home

Microsoft Tries to Explain Position Switch on Gay Rights Bill

Microsoft has faced an uproar since announcing it would not support a state anti-discrimination (gay rights) bill this year as it has in years past. Steven A. Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, tries to explain, but it's a crummy explanation.

The e-mail message came as company officials, inundated by internal messages from angry employees, withering attacks on the Web and biting criticism from gay rights groups, sought to quell rancor following the disclosure this week that the company, which had supported the bill in past years, did not do so this year. Critics argue that the decision resulted from pressure from a prominent local evangelical Christian church.

In his message... Mr. Ballmer wrote that he had done "a lot of soul searching over the past 24 hours." He said that he and Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, both personally supported the bill but that the company had decided not to take an official stance on the legislation this year. He said they were pondering the role major corporations should play in larger social debates.

"We are thinking hard about what is the right balance to strike - when should a public company take a position on a broader social issue, and when should it not?" he wrote. "What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?"

Dear Mr. Ballmer: Those employees don't need a message, their jobs and personal lifestyles are not being threatened. This isn't a political issue, it's a human rights issue. Take a stand, that's what leadership is about.

Apple, are you listening? There's probably a whole lot of Microsoft stockholders, employees and computer users who are fighting mad and ready to switch.

< Afghan Woman Stoned to Death | Tony Perkins and Closely Held Personal Beliefs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    One way tolerance can be very unforgiving, Steven.

    MS and Gates have been offered some big contracts if they go the rightwing way, and Gates is proof that money, even a LOT of money, doesn't give a coward (or a pair of cowards) honor. The suggestion by the NYT that 'critics' think the reason is a local church is HILARIOUS. Zingo! Another NYT (the earth is) perfectly-flat fabrication. And boo-hoo for the first NYT graph, with its Passion of Christ tale of billionaire corporate tribulation. If they are 'inundated,' verily let them hire Noah.

    PIL writes - "MS and Gates have been offered some big contracts if they go the rightwing way" And these are?

    You all do know Bill Gate's is moving to china right? that is the reason for the Switch. so people "keep"up with the news of the world.

    Re: Microsoft Tries to Explain Position Switch on (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimcee on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 07:31:28 PM EST
    I'm not quite sure why my software supplier needs to have a position on "Gay rights". After all I don't expect my utility or phone company to take a position on the Gay issue. Those that care about Gay issues fall into two catagories...pro or con. The rest of us consumers really do not care. It seems to me that there are those that have a Quixotic zeal to find discrimination where it doesn't exsist and that is most pathetic. If it makes some Gay folks feel like martyrs then I guess that is OK if that is what they want. IMHO my Gay friends would think this complaint is rather silly and being regular users of MS haven't any idea of what this nonsensical complaint is all about. I guess that there are some people that would be offended by anything. What an annoying life they must live as well as what an annoying lot they must be. Man, just grow up and find a real problem that needs solving unless of course that is too complicated for you. Sheesh.

    Re: Microsoft Tries to Explain Position Switch on (none / 0) (#6)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 07:47:59 PM EST
    "What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?" ..."No Bigots Allowed"? Would they refuse to take a position on coming to work wearing white hoods and swastikas, too? After all, we must think of the neo-nazis.

    A corporation publically in favor of tolerance. What a radical idea. But what a terrific message to send to its employees -- we care. As to Ballmer searching his soul: what did he see? fear? intolerance? JC

    Scarshapedstar its not about anything but the show, jc, care has nothing to do with it. and ppj you are right, it all comes down to money.

    Re: Microsoft Tries to Explain Position Switch on (none / 0) (#9)
    by cp on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 10:02:38 PM EST
    of all the companies in the world, ms has the least concerns when it comes to either money or employees. their concern for those employees that take a dim view of tolerance is touching. would that they displayed that same concern for those employees who must bear the brunt of that intolerance. so what if a few employees quit, because they can't stand the thought of working for a company that doesn't discriminate, except by merit? do they really want those kinds of people working for them? what kind of message does that send potential customers? microsoft is in the best position to make a great pr play. seriously, who is in position to out-compete them? linux, apple? i doubt it. were that the case, it would already have happened. windows is ubiquitous, and nearly every other application is based on it. they've nothing to lose, and a lot to gain. i had, foolishly as it turns out, given bill gates credit for being a pretty smart guy. between this, and the lawsuit, it appears he has feet of clay. at least it shows he's mortal.

