• 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]

1.)Really? You clearly misunderstand the workforce. California supported the law he donated in support of. Largely lifted by African-American and Hispanic vote. Guess what.. Hispanic population is the largest growing population so no.. the work force is rid of the "dregs".

2.)For myself, I am in my mid 30s and I don't believe in gay marriage.
3.)But that doesn't mean I don't believe in civil unions
4.) or rights for same-sex couples.
5.) I think marriage is a religious invention and thus should be left to the religion to decide.
6.)Now what's wrong with that view?
7.)Absolutely nothing legally speaking because marriage is a church related event
8.)but according to the law marriage and civil union are the same things.

1.) people dont get to vote on others rights thats why this was fixed so regardless of what opinions people have or what they are on this issue it doesnt matter just like interracial marriage and equal rights for women and minorities.

2.) you have that right, awesom for you that you wont be impacted by gays gaining equal rights

3.) marriage is a civil union and very specif civil union and others are not equal to it

4.) this is impossible. If you arent for SSM then you arent for gay rights

5.) religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage they are separate things so religion has no place in the debate about legal marriage nor is it affected.

6.) nothing is wrong with that "view" because thats already how it is now and it doesnt affect the rights of others

7.) wrong, just religious marriage is a church event

8.) this is also factually false marriage is a type of civil union but they are not the same.
 
Mhmm... Right and Alan Turning, a gay man, invented the modern computer without which the homophobic ex-ceo would not have been able to develop his script. So I guess we are all using each other and hating each other at the same time.

And who says he's homophobic? Nowhere does his donation say he's homophobic. Problem is people can't understand the difference between being Homophobic and not supporting gay marriage.
 
Burn it down.

They're getting lost in all this corruption and idealism, no common sense anymore.

The Koch Brothers probably can't be fired.
 
I had hiring and managerial authority when I was in the business world. I didn't care about the personal lives or opinions of the people I hired and managed.

Right now I'm in a line of work where I don't have hiring authority. What I'm saying is that liberals and homosexuals are teaching me some good lessons. No holds barred. Harm your political enemies. Do whatever it takes to harm people with opinions different than you. I saw it with Chick-fil-A, I saw it with Phil Robertson, and now I see it with Brendan Eich. Show no nuance, show no tolerance, show nothing but brute power. OK, I'm learning.

Chick-fil-A was donating money to Winshape, which bankrolls legislative forces in Uganda who fund homosexual death squads. I'm not sure what level of tolerance or patience you think they deserve from people they pay to be killed in other parts of the world.
 
And who says he's homophobic? Nowhere does his donation say he's homophobic. Problem is people can't understand the difference between being Homophobic and not supporting gay marriage.

this is true, he may very well NOT be homophobic.

not supporting gay marriage alone doesnt make him a homophone
not supporting gay marriage doesnt make him a bigot
not supporting gay marriage doesnt make him a hater


but actively trying to stop gay rights does make him a bigot.
 
And who says he's homophobic? Nowhere does his donation say he's homophobic. Problem is people can't understand the difference between being Homophobic and not supporting gay marriage.

Well he sure as hell is not in favor of equality if he is willing to throw a thousand dollars at a proposition meant to deny people the right to marry. You don't have to support anything, but when you turn your opinion into action and you actively pursue legislation that negatively effects a group of people, all of sudden your opinion is no longer harmless banter.
 
Last edited:
I do think this is a symptom of our continually crumbling society that's spiraling into a political black hole, where politics and causes infiltrate everything and becomes a pseudo war between each side with an "any means necessary attitude".

Be it chick-fil-a firing an employee because they volunteer for a pro-choice group or Starbucks firing someone for being an NRA member, it just sits somewhat off for me for companies to devolve to the point of utilizing people's livelihoods as a weapon in a political battle. This one is a bit more complicated due to the person being a CEO, but it still sits off with me as a concept.

At least Fiddy is forthright in his intent and description of what he wants to see happen.

My intent is mostly informed on the basis that certain things become taboo enough to cost someone social relationships and their jobs. Causes for social equality, or even the disclosure that one was a member of an actually persecuted group, was good enough to get one canned or exiled. Today, what happens when an important person speaks in favor of keeping racial segregation, racial inferiority, or becomes an apologist to slavery? Social pressure and consequences, which may include enough pressure to step down for becoming an unwelcome distraction. When Ellen Degeneres came out and the show's content turned a decisively lesbian turn, it was controversial enough to arguably turn the program into a perceived liability for ABC.

