Microsoft rolls over for mega-church

The Stranger, Seattle's alternative weekly, has reported that Microsoft, under pressure from a Redmond evangelical mega-church, pulled its support from Washington's HB 1515, an anti-discrimination bill that would afford protections to gays and lesbians.  Sadly, the bill was defeated this afternoon in the Washington Senate, 25-24.

It is unthinkable that one of the world's most powerful corporations caved when threatened by an evangelical pastor from a mega-church.  The pastor, Ken Hutcherson, a former washed up NFL line-backer, met with a top executive from Microsoft in February and threatened that he would organize a national boycott against Microsoft if the company didn't pull its endorsement from the bill.

Microsoft, historically, has been at the forefront of supporting gay rights through its own non-discrimination policies and by offering domestic-partnership benefits to its gay and lesbian employees.  High tech companies are well known for their forward thinking policies in this area.  They want intelligent, well educated employees who work hard and contribute to the success of the company.  It doesn't matter what religion a person practices or who a person chooses to love.  It's all about getting the best and the brightest.

The saddest part about all of this is that HB 1515 isn't even about the marriage issue.  It's about protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance and other issues by adding "sexual orientation" to a state law that already bans discrimination based on race, gender, religion, nationality, marital status and mental or physical handicap.

Microsoft claims that they did not base their decision on "any external factors" and claimed that this year they want to focus their "resources and efforts on a limited number of issues," ones that most closely align with their "business objectives."  That's a bunch of crock if I ever heard it.  In the meantime, companies that supported the bill were Boeing, Nike, Coors Brewing, Washington Mutual, Hewlett-Packard, Corbis, Qwest... just to name a few.

When a company like Microsoft, due to threats from right wing evangelicals, pulls its support for a bill that expands civil rights, I'd have to say it's an ugly day in America.

Comments

[Heidi-ho]

One thing a person can do right now, this very minute is to dump Microsoft's Internet Explorer and download FireFox from Mozilla. It's opensource and free. It only takes a few minutes. It has a mini google window up in the corner to do searches right from your existing page. And you can open up tabs on a particular page too if you want to keep topics together.

It's a good start.

[Charlie Burr]

What's the point of being a big monopoly if you have to cave into this level of pressure?

[John]

Wear Nikes, Drink Coors, Fly Boeings. Just don't buy Microsoft.

How absurd. You don't boycott a company just because they won't support a single bill in the WA State Legislature. Instead, send a letter to Microsoft urging them to support HB 1515. That's way more effective.

And don't drink Coors beer. Coors is a major Republican backer.

As for Boeing planes, consumers can't choose whether to fly on Boeing or Airbus anyway, and it's better to fly an American made plane if you're an American. Boeing is home to many good paying union jobs. No reason to boycott them.

Nike has become really good recently at acknowledging problems with child labor, and they're reacting against Wal*Mart. No need to boycott them either.

[Nutmeg Alfredo]

Why not boycott Microsoft, Walmart, and anything else big? Big is eating the Earth and quick. I say support locally grown, locally made, and actually, figure out ways to live lightly. Firefox is great, so is Thunderbird which replaces Outlook and Outlook Express. So, let's put the big guys out of business before they eat everything, damn, they just got my sister.

Happy Earth Day. See you at the celebration tomorrow, Sunnyside School, 34th and Yamhill - 10-10pm

[NJ]

Haha, "washed up linebacker"? What an unbelievably idiotic comment. He's 50+ years old and you criticize him for not being the star athlete he used to be? That just shows your complete lack of intelligence. What are you doing running a blog?

Oh yeah, and Jesus is much more powerful than any corporation. He's the one that allowed this to happen. Hutch was just the vessel he used.

Peace.

[Pat Ryan]

It's a pure puzzlement the things that Jesus "allows to happen". Even stranger are his followers who seem to remember only those things that He said that will help to build congregation size, or get some politician elected, or push some hot button to keep the faithful afraid and dedicated.

Here're some other things that Jesus advocated:

To a rich man seeking advice-Sell all your goods to feed the poor and come follow me.

To religious leaders who asked if they should kill a woman caught in an act of adultery-Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

To an audience- It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

And so on (There are many more) When I was a young Fundy Christian we were taught to look to our own behavior and to preach the basic Gospel.

