(LifeSiteNews) – Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is accusing tech giant Microsoft of discriminating against religious organizations by excluding them from its grant and discount programs for nonprofits.
Microsoft offers nonprofit organizations the opportunity to “Save on Microsoft solutions — including Azure, Dynamics 365, Microsoft 365, and more” to “move your mission forward,” as long as they meet certain eligibility criteria, such as a “mission to benefit the local community that could include but is not limited to — providing relief to the poor; advancing education; improving social welfare; preserving culture; preserving or restoring the environment; promoting human rights; establishment of civil society”; and do not engage in “discrimination in hiring, compensation, promotion, termination, retirement, training, programs, activities, and/or services based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, gender identity or expression, marital status, pregnancy, sexual orientation, political affiliation, union membership, or veteran status.”
Uthmeier’s November 4 letter to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella opens by accusing the company of failing to live up to those nondiscrimination standards, accusing it of turning away religiously affiliated nonprofits “including private Christian schools, Christian churches, Christian nonprofits, and faith-based pregnancy resource centers” despite purporting to recognize government “guidance” on “exemptions for religious organizations” from requirements that would require groups to violate their faith.
“While many applicants weren’t given a reason for their denial, some were given the vague response that they allegedly fell outside of the ‘philanthropic scope’ of Microsoft’s program,” the letter says. “The exclusion of pregnancy resource centers was evidently based on these organizations not offering ‘full women’s health services’ or, put plainly, abortions. Given the protections afforded to religiously affiliated institutions, and the lack of requirements that they must perform these procedures, we find this inconsistent with your own policy that states it will consider relevant exemptions for religious organizations.”
“In addition, other pregnancy resource centers were classified as ‘pregnancy centers’ and therefore rendered ineligible for the discount program on that basis alone,” it continues. “Yet there is no such blanket restriction on organizations providing full-spectrum, life-focused health services to women facing unplanned pregnancies on your website. We find this both inconsistent with your non-discrimination policy and the claimed mission of the nonprofit program to support organizations that ‘have a mission to benefit the local community.’”
Uthmeier says Microsoft reversed some denials but “appears to have made no programmatic changes to prevent similar discrimination in the future,” and alleges the company is ultimately in violation of laws against both religious discrimination and deceptive or unfair trade practices.
“I therefore urge Microsoft to stop its religious discrimination and begin adhering to its own non-discriminatory commitments,” the attorney general concludes. “Or at minimum, Microsoft should drop its ‘inclusive’ pretense and publicly admit its hostility to Christian non-profits and pro-life pregnancy resource centers. The choice is yours, but the status quo is dishonest and illegal.”
Microsoft has not yet publicly responded to the claims but has a history of left-wing bias.
The corporation has embraced “unity, solidarity and intersectionality” with “LGBTQIA+ communities”; and threatened to boycott states with “anti-trans” policies. After the overturn of Roe v. Wade, it affirmed it would “support employees and their enrolled dependents in accessing critical health care — which already includes services like abortion and gender-affirming care — regardless of where they live across the U.S.” In the wake of 2020, Microsoft also joined Google, Facebook, and Twitter in policing so-called “misinformation” online that often meant in practice discriminating against conservative views.
