profit. And that a sense of purpose other than profit, and turning a profit, are not mutually exclusive.

I also see where you're coming from that some folks often use the concept of "social responsibility" in a rather vague and self-serving way.

A couple followup points:
I do think there is a culture of maximizing profits and downplaying social activities and social responsibilities in corporations (witness microsoft pulling out of sponsoring this bill essentially in order to become more consistent with corporate tradition). One person's "social responsibility" is another's "spending my money for something I don't believe in." Management often assumes that turning a profit is always a safe bet to keep your shareholders happy- thus, many corporations take it to an extreme.

So, though corporations may have noble purposes, the deck is often stacked against following through on them where it'd impact profits- or even take the focus away from profits.

Secondly, though the concept of "social responsibility" is indeed vague and is often used self-servingly, I don't think that means we should stop using it unless we've a good replacement concept. If we stop talking about corporate social responsibility because it's hard to define, there'll be no debate on corporate social responsibility.

And finally, I think it'd be dangerous for a number of reasons to not have an intense, ongoing debate about corporate social responsibility.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Re:Why is this a question?

[ewe2]

Parent was incorrect in the first part, public corporations ARE already involved in social policy; they have a vested interest in fact because it impacts their number one priority: profits. If you cannot organize large numbers of people to the greatest efficiency your profit suffers, any HR person learnt that on day one. That is true social engineering despite your self-serving explanations.

This is not to say that smaller-scale NFP corps. are the same, your hysterical equivalence notwithstanding. Your righty blather that somehow public corporations are socially unique structures dependent on the people running them is as simplistic as your claims that they do not value profit above all else. It is the cornerstone of their charter, they do not exist for any other reason.

Put simply, if the corporate "tool" wasn't overwhelmingly in favour of the social "elites", it would have not been so widely deployed by same. At least the Victorians were honest about using their corporate power to control society, this society lies to itself so successfully it believes its own press. Psychopathic indeed.

Re:Why is this a question?

[arkanes]

Don't forget that it's a shield against not-so-frivolous lawsuits, too, as well as a widespread social acceptance of immoral or even sociopathic behavior. The freedom we grant to the almighty corporation, both legally and socially, are ridiculous. "Corporations" don't make decisions, people do - holding people responsible for decisions is important and doing it might help curb some of the more extreme abuses we see.

Re:Why is this a question?

[tdaxp]

Not that so-called Corporate Social Responsibility is much better. -Dan

Heh

[Concern]

"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.

Re:Heh

[rpdillon]

Right, because *government* doesn't have any influence on social issues... =)

Re:Heh

[ahziem]

Don't forget bloggers and the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, who is taking back Microsoft's award from 2001.

Re:Heh

[extra the woos]

Fucking-A man... That is the *most insightful thing I have read all week*. Shit.. sad but true.

Re:Heh

[MisterLawyer]

"They may as well. They're the only ones with any influence other than organized religions"

There are many political figures and organizations at least trying to have an influence on this issue. I wouldn't necessarily say that any of these entities have significant political power unto themselves (except the Republican party, I guess), but that taken as a whole, they may persuade some politicians up on Capitol Hill to reconsider their position. E.g.:

National Organization of Women's petition.

Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy's petition.

Cheney's position regarding the senate filibuster.

And, finally, the Republican party's plans for ending the filibuster.

Re:Heh

[AtariAmarok]

I don't mind the end to the fillibuster one bit. It is an aberration and abuse of Congressional parliamentary procedure. Regardless if which party is "on the outs". I grew to dislike it during the pre-Reagan days of Democrat majorities.

Re:Heh

[ramblin billy]

Don't forget talk radio.

And the insidious effect of video games on The Youth.

billy - oh what has happened to The Youth?

Re:Heh

[SA Stevens]

I think you're forgetting all the money that the Trade Union Bosses siphon from their members' paychecks and then shuttle off to political campaigns.

low resources

[Sean Clifford]

the anti-discrimination bill was one of the bills that they didn't have the resources to follow

So it's not just my PC that lacks resources.

Re:low resources

[SpaceLifeForm]

Now all that is needed is a way to make sure bills and corps can also BSOD if they are buggy.

Diversity often is discrimination

[AtariAmarok]

Too often, "diversity" is a buzzword for "We practice racism". It would be far better to value excellence, and never use skin color as a criterion. In order to have diversity, you by necessity have to bar people of certain skin colors from jobs, or else you might not get the "rainbow effect" you want. This is how "diversity" becomes another form of punishing applicants for being of the wrong skin color. Choose the best regardless of race.

Now, on to another topic, Ballmer mentions "soul searching" in his letter. Let's take bets on how long until he finds it.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[Dominatus]

RTFA

The bill is about giving gays the same rights as anyone else in the work place. Nothing about race, nothing about quotas or affirmative action.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[NDPTAL85]

You are missing the forest for the trees. If the best applicants for a certain company were all of one race then you'd think they got the best folks right? Wrong. They would have no cultural experience to draw upon when dealing with customers. The best person does not always have to be hired in every case, especially when the wider company or society would suffer because of it. Nowadays people are smart enough to look at the "big picture".

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[JenovaSynthesis]

Actually, you're thinking of "Affirmative Action". "We value diversity" is the phrase used when someone gets nailed by HR for using words like "nigger", "faggot", "cunt", etc. or similar situations.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[Carthag]

Don't gays have the same rights already (aside from marriage, but that's not the work place)? Honest question.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[murgee]

Well, then they wouldn't be the best applicants then, would they? Technically they may be but there's more to many positions in a company than just technical knowledge of systems and procedures.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[Dominatus]

This bill would make it illegal to discriminate against gays because they are gay, similar to how it is illegal to discriminate against women and minorities for that fact. This is state legislation in Washington (the state). I'm not sure on the status of other states and gay rights though.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[wk633]

You can't fire someone because they are black, female, or Christian. You can, in many places, fire them for being gay.

The worst people should be fired, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[ggvaidya]

Choose the best regardless of race.

We'd all love to do that, but how would you actually enforce this? Take a racist community, and the companies will choose whites/blacks/browns/pinks because "they were the best".

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[Qzukk]

aside from marriage, but that's not the work place

Actually not really. A good number of (well... lets not call them rights, since this IS the workplace.) employee benefits are tied to marriage. For instance, investment/retirement plans that can't name a "significant other" as beneficiary in case of the employee's death. Same with health insurance.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[YU Nicks NE Way]

No, they do not -- and marriage is very much a workplace issue.

First, Washington is an employment-at-will state, in which an employment contract can be terminated for almost any reason. People are regularly fired for being gay. HB 1515 would have made that illegal by adding sexual orientation to the list of reasons which are not valid.

Secaond, and more importantly, you should also understand the tax benefits of being married. My wife and children get access to the extraordinarily good benefits my employer provides to all employees. My gay colleagues' domestic partners get access to their benefits, too. The difference, though, is that I don't pay taxes for those benefits, which saves me tousands of dollars a year. My gay colleagues are required to pay taxes on the benefits which accrue to their domastic partners. Antidiscrimination law has a world to do with the workplace.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[h4rm0ny]

This bill would make it illegal to discriminate against gays because they are gay, similar to how it is illegal to discriminate against women and minorities for that fact.

Are you kidding me? I've read half way through the comments here and it was only when I read yours that it actually sank in. Are you saying it's legal to discriminate against people for their sexual orientation over there? For example, could an employer say "We're firing you because you're gay" ? That's Dark Ages stuff.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[Carthag]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm from Denmark where gay marriage is legal and it's illegal to fire people because of sexuality (among other things), so I didn't know these things.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

Yes.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[Guppy06]

"The worst people should be fired, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation."

Unless they're card-carrying union members.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[Dimensio]

Actually, the exact wording of most (if not all) bills like the recently failed one provides protection based upon sexual orientation. That means that a person could also not be fired for being (or being perceived as being) heterosexual, not just homosexual.

Anti-gay groups won't acknowledge that, though, because that fact completely destroys their lie that such bills are about providing "special rights".

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[Lord Kano]

You can, in many places, fire them for being gay.

You can be fired for your political affiliation.

LK

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[xjerky]

You see, affirmative action is just that, it is a deliberate action taken to correct a discrepancy.

Fighting racism with racism. Whatta concept!

First, realize that poor and uneducated parents are more likely to have poor and uneducated kids (there are prominent exceptions). They can't afford to live near the good schools. They can't afford to send their kids to college. The kids are likely to have to work after school instead of studying. The parents aren't able to help their kids with their homework. The parents might not be able to "parent" much at all, since they are working long hours at low-paying jobs. All that makes it harder for the kids to get a good education, harder to get a good job, and they end up poor and uneducated such that the cycle continues.

Y'know - nobody forced them to bear children. If they did not want their kids to grow up in such an unfair situation, they should not have had them in the first place. Don't make people who deserve a job have to lose out because someone else selfishly chose to have children in a situation where they could not succeed without applying racism. (And it is also awfully condescending to say that Blacks can't succeed without the helping hand of Whitey).

Now, the people in power (for America, the whites) have historically done a lot to keep the competition poor and uneducated. Slavery, segregation and racist practices all made it very hard for a black man to get a good education and a good job and a good home.

Agreed - but those days are over. Applying racism against Whites only harbors resentment against Blacks, even those that truly deserve to succeed.

So, affirmative action does two things. One, it fights quiet racism by not allowing universities and business owners to just decide that all the best candidates happen to be their selected race. It also does give a leg up to less-qualified candidates, who might be less-qualified only because they weren't afforded the same opportunities that people from the right side of town were.

Only because they were Black, you mean. Otherwise, a poor White kid should have the same "leg up" as a Black kid. But Affirmative Action doesn't work that way, does it?

The system is also only supposed to be temporary, to be removed when everyone is pretty much equal to start with, but I'd hate to be the congressman who suggests that it is time to do so.

Heh - even you admit that it's political suicide to propose ending Affirmative Action. Bush got a load of crap for suggesting it. The problem is that there will ALWAYS be the "haves" and "have nots", no matter how much legislation is applied to artifically rectify the situation. So basically Affirmative Action will never end if that's the barometer.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[asoko]

I agree.

However, it seems to me that the ultimate solution would be to allow any company to fire anyone for being themselves. You want to fire that guy because he's gay? Fine. You want to fire that Christian woman because she's Christian and a woman? Fine.

Companies with racist practices will end up losing some good people, and those people will be hired gladly by other companies who simply want good quality people. Racism ends up shooting itself in the foot. If you've got qualifications, there are plenty of companies out there that will hire you.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[wk633]

Personally, I see gay rights like emancipation and sufferage. It will happen, but it's a long way off.

As for firing Christians- we are nowhere near that situation. And never will be. When someone says "we don't want the ten commandments on the courtroom wall" they are also saying "we don't want the bhagavad gita on the courtroom wall". Something like 80-90% of this nation believe in a higher being. Many of us are just afraid of having a specific higher being (or any higher being) rammed down our throats.

If you have a 90% power position, going down to 80% feels pretty scary, but it's not the end of the world.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[wk633]

When did you make the personal choice to be straight?

You see, I feel left out. I never got that choice. I was born straight, and have never felt the slightest inclination to have sex with a man.

So what I'm wondering is- if I never had the choice- and I'm guessing you never had the choice- why are some people different in that they seem to have this 'choice'?

Can we not discriminate against people who are faced with the choice of which gender they will desire sexually?

Since women have 'most' of the same rights as men, can we go back to restricting them from going to medical school? Running for office? I mean, we're not forcing them to work more hours than normal, after all.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[Jim_Callahan]

No. You're pretty much forbidden from firing people for things unrelated to their work performance. All this bill will do is discriminate against non-homosexuals by giving them a legal bludgeon to blackmail employers with: "What? you've never done a day of work in your life and you spend all day playing solitaire instead of typing reports like you're supposed to? And your employer fired you? Must be 'cause you're gay! Sue Sue Sue!"


In conclusion, I'm sick of all this nonsense. Screw this racism/sexism nonsense, let's start discriminating against opportunistic political activists! See you guys, I'm off to label all the water fountains "politically apathetic only".

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[wk633]

I don't have time to continue this debate in detail, so I'm going to be terse.

I'm happy your brother is happy. A lot of teenagers commit suicide from guilt over being told their 'inclinations' are a sin. Child molesters and rapists hurt other people. Gay people (ignoring other traits not related to being gay) do not.

Sodom and Ghomorrah: you need to read the entire section again. Pay careful attention to the part where Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the rioting crowd. In OT thinking, that seems to be an OK alterntative.

Keep in mind that "homosexuality = sin" is your view based on religion. Nobody else is required to hold your view. Pedophilia and Murder are illegal for good reason- they hurt other people. Comparing them to homosexuality is a red herring.

A lot of people do a lot of things that would send them to hell based on OT teaching. I'd be willing to bet you do some things that Leviticus forbids.

Lastly, in societies where homosexuality has been punishable by death, it hasn't gone away. Some 'choice'.

Re:Diversity often is discrimination

[jtpalinmajere]

I admit that there are people out there who would present the message of "homosexuality = sin" in such a way that would drive many to depression and/or suicide. It is a sad, sad fact. For instance, I would never say that 'inclinations' to do a sinful act are sinful in themselves, except in a few instances where a mindset IS the particular sin (think lusting after another woman ... "... you have already commited adultery in your heart...").

No, it is my firm belief that 'inclinations' are not only not sinful, but so commonplace that were someone to claim they were sinful would condemn the entire human race in one fell swoop. Sadly, the existence of such tragedies based upon flawed teaching methods will continue for ages, but it doesn't change the heart of the message presented in the Bible for everyone to read and interpret for themselves.

Now, who said that what Lot did was right? There are many passages in scripture where Lot's credibility of being faithful is questioned. The Lot example served as a reference in the sense of "Lot's horrible actions barely touched the the tip of iceburg of the things going on there", and also showed the existence of the rampant homosexuality as they refused the women demanding the two men. The OT thinking that you refer to is the inherently flawed thinking of 'man', not God, but still served well as an object lesson useful for God's instruction of mankind.

