I sure am. A clear sign of that being that you ignored most of what I said...


Like I pointed out, your request is irrelevant. Even if we assume there are none, it doesn't mean what you claim, as I already explained with NO response from you...


Do you EVEN LOOK at the fricken web-sites you link to?

Geez. If you're using this as an example, then I give you this to answer your stupid little question with a really obvious answer...

San Francisco Bay Times

And to disprove your stupid "because it hurts business" rant, here you go...
HRC | Microsoft CEO Says Company Will Support Gay Rights Legislation

Is Microsoft doing poorly these days?

The Frisco story is just another career politician, not a businessman. As for Microsft, of course they are going to say they support homo rights to get their business. When are they going to appoint a homo CEO is quite another thing.

I figured you would have some lame excuse to ignore the fact that he IS a CEO.
"career politician"? Do you think he is elected by the public to his position?
Or is he chosen for that position like most CEOs are?


And thus the contradiction starts.
FIRST a gay ceo is supposedly "bad for business".
But then you state that a policy FORBIDDING discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is good for business.

Which is it?

Is it bad for business to restrict gays from CEO (which would violate the discrimination policy)? Or is it good for business?

It's not that hard to see. It's good for business to state you are for gay rights to get their business. It is bad to have an openly homo as a CEO for the obvious reason that people who are not for homo special rights will not use your business because a homo is the CEO.

It's really just very simple politics of business.

So you claim that companies adopt a policy, all on their own, which they are refusing to follow.

The huge gaping hole in your hypothesis is what happens when it is pointed out that a company has this policy that they don't follow. That's a WORSE situation than if they didn't have the policy in the first place, because not only have they proven their prejudice, but they also prove themselves as liars.

I understand why such a prejudiced, hypocritical, lying stance appeals to you, but the reality is that it would be a much worse situation to adopt the policy you describe.

It's obvious that that is what corporate America is doing. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, business will do what the market demands. Look at the OJ thing that was supposed to be on TV. People said if you do that, we aint buying.

It's obvious?
Then you can show me a concrete example of where an openly gay potential CEO was not given the job just because he was gay?


The general market is not demanding what you claim.
The general market does not give a rat's ass about the sexual orientation of the CEO.


I can show you PLENTY of examples of anti-gay Christians who have said "if you do that, we ain't buying" when a company does something that supports gay equality.
i have ALREADY SHOWN YOU ONE example.
The people who won't buy because of their prejudice against gays are typically ignored.

People don't care if a company has a policy of equal rights to gays. They're okay with that.

If the public doesn't care about the sexual orientation of a corporate CEO, then why can't you produce any openly homo CEO's? You can run around all you want, but the facts are the facts.

I've already answered that question.
In fact, I've ALREADY GIVEN you an openly gay CEO.

Address the answer or accept the fact that you'll keep getting shot down every time you ask the same question.

Focusing on "gay" or "Christian" or "democrat" or whatever EXCLUDES portions of the market.
In the business world, you DO BUSINESS and leave your irrelevant private beliefs and attributes out of it. Businesses that harp on a niche market ONLY get the niche market.

Why aren't you addressing my question?
Can you show me a concrete example of where an openly gay potential CEO was not given the job just because he was gay?

You can run around all you want, but the facts are the facts.[/quote]

Actually, the truth is that most people WANT policies against employment discrimination. An overwhelming majority...

1995: A poll by Newsweek magazine taken among actual voters showed that 84% supported equal rights for gays and lesbians in the workplace.
1996-MAY: A Newsweek poll showed that 84% of American adults supported equal protections in employment for gays and lesbians.
1996-JUN: A poll by the Associated Press showed that 85% of adults are in favor of federal legislation to give equal protection in employment to gays and lesbians.
1996-NOV: Greenberg Research Inc. conducted a national survey of 1,007 voters at election time on 1996-NOV-5 to 8. They found that: Among Christians generally, 70% believe that gays and lesbians should be protected from discrimination in the workplace; 23% do not.
Among Evangelical Christians, 60% are in favor while 34% do not.

The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percent, 19 times out of 20.

1997-APR: A public opinion poll was conducted during 1997-APR 8 to 10 by the Tarrance Group and Lake Sosin Snell & Associates. They asked American adults whether they supported a Federal law to "prevent job discrimination against gays and lesbians." Results showed that ENDA has 68% support nationally, 77% in the Northeast, 71% in the Midwest, 68% in the West, and 62% in the South. It is supported by 79% of Democrats, 69% of independents, and 59% of Republicans. Only about 15% of adults are "strongly opposed."
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS & LESBIANS

Actually Alias, the type of discrimination you describe is OPPOSED by people...