3 ms·

I support the seemingly-exaggerated response of Salesforce. In a risk of starting a religious flame war, I don't understand those of faith who discriminate agai

by keehun 12y ago

I support the seemingly-exaggerated response of Salesforce. In a risk of starting a religious flame war, I don't understand those of faith who discriminate against anyone else for any reason. Jesus called on His believers to love your neighbors as you love yourself. "There are no commandments greater than these" (from Mark 12)

shaftoe 12y ago
I don't understand how forcing people to do business, under penalty of law, is promoting "tolerance." I also don't understand creating these laws and then creating loopholes for pet causes. People are either free to associate and disassociate or they are not.
- mbreese 12y ago
  Because we as a society decided a while ago that if a business offers a service to "the public" that means everyone in the public. Not just the members of the public you happen to like.
api 12y ago
I also don't understand why things like homosexuality are orders of magnitude more important than all the other sins named in the Bible -- and often far more clearly and unambiguously. You don't see Christians protesting outside credit card companies because they engage in usury, or against companies that make their employees work on Sundays, or for policies to help the poor, or anything else like that. Ultimately what it comes down to is that ideology/religion is the cart, not the horse. People have prejudices and preconceived notions, then they cherry pick from their ideology of choice to rationalize them. People think gays are icky and weird, so they cherry pick from the Bible to support discrimination against them. But usury is profitable so they ignore those parts.
- anon808 12y ago
  Or how about the most obvious one, killing ie. wars. Conventional American Christianity and the military are very closely tied; how that disconnect is ignored is beyond me.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    You cannot be a pacifist without a protector, ask Tibet.
    - anon808 12y ago
      Unless you believe in an after-life or that God protects you.
    - api 12y ago
      There's a difference between defending yourself and offensive war.
  - phrogdriver 12y ago
    Strong jus ad bellum and jus in bello traditions in the military? For better or worse, people can justify killing in war.
  - joshuapants 12y ago
    A more accurate translation of the commandment would be "you shall not murder." Conservative Judaism is also pretty big into the military, and pretty much every major religion makes a distinction between murder and justified killing. e: Just to be more clear, this isn't me coming up with my own justification. The Hebrew word "ratsakh" used in the commandment specifically refers to murder or manslaughter and isn't used in the context of killing in war.
- keehun 12y ago
  Good point. Even without cherry picking, in this instance, when the Bible/God/Jesus declares it the greatest commandment, you'd think they would pay a little more attention to it.
- mc32 12y ago
  Interestingly, it seems these things change over time. There was a time usury was seen as a scourge and homosexuality was not seen as something to counter, people were just left alone. I'm thinking eight to ten centuries ago. Usury was seen as pretty vile, but that seems to have changed over the past few centuries. Why? I have no idea, except societies change over time but don't know what brings about that change in sentiment... Some times forward sometimes regressive sentiments.
- Torgo 12y ago
  They are lost causes, and you're generally not personally compelled to use them (except the ACA, now.) >People think gays are icky and weird http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conservative-brain-responses-disgusting/ http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conse... People with stronger disgust response tend to be conservative.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Can we assume with the acceptance of interracial marriage in the 70's through the 90's, the acceptance of gay marriage between the 90's and now, and the beginnings of the acceptance of drug decriminalization/legalization now are signs the US is tilting "liberal/progressive" (or whatever the opposite of conservative is)? "Progress occurs one funeral at a time."
wl 12y ago
I think you have to look at what motivated laws like this. In one famous example in Arizona, an anti-discrimination law penalized a wedding photographer who refused to work a same-sex wedding. It's not that people want the right to not serve gay people at Chick-fil-a.
- anon808 12y ago
  yes, there are people that want to the right to not serve gay people at chik-fil-a. Substitute the word 'same-sex' with 'black' in that famous example you mention and it should become obvious why laws like that are needed (and were needed 50 years ago).
- ctdonath 12y ago
  A wedding photographer photographs weddings, eh? It is quite sensible for said photographer to turn down requests for photographing non-weddings, and holds to a certain widespread classic & religious definition of what a wedding is. Now many find a reason to press for legislation [re]stating that it's the proprietor who gets to decide what the definition s/he adheres to on common religious grounds, not what others say it is.
  - caseysoftware 12y ago
    "It is quite sensible for said photographer to turn down requests for photographing non-weddings, and holds to a certain widespread classic & religious definition of what a wedding is." And now you've discriminated and are subject to lawsuits. As has already happened in a number of cases.
  - mbreese 12y ago
    People used to not think marriages between people of different skin colors weren't actual weddings either. Do you think that a Catholic photographer would agree to work a Lutheran wedding? Just sayin...
indytechcook 12y ago
The motivation is fear. People have being using God to justify their own fear related actions for as long as we have history.
mc32 12y ago
Maybe sales force will also stop selling to customers in Russia, China, in Africa too to ensure principles aren't broken... And people aren't discriminated against. Unfortunately I think he's grandstanding and this is simply symbolic. Which is fine, but he doesn't really mean it. It's a ploy.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- joezydeco 12y ago
  It's a ploy Kind of like the legislation?
- rwissmann 12y ago
  If you want to enact change, you have to use whatever means is appropriate. In a democratic country that is supposed to uphold human rights, public acts such as these can have a strong positive impact. In an autocratic country such as china, the impact would be zero. Often, limited engagement can have a better impact.
  - mc32 12y ago
    Google pulled out of China out of principle. Not sure it made any impact. But that's what principles are about, you make a stand regardless.
- aeturnum 12y ago
  I agree that this is more PR than it is principled stand. However, I disagree that the two situations are equivalent. In this case, IN is part of the country that SalesForce is headquartered in and they have employees who live and work in IN. Companies have some responsibility for their conduct in all the areas they do business, but it makes sense that they would be most focused on those areas where they do business and live and work.
- vacri 12y ago
  Salesforce isn't embargoing customers in Indiana, it's just no longer sending staff or running programs for customers in the state. They're not going to stop the locals buying their product. in Africa too Africa is not one homogenous mass of religious backwardness.
davebindy 12y ago
As someone from Indiana, and a person of faith, I've followed this fairly closely. To call the response "seemingly-exaggerated" is an understatement. Frankly, I wonder if Mr. Benioff has even read the bill that Gov. Pence signed today, or whether he's relying on the rhetoric of those who oppose it, who claim it will inevitably lead to discrimination. What the bill actually says is that the state government can't (with some exceptions) enact a law that curtails religious freedom. In the 20 or so other states that have very similar laws model after the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Act, the courts have ruled in the cases that have been brought forward that it isn't an excuse by the private sector to discriminate. (One assumes that no Salesforce personnel are allowed to travel to those states, either...) You can love your neighbor as you love yourself, and still not condone or participate in or approve of activities that contradict your faith, just as on a purely secular level you might like an individual but find some of their behavior distasteful.
- anon808 12y ago
  What are the specific acts that people of faith were being forced to perform or approve of that contradict their faith?
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > You can love your neighbor as you love yourself, and still not condone or participate in or approve of activities that contradict your faith, just as on a purely secular level you might like an individual but find some of their behavior distasteful. First, loving someone while saying one of the facets of their identity is wrong is... a weird definition of love, at the very least. Second, that isn't what's at issue. What's at issue is whether someone's personal distaste should translate into a denial of service in the public sphere.

