I don’t think it’s right for a tech company to voice opinions on purely social issues.  These can only be the opinions of a consensus of upper managements / board of directors.  There is no business reason to voice such an opinion (other than being cool in the eyes of some and uncool in the eyes of others).  I doubt Apple, Microsoft, etc. did a survey of all their employees to decide to support this.  So how can they say things like this?

Now coming out on SOPA is different, because that directly affects the business of companies like Google who said something.

I too would prefer a “separation of company and state.”  I’m not particularly interested in hearing companies I do business with jump into social and political issues that don’t have to do with their core mission and reason for being in business.

Just to play devil’s advocate for a second, Jim, I could say that pushing for laws such as this, qualified employees (or potential employees) who have issues of conscience in objecting to SSM could also feel unwelcome or not included.  They could feel pressure to “get in line” with the company and state stance on the issue or have to go elsewhere.  Passing this law doesn’t maximize inclusiveness, it simply shifts who the preferred included groups will be.

I doubt Apple, Microsoft, etc. did a survey of all their employees to decide to support this.

Why? While I have no knowledge of the matter, it’s perfectly conceivable to me that Apple (and MS) did in fact poll its employees and come to this decision democratically. It’s even possible that the initiative for the position came from the lower echelons of the company.

I work for a Fortune 500 company and our core values implicitly embrace diversity as one of our biggest strengths.  Our company has never had to poll us because it is in our culture to support our employees and their families because every person is vital to our success no matter their race, age, creed, orientation, etc.  I couldn’t imagine making any of my gay colleagues feel like they are less important than my straight colleagues.  They can work for another company if they do not share the same values as the rest of us do.  So, when someone accepts a job at Microsoft, Apple or any other place where they support non-discrimination, it is implied that you live by the same values because each of you represent the company you keep.

Diversity doesn’t mean you must accept anything and everything people wish to do.  It also doesn’t mean that you make people who feel differently about a matter feel less important because they have moral convictions that are dissimilar to yours.  People need to grow up and realize that thing where other people have to accept and tolerate your beliefs on something is a two way street.  It’s not “accept what we believe and keep the hell quiet about what you think.”

Sorry, but it is not “accept what we believe and keep the hell quiet”...it is “if you share our values, choose to work here”.  If an employee at Microsoft or Apple does not share their values, they can choose to work somewhere that does.  Discrimination is a one way street.

Corporate involvement in controversial social issues is extremely destructive to the bottom line. Competence of board members should be questioned.

I know I’ll get flamed but homosexuality will never make our country better only spiritually poorer. Look to history any culture who has embraced homosexuality has gone the way of ruin. I am an Apple customer and a stock holder and I don’t like them taking this track. JMO…GC

Sorry, but it is not “accept what we believe and keep the hell quiet”...it is “if you share our values, choose to work here”.  If an employee at Microsoft or Apple does not share their values, they can choose to work somewhere that does.  Discrimination is a one way street.

Actually, that’s exactly what it is for people who have been working there prior to this new initiative. 

Neither is discrimination a one-way street.  When you discriminate against people whose beliefs are different from yours, you don’t get to just assume the moral high ground.

Actually, everything is exactly the same as it was before they voiced their support for this initiative.  You think this is the first time Microsoft supported their LGBT employees?  In 1993, they were the first Fortune 500 company to offer same-sex domestic partnership benefits.  Their decision is directly in line with their fundamental company values.  The same ones they have had for about twenty years.  They are taking the moral high ground.  How successful would Microsoft or Apple be if they were only filled with straight white men?  How successful is Microsoft and Apple for respecting ALL of their employees and what they contribute to the company? 

I work for an amazing company that respects my family because it is a fundamental core value of theirs.  My company, like Microsoft, says “You are important…you are vital to our success…you are safe from all forms of discrimination.”  I am Native American.  I am a gay male.  I have a partner of 7 years.  I have two awesome children whom I thank God for every day.  I had to stop typing my response because my two year old has a story read to him every night before bed. 

You are not different than me.  You are different like me.

Quoted from Microsoft:

+1,000,000 to Boscher.