Also, my non-adherence to levitican law is a non-issue as it was laid out by the priesthood (ie. government) to govern the Jewish people. While God allowed the system to be in place it does not mean he issued levitican law or put his stamp of approval on it even. His was only to the extent of the 10 commandments I believe. However, this does not change the incident of Sodom and Ghomorrah where God himself did the punishing rather than a priestly government that 'thought' they were doing God's bidding.

The Levitican law is essentially the reason that the New Testament is important to Christians as it abolishes many of the 'unnecessary' and 'outdated' laws in favor of a forgiveness based salvation structure rather than a merit based salvation structure.

Now, my mention of my belief that "homosexuality = sin" was strictly for the presentation of the argument that participation in homosexual acts is something you choose to do, inclination or no. I believe I also said that nobody is bound to share my belief, though I'll always share my beliefs to present the opportunity for someone else who might otherwise disagree to change his/her mind.

As to homosexuality not hurting anyone, perhaps not directly. However, it would not surprise me if there were social problems that arose from a child that was brought up with homosexual parents. Not specifically their attitued towards homosexuality or heterosexuality, but there are any number of possibilities that could go wrong for the kid in a social or psychological sense. Being that heterosexuality is the defacto standard for human sexuality and reproduction, it would not surprise me than an alteration in the formula might produce unseen characteristics. So while it does not directly hurt the participants of homosexuality, it has yet to be seen if homosexuality could actually hurt other people indirectly.

To your last comment: Some things are worth dying for. To many, death is hardly a punishment compared to a lifetime of torture, agony, and persecution. I believe I mentioned that I don't agree with aggregious punishment of homosexual individuals, but I cannot deny that it does not exist in other places. It would not surprise me though that in these places there are those who feel so strongly about their sexual preference as to choose to act upon it regardless of the harsh consequences ensured. I know you don't like me comparing homosexuality to murder, but those who murder (do not read involunary manslaughter or the like) choose to do so for whatever reason even though they realize that the death penalty is possible should they ever get caught.

The Rich Opinion

[bhive01]

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.

Re:The Rich Opinion

[NDPTAL85]

You may be able to think on your own but most people cannot. They need some larger organization to do it for them whether its their Church, Company or (insert your favorite organization here). So yes absolutely corporations ought to be involved in social policy. They do the thinking for millions of people in this country and around the world.

Re:The Rich Opinion

[JeffSh]

No, corporations ought not to be involved.

There are organizations of like minded individuals to support such causes, which are not corporations. for instance...

EFF, AARP, NRA, etc.

these are priviate non profit organizations that band together to give their members a voice.

corporations are NOT the appropriate heavy to move social issues. IMO, Microsoft, or any large company, can do two things to advance whatever agenda they have socially:

-)Employ a corporate ethos in HR and employment practices that encourages the social impact they want to have

-)donate heavily to NON PROFIT organizations that support the type of social impact they want to have.

Re:The Rich Opinion

[hey]

But he's only saying that to get out of this situation. It just happens to suit him fine to say it now. You can bet when they unveiled the anti childporn system that they weren't saying "neutral" things then. Totally self-serving.

Re:The Rich Opinion

[tnak]

The fact is that it's not the "rich SOBs" that you're tired of, it's only the "rich SOBs" with opinions that differ from your own. Otherwise you'd be complaining about the rich SOB televangelists and the rich SOBs like Delay and Bush "pushing their agendas on everyone else because they've got the money."

Re:The Rich Opinion

[Money for Nothin']

Yours is the most paternalistic, "father knows best" bullshit post I've read in a long time.

Who decides who knows best? You? Steve Ballmer? President Bush?

Give me a break. The public, for all its stupidities and flaws and elections of people like Bush & Co., do a better job of understanding the world than you give it credit for, and it is partly for that reason that the U.S. has been such a stable and powerful nation over its 229 year history.

Re:The Rich Opinion

[DanAnderson26]

Yea, except you missed the whole point...

We expect our politicians to have political agendas as well as social agendas. (and really one group is as bad as the other, Democrats just bitch more when they are out of power)

We expect our companies to focus on making money and our actors to focus on entertaining. (recently, both have failed us)

If Ballmer wanted to get into the political scene he could get himself elected, same as Soros, M. Moore, or Ted Turner.

Misusing corporate funds to push social or unrelated political reform is inappropriate no matter who does it.

Dan

Link to older slashdot story

[Ian Peon]

here.

Quite a nice lively discussion. I've gone back over it a few times now.

Re:Link to older slashdot story

[foobsr]

Quite a nice lively discussion.

For a (perhaps small) segment of participants you could also have written "quote" :)

CC.

Re:mmm flames...

[bhive01]

Are these "hats" going to have pink triangles?

Though shalt have no other Godwin before me

[AtariAmarok]

"Even Hitler came to power using dubious but legal means" Tell me, if someone mentions Hitler in a forest, but no-one hears it, does it violate Godwin's Law?

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?".

Re:Though shalt have no other Godwin before me

[Have Blue]

Tell me, if someone mentions Hitler in a forest, but no-one hears it, does it violate Godwin's Law?

No, but he still loses the argument (I don't know who *to*... maybe the trees?)

Re:Though shalt have no other Godwin before me

[Lord Kano]

Do you mean Rube Goldberg ?

LK

Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues like

[Dr Kool, PhD]

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.

Which legistations?

[ahziem]

>He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations Which legislations are they focusing on instead?

Re:Which legistations?

[nonicenamesleft]

He explains that Microsoft wanted to focus on fewer legislations Which legislations are they focusing on instead?

RTFA. From the story: "we decided to focus on a limited number of issues that are more directly related to our business such as computer privacy, education, and competitiveness."

Re:Which legistations?

[ahziem]

That's pretty vague. Are they against privacy, education, and competitiveness? Which specific legislation are they supporting? What specific social legislation did they support before?

Re:Which legistations?

[DickBreath]

Maybe they want to save their political points for legislation that really matters to Microsoft. Legislation for when the company is desperate, that is when you want to start calling in your political favors.

I'm sure they can't just ask outright to make Open Source illegal.

So instead...

• All programmers should carry liability insurance?
• All software should require some kind of "approval" (or regulation) for Quality and Safety. After all, we all know that Latehorn will have the Quality, Safety, Stability and Security that we've come to expect from the Microsoft brand name. (read that however you want)
• All software developers should pay some very tiny tax for every copy of anything they distribute
• Every copy of software that is distributed should be required to pay some tiny Patent insurance premium.
• ...or any other ideas that would effectively kill open source.

Re:Which legistations?

[Stonehand]

Congress has a lot of sway over issues that could potentially affect Microsoft's profitability.

For instance, if Congress got all worked up and zealously legislated all sorts of privacy legislation regarding tracking cookies and data sharing, it might influence what Microsoft or its competitors do or would do.

Likewise, they're probably interested in future employees (or candidates, really) having decent education, at least when it comes to mathematics and problem-solving -- they're an information-based, technological company and it's better for Microsoft to be able to choose from a pool of technologically skilled people rather than having to perform massive on-the-job training.

Touch employment-related visas, or how a company can treat long-term contract workers, and likewise it'll affect what Microsoft and the rest of the industry can do.

Or if Congress decided to legislate on how current search engines sell ads based on other entity's trademarks... obviously, as this would have a huge potential impact on the search-engine business in which Microsoft has some interest, you'd expect them to try to have their say.

They weren't always busy in Washington, but if the Federal government legislates in ways that would affect them it only makes sense for them to try to have their say. It's not really affecting Microsoft much, however, whether other companies can discriminate against homosexuals. Hence, unless its shareholders specifically push for this through introducing and approving resolutions, they really have little reason to lobby on this issue.

But does it run Linux?

[AtariAmarok]

"I can smell the flames coming... "Microsoft hats minorities!""

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.

corporations and social issues

[Triumph The Insult C]

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?

Re:corporations and social issues

[DickBreath]

Or maybe he means social issues like...

• the fact that there are these outrageous (short) limits on the life of a copyright (life + 90 years)
• whether software should be patentable
• for the greater social good, maybe there should only be one true system software standard
• whether this so called "free" and "Free" software should be allowed to harm the software development economy, and Microsoft's revenue, and thus destroy the entire global economy! Oh my God, we can't allow this Free software! Think of the developers!
• that this free downloading and trading of "Free" software goes unmonitored and unregulated.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

Corporations not getting involved?

[All_Star25]

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)

Re:Corporations not getting involved?

[JeffSh]

Google is going about it completely differently than Microsoft is/has.

They are doing it the right way.

Google is not sponsoring teams of lawyers or announcing its support for any particular legislation, lawmaker, or government.

What they are doing is keeping a good corporate ethos, making sure that that ethos pervades everything they do and implementing that in their hiring practices and how they treat employees.

None of their actions DIRECTLY affect any sort of legislation... This is the ideal, because they affect social change without ever having to look like the bad guy.

it's genius, really.

I hope you do see the difference between these two corporations and how they are each attempting to affect social change in their own way, and which one is going about it much better.

Re:Corporations not getting involved?

[X]

Yeah, but when Microsoft does it, it must by definition be evil. If Google does it, it must by definition be good. You can't fool us with your rationality. This is slashdot!

Re:Corporations not getting involved?

[slashkitty]

A google news has already been accused of being biased (including far left wing news sites, but not include far right wing news sites). If they get wrapped up in contraversial social issues, they are bound to loose some of their audience and stock holders. I would much rather have a company that was neutral on most issues.

Re:Corporations not getting involved?

[TheSpoom]

I would much rather have a company that stood for what was right in my eyes than one that tried to please everyone all the time.

Re:Corporations not getting involved?

[slashkitty]

The question is, which would you rather have:

A company that doesn't support any social issues

or

A company that actively goes against issues you believe in?

The point is that any company openly supporting certain issues will alienate /some/ of it's cusomters.

AARP! (excuse me)

[AtariAmarok]

"They may as well. They're the only ones with any influence other than organized religions"

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)!

It's politics.

[lheal]

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.

Re:It's politics.

[dabraun]

Or their ability to do business. It is the goal of every corporation to make money you know ... if a corporation isn't putting money making first (which can and often does include making choices that make people like them and buy their products) then they are doing their shareholders a disservice.

Re:It's politics.

[Shajenko42]

Same can be said of the mob. Do we really care that they're just doing what they have to do to make money?

Sounds reasonable.

[superdude72]

I was surprised to learn that Microsoft even had a position on legislation that doesn't directly impact the company's bottom line.

No good reason to "hire for race".

[AtariAmarok]

"Wrong. They would have no cultural experience to draw upon when dealing with customers"

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.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[swv3752]

The grandparent is talking about two near equal aplicants and choosing the one that brings greater diversity to the company.

You could have one persone that had a typical middle class suburban upbringing and the other is from an urban environment. Presuming that the whole company is predominantly one, hiring the other type will bring in new view points.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[AtariAmarok]

"The grandparent is talking about two near equal applicants and choosing the one that brings greater diversity to the company"

If they are "near equal", choose the one that is a little better. If they are perfectly equal, flip a coin. Leave racial discrimination out of the decision process entirely.

"You could have one persone that had a typical middle class suburban upbringing and the other is from an urban environment. Presuming that the whole company is predominantly one, hiring the other type will bring in new view points."

That is only if you are playing on gross, broad stereotypes: where everyone within those two groups is all the same. You entirely ignore the fact of diversity within those groups.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[GreyyGuy]

That sounds good, but unfortunately it is not accurate in my experience. I've been a part of many teams of many talented people at work. But the few teams that were diverse with people from different backgrounds, different regions, and yes- different skin colors were- far more effective then the ones populated entirely by white males. Not that the all white male teams were incompetent or that the diverse team members were the best people ever. But the blend of ideas and backgrounds proved to be a much more effective group at solving problems and having their solutions accepted.

I agree that the best person should be hired, but at the same time I very much doubt that the best person will always have the same skin color as everyone else on the team. And if the team does all have the same skin color- then the best person for the job is someone different so they can bring new ideas and a different veiwpoint.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

This is one thing that pisses me off at work... the constant background insinuation that I was only hired to fill their quota of disabled persons... and the nagging self-doubt that maybe I wasn't the best qualified person for the job...

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[AtariAmarok]

"That sounds good, but unfortunately it is not accurate in my experience...."

Actually, I am not one of those who thinks that "hiring the best" only means "white males". If you hire the best, you will still achieve diversity along the way, but not at the expense of excellence.

"I agree that the best person should be hired, but at the same time I very much doubt that the best person will always have the same skin color as everyone else on the team"

Absolutely.

"And if the team does all have the same skin color- then the best person for the job is someone different so they can bring new ideas and a different veiwpoint."

Absolutely not. Skin color is superficial and means nothing. If you are looking for diversity of background and viewpoint, why not look specifically for diversity of background and viewpoint?

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[GreyyGuy]

Curiously, before anti-discrimination laws, many companies insisted that they did hire "only the best" and strangely they were nearly entirely all white male employees.

And "only the best" assumes that all the person's skills can be assessed in an interview or that a team comprised of the most profiecient people would make the best team.

As for looking for people with diversity of background and viewpoints- how would you do that? Political views? Illegal. Religious views? Illegal. Economic level? Sexual orientation? I'm not sure if it is illegal, but if the topic came up in an interview I would very likely end the interview.

Diversity is not some quota system. It is a policy that makes sure everyone has a chance, and encourages the hiring process to make sure that there isn't homogenity in the workplace. And that is a good thing. There is much more to getting a job done then being the most techinically proficient or knowing the most.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[AtariAmarok]

"Curiously, before anti-discrimination laws, many companies insisted that they did hire "only the best" and strangely they were nearly entirely all white male employees"

Obviously, they weren't, and if there is discrimination, it can be proven.

"And "only the best" assumes that all the person's skills can be assessed in an interview "

You appear to be criticizing this for being superficial, yet you want skin color to be the overriding factor!

