Big business didn't do this because of any benevolent
attitude towards gays. They did it because it improves their
bottom line. Good employees equals productivity.
Productivity equals profit. Some city and state governments
have already done the same. Do you get it? They want the
best employees that they can get, and they do not believe
that sexual orientation has anything to do with productivity in
the work place. Why should there not be some legal way for
gay people to form domestic partnerships? If we have a legal,
binding commitment between two same sex partners, then
what gives others, especially our government, the right to
deny us that? How does denying us benefit them? Would our
federal government go broke from extending income tax
benefits to legal same sex partners? If this is the reasoning
behind our denial, then it is grossly unfair to put the burden
of supporting the government on our backs, particularly
when you consider all of the money that the government
wastes. Perhaps if we were not required to pay taxes to a
government that does not represent us, then we would not
have a good argument. But of course, we must pay. And, we
must pay as single taxpayers. So, we do have a right to, and
should continue to, protest this injustice.
On the other side of the coin, we find corporations with
anti-gay policies.
PBS has refused to air the documentary Out At Work that
was scheduled to be shown last month as part of the series
POV (Point Of View). Oddly, this is the same film that Don had
written about in an earlier issue.
"We found Out At Work to be compelling television
responsibly done on a significant issue of our times" wrote
PBS Director of News and Information Programming, Sandra
Heberer in a letter to POV. "But PBS's guidelines prohibit
funding that might lead to an assumption that individual
underwriters may have exercised editorial control over the
program content even if, as is clear in this case, they did not."
What a line of crap this is. Many programs on PBS are
funded by corporations that have a interest in the
programming content. One of the 3 individuals that this film
focuses on is Ron Woods, an employee of Chrysler
Corporation; I have spoke with Mr. Woods, personally, and it
is his strong feeling that Chrysler Corporation was a major
player in PBS's refusal. Chrysler has sent letters to about 100
publications in which they advertise, saying that if these
publications wish to continue to receive Chrysler ads then
they must submit the contents of their publications to
Chrysler for approval before they are printed. This is not
illegal, but it is surely an example of one major corporations
efforts to control the news we read. Although Chrysler is the
7th. largest corporation in the U.S., they are the 3rd. largest
advertiser.
Mr. Woods has been repeatedly the target of
discrimination by other employees of Chrysler, since he was
seen in a news report where he participated in a protest
about Cracker Barrel restaurants. He has been physically
assaulted 5 times and has had anti-gay graffiti painted on his
locker and in his work area. All of this happening while
Chrysler was aware of the problem. Mr. Woods describes his
life as a "living hell"
|
|
