Pressured by Evangelical Minister, Microsoft Withdraws Support for Civil Rights Bill
In a move that angered many of the company's gay employees, the Microsoft Corporation, publicly perceived as the vanguard institution of the new economy, has taken a major political stand in favor of age-old discrimination.
The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch. The pastor, Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, met with a senior Microsoft executive in February and threatened to organize a national boycott of the company's products if it did not change its stance on the legislation, according to gay rights activists and a Microsoft employee who attended a subsequent April 4 meeting where Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary, told a group of gay staffers about Hutcherson's threat. Hutcherson also unsuccessfully demanded that the company fire two employees who had testified in favor of the bill.
[...]
Hutcherson, whose church boasts 3,500 members, is an outspoken national leader in the Evangelical Christian crusade against gay rights. He organized the Mayday for Marriage rally last spring that drew an estimated 20,000 conservative Christians to Safeco Field, as well as a national Mayday for Marriage rally in Washington, D.C. last October, which attracted some 140,000 participants from around the country. An African American, he strenuously objects, in public appearances and writings, to the equation of gay civil rights with the African-American civil rights struggle in the 1960s. For instance, in an op-ed in the Seattle Times on March 29, 2004, Hutcherson wrote, "It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that's the case, then gays would be the new African Americans. I'm here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community." He has also said that he does not tolerate known gays in his church.
A fixture in local Republican politics, Hutcherson was clearly feeling empowered after last November's election, when 11 states passed constitutional amendments barring gay marriage. "11 out of 11," he bragged to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on November 3, characterizing the ballot-box victories as a happy indictor of the growing power of the Religious right. "We're a force to be reckoned with," he said.
Hutcherson did not return a call requesting comment for this article.
According to the account Smith later provided to GLEAM members, in their meeting Hutcherson told the Microsoft general counsel that 700 Evangelical Microsoft employees attend his church, and all of them oppose H.B. 1515. He added that if Microsoft did not withdraw its support of the bill, he intended to organize a national Evangelical boycott of Microsoft. He further demanded that Smith fire McCarthy and McCurdy, the two Microsoft employees who had testified in favor of the bill. Smith did not immediately respond to Hutcherson's demands. After investigating the issue for about two weeks, Smith told Hutcherson that because Microsoft had no set policy restricting employees from testifying on political matters, he would not fire the two employees. He did, however, decide that Microsoft would change its stance on the bill by adopting an officially "neutral" position.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
Sauron: And that Microsoft claims to be gay-friendly?
A company that is gay-friendly is not synonymous with one that is obligated to be politically active on the matter. If you are saying that Microsoft's official position in the past has been politically active regarding gay issues and they just now changed to neutral, then you may have a point.
In any case, I don't hate them for not being politically active on gay issues. But it's fine with me if that's how you'd like to spend your emotional energy.
If you are saying that Microsoft's official position in the past has been politically active regarding gay issues and they just now changed to neutral, then you may have a point.
According to the article, Microsoft "withdrew its support for House bill 1515". To me that sounds like they have been politically active on the issue all along, but have changed their position from supporting gay rights on this issue to not supporting gay rights on this issue. For a company of their size and stature to make that kind of shift seems to me like an important political statement that should be of interest to anyone who supports gay rights.
viscousmemories: ... For a company of their size and stature to make that kind of shift seems to me like an important political statement that should be of interest to anyone who supports gay rights.
I support everyone's civil rights.
And as far as I can tell from that article, Microsoft has not changed its internal employee policies regarding gay rights.
In any case, I have trouble getting all worked up about this particular incident, though. Feel free to boycott my posts on this forum.
Quote:
According to the article, Microsoft "withdrew its support for House bill 1515". To me that sounds like they have been politically active on the issue all along,
You may be right, but there is not enough information in that article to make that conclusion.
Sauron: And that Microsoft claims to be gay-friendly?
A company that is gay-friendly is not synonymous with one that is obligated to be politically active on the matter.
Incorrect. Microsoft bills itself as "gay friendly", not "gay neutral." A company that claims to be gay friendly and yet does not support enacting civil liberties for gays and lesbians cannot make the claim.
