• 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]

digsbe said:
I'm typing this on Google chrome right now and have both browsers installed...

My views are that I'm pro SSM. I'm just against the hackery and bigotry/hate that constantly comes from the pro-SSM side directed at those that support traditional marriage though.

Thanks for the judgement though.
Click to expand...

how can you be "pro-SSM" but would have ZERO problem if SSM didnt exist?
 
Zinthaniel said:
Their mission is to attract a user base, that's how they stay in business. You do this by projecting an image that welcomes all. Having a CEO that is against equality for homosexuals is bad PR. To even try to insinuate that image plays no role in a company's success is extremely naive and woefully ignorant.

Petco is about animal care, but let their CEO be quoted saying "I hate Negroes" and all of sudden they are synonymous with racism.
Click to expand...

It's funny how things go. Women, liberals, blacks, homosexuals were adamant that it was wrong to fire people, even if the public didn't like who represented the company - that the people should be judged on how well they perform their job, not by how the public felt about them. As soon as homosexuals don't like someone though all of that "principle" gets thrown out the window.

I can guarantee you that I'm not the only one who is learning the new rules of the game.
 
tacomancer said:
depends on the job. if it were some accountant or it person in the back room, than as a manager i probably wouldn't care. If it were a PR person or an executive who's public persona had impact on the value of the brand, I would absolutely care as it could affect sales. There are no hard and fast rules here and these decisions are contextual and it is legitimate that different criteria be applied to different job functions.
Click to expand...

Yes, however Mozilla should have done their diligence BEFORE they hired him. It's not a fireable offense to donate to a mainstream political cause on your own dime on your own time, especially since it happened prior to him taking the job.
 
RiverDad said:
I'm eagerly awaiting the movies that Hollywood is going to produce about this new Blacklist and how they're going to paint homosexuals as evil totalitarians enforcing their viewpoint on everyone. I suspect I'm going to have to wait until the universe explodes for that to happen.

I can't wait until I can exercise some firing authority over a liberal or a homosexual I disagree with. I think that I can warm up to this notion that the Left is birthing - firing people for their opinions. You guys sure know how to win friends and influence people. No holds barred. I personally wouldn't have gone with that strategy, but I can learn new tricks and unilateral disarmament is not one of those tricks.
Click to expand...

So much hate, so much hyperbole, the world changed, sorry you were too wrapped up in irrational hate to get the memo.

Don't hate people because of the way they were born, not a difficult concept.

BTW, watch this AMAZING response by Honey Maid after so many people like you responded with hate to their ad which portrayed gay parents.

This is how you answer the haters.

 
Cardinal said:
Well, you could always support gay marriage. Then, when it's legal in all fifty states it wouldn't need to even be a political cause anymore. Then you could use any damn browser you want.

Anyway, let us know how Opera is. I don't know anything about it.
Click to expand...

They're all exactly the same. Hence why I have no problem switching. As it happens, I already had it installed on my Mac anyway.
 
Peter Grimm said:
For the record, I try not to do business with any company that's politically active in any way.

It's not their place.

It's improper for a corporation to be politically active. Just focus on your damn product and stay out of the political arena.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that it's a safe bet to make that most of those who are supporting Mozilla are simultaneously opposed to Hobby Lobby, not in the matter of what each company believes, but in the fact that Mozilla has a right to a belief and that Hobby Lobby doesn't.
 
beefheart said:
Free market...the customers spoke. All the religious conservatives are always saying that companies should have the ability to fire anyone, even over their beliefs (unless, of course, it is something they agree with..LOL)

Mozilla saw the potential fiasco and loss of revenue and consumer support and acted.

Isn't that how the free market works?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, so when can we start firing people for being homosexual or being a woman or being handicapped or being black?
 
RiverDad said:
I'm pretty sure that it's a safe bet to make that most of those who are supporting Mozilla are simultaneously opposed to Hobby Lobby, not in the matter of what each company believes, but in the fact that Mozilla has a right to a belief and that Hobby Lobby doesn't.
Click to expand...

And without knowing a single thing about that case, I'll bet dollars to donuts that there's something at the heart of the Hobbly Lobby issue that you don't understand.
 
RiverDad said:
It's funny how things go. Women, liberals, blacks, homosexuals were adamant that it was wrong to fire people, even if the public didn't like who represented the company - that the people should be judged on how well they perform their job, not by how the public felt about them. As soon as homosexuals don't like someone though all of that "principle" gets thrown out the window.

I can guarantee you that I'm not the only one who is learning the new rules of the game.
Click to expand...

There are no new rules. Had he said " Christians should not be allowed in office or teach our children." (which is a real opinion that some people hold) the same thing would have happened. I'll bet you every cent in my bank account that man would have been out on his ass. It has everything to do with offending the public. You just don't agree with this particular portion of the public that was offended so you are taking the side of - "Oh well it's his opinions, gosh you guys, can't a man have an opinion no matter how ugly and not suffer the consequences?"

The answer is no and it always will be.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The fact remains that he wasn't fired, so apparently the board at Mozilla had some concerns as well. As they should have.

If they don't want the guy working for them, that's their prerogative. But they can't fire him. Hence why they most likely wrote him a big check and said "please leave so we can look good to the public."
Click to expand...

