I got pulled into a debate in the Seattle media this past week over the Microsoft Corporation's decision to shift positions on anti-discrimination legislation in the state of Washington.

If you missed the firestorm, Microsoft a year ago issued a letter of support for proposed laws that would prevent an individual from being fired on the basis of his or her sexual orientation. The legislative package also included basic civil rights for gays that mirror the commitment that Microsoft has made to its own workforce.

Then last week, The Stranger, a Seattle alternative weekly newspaper, reported that Microsoft had changed its position from support to neutrality, and that the change came under pressure from Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Washington. Hutcherson, who charged that supporting gay rights was an affront to Christian morality, had threatened to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products.

Microsoft claims it made the decision on its own long before meeting with Hutcherson. The company reports that it chose to narrow its political focus to issues more directly related to its business. Rev. Hutcherson disputes Microsoft's version of events, saying that the company hadn't changed its position before he threatened a boycott during a February meeting with Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith. In a segment last week on ABC's World News Tonight, Rev. Hutcherson called the company's statements about the timing "an outright lie."

Beyond the argument over what moved Microsoft to shift its position, the controversy raises a thorny problem for the company. Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer outlined that dilemma in an e-mail message to employees last week. While he and company founder Bill Gates both supported the legislation personally, Ballmer acknowledged that "many employees and shareholders would not agree" with them.

"We are thinking hard about what is the right balance to strike - when should a public company take a position on a broader social issue, and when should it not?" Balmer wrote. "What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly held beliefs on the
opposite side of the issue?"

When a journalist from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer called me mid-week to ask my take on the controversy, I think he was a bit surprised when I first off expressed my sympathy for Microsoft executives. They were going to get punished no matter which way they turned, I said. American society today is polarized, torn apart by a cultural war that leaves little room for compromise on a select group of moral issues, among which gay rights is paramount. As Balmer notes, he was even being pressured by a vocal group of his own workers who opposed the legislation.

Microsoft sells computer software, and its financial value as a company is tied to its performance selling its products. To take a political position that very well could alienate up to 35-40% of its clientele has tremendous implications for the destiny of its business.

A number of U.S. companies do make a stand on sometimes-controversial social issues (e.g., Clif Bar Inc., a Berkeley, Calif. maker of energy bars; Seattle's Pura Vida Coffee; Stonyfield Farm, a yogurt and milk producer in Londonderry, N.H.; and The Timberland Co., a Stratham, N.H., maker of apparel and footwear). These companies have built their whole brand on social values and say, "We're looking for customers who match our values."

Microsoft, on the other hand, builds its brand on technical innovation, not social innovation. I have been around (and inside) the company enough to know that the corporate culture has settled on a clear message: "We sell software and our product is value neutral."

On Friday I continued the debate on Seattle's NPR station. Despite my sympathy for Microsoft's dilemma, I underscored on the radio the importance of standing up for a principle. No one should be fired or demoted at work on the basis of their sexual orientation. Microsoft has written that principle into its own code of conduct. I wish it had the courage to support that legal right for all people in Washington.

Imagine a company in Alabama in the 1950s and the dilemma it faced around civil rights for blacks. Would we today laud that company for upholding its shareholder value and staying "neutral" on laws of discrimination that prevented blacks from working at a company, let alone being served as a customer? I think not, though history is a harsh judge.

Not every company should be expected to engage in social reform, of course. But any firm, most especially one as wealthy as Microsoft, is an influential player in civil society. When it takes the higher ground, it elevates the potential for every member of the community.

Tell us what you think of Microsoft's decision in the space below.

Read the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article.

Hear David Batstone on Seattle's KUOW (NPR).