The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

BTW, was that Bob disrupting the SCOTUS hearing yesterday?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

This has little to do with access to workers. It's all about trying to get good PR. And corps know that they'll get a lot of good PR from the liberal media and all if they tilt in favor of gay marriage and all. Not that complicated an equation.

Wrong again. You are on a roll.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Not altruistic at all Bob. Corporations want access to good workers. They don't want to limit the talent pool because a bunch of righties with problems in their own marriage decide to pass discriminatory laws against gays. Its not any more complicated than that. However, ask yourself why all the "rising star hero next Presidents" in the GOP field didn't unleash holy hell on Wal-Mart for forcing the governor and legislature to water down a bill they'd already passed. I mean, who's running things over there?

Corporations are like politicians, and even judges and members of the public for that matter. Most of them go whichever way the wind is blowing, and right now it's blowing a gale in favor of gay marriage.

20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, was Walmart or Target or GE or any other large company out leading the charge in favor of gay marriage, and equal benefits for gays?

What happened with gay marriage is the same thing that happened with equal rights for women, most of the civil rights movement and other large shifts in societal thinking. A few brave tireless souls kept trying to push a big, immovable rock. Slowly but surely they gained support from a person at a time, until they finally built up enough momentum that no one could stop the change if they wanted to. Corporations and everyone else just jumped on the bandwagon and claimed a part of the victory.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, was Walmart or Target or GE or any other large company out leading the charge in favor of gay marriage, and equal benefits for gays?

Yes, the large company I work for was leading the charge for equan benefits- and got flack from some of the most loyal (and profitable) customers for it. Didn't stop the support. IIRC, that was at least 15 years ago when it was official- but I recall a club for it before that.

Seems like people are forgetting the recent past.

edit- the reasoning was exactly what Rover points out- access to proper skilled workforce. People seem to think that diversity is purely about fair, but from a corporate standpoint, it's a source of different solutions and different paths to solutions. Or money.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, was Walmart or Target or GE or any other large company out leading the charge in favor of gay marriage, and equal benefits for gays?

Lotus Software gave equal benefits to gay partners in 1989, 26 years ago. But at the time that was remarkable.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Lotus Software gave equal benefits to gay partners in 1989, 26 years ago. But at the time that was remarkable.

Yeah, I may have understated the timeline a bit. But I remember the gay pride parades in the 70's, especially after the Stonewall riot, and I don't remember any major corporate sponsorship or support at that time.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, was Walmart or Target or GE or any other large company out leading the charge in favor of gay marriage, and equal benefits for gays?

I'm in my 11th year with my current employer. By the time I started here it was already a long established policy of equal benefits to same-sex couples. I don't know when they started, but they weren't a new thing.

Yeah, I may have understated the timeline a bit. But I remember the gay pride parades in the 70's, especially after the Stonewall riot, and I don't remember any major corporate sponsorship or support at that time.

I read about this during a business class back in college. Subaru was the first car company to market directly to the LGBT crowd, back in the late 70s, early 80s. Their marketing department told the CEO that it's a portion fo the population that no other company was trying to capture. They started making large ad buys in magazines like Lavendar. To this day they still market to the LGBT crowd, and to this day Subaru receives a huge amount of brand loyalty from them. It likely kept the company afloat in the US for a while because back in the early 70s the company was floundering here. It's all about the greenbacks.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Yeah, I may have understated the timeline a bit. But I remember the gay pride parades in the 70's, especially after the Stonewall riot, and I don't remember any major corporate sponsorship or support at that time.

I wasn't being critical. IIRC Lotus was the first major company in Cambridge to do it, and other than San Fran that was likely the first place. In the 80's Portland wasn't even Portland yet.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I read about this during a business class back in college. Subaru was the first car company to market directly to the LGBT crowd, back in the late 70s, early 80s. Their marketing department told the CEO that it's a portion fo the population that no other company was trying to capture. They started making large ad buys in magazines like Lavendar. To this day they still market to the LGBT crowd, and to this day Subaru receives a huge amount of brand loyalty from them. It likely kept the company afloat in the US for a while because back in the early 70s the company was floundering here. It's all about the greenbacks.

Fascinating. I'd have guessed Saab, as there was a time when Saab was the official vehicle of college professors.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting split in a campaign finance case today. 5-4 upholding the regulation of judicial candidates/elections.

Liberal wing + Roberts in the majority. SCOTUS Blog thinks that's only the third time that's happened. (ACA was one of the others, not sure of the third).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting split in a campaign finance case today. 5-4 upholding the regulation of judicial candidates/elections.

Liberal wing + Roberts in the majority. SCOTUS Blog thinks that's only the third time that's happened. (ACA was one of the others, not sure of the third).

Is that Williams-Yulee v FL?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

But Bob, if according to you most people are really conservatives, why would touting a radical liberal line win out in the end for these corporations? In Indiiana? Arkansas? Hardly bastions of liberalism.

As usual with you, that's not what I said.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It does have to do with employees. The NCAA doesn't really care about negative press. They do care that people who work for them will be harassed, or that people they want to come work for them won't. Apple most certainly cares about those policies. In Arkansas, Wal-Mart isn't exactly afraid of negative media attention either.

Nonsense. None of these entities want to have a firestorm of negative press, protesters outside their facilities, etc. if they looked like they weren't pro-gay. It's bad for business.

 

[unofan]

Is that Williams-Yulee v FL?

Yeah.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Nonsense. None of these entities want to have a firestorm of negative press, protesters outside their facilities, etc. if they looked like they weren't pro-gay. It's bad for business.

Of course all the protestors are not Christians. Because, why would a Christian ever protest against discrimination that is justified by the Bible?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

BTW, was that Bob disrupting the SCOTUS hearing yesterday?

The guy is wrong. Supporting gay marriage doesn't doom someone to hell. That's simply wrong.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Nonsense. None of these entities want to have a firestorm of negative press, protesters outside their facilities, etc. if they looked like they weren't pro-gay. It's bad for business.

If the reality is that discrimination against gays is no longer good for business, that's great. But I assume it's regional. You're not going to make any friends in my town if you put a rainbow flag outside your business. You might just get a brick through the window. Neolithic remedies.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, was Walmart or Target or GE or any other large company out leading the charge in favor of gay marriage, and equal benefits for gays?

Those heathens at Disney gave benefits in 1995 and somehow the theme park hasn't been destroyed by meteors and Snow White hasn't turned into a pillar of salt.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Those heathens at Disney gave benefits in 1995 and somehow the theme park hasn't been destroyed by meteors and Snow White hasn't turned into a pillar of salt.

Yet.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Nonsense. None of these entities want to have a firestorm of negative press, protesters outside their facilities, etc. if they looked like they weren't pro-gay. It's bad for business.

Yes, we all know how much Wal-Mart quakes in fear of negative publicity.