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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[jschottm]

I cry for the moderation system.

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

[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

[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."

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Corporations do not and should not have "rights".

If they are taxed they have rights.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?".

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?

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 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.

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.

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)

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.

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".

[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".

[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".

[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: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.

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

They don't have the resources??!!

[johansalk]

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

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: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: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.

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: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.

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.

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: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?

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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"

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.

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: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: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.

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: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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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: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.

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: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".

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: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: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: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.