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"
>