"Diversity is not some quota system"

If you really want to ensure a certain sort of rainbow makeup, you have to have a quota.

"It is a policy that makes sure everyone has a chance"

Not if skin color or other superficial factors come into play. Then you lose your chance if you are the wrong skin color.

"There is much more to getting a job done then being the most techinically proficient or knowing the most."

"Having the right skin color" then? That is what is most important?

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[HungWeiLo]

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....

No, you're wrong. In this new world of globalized markets (even within the US itself, where consumer tastes run the whole gamut because of the wide diversity of peoples), it's often in a company's best interests to incorporate different viewpoints. Because by your definition, you can hire the best engineers out of JPL and they'll automatically be able to design the best automobile for the entire global car marketplace.

It's interesting that you bring up "only whites can deal with whites"...because it's true and you know it. Don't tell me that somebody raised in Peoria is going to know that, for example, that Japanese buyers are probably not going to be partial to huge trucks and cars. But in fact - that's exactly what went on - some midwestern-bred marketer tried to sell huge Cadillacs in space-tight Japan. This is exactly why a diverse pool of experience and knowledge is needed.

I once got the chance to talk to a Japanese trade delegation member, and he says that Japan's disadvantage compared to the US is that the US has a workforce that is much more dynamic and powerful because of its diversity (being able to draw the best people from around the world). Check out the new "bigass" trucks from Toyota and Nissan, who are steadily chewing up marketshare from the Big Three. What did these Japanese companies do? They hired cowboys out of the Texas Panhandle to do consumer taste research for them.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[CODiNE]

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!

Kind of the like race matching you see on TV when reporters interview someone. I can just imagine in the studio "Okay, who's gonna interview so and so?" "Oh wait, but she's black/asian, we'd better send a black/asian so they'll 'click". You start to notice the minority interviewers that only seem to pop up when someone of the same race is around. There's gotta be a word for that.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[AtariAmarok]

"It's interesting that you bring up "only whites can deal with whites"...because it's true and you know it" I don't think this is true. Why do you?

" some midwestern-bred marketer tried to sell huge Cadillacs in space-tight Japan. This is exactly why a diverse pool of experience and knowledge is needed"

You don't need racist hiring policies to do this. Anyone can do 5 minutes of research and find out that giant Cadillacs are not popular in Japan. Not only that, anyone of any race can do a market survey of Japanese car buyers.

"Check out the new "bigass" trucks from Toyota and Nissan, who are steadily chewing up marketshare from the Big Three. What did these Japanese companies do? They hired cowboys out of the Texas Panhandle to do consumer taste research for them."

A quick market survey would have done the same thing.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[AvitarX]

There are absolutly differences in expieriences between the two groups though.

True there is vast diversity within the each group (urban/suburban) but there are also likly expieriences that that people from each group have had regardless of race.

I know in my area (suburbs) there is a difference in expieriance for race also. The white people actually tend to be much more homogonized with most all being multi-generation (3 +) Americans with middle-uppermiddle class parents and grandparents and cousins, Cristians (with a few jews).

Even though there are fewer black people in the area they have a much more diverse background with recen immagrants, family with vastly different economic backgrounds. Most are still Christian or Muslim, but there is a much more diverse range of practices. And a very large percentage have stories of out-right being discriminated against by some asshole or another that many of the white people have never had a similar expierence.

Of course it could be argues in some situations a more homogenious workplace is actually beneficial relative to a diverse one, but if you grab people from different backgrounds (which includes race) you will absolutly have a more diverse variety of expieriances to draw from.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[AtariAmarok]

"Using race as a proxy for diversity in viewpoints has pretty high correlation"

It appears that you and others are looking for some sort of justification to keep racism in hiring policies, instead of reducing it altogether.

"Not being white means you deal with small slights every day, such as being seated by the kitchen in restaurants regularly"

Why bring this up at all unless you are bringing into this the blatantly racist argument that "because some whites are bad, we must punish others who have the same skin color?"

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[Lemmy Caution]

The best person must be hired, period.

This is either a tautology, or it is wrong. Often "the best" does not get hired for one of variety of reasons: someone who is judged to be overqualified is a risk for leaving the position to soon; someone may be completely suited for the job, but have expensive relocation or immigration expenses. People need to be capable of doing the job well, yes. That doesn't always mean chosing the "best" for that position if a person brings in other, perhaps intangible factors (including diversity, both in the usual sense of race, gender, etc, and in a general sense of someone being interestingly different, having a personal, professional or educational background that may add value in currently unforeseen ways.)

Also, many hiring decisions are not made on a simple ranking of ability. This is what I was told by an executive from Levi-Strauss, Inc who explained why "affirmative action" was worthwhile: because people take chances on people who remind them of themselves. The logic of cronyism becomes de facto discrimination in hiring practice.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[GreyyGuy]

Obviously, they weren't, and if there is discrimination, it can be proven.

How many of the CEOs of the top 500 companies in the US are not white males? Go ahead- look it up. Significantly more then the proportion of white males in the population, isn't it? There- does that prove discrimination? Statistically, yes, but you will never get a court to agree. Proving discrimination is very, very difficult.

You appear to be criticizing this for being superficial, yet you want skin color to be the overriding factor!

Good job at putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say it should be the overriding fator? When did I ever say it should even be A factor? What I've said is that having a diverse group is preferable to a homogenous one. You keep assuming that this means a checklist is part of the interview which is far from the truth. It means that the company recruits at minority events, and promotes itself outside it's own local area- even in other countries. It means that the compnay makes itself available to as wide a group as possible, and makes sure that it has an image of being open and accepting of a diverse group. That means that you get more applicants and more diverse applicants.

And lets get rid of notion of the "best" person deserving the job. Ever hear of over-qualified? There are lots of reason to hire someone that is not "the best" candidate, such as wanting to grow someone in an entry-level position, or just not able to afford what they are looking for salary-wise, or having a choice between a "great" person when the role really only needs a "good" person. The hiring process is far more complicated then some simple skin color checklist.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[pipingguy]

You could have one persone that had a typical middle class suburban upbringing and the other is from an urban environment.

Isn't "urban" a whitey code word for "black"?

I surmise that this "PC" term was coined by big city real estate agents who have a financial interest in inflating prices and egos.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[AtariAmarok]

' How many of the CEOs of the top 500 companies in the US are not white males? '

So? Find out why this is the case. Does it prove discrimination? It might in some cases. There is likely a lot of discrimination involved that was not done by the company on the list: young blacks denied the opportunity for good college, so they did not end up qualified for the corporate/CEO track. The answer won't be discrimination in any of the cases where the company is led by the person who started it, or by their heirs.

"And lets get rid of notion of the "best" person deserving the job"

No. Let's make this notion even stronger.

"There are lots of reason to hire someone that is not "the best" candidate"

Yeah. Like lots of bad reasons: boss's son, good haircut, has the right skin color.

"The hiring process is far more complicated then some simple skin color checklist."

As long as there is no skin color checklist at all. This is a good start.

No, let's make sure this is the only notion. A false claim: only you can put words in your mouth.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[Nicopa]

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....

No, you're wrong. In this new world of globalized markets (even within the US itself, where consumer tastes run the whole gamut because of the wide diversity of peoples), it's often in a company's best interests to incorporate different viewpoints. Because by your definition, you can hire the best engineers out of JPL and they'll automatically be able to design the best automobile for the entire global car marketplace.

Race != culture. The phrase "only whites can deal with whites" is still wrong. It's of course right that someone who was raised in the Japanese society will be able to better design a marketing campaign for Japan. But this person could well be white/yellow/pink...

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[glaucopis]

Isn't "urban" a whitey code word for "black"?

Really? Maybe that depends on where you live and the health of your local city. Where I live, the suburbs are certainly seen as white (and are looked down on as deathly boring and bland by everyone except the overprotective soccer-moms who flock to them). But the city itself is seen as very diverse (and diversity encompasses white people, too, you know). There are predominantly black areas, and predominately immigrant areas, and predominantly old Italian areas, but for the most part everyone is all mixed up. It's rather nice. You might want to actually visit a city sometime; you'd probably be pleasantly surprised.

And regarding the grandparent's point, if I were deciding between two similarly qualified applicants for a job, I would certainly look much more favorably on the candidate who grew up in an urban area surrounded with people who have a wide range of different values and beliefs and backgrounds than on the candidate who grew up in a pretty little subdivision surrounded by lots of identical middle to upper-middle class families with 2.5 kids. Clearly I'm a bit biased and suburban dwellers are a bit more diverse than I'm depicting them to be, but there is nowhere near the diversity (in race, ethnicity, religion or lack thereof, age, and most especially class) in suburbs as you will find in a city. There's more to doing (most) jobs effectively than sheer number of degrees or your ability to write solid code (or whatever). The abilities to communicate with different types of people, to understand what different types of people want in a product, and to think creatively are pretty useful skills, too, if harder to quantitatively measure.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[pipingguy]

It's rather nice. You might want to actually visit a city sometime; you'd probably be pleasantly surprised.

Ha! I'm in downtown Montreal, and I challenge you to find a more culturally and linguistically different city than that.

I agree with your second paragraph.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[poopdeville]

No. In the context you seem to be describing, urban is synonymous with "cosmopolitan." Big cities have historically been the fountainhead of refined culture. This is no different now.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[Mal-2]

This is what I was told by an executive from Levi-Strauss, Inc who explained why "affirmative action" was worthwhile: because people take chances on people who remind them of themselves. The logic of cronyism becomes de facto discrimination in hiring practice.

So all that happens instead is that people take chances on people who remind them of themselves in every way but appearance. Granted, this is still an improvement in terms of evening the playing field, but it's debatable whether it brings a different mental attitude to the position. Fundamentally, how is a nerdy black engineer with duct taped glasses any different from a nerdy white engineer with duct taped glasses? Having known enough of both, I can say -- there's not much difference. In a lot of fields of work, the environment that created the person matters far more than their genetics. That, and the people who flock to the field tend to have inherent similarities to start with. Basing an opinion of someone's value on his/her genetic make-up is just silly, as silly as basing that opinion on their last name or where they were born.

Mal-2

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[Lemmy Caution]

Granted, there's no ideal solution, and there are no even playing fields. But there are real communities that have been built around "race." Also, "nerdiness," "salesman-guy" personality and the like - really, all the behaviors of a status group - can be learned by immersion. You hang around with nerds long enough, you'll start being nerdy. This doesn't work with race, gender, and to a certain extent, sexual orientation. (The last can be disguised, but it comes out pretty fast in many situations: many interviews for good jobs include questions about family, and a 30+ year old guy who talks about a "roomate" and has no wife and kids is going to raise suspicions, at least.)

Race, culture and class are intertwined issues: not for genetic reasons, of course, but for historical ones.

Re:No good reason to "hire for race".

[jongleur_kit]

I call bullshit. You do not need any "gross, broad stereotypes" to understand that any group of people who share experience (all of the things that go along with where and how you grew up) will have different ideas and points of view to another group of people who do not share that experience. This is true no matter which groups of people you are talking about. If a company has a monoculture (of any sort), expanding the diversity in the company helps it to better understand the needs of its customers (and potential customers), and gives that company more insight into marketing, product development, customer relations, all down the line. This can make a person who augments the diversity of a company a more worthwhile hire than someone who only extends the monoculture. Even if the "outsider" employee is less skilled.

Podcast on the subject...

[Atrax]

... here

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[Dr Kool, PhD]

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 find Ballmers statement refreshing

[bourdeau]

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.

Re:I find Ballmers statement refreshing

[Guppy06]

"What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly-held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?"

It's a double-edged sword. The bill would prevent employers from enforcing anti-gay standards on their employees. Those against the bill aren't against having employers force their opinions on their employees, they just don't want to be the employees given the proverbial shaft (even though the bill's passage would be far less harmfull to heterosexual workers than the current situation is to homosexual workers). They're working against a bill that would empower an employee to challenge their employer by... challenging their own employer?

Just because those beliefs are "strongly-held" and happen to be in the numerical majority doesn't make it right, and this argument is simply a poor, hand-waving attempt to justify their actions, their attempt to use the power of the majority to trample the rights of the individual for no other reason than because it is in their favor.

After all, without this bill's passage, Microsoft would be within their rights to fire all their heterosexual employees for no other reason than because of their sexuality. But the homophobes against the bill don't care about this aspect because their majority status gives them an advantage, an advantage they'd lose with the passage of this bill.

"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."

... by continuing to allow them to fire employees for reasons that have nothing to do with either productivity or cooperation? Riiiiight...

Re:I find Ballmers statement refreshing

[adpowers]

Excellent post. What most opponents of this bill argue is that it gives gays special rights. This is patently wrong, the bill guarantees the rights of all workers, no matter their sexuality. While it it does protect straight people, it is more intended to prevent gays from being discriminated against. Since gays were way more likely to be discriminated against, this gives them an equal footing. What is wrong with preventing discrimination? It won't hurt any straight people at all.

Also, people are arguing that Microsoft shouldn't alienate their Evangelical employees. They have been supporting this bill for years in different incarnations and there didn't seem to be any problem in the past. Why would this change now? The god damn religious right thinks they were empowered by the recent election, and now they are trying to take out good legislation because of their animosity toward gays. This makes me sick.

After withdrawing their support, I lost the last little bit of respect I had for Microsoft. Grow a fucking spine and stand up for what is right.

Andrew

Re:I find Ballmers statement refreshing

[killjoe]

"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."

In that case MS should immediately stop all political activities with which 100% of all MS employees agree. In other words MS should immediately stop giving money to politicians, lobbying for anything, and being involved in all politics.

They don't have the resources??!!

[johansalk]

Microsoft using scarcity of resources as an excuse is something I find dififcult to accept.

Re:They don't have the resources??!!

[ahziem]

Balance sheet shows $65 million in assets as of December

Re:They don't have the resources??!!

[Keeper]

Resources include things other than money.

