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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree. But they do appear to have reversed their political position on an issue of some importance to gays in their community.
Quote:
In any case, I have trouble getting all worked up about this particular incident, though. Feel free to boycott my posts on this forum.
I don't see any point in getting all worked up either. But that doesn't mean it's not an important issue worth talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xouper
Quote:
Originally Posted by vm
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.
I'm not sure what other conclusion to draw from the fact that they no longer support a bill that they previously supported. If you mean the article doesn't make it clear that Microsoft used to support the bill you may be right. But here's a little more detail I just found that reinforces that:
Summary of Bill: Summary of Bill:
I. Washington's Law Against Discrimination
The Law Against Discrimination is amended to prohibit discrimination based on a persons sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" is defined as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity.
"Creed" is defined as a system of religious beliefs and religious expressions, including moral and ethical beliefs and expressions about right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.
Real estate transactions involving the sharing of a dwelling unit, or rental or sublease of a
portion of a dwelling unit, when the dwelling unit is to be occupied by the owner or subleasor, are exempt from the Law Against Discrimination.
II. The Insurance Code
A person in the insurance business may not refuse to issue or renew an insurance contract or cancel an insurance contract because of the insured's sexual orientation.
<snip>
Persons Testifying: (In support) [...] Microsoft [...]
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...
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.
Which is not the same thing as being gay friendly.
Quote:
In any case, I have trouble getting all worked up about this particular incident, though. Feel free to boycott my posts on this forum.
Yes folks, my perceptions of libertarianism are intact.
__________________ 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?
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.
No, they can't. Hiring gays is not the same thing as being gay-friendly. Restaurants hired plenty of blacks before civil rights; so did many other segregated businesses. Care to argue that such businesses were "civil-rights friendly"?
Quote:
Being gay-friendly is NOT synonymous with an obligation to be politically active on the issue.
Simply incorrect. I repeat: 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. ESPECIALLY when the issue in question is basic civil rights and non-discrimination.
Quote:
Sauron: Yes, I know - you got yours. Not doing much to make me believe that claim, are you?
That's a cheap shot and entirely untrue.
No, it's not a cheap shot. It's a showcase example of precisely what I was referring to about libertarians. Money rules, everything else is secondary or tertiary. I just didn't think the example would crop up so early.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
xouper: Being gay-friendly is NOT synonymous with an obligation to be politically active on the issue.
Sauron: Simply incorrect.
This has become nothing more than a quibble about the definition of the term "gay-friendly". And I don't agree with your definition. So be it.
Quote:
Sauron: Yes, I know - you got yours. Not doing much to make me believe that claim, are you?
xouper: That's a cheap shot and entirely untrue.
Sauron: No, it's not a cheap shot. It's a showcase example of precisely what I was referring to about libertarians. Money rules, everything else is secondary or tertiary. I just didn't think the example would crop up so early.
And you're a fucking moron. You're as bigoted as those you complain about.
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...
xouper: Being gay-friendly is NOT synonymous with an obligation to be politically active on the issue.
Sauron: Simply incorrect.
This has become nothing more than a quibble about the definition of the term "gay-friendly". And I don't agree with your definition. So be it.
Quote:
Sauron: Yes, I know - you got yours. Not doing much to make me believe that claim, are you?
xouper: That's a cheap shot and entirely untrue.
Sauron: No, it's not a cheap shot. It's a showcase example of precisely what I was referring to about libertarians. Money rules, everything else is secondary or tertiary. I just didn't think the example would crop up so early.
And you're a fucking moron.
Hmm. I didn't need to use the f-words, or anything else. Suddenly you do.
Quote:
You're as bigoted as those you complain about.
Bigoted? No. Certain political philosophies attract certain personalities. Two-sword theocracies attract a particular kind of person. Communism attracts another kind of person. Classical liberalism attracts yet another kind of person. The fact that political philosophies act as filters and common points of allegiance for people of similar belief sets is not surprising; it's practically a tautology.
As I indicated elsewhere - this isn't hypothetical or guessing on my part. I've worked alongside libertarians for 15-20 years. Almost became one, in fact. This is first hand knowledge. The problem is getting libertarians to realize the ramifications of their beliefs, and having the honesty to admit the end product of their line of reasoning.
