• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor[W:577]

but not everyone has the same financial advantages. A corperation with lots of money should not have greater political influence than a average worker. one man, one vote levels the playing field while money stacks the deck.

That's irrelevant. No one should lose their livelyhood for donating to a political campaign.
 
We have freedom of speech but that should only mean there are no consequences from the govt.

Individuals, customers, the public....all can act or react as they choose, within the law.

There are definitely consequences to free speech.
 
That's irrelevant. No one should lose their livelyhood for donating to a political campaign.

"No one?" Are you sure you don't want to think that one through a little bit longer?

Senator Ultra Liberal donates to the Nazi Party. Should he lose his job over this, yes or no?
 
We can't have anything resembling a real democracy*if people are only allowed to publicly express opinions that their boss has approved.

*including representational democracy

Well I think there have been plenty of consequences for people, derived from social media, and their employers. And the same for civil servants as well.

And they werent of people breaking the law or even breaking company policy, etc.
 

Seems to me like Eich dodged a bullet. From what I read, he donated money to a California Proposition a majority of the voters agreed with him on.

Now, the PC police think that bit of history is enough to destroy a mans career. Just as they did to countless business owners throughout the state, the rabid hypocrites in the LGBT community see a policy of "destroy" as the proper way to address differences in philosophy.

Oh well. Their reputation is certainly getting carved deeper in stone.
 
"seems" he did things that supported the fight against equal rights for gays and maybe even bigoted things, but they are legal and thats his right
seems employees found out about it and voiced their disapproval
seems customers found out about and voiced their disapproval
then it seems he stepped down

now i havent looked up many articles on this YET but so far i see ZERO issue with this, why should I? :shrug:

Exactly. You have the right to be a bigot.

But you shouldnt expect not to pay the consequences for that if you act on it.
 
Campaigning to get another employee fired seems rather hostile.
what?
how old are you do you work? that is very common

but thats an opinion you are allowed to have but again unless it fits a legal definition or policy definition and theres proof its meaningless.

NOT saying they are the same im just making an extreme example to show its not a black white issue but what about this.

If I worked at an elementary school and found out the principle supported nambla and was a sex offender in another country id most certainly "campaign to get him fired" :shrug:

and again unless it BROKE THE LAW or VIOLATED company policy its meaningless

so do you have proof this was done? if not its meaningless
 
Exactly. You have the right to be a bigot.

But you shouldnt expect not to pay the consequences for that if you act on it.

correct. He is a bigot and has a right to be a bigot and others have a right to point that fact out
 
Why would his opinion be embarrassing? Heck , their Mozzila own press release says the value of the opinions and diversity of all their employees. Even praises public actions, which Eich did not do .

Did you not read any article or the OP?

"We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves," wrote executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker.
 
Seems to me like Eich dodged a bullet. From what I read, he donated money to a California Proposition a majority of the voters agreed with him on.

Now, the PC police think that bit of history is enough to destroy a mans career. Just as they did to countless business owners throughout the state, the rabid hypocrites in the LGBT community see a policy of "destroy" as the proper way to address differences in philosophy.

Oh well. Their reputation is certainly getting carved deeper in stone.

If you want people to not use their rights to speech and association to heap social discouragement on another's rights, than those rights would have to be restricted for one party and not another.
 
How do you think gays were treated compared to blacks and women? They can vote, don't have to move from the buss, can live together and have no crimes against their lifestyle... The comparisons and straw mans back to Civil Rights era and women's suffrage stuff needs to stop, the issues aren't comparable and the arguments/defenses are also different. It's just a cheap vilification tactic to paint opposition as evil people in an attempt to also justify the hate and discrimination against them.

How old are you? Do you remember blacks fighting for their civil rights? I do. Do you remember the feminist movement of the 70s? I do. (altho the main fight was for sufferage in the 20s and I DO NOT remember that, lol)

Do you remember how gays were treated prior to the mid 80s? No? Because they were mostly hidden. They did not come out and exercise their rights fully. If they did, they sure were beaten, fired, kicked out of places, even killed. It happens even now. They had to hide who and what they were. They still do in many cases. Gays have been not and still are not offered equal opportunities when their orientation is known. And they are often physically and verbally abused when it is known.
 
If you want people to not use their rights to speech and association to heap social discouragement on another's rights, than those rights would have to be restricted for one party and not another.

Hmmm.

Actually, it's not quite like that.

Again, what I see has happened in this case is the thought police have successfully destroyed a man's career because he didn't fit the agenda they developed after the fact.

Personally I find that ridiculous, and extremely dangerous. However, that is the environment we currently live in.
 
How old are you? Do you remember blacks fighting for their civil rights? I do. Do you remember the feminist movement of the 70s? I do. (altho the main fight was for sufferage in the 20s and I DO NOT remember that, lol)

Do you remember how gays were treated prior to the mid 80s? No? Because they were mostly hidden. They did not come out and exercise their rights fully. If they did, they sure were beaten, fired, kicked out of places, even killed. It happens even now. They had to hide who and what they were. They still do in many cases. Gays have been not and still are not offered equal opportunities when their orientation is known. And they are often physically and verbally abused when it is known.

It's a valid point. For Christ's sake, at least black people were allowed to be black (even if it wasn't always the best career path).
 
Hmmm.