Oh, and way to miss the point.
They supported this legislation for the last umpteen years.
Now they don't.
And - breaking news as of 2 hours ago - the state senator from Microsoft's district in Redmond voted against the legislation.
Quote:
In any case, I don't hate them for not being politically active on gay issues.
Yes, I know - you got yours. Not doing much to make me believe that claim, are you?
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
xouper: A company that is gay-friendly is not synonymous with one that is obligated to be politically active on the matter.
Sauron: Incorrect. Microsoft bills itself as "gay friendly", not "gay neutral." A company that claims to be gay friendly and yet does not support enacting civil liberties for gays and lesbians cannot make the claim.
Yes they can, based on their empoyment polices. Being gay-friendly is NOT synonymous with an obligation to be politically active on the issue.
Quote:
They supported this legislation for the last umpteen years.
Now they don't.
I'll have to take your word for that. In which case, I accept that point.
Quote:
xouper: In any case, I don't hate them for not being politically active on gay issues.
Sauron: Yes, I know - you got yours. Not doing much to make me believe that claim, are you?
Well, it's kind of interesting that Microsoft, which took on the European Union, caved in to a minister who has a congregation of only 3,500.
__________________ Of Courtesy, it is much less than Courage of Heart or Holiness. Yet in my walks it seems to me that the Grace of God is in Courtesy.
Well, it's kind of interesting that Microsoft, which took on the European Union, caved in to a minister who has a congregation of only 3,500.
If the story is accurate, then I'm sure it was the boycott issue that pushed them over the edge.
Was every Evangelical Christian threatening to install Linux?
__________________ Of Courtesy, it is much less than Courage of Heart or Holiness. Yet in my walks it seems to me that the Grace of God is in Courtesy.
Well, it's kind of interesting that Microsoft, which took on the European Union, caved in to a minister who has a congregation of only 3,500.
If the story is accurate, then I'm sure it was the boycott issue that pushed them over the edge.
Was every Evangelical Christian threatening to install Linux?
You're behind the times. Software sales are down; have been down for several years. Only minimal growth.
The boycott would have been over more critical areas in the consumer market. Microsoft wants to make big inroads into delivering digital media and content to consumers - web, wireless, cable, etc.
Microsoft is becoming more like Sony everyday - only with a computer software background.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
I don't understand, Sauron. A company like Disney, say, is gay friendly -- offers partnership benefits, gay-themed events at their parks, has one of the largest (if not the largest) lesbian and gay employees organization in the industry -- but is not, as far as I know, involved in gay rights advocacy in congress.
There are lots of companies like this, gay friendly in their internal operations but not interested in petitioning the government for redress of bglt grievances. I don't see why they by necessity have to do engage in activism in order to be called gay friendly. In fact, as far as I know, the term gay friendly is specifically used to refer to a company's internal policies, mainly hiring/firing practices and bennies.
Following up on my post above, I looked for a definition of gay friendly on Human Right's Campaign's website and found the 2004 Corporate Equality Index (pdf file) which ranks large companies according to 7 criteria:
By these standards -- which I think are remarkably extensive -- it seems to me that Microsoft's Brave Sir Robin act would not change their status as a gay friendly corporation. I thought criterion 7 might possibly cover something like withdrawing support for a gay rights bill, but according to the footnote, companies only lose points under that criterion if they actively undermine GLBT employment practices or direct corporate contributions to anti-gay organizations.
Microsoft scored an 86% last year, btw, the industry average for computer companies. They lost points because they neglected to add gender identity and/or expression categories to their non-discrimination policy.
By these standards -- which I think are remarkably extensive -- it seems to me that Microsoft's Brave Sir Robin act would not change their status as a gay friendly corporation.
You seem to have missed this one:
6. Engage in respectful and appropriate marketing to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and/or provide support through their corporate foundation or otherwise to GLBT health, educational, political or community organizations or events.
Quote:
I thought criterion 7 might possibly cover something like withdrawing support for a gay rights bill, but according to the footnote, companies only lose points under that criterion if they actively undermine GLBT employment practices or direct corporate contributions to anti-gay organizations.
