Exactly...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Brown [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Fiorina, Carly, personal political
> orientation?
>
>
> The description of the poster didn't sound to me like it was promoting
> tolerance.  It sounded like it was encouraging people to
> accept the homosexual
> lifestyle as a normal, acceptable alternative.  I guess it
> depends on your
> definition of tolerance.  To me it means something like, "I
> think you're wrong
> but I'm not going to give you a hard time about it or try to
> force you to agree
> with me.  Your lifestyle is totally unacceptable to me, but
> that's your choice
> and I'm going to treat you the same way I'd treat anyone
> else."  But to many
> people tolerance seems to mean, "You're gay and I'm not.
> Either way is OK.
> There's no absolute right or wrong, and anyone who believes
> either of us is
> wrong is intolerant."
>
> I see a big difference between a campaign that says, "Ignore
> people's sexual
> preferences -- don't let them influence what happens in the
> workplace," and one
> that says, "You ought to accept that being gay is just as
> valid as being
> heterosexual."  I get the latter message from HP's posters.
> For an employer to
> try to influence behavior in the workplace (within reason) is
> acceptable; to try
> to influence people's attitudes on moral issues is not.  The
> "official" posters
> said, "It's OK to be gay," and the Boise employee's poster
> said, "No it's not."
> If either viewpoint is allowed to be expressed then the other
> should be allowed
> as well.  But why should HP be taking an official stand on
> *either* side of this
> issue?
>
>
>
>
>
> Russ Smith <[log in to unmask]> on 11/02/2000 08:03:53 AM
>
> Please respond to Russ Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
>
> Subject:  Re: [HP3000-L] Fiorina, Carly, personal political
> orientation?
>
>
>
> Wayne,
>
> You wrote:
> > It seems to me that the issue here is whether or not a
> company should be
> > promoting an "official" view on such a subject.  Being a
> Christian myself,
> I
> > accept the Biblical definition of homosexuality as immoral.
>  Nevertheless
> I do
> > not believe that an employee should be treated differently
> by an employer
> > because he happens to be gay.  But I would be quite upset
> if my company
> put up
> > posters promoting the gay lifestyle.  I would be equally
> offended if  they
> were
> > promoting premarital sex or abortion.  Employees should not
> have to endure
> > company propaganda on EITHER side of such issues.
>
> I believe you misunderstood the official stance that HP
> is/was taking with
> their campaign.  They were not promoting homosexuality.  They
> were promoting
> tolerance.  The 'company propaganda' was part of the standard
> mechanism
> by which information is desciminated to their staff.  If they felt an
> information
> campaign was necessary, i.e. if they felt that too large a
> portion of their
> employees were not being tolerant of the homosexuals in their
> staff, then
> they were taking appropriate action.
>
> > I have no problem with individuals supporting their
> personal beliefs in
> their
> > own work area, whether I agree with those beliefs or not.
>
> So you are tolerant of others' beliefs.
>
> > But I do have a problem with a company that launches an
> active campaign
> > to encourage acceptance of one point of view in an area of personal
> morality.
>
> Again, the campaign was promoting tolerance, not homosexuality.
>
> > And I have a VERY BIG
> > problem with a company that does so, and then fires an
> employee for doing
> the
> > same.
>
> He was fired because his actions were viewed as overtly discouraging
> tolerance.
>
> > If the Boise employee's poster had to come down, then all the other
> > posters should have come down too.  Better yet, it should
> have been left
> to each
> > employee to decide if they wanted such a poster in their
> own work areas.
>
> If the purpose of a company wide campaign is to promote
> tolerance, and a
> single
> employee takes direct action to discourage tolerance, he must
> recognize
> there will
> be consequences for his actions.  My judeo-christian
> upbringing taught me
> that
> there are always consequences for your actions, even when you take no
> action.
>
> > If this person's firing fits in with HP's corporate
> policies, and is not
> just a
> > whim of the Boise management, then I'm going to have a hard time
> recommending
> > any future HP purchases.
>
> That action would not be very tolerant.
>
> > By coincidence, my company plans to purchase some Unix
> > servers in the next few months, and I'm the only one here
> with any HP-UX
> > experience (or any significant Unix experience, for that
> matter).  I'd
> planned
> > to offer a recommendation, but maybe I'll just stay out of
> it and let the
> Sun
> > and IBM advocates do all the talking.
>
> If you read the article at the link in Tom's posting (I
> included it below),
> you will
> note that IBM and Sun are both listed as being
> "gay-friendly".  The old
> frying pan
> and fire, quote comes to mind.
>
> This is a very touchy issue in most of the U.S.  I think that's sad.
>
> Rs~
>
> * * These are my views, and not necessarily those of my employer. * *
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Brandt" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Fiorina, Carly, personal political
> orientation?
>
>
> > On a somewhat related note, see the article at
> > http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52561-2000Oct31.html
> >
> > which says "... the number one thing that correlates with a region's
> > high-tech success is the concentration of gay people living there"
> >
>