I am in favor of these minorities being accepted in social discourse to the extent that it will be unpopular to try to restrict their legal and social status. That the goal is an unreasonable one, on the basis of it being "bullying" ought to cause most people to laugh. Society doesn't have a problem with bullying. That's what happens every day. Some are merely becoming upset that now their perceptions are the ones that are becoming taboo is all.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I do. 30 years of experience in Fortune 500 and Fortune 50 companies training managers in labor law and working in compliance programs.

Then you should know that you can't fire someone for having made a political contribution to a mainstream cause with their personal money on their personal time before they came under your employment. Mozilla could have vetted him before they hired him.

The proof is in the putting. Did they fire him, or did they bribe him to leave on his own terms?


This should be common sense. If I fired you because I found out you had contributed to the Obama campaign, do you think that would be legal? This is no different. That would be a huge can of worms - of course it's not allowed.
 
My intent is mostly informed on the basis that certain things become taboo enough to cost someone social relationships and their jobs. Causes for social equality, or even the disclosure that one was a member of an actually persecuted group, was good enough to get one canned or exiled. Today, what happens when an important person speaks in favor of keeping racial segregation, racial inferiority, or becomes an apologist to slavery? Social pressure and consequences, which may include enough pressure to step down for becoming an unwelcome distraction. When Ellen Degeneres came out and the show's content turned a decisively lesbian turn, it was controversial enough to arguably turn the program into a perceived liability for ABC.

I am in favor of these minorities being accepted in social discourse to the extent that it will be unpopular to try to restrict their legal and social status. That the goal is an unreasonable one, on the basis of it being "bullying" ought to cause most people to laugh. Society doesn't have a problem with bullying. That's what happens every day. Some are merely becoming upset that now their perceptions are the ones that are becoming taboo is all.


Let's not act like it's some kind of overwhelming social stigma to be in favor of keeping traditional marriage. Maybe in the web browser world, but that market tends to be dominated by young kids who are brainwashed by their liberal teachers.

Shooting from the hip, gay marriage probably has about 50/50 support among the general public.

I'm very open about my position, and the most I can report in the way of social pressure is a couple women who have tried to debate me on it (women seem to be more on the "pro gay" side for some reason, along with young kids), so basically no problem.
 
1.) people dont get to vote on others rights thats why this was fixed so regardless of what opinions people have or what they are on this issue it doesnt matter just like interracial marriage and equal rights for women and minorities.

And I don't disagree. I am just stating that 51% of California's supported Prop 8. So you'd have to fire or force them to resign to get rid of the "dregs" as the poster called them.


3.) marriage is a civil union and very specif civil union and others are not equal to it

Yes, and I am for changing that status to them being equal. But I guess you failed to understand that when I said Marriage should be a religious only, that means the State should recognize that as a civil union only and not given greater status.

4.) this is impossible. If you arent for SSM then you arent for gay rights

This is a bull**** statement. I am for civil unions for all. The term marriage is a religious one and one that shouldn't be recognized by the State. I agree with Sally Kohn on this.


5.) religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage they are separate things so religion has no place in the debate about legal marriage nor is it affected.

Read link above and you'll get where I am going.


6.) nothing is wrong with that "view" because thats already how it is now and it doesnt affect the rights of others

So, there is nothing wrong with that view? So it's okay that I voted against Same-Sex Marriage in Ohio (Ohio Issue 1 in 2004) because I don't believe marriage should be a term used?

7.) wrong, just religious marriage is a church event

Again, you need to read the Link and you'll get what I am saying.


8.) this is also factually false marriage is a type of civil union but they are not the same.

And I support removing the term marriage and calling it a civil union. Basically, you get a civil union if you have a justice of the peace do it and if you choose to go to get "married" in a church it doesn't change the title.
 
Well he sure as hell is not in favor of equality if he is willing to throw a thousand dollars at a proposition meant to deny people the right to marry. You don't have to support anything, but when you turn your opinion into action and you actively pursue legislation that negatively effects a group of people, all of sudden your opinion is no longer harmless banter.

To Marry, not civil union. Marriage is an archaic term which was defined along time ago based on religious views. You can be against same-sex marriage but for equal rights for civil unions. That doesn't mean you are denying a right. It means you have a religious view of what marriage means but still support rights of the LBGT community.
 