What happened to Christianity?

[Sid]

NJ-

What am I doing running a blog? I'm running a blog, that's what I'm doing. You can run one too ;-)

John-
I think BlueOregon was being tongue-in-cheek on their title. No?

Heidi-ho-
Yes, FireFox is great. I've been using since it came out. I too love the little google search window up in the corner.

[NJ]

Pat- I'll see you in heaven, even though it seems you don't follow the Word of God anymore. You can't lose your salvation no matter how hard you try.

Sid- If you're going to blog, at least be intelligent enough to post something without insulting a 50+ year old man for being a "washed up" athlete. You owe your readers that much.

[NA]

NJ, please stop besmirching the name and reputation of the great state of New Jersey by using those letters. How about TX?

[Kari Chisholm]

"And don't drink Coors beer. Coors is a major Republican backer."

Oddly enough, John, Coors is also a major sponsor of gay pride parades and events. Go figure.

Personally, I don't drink their beer because it's awful, but I've been feeling conflicted about the company for a while now.

[Kari Chisholm]

For lots more reading on Coors and Gay Pride stuff, google it here.

[Sid]

Coors vs. Deschutes Brewery, Portland Brewing Co., Widmer Brothers...

That's an easy choice!

NJ (TX)-
The point of the post is that a pastor from a mega-church threatened Microsoft and Microsoft responded. If the pastor had threatened Joe Schmoe, Inc, no big deal. When considering the fact that Microsoft has bullied its way in the market place by shutting down competition all over the world, it's totally surprising that right wing evangelicals could get the big M to pull their support for a civil rights bill... Not a gay marriage bill, but a civil rights bill.

So get over the 'washed up' thing and ask yourself, 'What would Jesus do?' Would he promote discrimination against people, as this pastor has?

[NJ]

How's McGreevey doing? Oooh, sorry, cheap shot.

Anyway, Sid:

First of all, homosexuality IS NOT a civil rights issue. Like Hutch says, you can't compare what he went through growing up in Alabama, to what homosexuals experience today.

Secondly, what would Jesus do? Come on Sid, you keep making it easy for me to call you out for your lack of intelligence.

In the Old Testament, we can all agree that God condemns homosexuality many, many times.

In the New Testament, Jesus fully stood on God's word and He constantly quoted from and affirmed the authenticity and reliability of the Old Testament. In affirming the Old Testament, He made it clear that unless He specifically set some portion of the Old Testament aside--that He stood on it as the word of God.

For example: Luke 24:44, Matthew 5:17-19, 10: 2-5, 12: 17-21, 24:16, John 5:45-47 etc.

Therefore, Jesus was completely against homosexuality, and was not tolerant of sexual immorality of all types.

[Sid]

TX-
Why do you only associate the word "civil rights" with what African Americans went through? Do civil rights only pertain to them, or do civil rights apply to all of us regardless of our race, religion, marital status, gender, mental or physical handicap, and sexual orientation?

Should gays not have the same protections that others have? Can an employer fire someone because he/she is gay? And if that employer can fire someone based on their sexual orientation, then why can't they fire someone based on race? Civil rights are for all of us, not just for whites and blacks who aren't gay.

And based on what I've learned about Jesus (I have some Lutheran pastors in my extended family, one of whom is a pastor of a very large congregation in Minnesota and who happens to have a brother who is gay) it is not for us to judge, but to love even the most wretched among us. But really, that's beside the point. The point is the Constitution, which is supposed to give all of us freedom, liberty and the right to happiness.

If you want to be doctrinaire in the way you live your life, that's fine because the Constitution gives you that right. You can thump your bible as much as you wish. As for me, I'm a Constitution thumper. The Founders were all children of the Enlightenment, and those values are reflected in the Constitution.

Just remember, if religion gets into government, government gets into religion, and it will choose which religion it gets into based on which ever organized religious minority has the most influence (I say minority in our case because not all Christians in America subscribe to the kind of right wing evangelicalism that has been demonstrated by the pastor from the Redmond mega-church.) It's not a one way street. History has shown that religious theocracies never are able to thrive in the way that a Constitutional democracy does.

So what do you want TX, a religious theocracy based on the literal interpretation of the bible? Or a constitutional democracy where we are all seen as equals in the eyes of the government?