by keehun 12y ago

shaftoe 12y ago

I don't understand how forcing people to do business, under penalty of law, is promoting "tolerance." I also don't understand creating these laws and then creating loopholes for pet causes. People are either free to associate and disassociate or they are not.

mbreese 12y ago
Because we as a society decided a while ago that if a business offers a service to "the public" that means everyone in the public. Not just the members of the public you happen to like.

api 12y ago

I also don't understand why things like homosexuality are orders of magnitude more important than all the other sins named in the Bible -- and often far more clearly and unambiguously. You don't see Christians protesting outside credit card companies because they engage in usury, or against companies that make their employees work on Sundays, or for policies to help the poor, or anything else like that. Ultimately what it comes down to is that ideology/religion is the cart, not the horse. People have prejudices and preconceived notions, then they cherry pick from their ideology of choice to rationalize them. People think gays are icky and weird, so they cherry pick from the Bible to support discrimination against them. But usury is profitable so they ignore those parts.

anon808 12y ago
Or how about the most obvious one, killing ie. wars. Conventional American Christianity and the military are very closely tied; how that disconnect is ignored is beyond me.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  You cannot be a pacifist without a protector, ask Tibet.
  - anon808 12y ago
    Unless you believe in an after-life or that God protects you.
  - api 12y ago
    There's a difference between defending yourself and offensive war.
- phrogdriver 12y ago
  Strong jus ad bellum and jus in bello traditions in the military? For better or worse, people can justify killing in war.
- joshuapants 12y ago
  A more accurate translation of the commandment would be "you shall not murder." Conservative Judaism is also pretty big into the military, and pretty much every major religion makes a distinction between murder and justified killing. e: Just to be more clear, this isn't me coming up with my own justification. The Hebrew word "ratsakh" used in the commandment specifically refers to murder or manslaughter and isn't used in the context of killing in war.
keehun 12y ago
Good point. Even without cherry picking, in this instance, when the Bible/God/Jesus declares it the greatest commandment, you'd think they would pay a little more attention to it.
mc32 12y ago
Interestingly, it seems these things change over time. There was a time usury was seen as a scourge and homosexuality was not seen as something to counter, people were just left alone. I'm thinking eight to ten centuries ago. Usury was seen as pretty vile, but that seems to have changed over the past few centuries. Why? I have no idea, except societies change over time but don't know what brings about that change in sentiment... Some times forward sometimes regressive sentiments.
Torgo 12y ago
They are lost causes, and you're generally not personally compelled to use them (except the ACA, now.) >People think gays are icky and weird http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conservative-brain-responses-disgusting/ http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conse... People with stronger disgust response tend to be conservative.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Can we assume with the acceptance of interracial marriage in the 70's through the 90's, the acceptance of gay marriage between the 90's and now, and the beginnings of the acceptance of drug decriminalization/legalization now are signs the US is tilting "liberal/progressive" (or whatever the opposite of conservative is)? "Progress occurs one funeral at a time."

