DiscussMormonism.com

Below is a link to a post by Bill Marriott on a Marriott blog about the Marriott company's taking no position on Prop. 8 (and the fact he did not contribute to support it). I find it confusing. I realize he's saying the company has no position on Prop. 8, but he never really comes out and says where he personally stands (other than to say he did not contribute). Odd.

http://www.blogs.marriott.com/default.asp?item=2284808

LOL! No he does not .. and its obvious where this is coming from .. The thought of Gays boycotting Marriotts must put the hee-bee gee-bees in the board.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ma ... y&aq=f&oq=

Gays should demand nothing less than repudiation from Bills lips ..

It's very tactfully and typically business-like. Spin. He should be in politics. Maybe he could be the next Governor of Cal-ee-fornia.

Ray A wrote:It's very tactfully and typically business-like. Spin. He should be in politics. Maybe he could be the next Governor of Cal-ee-fornia.

I sorta figured it was pure damage control, demanded by the Marriott corporate suits. Since Bill is a current Area Authority, do you think the Brethren had to see the statement before it went out?

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I realize he's saying the company has no position on Prop. 8, but he never really comes out and says where he personally stands (other than to say he did not contribute). Odd.

Interesting news item. I'm not surprised to see him putting business first. Pragmatic Mormons are okay by me.

The company that bears his family name sells porn and hosts fabulous gay lifestyle events. This should be enough for the guests and shareholders to decide whether or not they want to book with Marriott or own stock. I've enjoyed staying at the Bethesda Marriott twice, plus one in San Diego, one in Salt Lake City, one in Virginia someplace... they're always snazzy by my standards.

The only reason to care what he personally believes is if you are snooping for hypocrites. Or maybe I am missing something?

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I sorta figured it was pure damage control, demanded by the Marriott corporate suits. Since Bill is a current Area Authority, do you think the Brethren had to see the statement before it went out?

I don't know if they had to see it, but there's no way I can see someone in his position supporting the No campaign. If he supported Obama, the Brethren wouldn't say anything, since there are already Democrats among the GAs, but to support overturning Prop 8 would be Area Authority suicide.

Ray A wrote:I don't know if they had to see it, but there's no way I can see someone in his position supporting the No campaign. If he supported Obama, the Brethren wouldn't say anything, since there are already Democrats among the GAs, but to support overturning Prop 8 would be Area Authority suicide.

They've never busted him for peddling porn, so I doubt they'd bust him over Prop. 8. I think it's a non-issue, anyway, because 'reading between the lines' of his statement suggests to me that he personally supported Prop. 8.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:...between the lines' of his statement suggests to me that he personally supported Prop. 8.

That's what it seemed like to me too, but I still think he's being very diplomatic. The fact that he said he didn't contribute any money to the Yes campaign is the only indication he may have not supported it. He didn't have to say that, or he could just have said "My company didn't contribute", but he said, "Neither I, nor the company, contributed to the campaign to pass Proposition 8". That's information he could easily have withheld. And with the sort of money he has....

by the way, they have a great business philosophy:

My father, who founded this company along with my mother, told everyone who would listen: "Take care of your employees, and they'll take care of your customers, who will come back again and again."