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.
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary s
The point is that Microsoft's market share is secure enough that they can do things that their customers wouldn't necessarily approve of; the Rev. and Mrs. Goodfaith are still going to buy a PC with MS Windows and MS Office, regardless.
I can't believe MS is really afraid of a religious-right boycott, especially when they're still the darlings of the other side of the Republican party (the economic right).
It's insightful because he's pointing out that it's sad that it TAKES corporate backing to get a human rights bill passed. Microsoft is free to decide to act as they like, it's just sad that the bill like this could suffer just because there's less money being thrown in it's direction.
why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?
Because there's opposition to it that has the financial backing of big companies. Money is required to accomplish anything (good or bad) in U.S. politics.
What about the human right to employ whom I please?
You mean the human right to only employe whites, because you do not please to hire blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or South Asians? No, that's not a human right.
Um, sure it is. It's freedom from having someone tell you "hire some of them minority folks or I'll take your money, and if you don't like that, I'll haul you off to jail, and if you don't like that, I'll shoot you." Sure, hiring fairly is a good policy, but tell me why not hiring someone is such a gross violation of their basic rights that it requires legal action?
Positive discrimination is a dubious area that I think is probably a bad thing for the ethnic groups that it's supposed to benefit. It's essentially a statement that people of that race require special favours, as if they can't get by on merit.
This is different to preventing negative discrimination however.
tell me why not hiring someone is such a gross violation of their basic rights that it requires legal action?
I believe that someone's ethnic group is not a factor in someone's capabilities. Ther
I disagree -- it is your right. However, it is a right that our culture sees fit to impinge upon, and rightly so, according to me. I think that you should be able (in general) to spend YOUR money however you want to spend it. However, some freedoms damage overall freedom of the society.
So I have a great idea and start a company. I work 16 hour days for ten years, barely pulling in minimum wage, but after all that labor I'm successful enough to hire an assistent.
Now, after all MY work, you are telling me that I have no rights in the hiring process? I must hand the hiring process over to government bureaucrats who've not lifted a finger to help me build my company. And what claim does the "blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or South Asians" have to a position at the company I built.
What about the human right to employ whom I please?
Well, let's turn that argument around. You say, "it's OK to fire people just because they're gay". You do a great job and don't bother anyone at work, but I'm your employer, and I feel that this is insensitive, insufficiently liberal and politically incorrect. Plus, I hear that you have been doing things in your off time which are causing the moral breakdown of Western Civilization- like voting Republican. So I fire your heartless conservative ass. Or m
"Still want to argue that companies should be able to hire and fire for any reason whatsoever?"
Uh, yeah. People with principles don't discard them when they're inconvenient.
I happen to think it would be unprincipled to discriminate in my hiring practices. I believe that would be a) silly and b) immoral. However, I think quotas/affirmative action/the politically correct flavor of the week is MORE unprincipled.
I want a color blind society. You can't get one of those by making distinctions based on colo
It's not finaicial backing but vocal support of the bill. The law being proposed is actually an employment discrimination bill which will affect large companies in Washington State. So it makes a lot of sense to get backing of our large companies in the state. The irony here is that Microsoft has always had a progressive non discrimination policy and has supported this bill for many years. They just added trans-gender to that very same policy this year. So, it's a shock that they coward to this pastor
Check out the Bill of Rights. Now check out the people involved in its creation. Not a poor man in the bunch, by the standards of the times.
Learn this in your bones before you try to make any changes in the world: GOVERNMENT IS BY THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL, FOR THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL. (That's descriptive, not prescriptive, by the way.)
It's kinda pointless trying to change a system that you don't understand; your actions my even be counter-productive. Once you've understood the purpose of the system, you can begin to see that it is rational and internally consistent. THEN you can begin to formulate your plans to change it.
Alexander Hamilton was a poor bastard (literally) who went to college on a scholarship. He didn't write the Bill of Rights, but he sure as hell helped Madison write a lot of the Constitution.
My awful memory does not allow me to remember such details as the author, but I think I've heard a very similar quote from a Roman writer from the classical times.
I disagree with you. If I had mod points I would mod this down, not up.
Folks, *someone* had to write the rules. I thank God that it was done by a group of people that had as much foresight as the founding fathers did.
These attempts at "tearing down society" sicken me, since folks who do this do this in the name of "preserving culture" with complete disregard to actuall doing any preserving of culture. The folks who are waving their arms up and down are the new liberals... "whine until you get your way"
So, who is tearing down society? The people for the bill, against the bill? Were you being sarcastic? I can't tell!
Perhaps it's just nationalistic pride, but I am really proud the the job our Founding Fathers did constructing our nation. They might have been composed primarily of wealthy landowners, but they decided not to maximize their quality of life, but the maximize the collective quality of life for all the people of the country. Specifically, they hated the idea of nobility and dictatorship and thus
Surely not - shouldn't the real point be why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?
That's the issue as far as I'm concerned. Has the US ideals of democracy sunk so low that this is just a given now and not worthy of comment?
Short answer: Yes
As sad as it is, this is absolutly true. The truly sad thing is that most people don't give a damn.
The problem with you calling it a "Christian" nation is that you mean your own particularly narrow-minded Christianity, probably a fundamentalist, evangelical form.
EVEN IF the founders believed they were founding a "Christian" country (and I don't believe they thought they were), the people involved had much milder, often deistic, interpretations of Christianity. How else do you reconcile this with, for example, the prevalence of Freemasonry among the founders?
> why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get > passed > Has the US ideals of democracy sunk so low
Of course, you'd know the answer to these questions already if you'd been reading between the lines when reading papers/watching the news. Or if you'd read any Chomsky (for example "understanding power").
why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?
|
Simple. Because government operates in self-interest, exactly the opposite of what it claims. Government is, after all, nothing but a collection of human beings, each who operate in self-interst by human nature. So let's cut to the chase: what's in it for government?
What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary s
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe MS is really afraid of a religious-right boycott, especially when they're still the darlings of the other side of the Republican party (the economic right).
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that Microsoft's market share is
Surely not - shouldn't the real point be why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?
That's the issue as far as I'm concerned. Has the US ideals of democracy sunk so low that this is just a given now and not worthy of comment?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there's opposition to it that has the financial backing of big companies. Money is required to accomplish anything (good or bad) in U.S. politics.
human right? (Score:2)
Re:human right? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the human right to employ whom I please?
You mean the human right to only employe whites, because you do not please to hire blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or South Asians? No, that's not a human right.
Re:human right? (Score:1)
Re:human right? (Score:2)
Positive discrimination is a dubious area that I think is probably a bad thing for the ethnic groups that it's supposed to benefit. It's essentially a statement that people of that race require special favours, as if they can't get by on merit.
This is different to preventing negative discrimination however.
tell me why not hiring someone is such a gross violation of their basic rights that it requires legal action?
I believe that someone's ethnic group is not a factor in someone's capabilities. Ther
Re:human right? (Score:1)
Re:human right? (Score:2)
Now, after all MY work, you are telling me that I have no rights in the hiring process? I must hand the hiring process over to government bureaucrats who've not lifted a finger to help me build my company. And what claim does the "blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or South Asians" have to a position at the company I built.
You, sir, h
Re:human right? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Well, let's turn that argument around. You say, "it's OK to fire people just because they're gay". You do a great job and don't bother anyone at work, but I'm your employer, and I feel that this is insensitive, insufficiently liberal and politically incorrect. Plus, I hear that you have been doing things in your off time which are causing the moral breakdown of Western Civilization- like voting Republican. So I fire your heartless conservative ass. Or m
Re:human right? (Score:1)
Uh, yeah. People with principles don't discard them when they're inconvenient.
I happen to think it would be unprincipled to discriminate in my hiring practices. I believe that would be a) silly and b) immoral. However, I think quotas/affirmative action/the politically correct flavor of the week is MORE unprincipled.
I want a color blind society. You can't get one of those by making distinctions based on colo
Re:human right? (Score:2)
I want a color blind society. You can't get one of those by making distinctions based on color.
Amen! Racism is out of date and it's long overdue we moved on as a society.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn this in your bones before you try to make any changes in the world: GOVERNMENT IS BY THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL, FOR THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL. (That's descriptive, not prescriptive, by the way.)
It's kinda pointless trying to change a system that you don't understand; your actions my even be counter-productive. Once you've understood the purpose of the system, you can begin to see that it is rational and internally consistent. THEN you can begin to formulate your plans to change it.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
Sad but true (Score:2)
My awful memory does not allow me to remember such details as the author, but I think I've heard a very similar quote from a Roman writer from the classical times.
Re:Sad but true (Score:2)
Folks, *someone* had to write the rules. I thank God that it was done by a group of people that had as much foresight as the founding fathers did.
These attempts at "tearing down society" sicken me, since folks who do this do this in the name of "preserving culture" with complete disregard to actuall doing any preserving of culture. The folks who are waving their arms up and down are the new liberals... "whine until you get your way"
Re:Sad but true (Score:2)
Perhaps it's just nationalistic pride, but I am really proud the the job our Founding Fathers did constructing our nation. They might have been composed primarily of wealthy landowners, but they decided not to maximize their quality of life, but the maximize the collective quality of life for all the people of the country. Specifically, they hated the idea of nobility and dictatorship and thus
Short answer (Score:1)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Note to self -- Make sure you don't check post anonymously next time. That was me, sir.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
EVEN IF the founders believed they were founding a "Christian" country (and I don't believe they thought they were), the people involved had much milder, often deistic, interpretations of Christianity. How else do you reconcile this with, for example, the prevalence of Freemasonry among the founders?
Yes, as figures of the 18th century, they use
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
You must be new here...
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Answer #2: Yes
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
> passed
> Has the US ideals of democracy sunk so low
Of course, you'd know the answer to these questions already if you'd been reading between the lines when reading papers/watching the news. Or if you'd read any Chomsky (for example "understanding power").
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Simple. Because government operates in self-interest, exactly the opposite of what it claims. Government is, after all, nothing but a collection of human beings, each who operate in self-interst by human nature. So let's cut to the chase: what's in it for government?