6 ms·
As someone who works for a mostly apolitical organization - it depends on the issue. For example, the company refuses to take a stance on: - Brexit (even thou
by Closi 6y ago
As someone who works for a mostly apolitical organization - it depends on the issue.
For example, the company refuses to take a stance on:
- Brexit (even though it will negatively impact them)
- Elections or any vote (even though again, this impacts them)
But for example actively campaigns on:
- Agricultural issues (It's in the food industry)
The company VERY strongly supports LGBT rights and minority rights, and will raise money for charities, but typically this does not transfer into support of individual political policies or parties.
The view is effectively that the company has lots of customers, and we shouldn't alienate them if they have opposing views, and that taking a strong political stance outside our industry can look like we are not respecting opposing viewpoints that our customers or competitors may have.
- danpalmer 6y agoWhat's the difference between strongly supporting LGBT rights and strongly supporting remaining in the EU? Both likely affect the company significantly, both are (unfortunately) political issues, both (unfortunately) alienate people. It seems the only distinction here is that Brexit is a closer call in the UK. Is there another way of looking at it?
- anoncake 6y agoOne is a human rights issue, the other is not.
- iuguy 6y agoBrexit is absolutely a human rights issue. The leave campaign specifically talked up withdrawing from EU human rights laws and agreements.
- Closi 6y agoThat statement alone will divide customers in the U.K. and the advantages/disadvantages of withdrawing from EU human rights agreements are something that reasonable people disagree on. Generally supporting established lgbt rights with no specific link to policy is different - it’s overwhelmingly supported and not even generally classed as a political view anymore (along with “is evil bad?”).
- iuguy 6y agoYou're missing your own bias. There are people in the US (and in the UK, in the Vote Leave team who are now in Government) who believe that LGBT people (in particular the T) shouldn't exist. LGBT rights are human rights. Brexit absolutely has a human rights component to it.
- zo1 6y agoMy take on it: Most LGBTQ+ rights issues are almost entirely settled and agreed on anyways at the greater societal level. You'd be hard pressed to find an appreciable amount of people that rationally want to take away normal, everyday rights from LGBTQ+ individuals. Sure there are exotic and controversial discussion points (E.g. child transitioning, odd bathroom laws, etc) but no normal business touches those issues with anything but a ten-foot pole and vague "messages of support". Brexit, on the other hand, is probably a 50-50 split within the overall population in terms of support and is an arguable/defendable position that rational people can and do make.
- Closi 6y agoYou got it. Why alienate 50% of your customers? Meanwhile LGBT rights are pretty much universally agreed, and I don’t think that “LGBT support” is generally classed as a political view so much as an expected cultural norm (i.e. not showing support would elicit a severe backlash within the customer base).
- mountainb 6y agoIt's not true that "LGBT Rights" are value-free. Promoting LGBT rights also alienates members of the largest religious groups in the world, including those that are majority-non-European like Islam and Catholicism. Being a practicing L, G, B, or T or pro any of them is against sharia, the Catechism, and against the rules of many major Protestant sects like Mormons. Gay marriage is expressly against the rules of most major global belief groups that are not the US and its Marshall Plan colonies. Without a lot of double speak, there is no such thing as a 'universally tolerant' corporate policy because different legal, social, and religious moral frameworks are mutually incompatible. In the US people just prefer to pretend that post-Protestant Woo-ism is universally friendly to everyone.
- Gormisdomai 6y agoYour high level point about universal tolerance stands - but you might like to challenge some of your object level assumptions about world religions and LGBT. Iranian theocratic leadership for example officially does not think that being trans is against sharia and the nation carries out more gender reassignment surgeries than any country except Thailand (not that their treatment of trans people is perfect by any means). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Iran
- jokethrowaway 6y agoA past employer decided to publish a rainbow themed design for LGBTQ pride and rolled back the UAE version of the website following feedback from clients there.
- Gormisdomai 6y agoI think "impossible to reconcile with the codified teachings of religion X" and "would receive negative feedback / appear intolerant to people currently practicing religion X" are different claims. Though I totally agree the latter is a good argument for why "universal tolerance" is not a straightforward concept. Specifically: I'm disputing the theological claim "Being a practicing L, G, B, or T or pro any of them is against sharia, the Catechism, and against the rules of many major Protestant sects like Mormons." That's not really a settled question.