#7 is not as pointedly direct about political support as #6 is.
Quote:
Microsoft scored an 86% last year, btw, the industry average for computer companies. They lost points because they neglected to add gender identity and/or expression categories to their non-discrimination policy.
Last year they supported this civil rights legislation in Washington State, too. I'd wager that Microsoft does not score 86% this year. The change in policy will prevent that.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
Dr. Hutcherson, pastor of the Antioch Bible Church, who has organized several rallies opposing same-sex marriage here and in Washington, D.C., said he had threatened in those meetings to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products. State Representative Ed Murray, an openly gay Democrat and sponsor of the bill, said that late last month he had conversations with high-level Microsoft employees who mentioned the boycott threat and said that they could not support the bill this year.
After Dr. Hutcherson told Microsoft that he would organize the boycott, "they backed off," the pastor said in a telephone interview Thursday. "I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about," he said.
Nice.
I have to say, from everything I've read about this today with that article just adding fuel to the fire, it appears probable that Microsoft withdrew their support for this bill under pressure from that Christian group. That's really too bad.
Dr. Hutcherson, pastor of the Antioch Bible Church, who has organized several rallies opposing same-sex marriage here and in Washington, D.C., said he had threatened in those meetings to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products. State Representative Ed Murray, an openly gay Democrat and sponsor of the bill, said that late last month he had conversations with high-level Microsoft employees who mentioned the boycott threat and said that they could not support the bill this year.
After Dr. Hutcherson told Microsoft that he would organize the boycott, "they backed off," the pastor said in a telephone interview Thursday. "I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about," he said.
Nice.
I have to say, from everything I've read about this today with that article just adding fuel to the fire, it appears probable that Microsoft withdrew their support for this bill under pressure from that Christian group. That's really too bad.
Microsoft: "We didn't need to support this legislation because our company policy already provides for gay benefits."
Aravosis: "Yes. So? Your company policy has provided for gay benefits for the last 20 years. Up until now you've always supported this civil rights legislation. Are you saying that you've been making a mistake for 19 years because you just now realized that they overlapped?"
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
6. Engage in respectful and appropriate marketing to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and/or provide support through their corporate foundation or otherwise to GLBT health, educational, political or community organizations or events.
I haven't, actually. That criterion includes several possible options. Even if we take points from Miscrosoft on the providing corporate funding to GLBT politcal organizations or events criterion because of its withdrawal of support -- which I don't think we can since legislation is not a political organization or event, and support of a bill is not corporate funding -- that still leaves them with a long list of other things they can and do do to fulfill criterion 6.
But lets pretend that that criterion only requires that a company "provide support through their corporate foundation or otherwise to GLBT political organizations or events" and there are no other options offered in criterion 6. It seems to me that as long as Microsoft funded gay rights advocacy organizations, they could withdraw from 100 bills and they'd still be amply fulfilling the requirement.
Finally, even if for the sake of argument I grant that the wording of that criterion is actually relevant to Microsoft's chickening out of supporting the bill, that would still not totally invalidate the rest of the criteria and suddenly make MS an gay unfriendly corporation even though it offers partnership bennies, explicit non-discrimination policies, gay employee resource groups, diversity training, respectful and appropriate marketing, corporate funding to health, educational, community orgs or events, and refrains from donating to Focus on the Family.
IOW, I don't know what possible standard could render a company gay unfriendly simply because of one withdrawal from support of a bill. There are way too many other criteria MS still fulfills.
6. Engage in respectful and appropriate marketing to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and/or provide support through their corporate foundation or otherwise to GLBT health, educational, political or community organizations or events.
I haven't, actually. That criterion includes several possible options. Even if we take points from Miscrosoft on the providing corporate funding to GLBT politcal organizations or events criterion because of its withdrawal of support -- which I don't think we can since legislation is not a political organization or event, and support of a bill is not corporate funding -- that still leaves them with a long list of other things they can and do do to fulfill criterion 6.