    Re: Microsoft Tries to Explain Position Switch on (none / 0) (#10)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:04:13 AM EST
    “There's probably a whole lot of Microsoft stockholders, employees and computer users who are fighting mad and ready to switch.” Right, and I’m certain this is why the company isn’t taking a stand. Politics is bad for business, particularly minority politics. “of all the companies in the world, ms has the least concerns when it comes to either money or employees.” How would your attitude change if MS were forced to cut jobs due to profit downturns spurred by an unpopular political battle? “microsoft is in the best position to make a great pr play. seriously, who is in position to out-compete them? linux, apple?” You aren’t paying attention. Apple has been revived by it’s new Unix based OS. Microsoft recently added Linux support to its server software in a bid to compete with the expanding use of Linux on these machines. Hands up, who uses an open source browser? Things are rapidly changing.

    Re: Microsoft Tries to Explain Position Switch on (none / 0) (#11)
    by cp on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:04:36 AM EST
    pig, if you seriously believe that unix is, or will ever be, in any kind of position to threaten ms's near monopoly on os applications, i have a bridge to sell you. linux is pretty much of a joke, except to a very small group of techno geeks, which is where it most likely will stay. not saying this is right, merely stating painful facts. apple is reviving, just barely, but it has absolutely nothing to do with their operating system, or their pc's, and everything to do with the ipod. ipods may be great for music, but they have little to do with the uses that 98% of pc owners make of their machines. frankly, ever since bill gates was able to convince a technologically unsophisticated SC that windows was uniquely different from apple's system, it was pretty much all over but the shouting for apple. whether you like it or not, ms has a pretty good lock on the pc user market, for the long forseeable future. that translates into lots of dollars. what they spent on the anti-trust suit was basically petty cash, not even a noticable dent in net income, eps or retained earnings. with all that, they can well afford to express their feelings with respect to human rights. that, of course, assumes they really want to.

    not quite, cp. linux os such as xandros can now run 25% of windows applications, and by the end of the year they expect to reach 95%. linux is faster, more scalable, more customisable, never needs to be defragmented, is nearly immune to viruses and hackers, and can be custom tailored to each unique user or company. it almost never crashes, changes are removed seamlessly, and wheras windows security flaws are hidden, linux programmers know exactly what they are dealing with. the german military, for example, has switched to linux as it is far more secure than windows. windows has been so bogged down with winxp flaws, they are two years behind on longhorn, which is just as bad as xp, but with more bells and whistles and requires more processor and memory to provide the same functions. windows will always make money, but they will not retain such power much longer. linux and apple users are drastically more satisfied, and never return to windows again. download a linux live cd - you burn it to disk, restart the computer, and it will run suse linux off of the cd, without installing it. it will run on just about any computer. use nero to burn, or pen the iso image with winrar archiver and burn the files manually. click here to download: (695 mb) suse linux live cd.iso md5 checksum (verify perfect download)

    He said they were pondering the role major corporations should play in larger social debates. I whole heartedly agree. Someone please call up Unocal and tell them for me.

    Not necessary to make a call, Tamp. The role of corporations is to generate sales, produce profits for their investors, and pay their employees. By thw way, those are good things. Anything else is beyond their purview.

    Re: Microsoft Tries to Explain Position Switch on (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:59:21 PM EST
    Ace, By what means do corporations pursue that end?

    Not worth your time Che...Ace's comment was intentionally incomplete. War Corporatism isn't lost on Neocon Apologists, they just pride themselves in their ability to artfully obfuscate it.

    John Aravosis at Americablog reports that Microsoft has Ralph Reed from the Christian Coalition on retainer for $20,000 a month. That's the same Ralph Reed who worked in cahoots with Tom DeLay on the casino scandal.