Then you should know that you can't fire someone for having made a political contribution to a mainstream cause with their personal money on their personal time before they came under your employment. Mozilla could have vetted him before they hired him.

The proof is in the putting. Did they fire him, or did they bribe him to leave on his own terms?


This should be common sense. If I fired you because I found out you had contributed to the Obama campaign, do you think that would be legal? This is no different. That would be a huge can of worms - of course it's not allowed.

Pudding...not putting.

If someone is in a very high profile role of a company, and they bring perceived shame or dishonor to the company in a public way, the company has no option other than to let him go. Damage control, cut the bleeding before it becomes a torrent. Funny how you are all of a sudden for employee rights (when it is something you agree with).

If this guy was a janitor, it would not be an issue. You don't get it, that is quite obvious.
 
this is true, he may very well NOT be homophobic.

not supporting gay marriage alone doesnt make him a homophone
not supporting gay marriage doesnt make him a bigot
not supporting gay marriage doesnt make him a hater


but actively trying to stop gay rights does make him a bigot.

What asshatery is this? It doesn't make him a bigot either. Seriously.. people need to learn terms.
 
Shooting from the hip, gay marriage probably has about 50/50 support among the general public.

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Pew Research Center poll released in March 2014 researched support for same-sex marriage among Republican leaning voters in the United States. 61% of Republican leaning voters aged 18-29 support allowing same-sex couples to marry, while only 27% of Republican leaning voters over 50 years of age are supportive.[14]

A Washington Post/ABC News poll from February–March 2014 found a record high of 59% of Americans approve of same-sex marriage, with only 34% opposed and 7% with no opinion. The poll also revealed that 53% of the population in the States that currently do not allow same-sex couples to marry approve of same-sex marriage. 50% of respondents said that the United States Constitution guarantees the freedom to marry the person of one's choice, regardless of that persons's sex or sexual orientation. 41% disagreed, and 9% had no opinion.[15] The same poll also found that 81% of people found that businesses should not be allowed to refuse to serve gays and lesbians. 16% disagreed, and 3% had no opinion. 78% thought that gay couples can be "just as good parents" as straight couples, while 18% disagreed and 4% had no opinion.[16]


Really....at least try to do the barest level of research before you spout off.
 
To Marry, not civil union. Marriage is an archaic term which was defined along time ago based on religious views. You can be against same-sex marriage but for equal rights for civil unions. That doesn't mean you are denying a right. It means you have a religious view of what marriage means but still support rights of the LBGT community.

Separate but equal is not equal and it never will be. Also, arbitrarily choosing the definition of marriage out of the many others that exist and have existed for thousands of years, does not constitute as justifiable reasoning for bigotry. Same sex marriages existed long before the spread of Christianity. You can't claim monopoly on such a loosely defined social construct. Especially one that is constantly redefined.

Same-Sex Unions throughout Time: A History of Gay Marriage
 
What asshatery is this? It doesn't make him a bigot either. Seriously.. people need to learn terms.

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
 
Pudding...not putting.

If someone is in a very high profile role of a company, and they bring perceived shame or dishonor to the company in a public way, the company has no option other than to let him go. Damage control, cut the bleeding before it becomes a torrent. Funny how you are all of a sudden for employee rights (when it is something you agree with).

If this guy was a janitor, it would not be an issue. You don't get it, that is quite obvious.

I say putting, not pudding. Evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with pudding. Pudding is for eating. And it's not very good for you, either.
 
Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Pew Research Center poll released in March 2014 researched support for same-sex marriage among Republican leaning voters in the United States. 61% of Republican leaning voters aged 18-29 support allowing same-sex couples to marry, while only 27% of Republican leaning voters over 50 years of age are supportive.[14]

A Washington Post/ABC News poll from February–March 2014 found a record high of 59% of Americans approve of same-sex marriage, with only 34% opposed and 7% with no opinion. The poll also revealed that 53% of the population in the States that currently do not allow same-sex couples to marry approve of same-sex marriage. 50% of respondents said that the United States Constitution guarantees the freedom to marry the person of one's choice, regardless of that persons's sex or sexual orientation. 41% disagreed, and 9% had no opinion.[15] The same poll also found that 81% of people found that businesses should not be allowed to refuse to serve gays and lesbians. 16% disagreed, and 3% had no opinion. 78% thought that gay couples can be "just as good parents" as straight couples, while 18% disagreed and 4% had no opinion.[16]


Really....at least try to do the barest level of research before you spout off.