But lets pretend that that criterion only requires that a company "provide support through their corporate foundation or otherwise to GLBT political organizations or events" and there are no other options offered in criterion 6. It seems to me that as long as Microsoft funded gay rights advocacy organizations, they could withdraw from 100 bills and they'd still be amply fulfilling the requirement.
Finally, even if for the sake of argument I grant that the wording of that criterion is actually relevant to Microsoft's chickening out of supporting the bill, that would still not totally invalidate the rest of the criteria and suddenly make MS an gay unfriendly corporation even though it offers partnership bennies, explicit non-discrimination policies, gay employee resource groups, diversity training, respectful and appropriate marketing, corporate funding to health, educational, community orgs or events, and refrains from donating to Focus on the Family.
IOW, I don't know what possible standard could render a company gay unfriendly simply because of one withdrawal from support of a bill. There are way too many other criteria MS still fulfills.
No. The Microsoft reversal is anti-gay, period.
And apparently the Human Rights Campaign -- the authors of the rating system you alluded to earlier -- agrees with me.
HRC blasts Microsoft
by John in DC - 4/22/2005 05:18:00 PM
This is good. Keep in mind that HRC's culture is more august - they're not going to throw flames like I might. But read this closely, it's quite good in my view. And they cc the evil general counsel who was behind the entire anti-gay coup:
Steven A. Ballmer
CEO, Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
CC: Bradford L. Smith
Dear Mr. Ballmer:
The Human Rights Campaign, along with your many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, would like to express our profound disappointment at Microsoft Corp.’s withdrawal of support for Washington State House Bill 1515 that would have banned discrimination against GLBT Washingtonians in housing, employment and insurance.
The defeat of this bill struck a blow to fairness for all Washingtonians. No Washingtonian or American should ever be fired for who they are. Corporations in Washington, especially Microsoft, must recognize the enormous impact this bill could have had at delivering equal protection to GLBT people.
In media reports, your company spokesperson said that workplace fairness is not directly “related to our business” and that the short legislative schedule precluded the company from supporting the bill. That position belies your own policies and those of countless other companies who believe firmly that workplace protections for all are essential to maintaining a competitive business environment. Successful businesses embrace diversity not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it the right thing to do for their business.
We also find it troubling that public reports allege that Microsoft made this decision not based on a business rationale, but under pressure from conservative religious-political groups. The reported rationale that Microsoft officials were afraid of offending “Christians” is itself deeply offensive to the many Christians who believe in non-discrimination and were proud of Microsoft’s previous position. Further, giving in to threats from a small group fighting to impose their own view of religion on the company and the state will only encourage more such threats. We urge you to work to change this perception.
While Microsoft’s internal policies regarding GLBT diversity have been trend setting, its reversal sends a signal, intended or not, that it is no longer supportive of its GLBT employees, customers and shareholders. It implies a lack of support for its own employees as they seek housing and insurance coverage and creates the impression that Microsoft does not support equal treatment at businesses elsewhere in Washington. In fact, the strong stance of Microsoft on behalf of the GLBT community and our partnership with the organization in the past makes this feel like even more of a betrayal.
In addition, Microsoft’s position is the exception to many other leading companies that support the bill and the timing of the withdrawal of your support has created the perception that Microsoft was partly responsible for the bill’s demise.
Microsoft should reinstate its support for this bill when it returns to the Legislature. It’s simply the right thing to do for Microsoft’s employees and its business. Further, we call on Microsoft to unambiguously state its support for non-discrimination legislation at the state and federal levels. This lack of clarity may have already had a devastating effect and it’s past time to clear the air.
We appreciate our 10-year relationship with Microsoft. We are hopeful the issues raised in this letter can be resolved and we look forward to working with you to that end.
Sincerely,
Joe Solmonese
HRC President
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
And apparently the Human Rights Campaign -- the authors of the rating system you alluded to earlier -- agrees with me.
I don't see anything in that press release which calls MS anti-gay. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I'll tell you what. I'll email HRC and ask them if this reversal makes Microsoft anti-gay according to their standards or whether it's just the reversal itself which is a sole anti-gay choice.
