Even 800lb gorillas occasionally cave to threats ...

[unixronin]

...In this case, it appears Microsoft,  in response to threats from an Antioch Bible Church pastor of a national boycott of Microsoft products, withdrew its support for House Bill 1515, Washington State's anti-gay-discrimination bill.  Other corporate sponsors of HB1515 including Boeing, Nike, Coors, Qwest Communications, Washington Mutual, Hewlett-Packard, Corbis, Battelle Memorial Institute, and Paul Allen's company Vulcan Inc appear so far to be maintaining their support.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

They're gonna hear about that from their rank and file. I don't even have to lift a finger; that article was in the Stranger, a weekly freebie that's widely read here.

Although I could post it as an example of Paul Allen sticking to principles... Corbis is also a Paul Allen entity...

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Big deal. I likely disagree with the Pastor for his reasons for opposing the law, but I likewise oppose that law and all other "anti-discrimination" laws. They are an affront to private property and business.

-Ogre

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

How is it an affront to private property and business to have a law saying that, for example, gays can't marry, or blacks have to ride in the back quarter of the bus?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

From the article: House Bill 1515 would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, and mental or physical handicap.

To state that businesses can't serve whom they wish or hire those they wish--for whatever reason they may have for choosing such--is an affront to private property.

If I have a house, and I can't decide to not rent it to someone for whatever reason I decide, it's not really my house. (Clearly, given property taxes, it's not really my house anyway. I'm just renting it from the government. But surely you aren't going to argue that's a good thing.)

-Ogre

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, first point, such laws don't say you can't basically hire whom you like. They just say you cannot make race, religion, gender etc the criterion for that decision. The other side of this coin, though is that if such laws don't exist, and the insurance industry has the ability to refuse you medical coverage or auto insurance because they dislike something about your lifestyle, then they have, de facto, the power to dictate your lifestyle to you unless you're willing and able to live your life without a motor vehicle or medical insurance. Or, maybe, those and a joband a bank account.

Secondly, anti-discrimination laws do not apply to private transactions like who you rent your house to or who you sell your car to. They apply to business transactions, government policies, and so on -- and, IMHO, rightly so.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

*jaw drops*

You're joking, right? Or playing Devil's Advocate? You think it's okay for businesses to refuse to serve someone based on the colour of their skin?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I am neither joking nor playing Devil's Advocate.

I think it would be abhorrently rude behaviour for a restaurant to not serve someone based on the colour of their skin, and I would not patronise an establishment that engaged in such discrimination.

However, businesses are private property and as such, the owners have the right to exclude anyone from the property they wish, for whatever reason they choose. Even if that reason is offensive.

-Ogre

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

In that case, you can consider yourself unwelcome in any business I work in, my home, and for that matter, my country.

What you're saying is that racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination are perfectly okay. They're not. End of bloody story.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

In that case, you can consider yourself unwelcome in any business I work in, my home, and for that matter, my country.

You are more than welcome to refuse me entry onto any piece of private property you control. That's really sort of my whole point. However, as I do not believe that you own all of Canada, I'll feel free to ignore that last part.

What you're saying is that racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination are perfectly okay. They're not.

That is not what I've said at all. I happen to agree with you that those things are offensive. I've said that it is the right of people to control their own property.

By your own principles, you could not bar me entry to your business. By my principles, you're master of your own domain. Ironic, no?

-Ogre

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Read what i actually wrote: I said consider yourself unwelcome, not barred.

What you're saying is that businesses should be free to discriminate on grounds which are offensive and inhumane. Which is, effectively, condoning that behaviour. Which makes you no better than the Klansmen and Phelpses of the world.

Goodbye, and good fucking riddance.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Read what i actually wrote: I said consider yourself unwelcome, not barred.

Just so. I apologize for my misinterpretation.

What you're saying is that businesses should be free to discriminate on grounds which are offensive and inhumane. Which is, effectively, condoning that behaviour. Which makes you no better than the Klansmen and Phelpses of the world.

Not a big fan of Voltaire, I see. Good luck trying to force people to like you.

Goodbye, and good fucking riddance.

Have a nice day.

-Ogre

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

I don't give a flying fuck if people like me or not. It's people like you, who may mouth the right platitudes about being anti-discrimination, but who won't actually support anything that ends discrimination, that allow it to continue.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Right, because forcing people with irrational hatreds to co-exist with the object of said hatreds works to eliminate those hatreds, instead of merely multiplying them.

Well, keep on keeping on with that, I suppose we'll see how well it works eventually.

-Ogre

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Yep, obviously the legal changes in the USA in the 60's, ending legal discrimination against African-Americans have done nothing.