As for the rest: the 19th Century called and congratulates you on carrying its values into the new millennium.

First of all, no one said anything about only allowing “straight”, “white” or “men” to work anywhere.  You can respect your employees without supporting SSM.  I can respect the hell out of an employee who does great work for the company but simply lives with his girlfriend or is into polyamory for all it matters.  Doesn’t mean I have a moral obligation to provide benefits to their partner(s) or incorporate their particular choice of relationship into the definition of marriage.

I could say that pushing for laws such as this, qualified employees (or potential employees) who have issues of conscience in objecting to SSM could also feel unwelcome or not included.  They could feel pressure to “get in line” with the company and state stance on the issue or have to go elsewhere.

Correct, TitanTiger — much as so many businesses in the south Alabama of my youth felt “pressure” (legally!) to serve meals to black customers as well as white, to allow them to sit wherever they wanted on the bus, to get rid of those segregated third-class facilities for “Colored” in many (most?) public areas such as movie theaters, and so on.

Homosexuality is just as biologically driven as the amount of melanin in one’s skin; sexual orientation is no more a “choice” than the natural texture of one’s hair, the size of one’s lips, one’s height or skeletal structure.

Dang, it’s been quite a century! Women demanded and (gasp) received the right to VOTE. Our military had to integrate its forces (despite all those who predicted “morale” problems and said “it just ain’t RIGHT”). Soon all those with substantially more melanin *also* had the gall to expect basic civil rights. And today, persons who naturally feel more intimate and sexual attraction to members of their own sex likewise expect the human and civil right of legally marrying, with all the privileges and benefits, to enhance their freedom to raise their own families as well.

Apple and MS, correspondingly, are simply doing what some more compassionate, enlightened, justice-minded Americans did in the 50’s and 60’s: they accepted persons of all races, cultures, and ethnicities. And, sure, they met LOTS of resistance from those who feared losing their privileged status. Same principle here.

Correct, TitanTiger — much as so many businesses in the south Alabama of my youth felt “pressure” (legally!) to serve meals to black customers as well as white, to allow them to sit wherever they wanted on the bus, to get rid of those segregated third-class facilities for “Colored” in many (most?) public areas such as movie theaters, and so on.

But again, who is proposing that Microsoft “not serve” anyone?  No one.  As I stated, someone’s private decisions regarding their romantic/ sexual relationships isn’t up for discussion as to whether they can work there, advance and have a full and successful career.

Homosexuality is just as biologically driven as the amount of melanin in one’s skin; sexual orientation is no more a “choice” than the natural texture of one’s hair, the size of one’s lips, one’s height or skeletal structure.

While I disagree with this (I think homosexuality is far more complex than mere determinative biology), simply being homosexual or having homosexual inclinations is not what is at issue here.

Dang, it’s been quite a century! Women demanded and (gasp) received the right to VOTE. Our military had to integrate its forces (despite all those who predicted “morale” problems and said “it just ain’t RIGHT”). Soon all those with substantially more melanin *also* had the gall to expect basic civil rights. And today, persons who naturally feel more intimate and sexual attraction to members of their own sex likewise expect the human and civil right of legally marrying, with all the privileges and benefits, to enhance their freedom to raise their own families as well.

You and others are far better off in this discussion when you can drop the ad hominems and quit trying to win by labeling your opponents.  I fully respect that you feel differently about this and actually enjoying hashing it out, but trying to box people in by essentially calling them bigots (or if the shoe were on the other foot, “perverts”) because they don’t share your views doesn’t get us anywhere.

Apple and MS, correspondingly, are simply doing what some more compassionate, enlightened, justice-minded Americans did in the 50’s and 60’s: they accepted persons of all races, cultures, and ethnicities. And, sure, they met LOTS of resistance from those who feared losing their privileged status. Same principle here.

And I believe that acceptance and loving other people doesn’t mean you have to pro-actively affirm all their choices.  You may give them the space and privacy to make certain decisions you don’t personally agree with, but it is not the default “moral high ground” position to actively support them in their pursuit of such decisions.

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. -Mildred Loving