Actually, it's not quite like that.

Again, what I see has happened in this case is the thought police have successfully destroyed a man's career because he didn't fit the agenda they developed after the fact.

Personally I find that ridiculous, and extremely dangerous. However, that is the environment we currently live in.

People have lost their jobs throughout the entire history of the US for having opinions outside of some group's mainstream. This is nothing new. It is simple human nature to police thought within the community and really has been for most of history a useful survival mechanism part of a greater group of similar mechanisms that we happen to call morality. Also, this is something every group does and the pendulum simply swings back and forth over the years. There are times where conservatives are more likely to do it (the 60s, mccarthyism) and times when liberals are more likely to do it.

But yes, it is like that. People have the right to free speech and association, largely to whatever ends an individual sees fit. If an individual or group of individuals sees fit to use that right to encourage their chosen culture and defend against those who run the risk of infringing on their culture, that is normal human behavior that we simply try to idealize ourselves away from (and almost always unsuccessfully if you look throughout history).
 
Hmmm.

Actually, it's not quite like that.

Again, what I see has happened in this case is the thought police have successfully destroyed a man's career because he didn't fit the agenda they developed after the fact.

Personally I find that ridiculous, and extremely dangerous. However, that is the environment we currently live in.

After the fact? You're being obtuse.
 
Hmmm.

Actually, it's not quite like that.

Again, what I see has happened in this case is the thought police have successfully destroyed a man's career because he didn't fit the agenda they developed after the fact.

Personally I find that ridiculous, and extremely dangerous. However, that is the environment we currently live in.

Freedom of the market apparently only counts when you agree with it.
 
People have lost their jobs throughout the entire history of the US for having opinions outside of some group's mainstream. This is nothing new. It is simple human nature to police thought within the community and really has been for most of history a useful survival mechanism part of a greater group of similar mechanisms that we happen to call morality. Also, this is something every group does and the pendulum simply swings back and forth over the years. There are times where conservatives are more likely to do it (the 60s, mccarthyism) and times when liberals are more likely to do it.

But yes, it is like that. People have the right to free speech and association, largely to whatever ends an individual sees fit. If an individual or group of individuals sees fit to use that right to encourage their chosen culture and defend against those who run the risk of infringing on their culture, that is normal human behavior that we simply try to idealize ourselves away from (and almost always unsuccessfully if you look throughout history).

I certainly understand what you've written. I'm writing only of this instance. Proposition 8 was passed by the majority of voters in California. It was a popular and well debated issue.

In response to the majority of voters approving the Proposition, the LGBT activists obtained donation records, and sought to destroy any business or individual who supported the legislation. Such actions should be offensive to any rational thinking person.

Now, years later, the very same people who champion individual rights and freedoms have demonstrated the shallow nature of their ideals and ideology.

They should be viewed in this light, and remembered for this going forward.
 
I certainly understand what you've written. I'm writing only of this instance. Proposition 8 was passed by the majority of voters in California. It was a popular and well debated issue.

In response to the majority of voters approving the Proposition, the LGBT activists obtained donation records, and sought to destroy any business or individual who supported the legislation. Such actions should be offensive to any rational thinking person.

Now, years later, the very same people who champion individual rights and freedoms have demonstrated the shallow nature of their ideals and ideology.

They should be viewed in this light, and remembered for this going forward.

This also had happened throughout history. Do you think any major societal change was without this sort of stuff? this is tame compared to what happened during the protestant revolution.
 
After the fact? You're being obtuse.

Not at all. The policy of destroying anyone who opposed their view was not adopted until after they lost. Using donation lists and circulating them among radicals who then staged events designed to destroy businesses is definitely after the fact.

Suggesting otherwise is where obtuse accurately fits
 
What? This was for a contribution he made six years ago? When he stood shoulder to shoulder with the beliefs of Barack Obama?

In an interview recently he was asked if he would do it again, and dodged the question.

It's generally bad business to align yourself against marriage equality these days.
 
What? This was for a contribution he made six years ago? When he stood shoulder to shoulder with the beliefs of Barack Obama?

It doesn't matter the activist are extreme. they will destroy any business or person that doesn't agree with them.
what is worse is they are using the court to do it and even worse than that is the court is upholding what they are doing.

this guy should not have been forced out. He has a right to donate to whatever cause he wants to with his personal money. just as they are free to do the same.
i think these people need to go back and read our constitution more so the 1st amendment.
 
It doesn't matter the activist are extreme. they will destroy any business or person that doesn't agree with them.

That's right. Bow down.
 
In an interview recently he was asked if he would do it again, and dodged the question.

It's generally bad business to align yourself against marriage equality these days.

yet people have a right in this country to do so. we do not live in a communist country or a dictatorship. we live in a country where everyone is able to express themselves as they see fit. they should not be terrorized for it.

if you approve of this type of behavior then shame on you.
 
It doesn't matter the activist are extreme. they will destroy any business or person that doesn't agree with them.
what is worse is they are using the court to do it and even worse than that is the court is upholding what they are doing.

this guy should not have been forced out. He has a right to donate to whatever cause he wants to with his personal money. just as they are free to do the same.
i think these people need to go back and read our constitution more so the 1st amendment.

He wasn't forced out by a court, and I think you need to go back and read the 1st amendment.
 
Back
Top Bottom