And apparently the Human Rights Campaign -- the authors of the rating system you alluded to earlier -- agrees with me.
I don't see anything in that press release which calls MS anti-gay. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Look again:
While Microsoft’s internal policies regarding GLBT diversity have been trend setting, its reversal sends a signal, intended or not, that it is no longer supportive of its GLBT employees, customers and shareholders. It implies a lack of support for its own employees as they seek housing and insurance coverage and creates the impression that Microsoft does not support equal treatment at businesses elsewhere in Washington. In fact, the strong stance of Microsoft on behalf of the GLBT community and our partnership with the organization in the past makes this feel like even more of a betrayal.
Quote:
I'll tell you what. I'll email HRC and ask them if this reversal makes Microsoft anti-gay according to their standards or whether it's just the reversal itself which is a sole anti-gay choice.
Please do.
In the meantime, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center asks Microsoft to return the award for corporate leadership in being a gay-friendly company:
"Founded in 1971, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center is the largest gay and lesbian organization in the world. With an annual budget of $35 million, the Gay & Lesbian Center offers the widest array of services to gay men and lesbians available anywhere in the world."
Now here's the Center's press release:
In response to Microsoft's withdrawal of support for legislation that would have outlawed discrimination against gay and lesbian people in Washington, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, which presented Microsoft with its Corporate Vision Award in 2001, is asking the company to return the award.
"We honor companies that, among other things, set a high standard for others by exhibiting leadership in advancing the cause of lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual equality," said L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center Chief of Staff Darrel Cummings. "Because of Microsoft's apparent capitulation to the demands of anti-gay extremists and withdrawal of support for a bill that would do nothing more than protect gay and lesbian people from discrimination, we believe it's no longer worthy of our highest corporate honor."
At the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's 30th Anniversary Gala in 2001, Microsoft was honored because the company had been a leader in opposing anti-gay initiatives, was one of the first companies to offer domestic partnership benefits and include sexual orientation in its corporate non-discrimination policy, and has supported AIDS and GLBT organizations across the country. Center leaders are concerned about the company's apparent shift in its support of civil rights legislation for the GLBT community. Phone calls from the Center to Microsoft have not been returned.
"One of the most basic civil rights is protection from discrimination," said Cummings. "By withdrawing support for legislation that would protect the GLBT community from discrimination -- especially in its home state -- we're very concerned about the direction Microsoft is headed. It sends a dangerous message to the rest of corporate America, and to society in general, and may be cause for our community to evaluate its support of Microsoft."
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
While Microsoft’s internal policies regarding GLBT diversity have been trend setting, its reversal sends a signal, intended or not, that it is no longer supportive of its GLBT employees, customers and shareholders. It implies a lack of support for its own employees as they seek housing and insurance coverage and creates the impression that Microsoft does not support equal treatment at businesses elsewhere in Washington.
Sauron, I don't think you can say the HRC agrees with you. Your quoted text doesn't say that Microsoft is now an anti-gay company, big red words or not. It says that Microsoft's reversal on this bill sends a signal and implies that the company is no longer supportive of gays. In other words, whether they are in fact pro-gay or anti-gay, this reversal creates the appearance that they have ceased being pro-gay.
I'm sure a lot of people are really upset, but I really sincerely doubt the HRC or the rest of the gay and lesbian community are ready to write off everything Microsoft has done for the past 20 years as irrelevant because of one fuck-up, even one as apparently serious as this one. Even the LA Gay and Lesbian center demanding their award back doesn't seem like a sign that they're ready to call MS an anti-gay company, as evidenced by their saying "...may be cause for our community to evaluate its support of Microsoft."
And I'm scaring myself a little even sounding like I'm defending Microsoft because it's never happened to me before. But from everything I've read in the last 24 hours it seems that with this glaring exception, MS has actually been very progressive on gay and lesbian issues both internally and in thier political activity. So while I agree again that this is an important issue with potentially very negative ramifications, I disagree that it is evidence that MS is now an "anti-gay" company.
Another reason to hate Microsoft
Hybrid Mode