Hey, if you like buttsex, gay is OK.

I haven't researched any of this stuff. I don't really care, honestly. My personal experience is that about half the people I meet on a day to day basis are for it, half are against. The poll you cited said 60%. That's about half.
 
Really....at least try to do the barest level of research before you spout off.

Wow, tough choice, a telephone poll versus the outcome of Proposition 8. Hmm, which is a better measure for what people believe, how they actually vote or what they tell some random chick who phones them?
 
1.)And I don't disagree. I am just stating that 51% of California's supported Prop 8. So you'd have to fire or force them to resign to get rid of the "dregs" as the poster called them.
2.)Yes, and I am for changing that status to them being equal.
3.) But I guess you failed to understand that when I said Marriage should be a religious only, that means the State should recognize that as a civil union only and not given greater status.
4.)This is a bull**** statement.
5.) I am for civil unions for all.
6.) The term marriage is a religious one and one that shouldn't be recognized by the State. I agree with Sally Kohn on this.
7.)Read link above and you'll get where I am going.
8.)So, there is nothing wrong with that view?
8.) So it's okay that I voted against Same-Sex Marriage in Ohio (Ohio Issue 1 in 2004) because I don't believe marriage should be a term used?
9.)Again, you need to read the Link and you'll get what I am saying.
10.)And I support removing the term marriage and calling it a civil union. Basically, you get a civil union if you have a justice of the peace do it and if you choose to go to get "married" in a church it doesn't change the title.

1.) they simply dont matter
2.) they can not be equal
3.) again religion has no place in this discussion and is meaningless. Legal marriage is here to stay and isnt going anywhere.
4.) nope its factually true.
5.) which is not equal rights
6.) your meaningless opinion on this doesnt matter to the subject at hand, marriage is not owned or invented by religion.
7.) doesnt matter where you are going, the fact remains that religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage.
8.) with the "VIEW", nope
9.) depends what you mean by ok?
yes its ok because the state wrongly gave you that option
yes its "ok: for you to think that way cause you have that right

but to vote against it is in fact a bigoted thing to do
10.) nope because it doesnt change any facts
11.) theres no need to make somethign a lesser and deny people rights, so no thanks
again churches can do whatever they want there ZERO need to change anythign about legal marriage
 
1.)What asshatery is this?
2.) It doesn't make him a bigot either.
3.)Seriously.. people need to learn terms.
1.)its called facts and reality
2.) yes by definition it factually makes him a bigotry
3.) i agree since i have facts and the definition to support those facts and all you have is your opinion, you do need to learn terms. THats good advice for yourself, you should take it.
 
Separate but equal is not equal and it never will be. Also, arbitrarily choosing the definition of marriage out of the many others that exist and have existed for thousands of years, does not constitute as justifiable reasoning for bigotry. Same sex marriages existed long before the spread of Christianity. You can't claim monopoly on such a loosely defined social construct. Especially one that is constantly redefined.

Same-Sex Unions throughout Time: A History of Gay Marriage

And I am not saying separate but equal. I am saying get rid of the word marriage in the matter of state recognizing a relations. Rather instead of issuing a marriage license.. issue a civil union license for all. That's equality.
 
And I am not saying separate but equal. I am saying get rid of the word marriage in the matter of state recognizing a relations. Rather instead of issuing a marriage license.. issue a civil union license for all. That's equality.

civil unions are not equal to marriage, so no, its not equal. WHy would people give up rights thats stupid.
 
1.) they simply dont matter
2.) they can not be equal
3.) again religion has no place in this discussion and is meaningless. Legal marriage is here to stay and isnt going anywhere.
4.) nope its factually true.
5.) which is not equal rights
6.) your meaningless opinion on this doesnt matter to the subject at hand, marriage is not owned or invented by religion.
7.) doesnt matter where you are going, the fact remains that religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage.
8.) with the "VIEW", nope
9.) depends what you mean by ok?
yes its ok because the state wrongly gave you that option
yes its "ok: for you to think that way cause you have that right

but to vote against it is in fact a bigoted thing to do
10.) nope because it doesnt change any facts
11.) theres no need to make somethign a lesser and deny people rights, so no thanks
again churches can do whatever they want there ZERO need to change anythign about legal marriage

Read and you'll understand.
 
big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Where did he refuse to accept a homosexual? Again, bigot doesn't apply.
 
Back
Top Bottom