[NJ (It's doesn't have anything to do with a state)]

1960's, Martin Luther King Jr., that was the civil rights movement took place. That is what I war referring to. That is the term homosexuals use to compare their situation with the one in the 60's.

Also, who ever said that I didn't love homosexuals? Jesus calls us to love everybody. What I don't love is homosexual sin. Love the person, hate the sin.

Sid, what I really want is an America that is based upon the Word of God. He's the ultimate authority, no one in the world has more power than the Almighty.

[NJ]

sorry about the name error. Should read "It doesn't," not "It's doesn't"

[Heidi-ho]

NJ,
No one is stopping you from living your life based on God. Like Sid said, the US constitution gives you that right. It also gives you the right, if you change your mind and become agnostic some day, to live the life of an agnostic, or whatever belief you choose. It's not the government's job to take or put God into peoples' lives. In fact it is unconsitutional for any members of government to take or put God into the lives of Americans. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights gives you that right. You can view God as the ultimate authority, but when it comes to the all of the people living in this country the ultimate authority is the constitution. Our laws are based on the constitution.

[GA - Keith]

The bill was defeated on the vote of Democrats. Sen. Jim Hargrove, a Democrat, said he opposed the measure for religious reasons.

"I believe adultery is wrong; I believe sex outside marriage is wrong; I believe homosexuality is wrong," he said. "I cannot give government protection to this behavior." (365gay.com)

Certainly Microsoft should receive our ire for bowing to pressure from one special interest group, but let's remember who casts the votes.

The LGBT community should close their checkbooks to any legislator who voted against their civil rights.

[Pat Ryan]

Welp TX,

Just for the sake of doctrinal consistency you don't get to make old testament arguments whenever you feel like it and ignore them the rest of the time.

In Acts, God tells Peter that foods previously prohibited under Mosaic Law are ok to eat. He does this specifically to demonstrate that gentiles get a shot at redemption under the new rules.

If, however, you advocate the stoning to death of disobedient children, the killing of all non believers in Israel, man woman and child "even to him that pisseth against the wall", no physical labor on Saturdays, the absolute prohibition against charging interest on loans.............Why then you have a right to go off about Old Testament Crime and Punishment of homosexuality. We both know better though. Don't we?

[Pat Ryan]

Oh Yeah and while we're cherry picking....Here's some Jefferson stuff that's been in circulation this past couple of weeks.

From the Jefferson Memorial:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny imposed upon the mind of man."

In context:

"DEAR SIR, - ... I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten," Jefferson wrote, noting that he knew to discuss the topic would add fuel to the fires of electoral politics swirling all around him. "I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum [the angry poets] who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened.
"The delusion ...on the [First Amendment] clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists.

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they [the preachers] believe that any portion of power confided to me [such as being elected President], will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion."

We see the religious Right using the partial quote all the time, but read as a whole, it's clear that Jefferson is not a fundamentalist Christian at all, but is a Diest (who were the forerunners of the humanists) and is terrified that the country will be taken over by guys like TX/NJ, Dobson and the rest.

[Sid]

Pat-

Thank you for the full text in relation to the quote. It gets to the heart of the matter when discussing religion in government. Which religion? Christianity? What kind of Christianity? "Fire and brimstone" Christianity or "We are all god's creatures and he loves every single one of us" Christianity? The Founders understood this problem all too well, because at the time there were so many sects of Christianity. They knew that a nation that was to be founded on the principles of liberty and constitutional democracy would not succeed if religion were a part of government. But they also understood that people valued their religion and thus granted protections for people to practice their beliefs freely WITHOUT government interference.

[Yoram]

I've heard Deschutes backs developer candidates at a local level, vs. smart growth types. And Portland Brewing is now owned by Pyramid Brewing. Anheuser-Busch has one-third ownership of Widmer.

Still, even if it's not totally local, it's a lot better beer than Coors. For local, there are plenty of options (Rogue, etc.)

[Sid]

Yoram-

And don't forget Hair of the Dog!

Yummy!

[jesus-lover]

What's this talk about Jesus being against homosexuals? I heard some murmurs in the "hallway" that Jesus was gay. Is that true?

[Gabriel]

Hello good design. Very nice.
;)