There's a fairly heated debate these days over at the Scobleizer, the blog written by Microsoft employee Robert Scoble. The short story is that Microsoft, having supported two previous attempts to pass anti-discrimination legislation in Washington--specifically targeted at protecting LGBT individuals--suddenly decided to...er...not support (or, as they put it, take a 'neutral' stance). The additional fly in the ointment comes from Microsoft's meetings with a high-profile "religious right" individual and whether or not Microsoft's change in opinion came before or after such meetings. The official memo from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer outlining their 'rationale' is here; additional details are here.
It's getting rather messy, to put it mildly, and I wouldn't want to be working in Microsoft's PR office at the moment. Now, you can argue until you're blue in the face whether or not Microsoft should be taking a position on human rights; I believe they should, as the legal ramifications (e.g. the ability of a gay couple to adopt a child) have an impact on the emotional well-being (and so, indirectly, their job satisfaction and productivity) of their employees. But the fact is that by writing letters in favor of earlier such legislation, Microsoft already has taken a position. That being the case, their decision to suddenly 'become' neutral doesn't look like anything except a cave-in to the religious right and a reversal of their previous commitment.