Scoble just posted that Microsoft has reversed its position on the now well-known anti-discrimination bill. I know a lot of people were involved here, but Robert, you should feel very proud of your role in this!
6 thoughts on “Microsoft reverses its position on anti-discrimination bill”
Comments are closed.
Not surprised at your favorable review of the move by MS. Let’s face it, militant amoral reprobates get priority these days. A small vocal militant minority getting MS to do something as MS craps on users who have REAL needs.
One more reason to not purchase anything MS or made for MS.
Just another tech company with an anti-Christian bent. Same as Google.
Disgusting. It is not about “equal right”, it is about special privileges.
What “special privileges” are you referring to, Mac?
Seems Mac doesn’t know that himself…
This is a great move by Microsoft, and it shows they take their social responsibility very seriously. I just want to remind of Microsoft donating more than 3 Mio $ after the Tsunami disaster.
I don’t want to get into an argument with anyone here, but I’ll add a little, hopefully in a tactful way that won’t set off any flamers in your comment section.
While he used a pretty harsh and angry way of writing, Mac is presumably referring to the belief by many who are against specific legal protections for gays that adding those protections/ rights / privileges, (or whatever you want to call them) is wrong and a bad idea.
There are usually several reasons why they are opposed.
One is that most christians (and many of other faiths) believe that homosexuality is wrong and bad for society, and shouldn’t be condoned or encouraged in any way. (obviously there is a range of opinion and response on this within faith communities just as there is a broad range of opinion on any topic in such a large and diverse group)
A second is from more of a secular/legal viewpoint, that gays are not a group that needs special protected legal status in the same ways as african-americans did against civil rights abuses. Some believe that designating various groups in this way is unnecessary except in extreme circumstances (which they feel don’t exist for gays in the US at this time) and will be a bad thing for our legal system. (aside from what you feel about homosexuality being acceptable or not)
Again, I’m trying to present these general ideas for the other side of this issue, not necessarily my personal opinions. And I won’t get into an argument with anyone about it.
Thank you, Jeff. While I don’t agree with you, I do appreciate the thoughtful response, and I ask any who reply to be equally thoughtful.
We’re probably relatively safe from flamers in this thread, particularly since you so-obligingly started other threads that should be much more attractive to that sort of person. Thanks ;-)