Steve Ballmer Responds to Discrimination Issue 633
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."
Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 indi
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:3, Insightful)
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 r
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
You're right, those are better generalizations. Thanks, kid!
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Why do you hate America? (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, your dig at all Christians is really hateful and ignorant. Bush supporters don't have a monopoly on bigotry, you know.
Why do you not see... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 h
Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
My hat goes off to you -- your cynicism is awe inspiring.
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:3, Insightful)
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Oh yeah, we were moral in the 50's... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 b
Re:Corporations ARE involved in social policy (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Why is this a question? (Score:2, Insightful)
No they should not. They are not real persons, and by definitions have no interests except profits.
Re:Why is this a question? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:2, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, large corporations should maintain their present trend of social unaccountability.
Re:Why is this a question? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this a question? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why is this a question? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are taxed they have rights.
Re:Why is this a question? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 s
Re:Why is this a question? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
Re:Why is this a question? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 irrele
Re:Why is this a question? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If you silence them you should not tax them (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
They may as well. They're the only ones with any influence other than organized religions.
AARP! (excuse me) (Score:4, Insightful)
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)!
low resources (Score:5, Funny)
So it's not just my PC that lacks resources.
Re:low resources (Score:3, Funny)
The Rich Opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
Link to older slashdot story (Score:2)
Quite a nice lively discussion. I've gone back over it a few times now.
Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues like (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Is homosexuality a choice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which legistations? (Score:4, Interesting)
corporations and social issues (Score:2, Insightful)
you mean those pesky antitrust laws meant to protect the people?
Corporations not getting involved? (Score:3, Informative)
http://google.org/ [google.org]
Philanthropic = humanitarian.
Humanatarian = "[devotion] to the promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms" (Thanks dictionary.com)
It's politics. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I find Ballmers statement refreshing (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, people are arguing t
They don't have the resources??!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the top of the page. (Score:3, Informative)
That makes it $65 billion. With something like 40,000 Microsoft employees, I would say that makes them have more than enough resources.
Resources? (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting question about capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Sugarcoating the Reversal? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22ga
what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Really. Microsoft, with $50B USD in the bank, didn't have the resources to follow this and support it. Riiiiiiight....
I feel dirty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I feel dirty (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations and social issues (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Interesting arguments... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Microsoft's legislative arm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why in the "F" word does Microsoft need to focus on legislation? What is Microsoft, a government agency? Is it the legislative branch of the U.S. government? What is this, the United States of Microsoft? I can almost see it now:
Yeah, I think this is exactly the direction Microsoft would pursue if they could. 1984. Bill Gates is watching you.Obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Total Horseshit (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Though shalt have no other Godwin before me (Score:5, Funny)
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?".
But does it run Linux? (Score:2)
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.
Re:mmm flames... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 emplo
Re:Diversity often is discrimination (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Diversity often is discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-gay groups won't acknowledge that, though, because that fact completely destroys their lie that such bills are about providing "special rights".
Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is that federal law prohibits discrimination of this nature.
I think you are missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Homosexuality shouldn't be protected (Score:3, Insightful)
If not, I don't see how you can complain about gays doing similar things. Personally, I would be offended by these things (star
Re:Homosexuality shouldn't be protected (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Diversity often is discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst people should be fired, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
No good reason to "hire for race". (Score:5, Insightful)
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". (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No good reason to "hire for race". (Score:4, Insightful)
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". (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ori
Re:No good reason to "hire for race". (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:No good reason to "hire for race". (Score:5, Insightful)
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". (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Race != Culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop trying to justify racism.
Re:How is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 story is (Score:3, Interesting)
Great article in the Stranger [thestranger.com] about Microsoft caving in.
Where do you live? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Bill Gates speaking? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [deism.org] 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/ [theocracywatch.org]
Really, just try thinking for once.
Sebastian Singing (Score:3, Funny)
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 wra
Old Fashioned Values? (Score:4, Insightful)
"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:Bill Gates speaking? (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 p
Re:ns (Score:3, Insightful)
Homosexuality? About as much a crime as Heterosexuality. We all make the same mistakes, w
Re:anti-discrimination laws are morally wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
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