Throwing a billion dollars at the problem doesn't do you any good if your lobbyists can't get any more time face time with senators.

Re:mmm flames...

[i_should_be_working]

Have you seen the bill?

It's not a bill that tries to tip the field in any direction. It's what it sounds like. Anti-discriminatory. There are already laws against discrimination based on race and religion. This bill just extends them to sexual orientation.

Re:mmm flames...

[Queer Boy]

I don't consider myself racist; or stupid; but comeon, tilting it one way is just as bad as tilting the other.

Ah, yes. I agree. I too miss the days when they used to throw the Christians to the lions for sport.

Corporations and Government

[rm999]

"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.

Re:mmm flames...

[Rude-Boy]

Why is parent modded insightful?

The bill doesn't tip the playing field at all. It only adds sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, and mental or physical handicap.

Resources?

[Darvin]

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.

Say it with me folks

[FidelCatsro]

*Balmer dancing around getting sweaty once more*
Discrimination ,Discrimination ,Discrimination ,Discrimination ,Discrimination ,...Discrimination ,Discrimination ,Developers , Developers uh Discrimination , ,

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

So I guess if this were the 1960's Microsoft should have not supported legislation that ended racial discrimination too?

It's implied in the quoted email that it would be more akin to Microsoft having non-discriminatory policies in the sixties.

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 ... He also sought a variety of other things, such as firing of the two employees and a public statement by Microsoft that the bill was not necessary."

Expect to see this kook run for office at some point in the future.

The crux of Ballmer's BS argument

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The crux of Ballmer's BS argument

[scheveningen]

haha, the crux of your argument is: opinions you do not agree with should not be heard or argued against. noooo, name calling does the trick.
You are not only calling names at your bigots, but also at your spineless people who actually think for them selves.

How you ever got moderated as insightful is beyond me.

Re:The crux of Ballmer's BS argument

[geekyMD]

Evidently the arguments of bigots get equal weight at MS.

Wether we agree with them or not, listening and valuing people of alternative viewpoints is exactly what freedom is all about. Be they bigots, the kkk, the aclu, anti-microsoft zealots, or my grandma, their opinions are all of equal worth in a relativistic and free society such as ours.

Wether we agree with them or not, their ideas and arguments listened to and considered, otherwise we are just as bigoted as they.

-The funniest thing I have ever seen was a man on a tirade against fundamentalists because they were not being more tolerant. Unfortunately for him, he never saw the irony.-

Re:The crux of Ballmer's BS argument

[adpowers]

That is just the problem. People believe that both sides deserve equal time and publicity. I'm sure one of these slimy 'news' shows would love to have a gay rights activist versus a KKK member on their show. Just because there are two sides to the story doesn't mean they both have to be represented. This is a step backwards. The KKK can march all they want, they have that freedom, but why should the news shows put them on the air? The answer: they shouldn't. While they can speak out however they want, since we have freedom of speech, but we don't have to listen to them by any means.

Re:The crux of Ballmer's BS argument

[autiger]

How long do you have to listen to someone arguing an opinion that has no factual basis against a position based on well-proven empirical evidence before you stop ignoring them and consider them an ignorant quack?

If someone tells you that the earth is flat, the universe revolves around the earth or that red-haired people are less intelligent than brunettes do you say "well, that's a perfectly valid opinion and I respect your right to think that way?"

When they tell you that round-earthers, sol-centrists and red-headed people should be denied the same rights under the law as flat-earthers, earth-centrists and brunettes and blondes because they are the majority and believe they're right, how do you respond?

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

ok, whats wrong with this picture?

[Mark19960]

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.

Re:ok, whats wrong with this picture?

[wootest]

As a big company, they'll have to have rules internally on how to deal with these issues. They'll "stay the fuck out of your life" when people stop posting internal emails discussing these rules publicly. I for one think it's very interesting, but apparently it's not an option to you not to read it. Oh wait.

Re:ok, whats wrong with this picture?

[wootest]

Clarification: I know that this is about supporting a bill, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have different attitudes inside and outside of the company. I admit that I didn't see the note about "approved to be posted publicly by PR" so I was wrong in the "stop posting internal emails discussing these rules publicly" jab.

why are there specific categories?

[Trepidity]

Shouldn't it just be illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring practices unless it's some criterion relevant to job performance?

Re:why are there specific categories?

[Reality Master 101]

Shouldn't it just be illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring practices unless it's some criterion relevant to job performance?

The problem is that everything is arguably relevant to job performance. "I can't hire Joe because [blah blahs] might offend our customers, or might offend our employees."

Something things that are not directly relevant to the job DO matter. Personal cleanliness, for example. You can't just say everything, or an employee might say, "I should be able to never shower and stink, as long as I do my job."

Re:why are there specific categories?

[m50d]

Devil's advocate here: what if it's in a place where most people are basically racist? If people are going to be less comfortable speaking to a black guy behind the counter, should the company have the right to not hire black people? And if not, why is that any different for people who stink?

Re:why are there specific categories?

[pomo monster]

Then assuming the law is enforced (by civil action or otherwise), every company in the region will be "disadvantaged" to the same degree and hopefully, over time, discrimination lessens and the need for such a law lessens with it. It's a similar situtaion to mortgage lenders in the '60s redlining entire neighborhoods based on racial composition alone; the practice was founded in statistics and arguably did reduce the risk of default, but once legislation was passed to make racial redlining illegal, the situation improved within a couple decades. Deliberately oversimplifying, but you get the picture.

Re:why are there specific categories?

[Nicopa]

Who should change its behaviour here if we want a better society?

Since when "lack comfort" has been an extenuating circumstance in a discrimination case?

Re:why are there specific categories?

[jolande]

what if it's in a place where most people are basically racist? If people are going to be less comfortable speaking to a black guy behind the counter, should the company have the right to not hire black people? And if not, why is that any different for people who stink?

Because you can always take a shower / wear deodorant, but you can't change your race.

Re:why are there specific categories?

[m50d]

But exactly the same is true of people who stink.

Re:why are there specific categories?

[m50d]

One could say the same wrt people who stink

The company hiring has their bottom line as the central consideration, if hiring a black person is going to lose them money overall compared to a white person, for any reason, isn't that a legitimate reason not to hire them?

Corporate CONmunications

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Corporate CONmunications

[pomo monster]

It's something everybody knows. While I support the Palestinian cause, there's just no disputing Arafat used more inflammatory language in Arabic than in English. Mahmoud Abbas does the same thing, though not to the same degree, and he's toned down the rhetoric since the campaign.

Re:Corporate CONmunications

[wombert]

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.

Microsoft's valued employees are already protected by the company's anti-discrimination policy, which includes sexual orientation. Maybe Microsoft has no intention of extending that protection should they seek employment elsewhere. ;)

Re:Corporate CONmunications

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0

50% Insightful
30% Troll
20% Redundant

TrollMods are queer for Ballmer, without fact or logic for coherent replies. Buncha bedwetters think a "troll" is a scary post they can't ignore, like a monster in the closet.

Re:Corporate CONmunications

[Doc Ruby]

Maybe it just took Ballmer's local ChrisTaliban 15 years to call in the chits. Sending their zombie congregations to the polls for corporatist votes against their interests isn't cheap, and God needs money.

Re:Corporate CONmunications

[stinerman]

Not a problem.

You start out at +4 for me. ;-)

Interesting question about capitalism

[versiondub]

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.

Re:Interesting question about capitalism

[Funksaw]

On the one hand, there is the principle of Adam Smith that states that through pursuing your own personal gain you are benefiting society.

Actually, alot of people get Adam Smith wrong. While it is true that an invisible hand does move the economy along through a system of barter and the curve of supply and demand, on the aggragate, becomes important, Adam Smith lived in very, very different times.

When Smith says that the free market creates wealth and creates an efficient distribution system, he is talking about a free market in an era where monopoly control was hard to achieve and for the most part simply did not exist. Most goods and services had many small companies competing with each other - it is this competition which provides the best check on the supply/demand equation. It breaks down in a monopoly situation or a situation where there are large, indirect competitors.

When he was talking about pursuing personal gain benifiting society, he was not talking about "Greed is Good, Greed Works," the mantra of the 1980s. He was talking about the idea that through a specialization of labor, people can do things more efficiently than otherwise possible. The silversmith is likely a poor cook, and the innkeeper a poor smith. This division of labor means that everyone can do what he excells at, making sure that the best goods go to market, instead of everybody making everything and having the markets overflow with mediocre goods.

Today, we do not have that division of labor because for the most part, we do not create goods. There are some services that people provide, but goods are in the hands of large corporations which, by and large, make many different goods - Time Warner operates cable companies, books, movies, news operations, cartoons, magazines... Sony operates personal electronics, entertainment, and that is a major problem. Before the advent of Linux, the choices people had to use for computer operating systems were a buggy, slow, memory hog of a system for the Macintosh and a really buggy, lousy system called Windows 3.1, which ran on DOS, another system. Two companies provided pretty much all the computer software for personal use. Now, we have Windows, Mac, 31 flavors of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, we have ZetaOS... we have a whole bunch of different computer operating systems. Even us still using Windows XP and MacOSX can tell you that the competition motivated it's owners to create improvements for the two main products. Modern corporations do not operate competitively with a large market.

Look at the division of labor in your own community. How many people are actually *doing* something productive? There are no more shoemakers - they are assembly line workers in Vietnam. At best, you're a shoe salesman... Salesman! Such a modern invention - a person who has nothing to do with the design and creation of a product sells it.

No no, I don't think Adam Smith would appreciate modern capitalism or agree that pursuing corporate gain - which is only personal gain for a few, and then only indirectly - benifits societly.

Re:Interesting question about capitalism

[$criptah]

Thank you. I find that your reply is very well structured and you mention something that not a lot of people get. I am still trying to explain your line of thought -- how Adam Smith lived in a different time period -- to my business major friends; unfortunately they are not getting it...

There is another good point that you did not mention. In Adam Smith's world, customers chose what they wanted; thus, they influenced the economy with their decision. Nowadays, goods are not bought, they are sold; every good salesman knows that. Mass media and enterntainment industries brainwash our kids to the point where they're able to recognize and distinguish brands at an early age. People "buy" things before they even know it.

Overall, Smith's theory was pretty good; however, it is around 200 years old and it is time to adapt.

Re:Interesting question about capitalism

[versiondub]

Thanks for the awesome reply - as a high school senior just dipping my toes into studying greats like Adam Smith - I can in no way pretend to know my shit when it comes to this.

In regards to this issue - Ballmer raised the issue that corporations should not be at all involved in social issues, and I completely agree with you (if I understand what you are saying): if you are a corporation in today's world, you cannot simply pursue your own ends and count on the "invisible hand" to make sure everyone else is happy. The interesting thing though, is that this article makes to say that Ballmer doesn't think this way.

Whew, Google

[MichaelPenne]

must really have them running scared:-).

Why do you hate America?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[dwntwnboi]

calling america what it is isn't hateful, it's truthful. you confuse it because it hurts. the truth, like hateful speech, also hurts.

so if you don't like the truth, encite/enact some social change yourself. that IS the point of this country, isn't it?

Re:How is this news?

[donarb]

Reverend Hutcherson is a crack-pot. He threatened Microsoft with a boycott if they didn't back down on their support. Now MS says they just didn't have the resources to support this bill. Their "support" in previous years amounted to just sending a letter of support for the bill.

Two employees of Microsoft testified in support of the bill, but not as representatives of Microsoft. Hutcherson wanted Microsoft to fire them as well. You think it's OK for someone to be fired just because of their personal views? Its nice that Microsoft declined to fire these employees, but what about the next company that caves in when threatened?

If you think this is not news, look at what is happening today, the so called "Justice Sunday", where every religious wacko out there wants to go nuclear because they don't get their way.

Wake up people!!

The Issues They Do Focus On...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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?

Re:nice cop-out, Ballmer

[JenovaSynthesis]

Agreed. One call to Disney would have proven that to him since the Southern Baptist Convention has had a boycott of Disney in place for years and it never hurt their bottom line.

Not to mention the fact that boycotting MS means that they have to either learn Linux proficiently to the point open source software can be used in place of MS software and run games on emulators or convert to Mac and pay to have all their software converted. Neither of which is going to happen on a grand scale.

Stigma

[AtariAmarok]

"the constant background insinuation that I was only hired to fill their quota of disabled persons"

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.

Re:Stigma

[AtariAmarok]

"the costs of affirmative action are so trivial..." As long as one individual is denied opportunity due to their race, the cost is way too high. The benefits are none.

"You say "hire only on excellence" but have not made a single concrete suggestion how society might go about enforcing that"

Easy. Bust those who hire based on race.

"on their normal, often unconscious human biases as they have always done throughout of all of history."

The problem is that you assume that everyone is guilty of being a racist whether or not they really are.

"the change in human nature, that would be necessary for the idealistic precept "hire only on excellence" to become a reality."

It requires no change in human nature. It is an utter fallacy that everyone is a racist.

"Let's see you make a plausible suggestion of how we as a society might somehow enforce the ideal "hire only on excellence"

One strong step is to eliminate affirmative action, as Jim Crow was eliminated.

You know...

[Grey Ninja]

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.

Re:You know...

[Miniluv]

And before a million people flame me for being racist... my skin isn't white.

So? This isn't some magical protection from being labeled as what you might be. Hell, if you found yourself obligated to disclaim in that fashion, then I'm forced to ask what it might be that you're hiding.

Sugarcoating the Reversal?

[tabdelgawad]

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22gay .h tml

Where do you live?

[Infonaut]

Microsoft has bought wholesale into the media-generated myth that religious issues matter to the majority of the populace...

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.

what?

[doormat]

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....

Re:what?

[ggvaidya]

Well, they do have commie pinko unconstitutional fraud to worry about, not to mention the other operating system which "Just Works" :).

You almost feel sorry for Bill. Then you remember Windows ME.

If you silence them you should not tax them

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[terrymr]

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.

