Thomson Reuters, one of the largest employers in Minnesota, has taken a stance against the Minnesota marriage amendment. The company says it's a business position and that a constitutional amendment against marriage equality in the state would hurt recruitment of talent.
"Thomson Reuters is a better place when we have a rich variety of perspectives, talents, backgrounds, lifestyles and experiences in our workplace – diversity that we have created and foster on our Eagan campus and across our global business," the company said in a statement. "And we believe diversity is critically important within the broader community from which we recruit."
Thomson Reuters employs more than 7,000 people in Minnesota, with a local office in Eagan. Spokesman John Shaughnessy said the company communicated its position on the amendment to employees Friday morning.
As part of our Trust Principles, Thomson Reuters does not advocate political or religious positions, and we recognize and respect that people have differing viewpoints on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.
Our perspective on the Amendment is an affirmation of what we believe as a business and is consistent with our Trust Principles and our values. Thomson Reuters is a better place when we have a rich variety of perspectives, talents, backgrounds, lifestyles and experiences in our workplace – diversity that we have created and foster on our Eagan campus and across our global business – and we believe diversity is critically important within the broader community from which we recruit. If adopted, we believe the Minnesota Marriage Amendment would limit our ability to recruit and retain top talent, a critical factor in our ability to serve our customers and be successful. For this reason, we do not believe that the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, if passed, would be good for Thomson Reuters or the business community in the state.
Our perspective also reflects the policies and programs we have long supported around diversity and fostering a diverse workforce, our support and statements around gay rights and anti-bullying, and our corporate policies around health benefits for same-sex couples.
As a company, we believe in supporting an environment that is good for the business, our people and communities. Thomson Reuters is committed to a workplace that is diverse and provides equal opportunities for everyone, and strongly believes in the rights of individuals to express themselves and to be themselves.
LIST OF COMPANIES OPPOSED TO AMENDMENT GROWING
Thomson Reuters joins General Mills in opposition to the Minnesota marriage amendment.
In a letter addressed to General Mills employees and Minnesota residents last month, Ken Charles, vice president of global diversity and inclusion, stated the company doesn't believe the proposed ban is in the best interests of their employees or the state's economy.
The Corporate Fairness Project for the National Organization for Marriage has previously urged large employers in Minnesota not to support either side of the issue.
Minnesotans United for All Families, the group campaigning against the proposed amendment, released the following statement:
"Today's historic announcement by Thomson Reuters shows that, more and more, companies in Minnesota are standing up and saying that this hurtful amendment is not in the best interests of businesses, families or the state of Minnesota. Companies must be able to recruit and retain the top talent in their industries, and this freedom-limiting amendment would severely and negatively impact Minnesota companies' ability to do so. We're proud to stand with Thomson Reuters, General Mills, St. Jude Medical, the leaders of seven of our state's largest law firms, and the more than 100 businesses throughout Minnesota that have said no to this proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the freedom to marry for committed, same-sex couples in this state."
THE BALLOT QUESTION
The voting public will decide the matter come November. The ballot question will read: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"