wl 12y ago

I think you have to look at what motivated laws like this. In one famous example in Arizona, an anti-discrimination law penalized a wedding photographer who refused to work a same-sex wedding. It's not that people want the right to not serve gay people at Chick-fil-a.

anon808 12y ago
yes, there are people that want to the right to not serve gay people at chik-fil-a. Substitute the word 'same-sex' with 'black' in that famous example you mention and it should become obvious why laws like that are needed (and were needed 50 years ago).
ctdonath 12y ago
A wedding photographer photographs weddings, eh? It is quite sensible for said photographer to turn down requests for photographing non-weddings, and holds to a certain widespread classic & religious definition of what a wedding is. Now many find a reason to press for legislation [re]stating that it's the proprietor who gets to decide what the definition s/he adheres to on common religious grounds, not what others say it is.
- caseysoftware 12y ago
  "It is quite sensible for said photographer to turn down requests for photographing non-weddings, and holds to a certain widespread classic & religious definition of what a wedding is." And now you've discriminated and are subject to lawsuits. As has already happened in a number of cases.
- mbreese 12y ago
  People used to not think marriages between people of different skin colors weren't actual weddings either. Do you think that a Catholic photographer would agree to work a Lutheran wedding? Just sayin...

indytechcook 12y ago

The motivation is fear. People have being using God to justify their own fear related actions for as long as we have history.

mc32 12y ago

Maybe sales force will also stop selling to customers in Russia, China, in Africa too to ensure principles aren't broken... And people aren't discriminated against. Unfortunately I think he's grandstanding and this is simply symbolic. Which is fine, but he doesn't really mean it. It's a ploy.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
joezydeco 12y ago
It's a ploy Kind of like the legislation?
rwissmann 12y ago
If you want to enact change, you have to use whatever means is appropriate. In a democratic country that is supposed to uphold human rights, public acts such as these can have a strong positive impact. In an autocratic country such as china, the impact would be zero. Often, limited engagement can have a better impact.
- mc32 12y ago
  Google pulled out of China out of principle. Not sure it made any impact. But that's what principles are about, you make a stand regardless.
aeturnum 12y ago
I agree that this is more PR than it is principled stand. However, I disagree that the two situations are equivalent. In this case, IN is part of the country that SalesForce is headquartered in and they have employees who live and work in IN. Companies have some responsibility for their conduct in all the areas they do business, but it makes sense that they would be most focused on those areas where they do business and live and work.
vacri 12y ago
Salesforce isn't embargoing customers in Indiana, it's just no longer sending staff or running programs for customers in the state. They're not going to stop the locals buying their product. in Africa too Africa is not one homogenous mass of religious backwardness.

davebindy 12y ago

As someone from Indiana, and a person of faith, I've followed this fairly closely. To call the response "seemingly-exaggerated" is an understatement. Frankly, I wonder if Mr. Benioff has even read the bill that Gov. Pence signed today, or whether he's relying on the rhetoric of those who oppose it, who claim it will inevitably lead to discrimination. What the bill actually says is that the state government can't (with some exceptions) enact a law that curtails religious freedom. In the 20 or so other states that have very similar laws model after the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Act, the courts have ruled in the cases that have been brought forward that it isn't an excuse by the private sector to discriminate. (One assumes that no Salesforce personnel are allowed to travel to those states, either...) You can love your neighbor as you love yourself, and still not condone or participate in or approve of activities that contradict your faith, just as on a purely secular level you might like an individual but find some of their behavior distasteful.

anon808 12y ago
What are the specific acts that people of faith were being forced to perform or approve of that contradict their faith?
cbd1984 12y ago
> You can love your neighbor as you love yourself, and still not condone or participate in or approve of activities that contradict your faith, just as on a purely secular level you might like an individual but find some of their behavior distasteful. First, loving someone while saying one of the facets of their identity is wrong is... a weird definition of love, at the very least. Second, that isn't what's at issue. What's at issue is whether someone's personal distaste should translate into a denial of service in the public sphere.