Soon forgotten I'm afraid. I'm not yet a US Citizen but pay my fair share of taxes.

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[maxpublic]

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.

What sort of bullshit is this? Corporations aren't people; they're composed of people. The people who comprise the corporation are the ones who get to vote.

Max

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[AHumbleOpinion]

What sort of bullshit is this? Corporations aren't people; they're composed of people. The people who comprise the corporation are the ones who get to vote.

The corporation and the individuals that comprise the corporation are *both* taxed. Therefore they *both* get a voice.

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[maxpublic]

The corporation and the individuals that comprise the corporation are *both* taxed. Therefore they *both* get a voice.

That's a crock. Corporations are collecting points for taxing the labor of *customers*. Where the hell do you think the corporation gets its money from? Trees?

You need to (re)take Economics 101, Jack.

Max

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[AHumbleOpinion]

"The corporation and the individuals that comprise the corporation are *both* taxed. Therefore they *both* get a voice".

That's a crock. Corporations are collecting points for taxing the labor of *customers*. Where the hell do you think the corporation gets its money from? Trees?

You need to (re)take Economics 101, Jack.

All *three* groups, corporations, workers, and customers, are taxed independently. They all get voice.

"Labor of customers"? Sure you didn't mean "labor of workers", "convenience of customers", professor?

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[myowntrueself]

So, the only requirement for getting a voice, the only qualification, is to pay taxes?

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[maxpublic]

"Labor of customers"? Sure you didn't mean "labor of workers"

No, I did not. Corporations are the collection point for taxes on the labor of customers. The customer exchanges a portion of his labor for a portion of the labor of workers at the corporation; the government takes its cut, and what's left over is appropriated by the stockholders.

Corporations are fictitious. They can't labor nor can they create wealth. Only workers can do that. And all workers are customers.

Really, this is basic economics.

Max

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[AHumbleOpinion]

What sort of bullshit is this? Corporations aren't people; they're composed of people. The people who comprise the corporation are the ones who get to vote.

Using your (il)logic labor unions should not be allowed a voice either. They are composed of people and those people have a vote. So do you advance the opinion that labor unions should not be allowed to petition congress or are you a hypocrite?

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[AHumbleOpinion]

Corporations are the collection point for taxes on the labor of customers.

Going with this particular theoretical model the worker is triply taxed. On his wages, directly on his purchases (sales tax, gasoline tax, etc.), and finally indirectly on his purchases via corporations. If the corporation can be an agent of government and collect taxes why can it not also be an agent of the customer representing the customer's interests in a particular field. One role is as valid as the other.

In any advent your argument fails to demonstrate why corporation should not be allowed to address Congress on matters that affect their owners and customers. It's frightening that you find the fewer perspective and opinions presented to legislators the better. I thought that economic/political theory died a decade ago?

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[AHumbleOpinion]

So, the only requirement for getting a voice, the only qualification, is to pay taxes?

No it is just one qualification, citizenship works too.

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[myowntrueself]

so its either citizenship OR paying tax not citizenship *and* pay tax?

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[maxpublic]

Going with this particular theoretical model the worker is triply taxed. On his wages, directly on his purchases (sales tax, gasoline tax, etc.), and finally indirectly on his purchases via corporations.

This is exactly right.

If the corporation can be an agent of government and collect taxes why can it not also be an agent of the customer representing the customer's interests in a particular field.

Corporations can't be agents of anything. Individuals within the corporations can, but not the corporation itself. So far as taxes are concerned the corporation is a collection point, nothing more.

In any advent your argument fails to demonstrate why corporation should not be allowed to address Congress on matters that affect their owners and customers.

Because corporations aren't people, regardless of what the courts say. A corporation is no more a real person than the Easter Bunny is a real rabbit.

It's frightening that you find the fewer perspective and opinions presented to legislators the better.

No one is stopping people from speaking their minds. Where they are employed when they do so is of absolutely no legal consequence. The assertion that a corporation can speak to anything is the nonsensical idea here.

Max

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[AHumbleOpinion]

so its either citizenship OR paying tax not citizenship *and* pay tax?

Citizenship alone is enough.

Re:If you silence them you should not tax them

[myowntrueself]

but paying tax alone isn't enough?

Or Is IBM, for example, a US citizen?

Re:nice cop-out, Ballmer

[RockClimbingFool]

...and made a conscious decision to allow a vocal but fundamentally powerless minority to dictate their corporate policy.

And how exactly did our friend George W. Bush get elected?

Hilarious

[Mark_MF-WN]

This is the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

My hat goes off to you -- your cynicism is awe inspiring.

I'm Guessing No One Will Care But...

[10101001011]

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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

I feel dirty

[sv0f]

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.

Re:I feel dirty

[Lukey Boy]

I think you missed a key fact - that Microsoft will continue to influence policy in the USA as much as they did before. They just stopped trying to push through this specific bill. They've still got their armies of lobbyists on the hill.

Re:I feel dirty

[killjoe]

Microsoft gives a lot of money to republican party. Do all of their employees and shareholders agree with this? MS gives a lot money to democrats (less money then they give to republicans but a lot of meny nevertheless) do all their employees agree with that?

Re:I feel dirty

[sv0f]

I draw a distinction that perhaps you don't.

When Microsoft gives money to influence economic policies, and they do so in a manner which is legal under current US laws, I have no problem with their behavior. That the federal government is for sale is not their fault. It is my job as a US citizen to try to remedy this situation -- that businesses of all kinds get special access and lobby for legislation that benefits them to the detriment of everyone else -- by voting in people of integrity.

This is different for me than a corporation giving money to affect social policy.

Ballmer's letter says that Microsoft will continue to lobby to change economic policy but will not lobby to change social policy. This to me is a principled distinction, and I respect him for making it.

The question, really, is how Microsoft employees will react. I hope that the vast majority of them are outraged that a self-important local homophobic religious leader demanded the firing of two employee who testified to state officials as private citizens. A disgusting act, in my opinion. I hope Microsoft's many employees rise up as individuals and lobby their state officials for the kind of legislation that Ballmer himself personally favors.

This is a pretty conserative viewpoint, in the older sense of the world. If individual Microsofties raise their voices, then there will be no need for any corporation to get involved in the non-corporate affairs of the citizenry.

Re:I feel dirty

[killjoe]

You missed my point. MS regularly participates in the political process even though it does not (and can not) have the backing of 100% of it's employees.

Why should they all of a sudden on this one issue decide that they need to have a 100% of their employees and shareholders before they can act?

In other words I am calling bullshit.

Re:I feel dirty

[sv0f]

MS regularly participates in the political process even though it does not (and can not) have the backing of 100% of it's employees.

One last try: When a company agitates for certain economic policies, it makes sense to me. When thet agitate for certain social policies, it makes less sense. Ballmer's claim is that MSFT will continue to do the former but not the latter. I think this is a defensible stance.

In other words I am calling bullshit.

Let's not take this exchange to this level.

Re:I feel dirty

[killjoe]

You make a false distinction between social and economic policies. All economic policies have social effects and vice versa.

Re:Yes, but

[Southpaw018]

Holy crap! Flamebait? I was trying for a strained-but-plausible historical connection to incite discussion... :(

Race != Culture

[Mark_MF-WN]

What continent do YOU live on? Race has virtually nothing to do with culture. Do you think black people living in North America have anything in common with people living in Africa, other than some minor cosmetic differences? The same goes for "Asians" -- there are people of Chinese descent living here in Canada whose ancestors were here before mine, and who are totally and completely assimilated.

Stop trying to justify racism.

Re: More like exposing Ballmer in a lie...

[Pliny]

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...

The story is

[Aexia]

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.

Re:nice cop-out, Ballmer

[JenovaSynthesis]

That has to do with Eisner, not because a bunch of so-called Christians boycotted them. It would have happened years ago because, if I remember correctly, the boycott started in the early 90's.

The problem with boycotts is is that they are now balanced on any level other than local. For example the Bus Boycotts in the 1960's worked because locally 'colored' people were the bulk of the business and thus the companies took a big hit. But something like these gas boycotts where we are not supposed to buy gas on a certain day are pointless because all it does is create a spike in sales the days leading up to it and after that balance it out. So for every one person who boycotts Disney, there people who will switch to Disney because of the boycott.

It cand be a double-edged sword because when the boycott becomes more and more public, the reasons behind it are well known. One of those so-called "family" groups called for a boycott of Proctor & Gamble based on the fact that there was an ad which never was even commissioned by P&G directly involving a supposed gay sex hook-up (P&G rejected that ad) and they advertise on shows like WIll & Grace. When I found out about it I switched to P&G products to spite boycott.

Missing the point

[Lifewish]

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.

Re:Missing the point

[toddbu]

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?

My question here is whether you want legislation to protect your interests or whether you want it to force others to believe in your cause. Even though I believe that homosexuality is a sin, I still think that the Supreme Court decision striking down Texas' anti-sodomy laws was correct. What two guys want to do in their own bedroom is their own business. But if you show up for work late every day because you spent all night "screwing around" then don't expect a lot of sympathy out of me as I'm giving you your walking papers. And BTW, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Re:Missing the point

[Lifewish]

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?
I wouldn't support that either, in fact I'd be strongly in favour of legislation to prevent that happening. What's your point?

My question here is whether you want legislation to protect your interests or whether you want it to force others to believe in your cause.
I'm not actually gay. I have no interest in this matter except as it relates to the general health of society.

But if you show up for work late every day because you spent all night "screwing around" then don't expect a lot of sympathy out of me as I'm giving you your walking papers.
That wouldn't come under the heading of "the most well-behaved of homosexuals", which I believe I specified in the grandparent post. The only time I'd have a problem with the situation you just described was if the employee's heterosexual peers were getting away with the same behaviour on a regular basis.

Re:Missing the point

[Dimensio]

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 difference is that federal law prohibits discrimination of this nature.

Re:Missing the point

[autiger]

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?

Wrong!! Religion, a chosen-behavior and belief structure, is a protected class. Christians don't get fired for being Christian and if one was, they would be able to sue because of it. On the other hand, gay people can be and are fired just for being gay regardless of their punctuality in most parts of the US and have absolutely no recourse

Btw, you show your prejudice or ignorance by your "spend all night 'screwing around'" statement. Gay people are no more likely to come in late from 'screwing around' all night than straight people. You clearly don't understand it's not (just) about sex; gay people are attacted to and fall in love with those of the same sex.

Re:Missing the point

[toddbu]

You're right, it does. So can you honestly tell me that this has made any real difference in how people treat each other in the workplace?

While you're pondering that question, consider this - According to the EEOC web site, employers can indeed discriminate on a religious basis if they can prove undue burden in accomodating an employee's religious needs. This means that my employer can restrict my activities if, for example, I come to work with a handful of flyers for my church, pass them out to my coworkers, and another employee complains that my activities are interfering with their ability to work. If I fail to follow my employers wishes then they are free to fire me. I guess that what I'm saying is that it appears to me that the law gives a lot of discretion to the employer in these matters, and that anyone determined to fire someone can come up with virtually any excuse to do so. Is this an unreasonable conclusion?

Re:Missing the point

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Pretty sad logic dude ;-) So you'd like to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws since they don't work 100% of the time? How 'bout the 4th amendment (or any amendment or law for that matter)? Its not like a police officer couldn't fabricate enough evidence to get a judge to sign a search warant, so why even bother with laws meant to avoid this?

The point is to at least attempt to make such in-justices more difficult and if they do occur at least have some means try to correct it. I guess we could just realize law won't be 100% successful and not even bother. Is that what you are advocating?

Re:Missing the point

[toddbu]

Sure, why not? :-)

Actually, the point here is that fair is fair. 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. Given that set of rules, no one should be surprised when their boss makes up a reason to fire them for a reason that fits well within EEOC guidelines but probably has more to do with their personal lifestyle.

Strange issue to begin with

[Dolda2000]

What I don't understand is why Microsoft was supporting that bill to begin with. Not that I'm against homosexual marriage (rather, I'm against any limitation of freedom, and not allowing homosexual marriage is certainly such a limitation), but what does that have with software to do?

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.

Re:Strange issue to begin with

[realityfighter]

Uh... This bill has nothing to do with gay marriage. It was about discrimination in government service and commercial practices, including hiring and firing people. As a major employer, that's something Microsoft would be interested in, eh?

Rights

[AtariAmarok]

"I defy anyone to show me where the constitution gives any rights to corporations"

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.

Re:Rights

[maxpublic]

There's a difference between assigning individuals rights (afforded in the Constitution) and assigning imaginary entities rights (never granted by the Constitution). Don't confuse the two.

Max

Re:Rights

[AtariAmarok]

"There's a difference between assigning individuals rights (afforded in the Constitution) and assigning imaginary entities rights (never granted by the Constitution). Don't confuse the two"

I'm not. I'm just recognizing that an "imaginary person" can't do anything: they are imaginary. Anything a "corporation" does is really the action of an individual or individuals. Like or not, these individuals still have the rights "accorded in the Constitution". The problem is not "confusing the two". There is really only the one, not two: the rights of the individuals, which don't vanish just because they are in a corporation, or are saying something that the corporation wants them to say.

Re:Rights

[maxpublic]

Nothing is said about their individual rights if you strip the corporation of personhood. They still retain those rights.

Max

Re:Rights

[OldManAndTheC]

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.

You are equating corporations with their employees, which is invalid IMHO. It means nothing that an person acting as an agent of a corporation has his own rights. The law regards the corporation as a separate entity, and it is the rights (or lack of same) of that entity which is the issue.

The rights accorded to corporations as "persons" are common law, not constitutional. They stem from a series of court decisions made during the 19th century, a time when corporations were just starting to become the very powerful entities they are today.