I don't see a CEO the same as a cashier. One cannot fire a cashier for failing to represent the company as expected in private affairs. A CEO, however, is a -the- representative of the company. And his failure to disclose personal affairs that could poorly reflect on the company is just about downright fraud and ground for dismissal.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Yes, however Mozilla should have done their diligence BEFORE they hired him. It's not a fireable offense to donate to a mainstream political cause on your own dime on your own time, especially since it happened prior to him taking the job.
Click to expand...

Probably so, but that didn't happen, so they had to deal with the situation as it presents itself. Firefox is a child of the open source movement which is liberal and libertarian in bent, but mostly liberal. Hell the entire ethic of the GNU foundation and GPL licensing concepts are extremely liberal (based on the moral concept of sharing and can be seen as an attack against the concept of property). Worrying about hindsight wont solve the problem that the foundation found itself in where it was in a very real situation of possibly losing donors, especially given that google is their biggest backer. They made a sound decision and yes again for a job that has an inherent public personal, it can be a fireable offense for reason I already laid out.
 
Kobie said:
Cue the people who start crying about "freedom of speech" without understanding what it means.
Click to expand...

He was fired because he made a political donation. That's freedom of speech according to US Supreme Court. ;)
 
ecofarm said:
Looks like a stormfront file dump.
Click to expand...

Such a bastion of pent-up bi-curious self loathers....(same goes for Free Republic, the most angry closeted gay site on the web)
 
RiverDad said:
I'm pretty sure that it's a safe bet to make that most of those who are supporting Mozilla are simultaneously opposed to Hobby Lobby, not in the matter of what each company believes, but in the fact that Mozilla has a right to a belief and that Hobby Lobby doesn't.
Click to expand...

Both companies are being retarded.

In Mozilla's case, they should have vetted their CEO BEFORE they hired him. They didn't, now they have to do mop up duty. They never fired him, that would be illegal. I'm sure that CEO is laughing all the way to the bank. He got a fat check for a couple week's worth of work, and Mozilla is the big loser in all this.

They don't make a bad browser though.

In Hobby Lobby's case, they're going to lose their Supreme Court battle. You can't just choose to follow certain parts of the law due to "moral objections," that would open up a whole can of worms. An exception already exists for churches and other religious institutions.

What the legislature needs to do is give companies like Hobby Lobby the option to comply with the law and cover their employees, but opt out of the abortion/contraception part and instead pay a fine for it. But that needs to happen in congress, not the Supreme Court.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't see a CEO the same as a cashier. One cannot fire a cashier for failing to represent the company as expected in private affairs. A CEO, however, is a -the- representative of the company. And his failure to disclose personal affairs that could poorly reflect on the company is just about downright fraud and ground for dismissal.
Click to expand...

To be fair, though, firing a CEO is an absolute bitch. Their golden parachutes tend to be obscene, and if I were on the board of that company I'd look for something more than an unpopular political action on his part to fire him over.
 
austrianecon said:
He was fired because he made a political donation. That's freedom of speech according to US Supreme Court. ;)
Click to expand...

If the government threw him in jail, that would be violating freedom of speech. He exercised his first amendment right to freedom of speech; Mozilla exercised theirs to freedom of association.
 
Zinthaniel said:
"Oh well it's his opinions, gosh you guys, can't a man have an opinion no matter how ugly and not suffer the consequences?"

The answer is no and it always will be.
Click to expand...

I've already stated upthread that I have no problem with a labor market which allows free-fire cannings. I'm opposed to the unlevel playing field. Stop hiding behind anti-discrimination statutes and let people fire you because they find what you believe in to be ugly. One uniform standard.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes, he did. He embarrassed the company. A CEO is a representative and not just a worker.
Click to expand...

Yep, if the CEO of my company (a very very public figure) did it, he would be out on his ass, and he is in the 1/100th of the 1%
 
Cardinal said:
To be fair, though, firing a CEO is an absolute bitch. Their golden parachutes tend to be obscene, and if I were on the board of that company I'd look for something more than an unpopular political action on his part to fire him over.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, perhaps there was.
 
tacomancer said:
Probably so, but that didn't happen, so they had to deal with the situation as it presents itself. Firefox is a child of the open source movement which is liberal and libertarian in bent, but mostly liberal. Hell the entire ethic of the GNU foundation and GPL licensing concepts are extremely liberal (based on the moral concept of sharing and can be seen as an attack against the concept of property). Worrying about hindsight wont solve the problem that the foundation found itself in where it was in a very real situation of possibly losing donors, especially given that google is their biggest backer. They made a sound decision and yes again for a job that has an inherent public personal, it can be a fireable offense for reason I already laid out.
Click to expand...

They did deal with it. They wrote him a fat check and bribed him to "resign" because they knew they couldn't legally fire him. Who is the big winner in all this?

Mozilla is retarded. Their browser is pretty good, and that may carry them through, but their management is retarded.
 
beefheart said:
Yep, if the CEO of my company (a very very public figure) did it, he would be out on his ass, and he is in the 1/100th of the 1%
Click to expand...

And then your company would face lawsuits. Honestly, you people don't know the law very well.
 
RiverDad said:
Rock Hudson wasn't prevented from marrying. No one is stopping anyone from getting married.
Click to expand...

Gee thanks Rush, for the lame quote.

The world changed, you didn't.

Your god created gay people, probably not for you to hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom