Neato.

[sarea]

This is so thrilling. Can't wait to see how the media responds.

http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=65966

:) :) :)

Comments

[selinakyle47.livejournal.com]

Can't believe that one measly pastor made Microsoft back off its previous position. Still, glad to see that the higher-ups are committed to supporting similar legislation in the future.

[sarea-okelani.livejournal.com]

My understanding is... It wasn't the pastor. Microsoft had already decided its legislative agenda prior to any meeting with the guy. The idea that a behemoth company like Microsoft could even be swayed by, as you put it "one measly pastor" is simply too far fetched for me to believe. It doesn't make any sense, and seems to me that it's only what the media used to get people riled up, by implying that the company's decision to be neutral on the bill was made based on some desire to placate the religious right. It doesn't even make any sense even as I'm typing it; Microsoft has long been on the forefront of diversity in the workplace and has always supported anti-discrimination legislation in the past -- and then to completely go against that because of one local guy? I just don't see it happening.

Not, of course, that they did completely reverse their decision; they just decided to pursue a legislative agenda that was more directly related to their business -- though in a case like this, not openly supporting = not supporting, period. "Neutral" is supposed to be neutral, but in this case "neutral" meant "against." Which is another discussion.

However, my view has always been that such a bill is directly related to their business, because it has to do with their employees and the people they attract. (As well as speaking to the kind of company it is.) I'm just glad to see that they came to the same conclusion. : )