There are very good arguments for denying corporations the rights of individuals. They cannot be equated with natural persons - they cannot die a natural death, they cannot be put in prison, they cannot experience emotion, or have any sense of morality. Their aims are not our aims. Ballmer put it best in his soul-searching letter:

It's appropriate to invoke the company's name on issues of public policy that directly affect our business and our shareholders, but it's much less clear when it's appropriate to invoke the company's name on broader issues that go far beyond the software industry -- and on which our employees and shareholders hold widely divergent opinions. We are a public corporation with a duty first and foremost to a broad group of shareholders.

The first duty of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. When the chips are down, the company will do what it must to further that goal, "social issues" be damned.

We give corporations the legal rights of individuals at our peril. When inviting a tiger to a dinner party, which should not be surprised at its poor table manners.

Re:Rights

[Orion Blastar]

Yeah but thanks to technology, now computers can fire people via email or fax. Downsizing can be done by having a computer randomly draw names from a pool of employees. Security guards are now replaced by robots, that escourt the former employees out of the building. The email or fax, explains why the employee was let go, and the reading of it signs the acceptance of the terms. If they do not read the email or fax, a security robot will explain to them, in a Stephen Hawking voice, the details of the email or fax. Everything is going to be automated some day, and very much maybe that day is here already?

For example, computers automatically trade stocks on the Internet, without any human intervention. Computer programs collect data and make decisions without human intervention.

Unless you call computers and robots individuals, which I doubt, humans can shift the responsibility to the machines. That is, until one of them, starts asking where Sarah Conner is. ;)

Corporations and social issues

[thomasa]

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.

Re:nice cop-out, Ballmer

[pommiekiwifruit]

Microsoft has bought wholesale into the media-generated myth that religious issues matter to the majority of the populace

Um, didn't the US populous just vote in GW Bush because he was against gay marriage? (I can understand that if not agree with it. After all, ruining the economy and increasing the threat of terrorism can't have been why he got so many votes).

There is often discrimination.

[Chris Burke]

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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[Reality Master 101]

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.

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.

Ethical Charters

[PsiPsiStar]

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.

Re:Bill Gates speaking?

[gitana]

Our nation is christian. We were founded on christian ideals. The only reason there is a separation of church and state is not to keep religion out of government, but to keep government out of the church.

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.

Sebastian Singing

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

Re:Sebastian Singing

[pipingguy]

The heteros counter-attack with:

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, here's a little number I tossed off recently in the Caribbean.

Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis.
Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong.
It's swell to have a stiffy,
It's divine to own a dick.
From the tiniest little tadger,
To the world's biggest prick.
So three cheers for your willy or John Thomas.
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake.
Your piece-of-pork,
Your wife's best friend,
Your Percy or your cock.
You can wrap it up in ribbons,
You can slip it in your sock.
But don't take it out in public
Or they will stick you in the dock,
And you won't come back.

These lyrics are from Monty Python Sings, 1989.

Re:Sebastian Singing

[ramblin billy]

NO WAY dude.

I'll never try sodomy.

I have a hard enough time keeping my shit together as it is,

billy - OK, sodomy maybe...but how bored was the guy who came up with the gerbil?

Re:mmm flames...

[Viceice]

Ah, yes. I agree. I too miss the days when they used to throw the Christians to the lions for sport.

Insightful? Hows this insightful?

I fully agree with the grandparent on this. This is about the same as when people say Isreal and the Palestinians ought to make up and share the land, the nuts on one side call it anti-semitism and the yahoos on the other calls it anti-islamic.

It's all bull. The only way tricky situations like this can be solved is if nobody wins and nobody loses, for neither side can tolorate the other winning, and neither side can tolorate losing to the other.

If for two peoples to live in peace means that neither side can feel all high and mighty about it then so be it.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

Is that true?

[AtariAmarok]

"This bill would make it illegal to discriminate against gays because they are gay, similar to how it is illegal to discriminate against women and minorities for that fact"

Is this exactly true? The omission implies that it is legal and OK to discriminate against those who are not women or minorities.

Should corporations lobby at all?

[ChrisKnight]

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

Fiduciary responsibility

[Mr. Underbridge]

And individuals petitioning congress never have self-centered motivations and propose things beneficial to themselves but harmful to society overall? And none of these individuals have loads of money?

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.

mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

"A very large portion of this country is dangerously psychotic."

And, this posting proves it, beyond all doubt.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Nimey]

Point of order: You don't have to be a "lefty" to hate Bush and all he stands for.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Burpmaster]

Calling the large portion of this country "psychotic" just because they idiologically and politically disagree with you [...]

Saying that he called the people psychotic merely because of a disagreement is clearly misrepresenting his point of view. If you read what he said, he called those people psychotic for having what he saw as "megalomania, religious flagwaving egotism, and the 'membership' into the 'Big Fat Christian Gun-Toting Whiteman kicks the Worlds Ass' Society" as a source of pride. If you disagree, that's fine, argue away, but it's unethical to misrepresent his views.

The only psychotic thing is modding this parent as insightful.

And here you actually do call people psychotic over a disagreement (about how the post should be moderated), rather than a personality trait of the person in question.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Jim_Callahan]

Additionally, "disagreeing ideologically and politically" is pretty much what defines insanity. We lock people up in mental hospitals and aquit them of murder in the first because of their ideological and political disagreements with the rest of humanity all the time. I really don't see what bothered the grandparent about the use of 'psychotic' in roughly the sense that it was intended to be used.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Shajenko42]

Sorry, you must have missed Karl Rove's latest press release, where the definition of "lefty" has been changed to "anyone who disagrees with George Bush".

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Bodysurf]

"Saying that he called the people psychotic merely because of a disagreement is clearly misrepresenting his point of view. If you read what he said, he called those people psychotic for having what he saw as "megalomania, religious flagwaving egotism, and the 'membership' into the 'Big Fat Christian Gun-Toting Whiteman kicks the Worlds Ass' Society" as a source of pride. If you disagree, that's fine, argue away, but it's unethical to misrepresent his views."

He called the large portion of this country psychotic, not a large portion.

That means he feels the majority of this country, at least all those who voted for Bush, are psychotic.

There's no way you can sugarcoat that for the parent of this thread.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Nimey]

s/lefty/terrorist/ HTH HAND.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Burpmaster]

He called the large portion of this country psychotic, not a large portion.

"A very large portion..."

That means he feels the majority of this country, at least all those who voted for Bush, are psychotic.

This looks to me like a classic personal-belief defense mechanism: Take offense at someone's statement as much as you can when you have an idealogical difference, and you can dismiss his or her point of view more easily.

Read the post again. There's no strong indication that he meant to refer to all Bush voters. "Majority" would have been a likely word choice if he did. Certainly, there are Bush supporters who do not have the characteristics mentioned, and some might even have a few things to say about those Bush supporters that do.

There's no way you can sugarcoat that for the parent of this thread.

I'm not trying to sugarcoat it, but I think you are doing the opposite (probably without realizing it). You recalled a quote incorrectly in a way that made it more offensive to you, and even your initial reply sort of missed the point for the sake of a personal attack, as I pointed out in my post.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[dstewart]

[...] your obvious leftish agenda.

Who talks like this? Rush Limbaugh?

Dismissing the views of another offhand as merely partisan agenda shows a lack of ability to compromise, but moreover (and more worrisome), it shows lack of intelligence. It translates roughly to "I am unwilling to think; it is easier to tout party line."

Union situation

[AtariAmarok]

"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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

Being gay, in my opinion, is a choice.

And you're opinion is wrong. Sad, but true.

And why the hell do we need parades marching, telling us that you enjoy doing that.

Why do you need to discriminate against us?

Quite frankly: Shut up, go away, and I don't care

Someone needs to change their Kotex I see.

Old Fashioned Values?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your arguements seem to stem from what is written in the christian bible. If so, do you treat your wife/girlfriend as second rate (see Genesis - god tells eve she is below adam. The "original sin" concept, etc. - The bible is clearly prejuduced against women). Was the sufferagette movement sinful? These women were going against the Word Of God(tm) and wanting equality. How sinful!

"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.

Re:Old Fashioned Values?

[gg3po]

People do not wake up one morning and decide to be homosexual. It is who they are

If you're implying that people are born gay, I'd like to have a look at your research, because pretty much everything I've ever seen used to support this has been subsequently discredited.

Re:Old Fashioned Values?

[gbjbaanb]

The time when Christianity set the laws was during the Medieval period, the Dark Ages refer to the time just after the collapse of the Roman Empire, when most peoples reverted to tribal communities and nobody bothered to write stuff down. Hence 'Dark', as in 'historians are in the dark as to what went on'.

Oh, and Original Sin isn't anythign really do to with anti-woman, its about how eating the apple (and thus gaining self knowledge) suddenly made us responsible for ourselves and no longer like children. We had to leave paradise because we'd 'outgrown' it, not because Eve was naughty.

As for the rest, don't forget that people get scared by change, especially those with vested interests, and bigoted, small-minded idea. Our job as decent people are to help these poor unfortunates come to terms with it.

Re:Homosexuality shouldn't be protected

[iamacat]

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.

Black and white issue to us

[geekpuppySEA]

You can argue any and all points about this you want, but from the viewpoint of an uppity faggot, sometimes all it looks like to me is: you are with us or you are against us. You have the balls of an adult or you're a simpering coward.

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.

Sniff, sniff... What's this shit on the floor

[Eric Damron]

"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!

Re:ns

[Wandering-Seraph]

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.

Bill! Is that you?

[AtariAmarok]

"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"

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.

(new? )line

[same_old_story]

shareholders

shareholders

shareholders

finally something MS and I agree on

[maxpublic]

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

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[pipingguy]

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.

Your Rights Online?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

What does this have to do with my "rights online"?

Interesting arguments...

[Guppy06]

"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.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Bodysurf]

"Praising the morality of people who willingly elect such a jackass"

"A very large portion of this country is dangerously psychotic."

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.

Microsoft's legislative arm?

[rice_burners_suck]

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.

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:

For immediate release

April 20, 2005

Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) today announced that it has acquired the United States Government in an equity deal valued at $10 billion. The move comes after Microsoft CEO and now United States President Steve Ballmer announced that content providers would streamline compelling enterprise solutions more efficiently if Microsoft had more control over the legislative environment.

A spokesperson for the LCPAR, the Legal Corporation for the Protection of Artists' Rights, a legal company consisting of 100,000 lawyers and paid-off judges owned by the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft, stated, "We are excited to bring consumers new freedoms in their use of intellectual property."

Microsoft announced that its first legislation makes it illegal to use any computer software not produced and sold by Microsoft, punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole. Further legislation is being pushed through Microsoft's campus to force digital rights management technology into widespread use which will automatically debit bank accounts in a pay-per-use fashion whenever someone listens to music, watches a movie, or uses software. The money will go directly to Microsoft's revenue collection arm, the IRS. President Ballmer stated that by 2007, it will be illegal to possess, use, or traffic in any device capable of processing any kind of intellectual property whatsoever without providing payment to Microsoft.

"Consumers will be glad to know they have more freedom now that Microsoft is in control," stated Bill Gates.

Yeah, I think this is exactly the direction Microsoft would pursue if they could. 1984. Bill Gates is watching you.

Re:Microsoft's legislative arm?

[HipCzeck]

F-word? Do you mean "Filibuster?"

Why do you not see...

[Eric Damron]

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.

Re:Why do you not see...

[Anonymous Coward]

You make some valid points, but the far left (moveon.org and the like) are just as bad. Government is a religion for them. If you actually listen to what they are saying, their belief and faith in government is extreme. I actually believe that the reason they fight so hard against christians expressing their beliefs in public is because it is blasphemous against their god, big government.

Re:Why do you not see...

[ColMustard]

As far as I can tell, both the far left and the far right are both totally nuts! The right worships Rush Limbaugh's every word... and Rush is merely the captain of Bush's fan club. God knows who the left follow.

Honestly, I've got the best spot: sitting right in the middle. No, it's not sitting on the fence or being undecided. Being neutral allows you to take each issue as it comes and make your own decision.

Personally, I voted Bush as the lesser of two evils, but so far I've been disappointed with almost everything he's done so far. I still wouldn't vote Kerry if I got another chance, though. I hope we get some good candidates for 2008, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Why do you not see...

[ignavus]

I am an Earthling and proud of what this planet SHOULD be ... at least, until some alien turns up and complains about how provincial we Terrans are.

But then, do aliens post on Slashdot?

It would explain a lot.

Re:Why do you not see...

[TheoMurpse]

No sooner did I make that other post, than I realized I probably sounded very harsh. I'm personally holding out for John McCain. If he had been voted in in 2000, life would be perfect. Feel free to disagree, but I don't think the man has an evil bone in his body.

Re:Why do you not see...

[Jim_Callahan]

For someone whining about other people pushing their beliefs, you sure are one dogmatically judgemental fellow. Just an observation.

Re:Why do you not see...

[Shajenko42]

Yeah, the Democrats go around everywhere tearing down churches, forcing people to declare their atheism...

Oh, wait, they do no such thing. If they were really trying to rid the country of religion, they would be doing both of those things.

Re:Why do you not see...

[Alsee]

And what about the Democrats who want all religion to be basically banned from the public eye?
No one complained back then like they do now when images and thoughts of God permeated public life.

That is exactly the sort of lies and half-truths to which he was referring.

The lie or misrepresentation or misunderstanfing there is the referrence to "public life". It is simply untrue. Separation of Church and State is the very guarantee of our religious freedom. Separation of Church and State means that government power cannot be used to infringe or oppress our religious freedom. It only applies to the (ab)use of government power. It does not restrict religion in public life othern than government power used to promote or suppress or favor or oppress any religion or religious belief.

Separation of Church and State means that children are free to pray in school. In fact the ALCU (the supposedly the demonic organization hellbent on exterminating religion and Christianty in particular)... supports the right to pray in school. Form the ACLU website: "Individual students have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom instruction or other educational activities -- or try to force others to pray along with them. If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help." I don't know if there was ever a case about a teacher suppressing prayer in school, but the ACLU would certainly jump in to support the student. I do know the ACLU jumped in and WON a student's right to have a Bible quote included in the school yearbook. Defense of religion in public life.