It's rather like talking to a fundamentalist about homosexuality. Fundamentalists don't believe that they are anti-gay either; there isn't a single fundamentalist that will tell you, "I'm anti-gay, and that's just how things are." They all *believe* that they are quite pro-gay; hate the sin, love the sinner, etc. But the reality of their position, and the end-product ramifications of their beliefs and actions, show them to be very much anti-gay.
Quote:
*PLONK*
Plonk? Whatever.
The loss is yours, not mine.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
I hadn't actually got around to hitting the ignore button yet, so I'll just correct yet another one of your mispreceptions. And then hit the ignore button.
Quote:
Sauron: ... there isn't a single fundamentalist that will tell you, "I'm anti-gay, and that's just how things are."
I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentalist" here, but I personally know many fundamentalist Baptists who are quite adamantly anti-gay and will not hesitate to say so louldy and clearly to anyone within earshot. Sad, but there you have it.
I don't personally know Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas, and quite frankly I hope I never have the "pleasure" of knowing him personally, but his entire church is an extreme example that refutes your assertion.
Quote:
Sauron: The loss is yours, not mine.
We can add delusional to your list of misperceptions. It is no loss to me to stop reading the rantings of someone who is anti-liberty. Well, not completely anti-liberty since you seem to be in favor of certain civil liberteries, just not all of them.
Quote:
Sauron: Hmm. I didn't need to use the f-words, or anything else.
That's funny, I distinctly recall that you used the word "fuck" in that other thread before I did.
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.
I hadn't actually got around to hitting the ignore button yet, so I'll just correct yet another one of your mispreceptions. And then hit the ignore button.
Translation: you couldn't resist responding, but you want to make sure you got the last word in.
Quote:
Sauron: ... there isn't a single fundamentalist that will tell you, "I'm anti-gay, and that's just how things are."
I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentalist" here, but I personally know many fundamentalist Baptists who are quite adamantly anti-gay and will not hesitate to say so louldy and clearly to anyone within earshot. Sad, but there you have it.
If you press them on the point, however, what they will tell you is that they aren't against the person, of course - just the sin! That is so they can put a big holy ribbon upon their basic bigotry, and feel good about it. Do they actually hate gays? You bet they do. But do they *think* they hate gays? No. In their minds, they believe they are only doing what God does: hating the sin, but loving the sinner. Rarely does it ever work out that way, however.
Quote:
I don't personally know Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas, and quite frankly I hope I never have the "pleasure" of knowing him personally, but his entire church is an extreme example that refutes your assertion.
Well in point of fact, what they say is that GOD hates fags - they make the claim for God; not for themselves. That, in fact, is their website name. And the word "hate" is used as much for its buzzword effect, as to make their doctrinal point. When they say "hate", they clearly specify that they are talking about a certain biblical use of the word in the context of punishment: http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/purpose.html
the doctrine of reprobation or God's "HATE" involving eternal retribution or the everlasting punishment of most of mankind in Hell forever (e.g., Leviticus 20:13,23, Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Malachi 1:1-3, Romans 9:11-13, Matthew 7:13,23, John 12:39-40, 1 Peter 2:8, Jude 4, Revelation 13:8, 20:15, 21:27, etc.), and
Put another way: using this carefully defined version of "hate", the Phelps crowd also says that God "hates" sinners -- all of them, regardless of what their crimes are. God hates ALL sinners, even those that he "loved" so much to send his only Son. Would a Phelps Baptist say that God loves sinners? Of course; they wouldn't dare contradict the Bible. But would they also say that God "hates" sinners? Yes, but they're careful to point out the specially defined use of "hate".
They're just trying to square a different circle; and it's not working for them, either.
Quote:
Sauron: The loss is yours, not mine.
We can add delusional to your list of misperceptions. It is no loss to me to stop reading the rantings of someone who is anti-liberty.
I am not anti-liberty. What liberty are you talking about? What liberty do you think you have that I am against?
Quote:
Sauron: Hmm. I didn't need to use the f-words, or anything else.
That's funny, I distinctly recall that you used the word "fuck" in that other thread before I did.
Ah; you're slippery as well, aren't you? You know precisely what I meant: using it as part of the exchange between posters.
I used the word to describe a mindset of people I know from parts of Washington state and my time at Microsoft.
You, however, used it as a personal attack against me.
__________________ 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.
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.
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...
Another reason to hate Microsoft
Linear Mode