Separation of Church and State means that public school officials acting as an agent of the government cannot (ab)use their governmental powers to to promote or suppress or favor or oppress any religion or religious belief. Kids can pray in school, but school officials can neither promote it nor supress it.

Separation of Church and State means that the government cannot use it's power to put up religious displays on government land, but it also means that the government cannot (ab)use it's power to supress religion on government land. In particular the ACLU fought (and I believe won) a case defending people preforming baptisms in a public park. Defense of religion in public life.

Separation of Church and State means that people working in a court house are perfectly free to have the Ten Commandments (or any other scripture) prominently displayed amongst the personal knick-knacks on their desk. It also means government officials are prohibited from (ab)using thier power to have a ten-foot-tall Ten Commandments (or any other scripture) officially carved into the courthouse government building itself.

Separation of Church and State means that congress cannot (ab)use their power to change our traditional Pledge of Alliegance to add the words "under God". Aside from the inherent abuse of power for an unconstitutional purpose, it is unconstitutional for the government to show official favor for monotheism at the expense of oppressing atheists and polytheists (as if we hadn't oppressed Native Americans enough already).

The problem here is that some elements of the right wing are deliberately missrepresenting Separation of Church and State cases to create propaganda. Every single such case actually targets the abuse of government power and not religion. Of course once leave out the part about targeting the abuse of government power it is often quite easy to paint these cases as targeting religion, easy to misrepresent a case about the government as targeting "public life" when it doesn't.

If you don't beleive me, go ahead and pick your favorite case where the 'evil' ACLU is supposedly anti-religion. I guarantee I can Google up the case in a matter of minutes and point out how the case hase been

Re:Why do you not see...

[Alsee]

the far left... fight so hard against christians expressing their beliefs in public

"Right Wing" propaganda. AT best a misrepresentation/missunderstanding and at worst an outright lie.

Perhaps you can find one or two fruitloop individuals as an exception, but the "Left Wing" SUPPORTS the freedom of religion - including in public. The Right Wing lie there is to (deliberately or accidentally) confuse "abuse of government power" with "public". The target is never religion, the target is never religion public. The target is ALWAYS the use of government power.

The "Left Wing" (and particularly the ACLU) supports the right of students to pray in school. If you can get past the "Right Wing" propaganda peices on the subject and actually look at any court case on the subject you will see that the case is ALWAYS actually about use of government power - that school officials are forbidden to abuse government power to either promote or suppress prayer in school.

The ACLU fought and won a case for a Bible quote to be included in a highschool yearbook. The ACLU fought (and I believe won) a case for people prefoming baptisms in a public park. It is just plain untrue to say that the "Left Wing is anti-religion. They simply want to prevent the force of government being weilded to infringe our guaranteed right to religious freedom. And that means freedom from government interference.

-

Re:Why do you not see...

[TheoMurpse]

I'd like to take this time to point out that the man said "I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils". By his own admission, he voted for evil. I'm not saying he did, he is.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[An Onerous Coward]

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!

EXCUSE ME?

[StarCharter]

They didn't have the resources? What? Are they down to their last trillion in cash?

I am no fan of MS, but...

[WindBourne]

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.

Obviously

[nagora]

he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues.

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

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

If It Doesn't Make Bill Money...

[Master of Transhuman]

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".

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

Look at the top of the page.

[suso]

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.

A large portion of the country

[DickBreath]

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.)

Re:A large portion of the country

[shanen]

When the original comment said "psychotic", the word that leaped to my mind was "immature" as the admitedly weaker alternative I would have chosen. Still, I think that "immature" definitely applies to the moderators who regarded the post as flamebait.

However, I'm actually scanning the thread looking for humorous comments on Ballmer's claim that Microsoft's resources are too limited. How many billions of dollars does Microsoft have in the bank? But now their resources are too limited? Riiiiiiight! (Back to scanning.)

Re:A large portion of the country

[rw2]

It would be more accurate to say that educated people are the minority. An amazing number of people have an enormous depth of knowledge in sports trivia and fashion lines. But few are educated in any conventional sense of the word.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[pipingguy]

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.

Oh yeah, we were moral in the 50's...

[benhocking]

We should go to our local diners, town halls, and places of worship to find the way in the complex social environment of the modern world. It is regular people, not urban elites we should be listening to!

In the 50s, when blue-collar workers actually represented the things you described you might have had a point.

Seeing as how the original post is about equal rights for homosexuals, I find this statement quite confusing. Back then, not only would the majority be against gay marriages, they would also be against interracial marriages!

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

Left or right?

[benhocking]

Your trolling repetition of the lefty notion that all businesses will take a profit no matter what, with no thought to any other factor, is either insulting to the intelligence of your audience here (though some twits did mod it up), or reflects serious gullibility and lack of information on your part.

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.)

The opposite is true

[AtariAmarok]

"Before you implement this, you should make sure that the conditions of your society ensure equal opportunity for people of all races. Until that is true, "Choose the best regardless of race." is just a veiled excuse for practising racism."

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.

Re:The opposite is true

[AtariAmarok]

"Once again, you are completely ignoring the documented fact of UNCONSCIOUS race bias"

I love unconscious, invisible, and undetectable race bias!

"Because of this fact of the human condition, "choose the best candidate regardless or race"

It works in practice.

"that is present in society without some sort of opposing force, something that acts against the unconscious biases that humans develop and perpetuate"

i.e. we must deny people rights based on skin color because of invisible societal forces.

"You don't like affirmative action? "

No, I do not. Nor do I like Jim Crow or anything similar. It all denies individuals equal protection under the law and due process.

"Would you prefer to go back to allowing tension to build up until revolution "

You overlook the obvious, much better solution; remove discrimination. You seem hell-bent on thinking that emplacing discriminating against race B is an OK countermeasure for discrimination against race A. This does not level the playing field: it tips it much worse. You are also creating tension along the way: aff.action divides and conquers and pits groups against each other.

Re:military

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

In human costs....

[AtariAmarok]

"a candidate for a position in robotics who was under the illusion that you could bring an out-of-balance system into balance by applying a neutral force"

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.

Re:In human costs....

[AtariAmarok]

Thanks for a question that was entirely unrelated in any way to what was being discussed.

anti-discrimination laws are morally wrong

[crimethinker]

because when someone covered by "anti-discrimination" laws is fired for cause, the first thing they seem to think is, "they fired me because I'm black/female/hispanic/gay/handicapped." No, it could never be because you didn't do your freaking job, it's obviously because of something covered by a law and therefore promising a hefty jury award.

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

Re:anti-discrimination laws are morally wrong

[frank_adrian314159]

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.

Being a member of a protected class does not prevent termination for cause. And I speak as a manager who has terminated individuals from "protected classes". If your managers are so blind and/or spineless as to not be able to justify the firing of this individual, I think they (and your company) have larger problems than anti-discrimination laws.

Re:anti-discrimination laws are morally wrong

[tedrlord]

It's not nearly as simple as an employer missing out on a good worker due to stupidity, it's entire groups of good workers kept from work for unfair reasons.

Ideological issues aside, the problem with work-related discrimination due to societal bias is that it reinforces the relegation of whatever group to second-class citizens through what amounts to financial embargoes.

On a fundamental level, the effect of such discrimination on a populace can lead to broad social problems, such as increased crime, homelessness, health care for those without coverage*, and general discontent. This has a more detrimental effect than regular unemployment since it creates a divide between those allowed success and those denied it due to arbitrary reasons, polarizing society and leading to such things as gangs and race riots.

Of course, it's slightly different when it comes to gender- and sexuality-based discrimination, but the the more subtle issues of increased suicide rates, poverty among single-parent families, and marginalization similarly reduce general quality-of-life in this country and create the need for costly government support programs.

I've always found this really quite simple to understand, and while I realize that government regulation is a far from perfect way to enforce equality, there is little else that can be done in the short term to solve these problems.

* Whatever opinion one may have of government-funded health care, emergency services are required to help patient regardless of their ability to pay. When large amounts of people do not have employer-supplied health coverage, this is a large tax drain

Re:Homosexuality shouldn't be protected

[mizhi]

Unlike your skin color, it's not hard for a well-behaved homosexual to keep from getting fired in the vast majority of companies because of their sexuality. The key is being polite and well-behaved, two things that used to be common components of business decorum. Your sexuality has no place in the office and it is common courtesy to leave it outside work. OMG did I just say that people should restrain themselves at work? Yes, I did. Your co-workers don't need to know who you like to fuck and if you genuinely respected them you wouldn't be talking about that sort of thing in mixed company.

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.

Is homosexuality a choice?

[benhocking]

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.

Re:Is homosexuality a choice?

[adorai]

erm...isn't it a genetic defect? It seems like anything that would reduce your interest in procreating could only be called a disease/genetic defect. Of course, so is having six fingers on one hand, or having pattern baldness. The point is that you shouldn't deprive people of their rights because of some inconsequential genetic defect.

Total Horseshit

[dcollins]

"[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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[pipingguy]

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.

They all do.

[AtariAmarok]

"quotas do NOT discriminate against individuals."

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.

Re:They all do.

[Rufus88]

Not on personal names that happen to be similar to that [Bob Jones] Catholic university.

Actually, it's a Christian university, but not a Catholic university. (Actually, I've heard that the founder was very *anti* Roman Catholic.)

Re:They all do.

[AtariAmarok]

Thanks. I did make an error. Foe and Freak both? Must be a BAD error!

Re:They all do.

[Rufus88]

I have +1 modifiers for both foes and freaks, and my highlight threshold is set at 4, so I pretty much see everything you write. :)

Re:They all do.

[AtariAmarok]

And I have no idea why I foed'd you. I'm turning it off now. You will probably never read this!

Re:They all do.

[Rufus88]

I get email notification of all replies, so I read all replies.

You foe'd me because I foe'd you first. I foe'd you after our discussion of the (unfair, in my opinion) paraphrasing of Gore's remarks regarding the creation of the Internet. Although I wouldn't foe someone for being critical of Gore's remarks, or for believing that what was attributed to him was a fair paraphrasing, I felt that, in a debate specifically about the fairness of that paraphrasing, to use the phrase "what he actually said" in reference to the paraphrase and not the words that emanated from his lips, was disingenuous at best.

However, I've seen enough of your posts since then to know that you're not the troll I thought you were. So, I'm un-foe-ing you as well.

Re:They all do.

[AtariAmarok]

Unfoed by someone? So honored!

About my view of Gore's statement. I do not believe that the use of the word "invent" or "create" in a paraphrase makes any difference. This includes not thinking that using the world "invent" makes Gore somehow look worse. You are right though, that "actually said" should not be used for a paraphrasing.

Re:ns

[Yahkob]

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.

Godwin's law

[JumperCable]

Google cache of Wikipedia Godwin's Law explained (Wiki isn't working well at the moment)

Re:Godwin's law

[AtariAmarok]

"Google cache of Wikipedia Godwin's Law explained [64.233.167.104] (Wiki isn't working well at the moment)"

In keeping with the topic, I suppose I could say that Google is "just like Hitler" because the cache is not working.

Doesn't make any sense to me

[mpsmps]

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.

obviously?

[quixos]

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.

i beg to differ

[Trepidity]

see: Michael Jackson

puzzling?

[quixos]

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.

Re:How is this news?

[autophile]

You think it's OK for someone to be fired just because of their personal views?

No, but it happens all the time anyway. Since 1886 when corporations were de facto granted virtual personhood, corporations have become the most powerful citizens. So what can you do?

--Rob

I think you are missing the point

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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.

Re:ns

[Wandering-Seraph]

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?

Re:Homosexuality shouldn't be protected

[draevil]

Sigh, ok, I'll bite.

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-bulls hit-courtsey-of-the-aclu/ which is something of a pejorative term to say the least.

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.

Black and white issue?

[yipper]

The rest of us need to change because you won't?

Re:Black and white issue?

[geekpuppySEA]

Won't change?

Nope, I won't undergo some fucked-up religious therapy so that I can live a bland, sexless existence with a wife that I don't really care for.

Yes, the rest of you - those of you who are in the wrong and use cowardly means to disguise that - you need to change. Not me.

Re:Black and white issue?

[yipper]

That's probably the most self-revealing thing
I've ever seen on slashdot.

I appreciate your honesty.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[jschottm]

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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

True, but when you try to work against them or even just ignore them, they cry anti-Christianity and other such bullshit.

It's in the last line of the OP:

[BrokenHalo]

Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues.

But it's perfectly OK to be as antisocial as they want. ;-)

*ducks...*

Re:It's in the last line of the OP:

[rhetoric]

Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues. Too bad this is a human rights issue.

Re:nice cop-out, Ballmer

[autiger]

No, that was a minor issue at best, although it rolled up into the same group of fundamentalist issues that include abortion.

Many people did, in fact, think GWB was a better solution to the "threat of terrorism." Also, Republicans and GWB are perceived by many as pro-business and more fiscally responsible (which is a complete joke).

crap, i posted the above in the wrong thread...

[dwntwnboi]

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...

Re:My hope

[symbolic]

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).

Re:no you're wrong

[starm_]

The high price is due to global scarcity, chinese demand and the fact Bush's economic policies have burned the value of the $USD$. And no need to invade the saudis because their oil industry is already controled by the US. Notice that oil is still at a lower price in the US than most other countries.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

i think what we're saying is

[darth_linux]

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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[realityfighter]

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.

Paraphrase for the Testosteronically impaired

[psycho]

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.......

Re:military

[Shajenko42]

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.

Re:Bill Gates speaking?

[NetCynicism]

Deist believe in god but reject christianity.

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.

Re:Homosexuality shouldn't be protected

[mizhi]

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.

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.

Re:It's about financial liability, not discriminat

[phuturephunk]

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.

A Persons' Responsibility

[Paraplex]

Corporations mightn't have any responsibility to social issues but "persons" certainly do

'plex

But...

[schtum]

I AM an urban elite, you insensitive clod!

Hypocrisy

[zardo]

Here's what you're not seeing bub. The exact same thing is going on with this Bolton nomination, all the judges the left is filibustering. It is a tactic used by both sides.

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.

Re:no you're wrong

[forgetful_ca]

Just wanted to comment on this 'Government has failed' comment. This should come as no surprise. Those in power naturally, over time, come to take more and more unto themselves until finally there's an adjustment.
Sooner or later the old order is removed (and the new utopian one replaced ;> ) and it all starts over. Don't see much of a way out of it until human beings themselves change. (Or change themselves?)
I know lots of individuals that are great (not necessarily including myself) but humans as a whole suck. Surely the stupidest species that ever came down the pike.

Re:Bill Gates speaking?

[EnglishTim]

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.

WOW!

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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 ;-)

Re:WOW!

[toddbu]

I'd be more than happy to someday tell you all about my sexual conquests, but I don't think that there's enough storage on the /. servers for that. :-)

You're assuming here that I'm trying to find a "safe" position, meaning that by coming up with some combination of laws (or non-laws) that we can establish a complete set of protections. But that's not my point. The whole point here is that life doesn't work like that. In this specific case, unless you're willing to abandon the First Ammendment protections on freedom of association, there will always be a mechanism for employers to fire employees at will. You might make it a little harder to do the firing, but it can still be done nonetheless. It happens all the time to people who are currently in protected classes, and the current law (the EEOC site I posted earlier) even allows for it. Maybe I'm wrong, but my assumption was that the purpose behind the legislation proposal was to eliminate discrimination, and I'm saying that it takes a lot more than a law to change people's behavior.

Let me use another example to help you understand my point. On 9/12/2001, were you any less safe than you were on 9/10/2001? Some people would say that 9/11 changed things, but in reality all that changed was our perception of the threats. Most of us lived in a bubble thinking the world was a safe place. By accepting the reality of the situtation, we were able to deal with those threats. You can argue whether the solution was the right one or not (and I'd prefer not to do that here), but very few people would have said "Yup, everything's still ok here. Move along. Nothing to see." What's helped keep the country safe since then isn't that we passed a bunch of laws telling terrorists that they could no longer fly airplanes into buildings, but rather that we became aware of the situation and took action to help prevent future problems.

Does this make more sense now, or am I just rambling at this point? :-)

Re:WOW!

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Nope you aren't rambling ;-) This post makes sense and I completely agree. The proposed law certainly won't completly fix the problem. Heck it may not even help a majority of the people since even if this is passed into law and someone blatantly violates it depending on the location it could be a crap shoot at best that a jury would find them guilty.

I think a lot of similarities exist between the current status of gays and the status of blacks around a centry ago. At there respective points in time, both groups were almost viewed as sub-human by society and this is/was unconcinable in both cases. This is why I think this proposed law is a good thing. Will it "solve" the problem? No. Will it help with the problem? Hopefully. To me the short-term effect of the law isn't really an issue. Giving blacks the right to vote in many places didn't accomplish much in the short-term. Many bigots were still able to find ways to limit this. However, I still think it was a good idea. Over the long-term it certainly had an effect.

I'm a huge believer in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and I think this is really lacking. Its easy to think this is an issue with our society, but unfortuanatly it is more a fact of being human and you can very easily see it thoughout history. My favorite "deadly sin" has to be pride. Sadly there is something in us as humans which makes us want to believe we are "special". We all want to think our group is somehow better, superior, more rightous, or whatever then other groups. That my friend is exactly the pride this sin refers to and as such I think our world still has a LONG way to go in this respect (we have improved much over the past few hundred years, but still have a long way to go). Its sad that our leaders (political and religious) still peddle this type of pride as a way to hold onto thier power. It is exactly this sin which causes the need for this type of anti-descrimination laws. I think these laws are fairly flawed and can be abused by both sides, but until we as a people can stop thinking in terms of "us" and "them" its the best we can do. To not have these just legitimises the view of these people being sub-human in some way. I hate these laws! It sickens me that they are nessecary, but sadly they are. While its good if these laws help the problem, to me I don't even see that as the primary issue. These people are so "abused" in sooo many ways and have to live with a government and society that for the most part says they are evil and sub-human that any little such law (successful or not) to help them feel that they aren't completely powerless against the hatred they deal with everyday is completly nessecary.

A bit about me which may help explain my passion for this topic. I grew up in a small town in Iowa to a VERY good Catholic family (12 years of Catholic school and everything). I was a HUGE bigot! When I'd heard about some "fag" being beaten to hell for "coming on" to some straight guy, I completely thought that was OK and would do the same. Shortly after college, I went to work abroad (still do). I've traveled and lot and lived in many different socieities. It didn't take long to realize all the stereotypes I'd been "taught" were completly insane. I grew up thinking of the Russians as evil and wanted to kill us all. Now I know better and it was just my governments propoganda throwing this idea around. All of us are sooooooo similar it sickens me to think how easily we are turned against each other. My family are great people (even though we certainly have our disagreements on some topics), but they just don't have the experience to have informed judgements. I've since married a Chinese (woman by the way ;-) and probably a majority of my friends are gay.

There is evil in the world, but it isn't those of different cultures, sexual orientations, races, etc. It is those who try to tell you one is good and one is bad. We are all the same on so many levels, its ju

Re:WOW!

[toddbu]

Please exuse spelling... - ok :-)

This really gives me quite a bit of insight into where you are coming from. I can certainly understand why you feel the way that do about this issue. I've never really been in a situation where I've seen firsthand someone being beaten up for their views, and I'll be the first to stand up and say that we shouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior from anyone. A core principle of freedom is that oppression of any kind can't be tolerated. Although I'm socially and economically conservative, I have this real mean streak of libertarianism that runs deep. The founding fathers had it right - give people the freedom to live without oppression of any form.

I'm kind of curious as to how you've managed to draw a parallel between the status of gays and blacks. I'd like to think that I'm a pretty tough guy and that there are few things that really bother me that much, but I'm nearly brought to tears when I think of how aweful slavery really is. I watched a story on TV about a guy who collected items of slavery (shackles, whips, etc) and used them to tell the story of slavery in the US. It was sickening to say the least. It's virtually impossible to imagine that there are people out there who are sick enough to pull this off.

So getting back to the parallel, do you really see this same kind of oppression of gays today? I don't know any oppressed gays - in fact it's quite the opposite. Virtually everyone I know who is gay has a very comfortable lifestyle. Although I'm sure that they experience some level of discrimination, I'm not seeing anything near the level that blacks have had to suffer for hundreds of years. If there were, I'd wouldn't be here writing this today. I'd be down in the streets doing what I could to change the system.

What concerns me when I see the parallel drawn between the black and gays is that feels like we're trivializing the suffering of blacks throughout history. It's important to honor the memory of those who died in support of a cause and to put them in a very special category. By respecting them in this way we send a very powerful message that slavery is unacceptable in any form. (The sad fact is that slavery is still alive and well today throughout the world, even here in the US. If you're looking for a social justice cause then this would be a great place to start.)

Your "do unto others" quote is probably what drives me to be a libertarian at heart. There are thought police on both the conservative and liberal sides of the aisle who want to tell you what you should or shouldn't do or think. Personally I don't think that what people do in their own bedroom with another consenting adult is anyone else's business, but in the same regard I think that it's no one else's business how I feel about that kind of activity. To pass legislation as a way of telling me that I'm wrong to believe that homosexuality is a sin just isn't going to work. I derive my views from reading my Bible, and if someone else reads something different than I do then I can respect their opinion yet disagree with them on their belief. Ultimately I believe that God will hold us all accountable for our own individual sins, and I know that I've got a lot of answering to do for what I've done in my life, including how I've treated other people around me. It's the recognition of our own faults that can really make a permanent change our behavior.

Re:WOW!

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

"Exuse" yeah, that was pretty sad as I was explaining my spelling ;-)

And you are correct. I really don't mean to say that slavery is equal to the current treatment of gays. I guess what I'm trying to say that the treatment of gays is our generations most obvious example of those same ideas (we are better than you, etc). I certainly don't mean to equate the current treatment of gays with the treatment of blacks during slavery, jews during the hologost, native americans during the expansion westward, or those who believed the earth circled the sun during the dark ages. The fact that these aren't the same I guess gives me some hope (and thus the statement that we have made progrsss during the last few hundred years), however I do think there can be parallels drawn. At least in the fact that this is primarily driven by those who believe "my way" is better then "thier way".

And also recently I have had much the same experience with gay rights. I've removed myself from situations where I would have to deal with physical violence on such people (though it does still happen all to often). But even though I don't see people being beaten, I still don't think that is good enough. Until I see 100% equality I won't be satisfied (I'd say MAYBE we are at 85% now).

Also, I don't mean to make this entirely a gay issue. Even today I would not have been able to marry my wife in my (previous) catholic church since she isn't catholic. The core issues of discrimiation and "my way is better than yours" runs much deeper.

While civil unions would be a big step forward (allowing many rights married couples enjoy today), I think either gay couples should be able to marry or marriage should completly removed from public domain (meaning its not a state sponsored institution). If a certain faith thinks this is wrong that is fine and such couples can avoid this. However, for your country says you cannot enjoy equal status I have a problem with that.

From your last few posts (which were very good and I do understand what you are saying), I think we would get along just fine ;-) Sometimes /. leads you to make quick statements of your opinion without fully explaining them which lead me to reply to your inital post.

I also derive many of my views from the bible (and many other texts), but it pains me to no end when people use these to rationalize thier bigotry driven views. As a rule, I entirly discount the old testiment.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Much of my wife's family lives in Canada. Can I buy them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
3. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put death, should I do it or should I ask the police to do it?
4. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
5. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there a little wiggle room there?
6. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.
7. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
8. My family has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does my mother by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

I think the bible does teach some great lessons but you get my point that is shouldn't be taken literally.

I'm afraid this has come across as way too preachy, but I really do respect what you are saying and do for the most part agree with them (except the main idea that this law isn't a good idea). I gotta get to bed, but perhaps this will continue ;-)

Wussy companies

[lorcha]

As a landlord, I have rejected more applicants than I can count who are protected by fair housing laws. I have minimum acceptance standards, and if you don't meet 'em, you're rejected.

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?

it was PC originally anyway

[scrout]

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.

Remembering a lesson from the Nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis started off slowly with their repugnant anti Jewish laws. A little here and a little more there. While I don't think the plan for the "final solution" was set in stone with the first anti Jewish law it made things easier and seemed like the logical (in a sick and twisted Nazi mind) road to travel. Some of the anti Jewish laws:

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.

Re:Bill Gates speaking?

[scrout]

"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.....

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[gymell]

Being gay, in my opinion, is a choice.

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.

Re:Bill Gates speaking?

[EnglishTim]

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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

And you apparently get off on it

Re:Some of that isn't appropriate

[theNeophile]

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.

The problem isn't reasonable people like you an me; it's unreasonable people who discriminate against someone for no other reason then their being gay. In your previous comment you said that homosexuality shouldn't be protected. Unlike skin colour, sexuality isn't immediately obvious and you say that keeping it a secret should be enough to avoid discrimination (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it read to me). Which you back up by implying that if you are polite, well-behaved, and don't talk about sex in an inappropriate way no one will know your are gay. iamacat simply pointed out that there are many completely appropriate actions that reveal a persons sexuality, such as a picture of your spouse or a kiss in the lunchroom.

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.

Provably false. Homosexuality has existed throughout human history and exists in the rest of the animal kingdom.

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.

There are about a million different cores of God's morality. You say we have forgotten God's core of morality and that He is angry with America. Other religions say differently. What evidence do you have that you're right? It's a serious question.

Re:Homosexuality shouldn't be protected

[Alsee]

they have to be prepared to face the consequences just like a child molester

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 :) ), 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.

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 :) ), 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.

-

Re:Bravo

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks - just calling out these liars as they expose their soft white underbellies. MS is, as usual, an easy target, because their hamfisted political floundering is so much harder than shooting capitalist fish in their monopoly barrel.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[SgtChaireBourne]

there is data from WWII-era German births providing a link to the same phenomena in humans

Then it is simply a defect or disability like many other problems.

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.

Re:How is this news?

[sidmystic]

You never had the right to hang the 10 commandments in the courthouse, and just because some places in Buttfuck, Texas did so doesn't mean they were right.

How supercilious of you.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

SUch research is impossible unless it was made compulsury and ethical guidelines were suspended.

Ralph Reed on Microsoft payroll

[miasmo]

If they are not involved with social policy, why do they have Ralph Reed on retainer?

Re:Money & DSM V

[JenovaSynthesis]

Actually, Puritanical sex issues mainly cause turd eaters so it is religion that needs to fix that one.

The fetishes you list are allo pretty much "nurture" because they are conditioned and are quite easily treated.

But as for removing them from the DSM first of all turd eating, like many fetishes, does not have a specific code since most of them are the same function and the same pathology so they are given an NOS diagnostic.

Homosexuality was removed because there was no scientific data proving that it was a pathology. Also, it failed to meet the general criteria for disorder because it does not impair the individual's functioning in and of itself. Society + Homosexuality can cause comorbidities like Major Depressive Disorder, but that is more society.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

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.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[JenovaSynthesis]

That may or may not be what be the reference a faculty member was referring to. I just googled various terms she used her her summarization of it as an example of reliability in experiments.

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.

Those are not a problem

[AtariAmarok]

"Don't forget that it's a shield against not-so-frivolous lawsuits, too"

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.

Ever heard Amarok?

[AtariAmarok]

"and goes around chanting and ringing bells"

Ever heard "Amarok" ?

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li

[SgtChaireBourne]

Doesn't need to be either compulsory or unethical. Though purely logistically, it would be very difficult to carry out in the U.S. since records are mostly non-existent and those that are, are poorly managed. e.g. compare the zip codes that registered pairs have lived in (or been born in) to zip codes with or without industrial contamination in air/soil/water. Shipping contaminated food is one of the confounds, though.

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.