• 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]


Read and you'll understand.

nothing to understand it has ZERO impact and changes nothing

make it bigger next time and bright red and it will still have ZERO impact lol
let me know when you can defend your position
 
civil unions are not equal to marriage, so no, its not equal. WHy would people give up rights thats stupid.

Nobody is giving up a right. Rather the rights are equal. If you choose to get "married" in a church.. it's only a ceremonial thing. Just as it is already in the US. But you knew that right? ;)
 
nothing to understand it has ZERO impact and changes nothing

make it bigger next time and bright red and it will still have ZERO impact lol
let me know when you can defend your position

I've defended my position.. you are caught up on the word marriage and to small minded to realize it's just a WORD.
 
Where did he refuse to accept a homosexual? Again, bigot doesn't apply.
he tried to deny them equal rights that is the pure definition of not accepting them as equals LMAO
he views gays ass leasers, wants them treated as such and tried to make them treated as such
by definition he is factually a bigot, there is no changing this fact
 
Last edited:
Where did he refuse to accept a homosexual? Again, bigot doesn't apply.

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.
He's refusing to accept the idea of same sex marriages, and unfairly so.
 
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.

Interesting that you reply that way, pretty defensive of you.
 
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?

Nationwide poll versus one state a few years back.

Try to keep up.
 
1.)I've defended my position..
2.)you are caught up on the word marriage and to small minded to realize it's just a WORD.

1.) no you tried and failed so far, theres nothing you have presented that support it
2.) further proof you cant defend you position, oh look a failed insult lol
why? because theres no other factual or logical path for your failed argument to take.

what im actually caught up on is equal/civil rights, laws and facts.

and those things are defeating your posts with ease.

Again let me know when you can defend your stance with somethign that holds legal merit and reason.
 
Putting is what you do on a golf course.

The proof is in the pudding is the correct phrase.
The proof is in the pudding. « The Word Detective

Don't care. It's a butchered form of an old phrase that used to make sense "the proof of the pudding is in the taste" which enough Americans screwed up to where now colloquially people just say "the proof is in the pudding."

I don't say that, because it makes no sense. It's stupid. At least "the proof is in the putting" makes some modicum of sense, the proof is in how you PUT things in to action. Much better.

Proof in the pudding is a dumb saying, and I refuse to conform to stupidity. Just because Americans screwed up a saying that at one time made sense doesn't mean I'm obliged to do the same.

Plus, pudding makes you fat.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you reply that way, pretty defensive of you.

I don't care about lesbian/gay/bi/bipolar/transexual/whatever issues. Hence I don't care enough to find the exact percentage of americans who are for gay marriage. I said I estimated "about half" would vote that way. The key word here is estimate.... because I'm not about to dig deeper.
 
the Rainbow Lynch Mob claims another victim...Too bad too....bet they hired the guy cause he was good at what he did...

I wonder if anyone else notices the hypocrisy in the people cheering this sort of behavior on...

Did he ever discriminate?

Nope.

But you all did.

Keep thinking you're all open minded and fair valued...

Everyone is entitled to their opinions...

:doh
 
I don't care about lesbian/gay/bi/bipolar/transexual/whatever issues. Hence I don't care enough to find the exact percentage of americans who are for gay marriage. I said I estimated "about half" would vote that way. The key word here is estimate.... because I'm not about to dig deeper.

Why'd you include a mental illness?
 
was he "fired" i havent read that yet?
and was he "illegally" harrased or people just expressed the same freedoms he has

NOT a trick question either, i honestly dont know i didnt read any of that. Says he stepped down and people voiced their opinions of his actions. DO you have an article to what im missing

There are laws against creating hostile workplaces.
 
Unless he was recompensated in a way he deemed satisfactory.

It would be stupid for him to sue anyway. He would be considered radioactive by future employers given how high profile this case is. I am sure he worked out a deal and signed the relevant contracts.
 
No, Mozilla did not. Mozilla is in gross violation of laws of employment (might want to read up on them). His religious views (and he can claim this) were expressed and thus asking him to resign or threatening that he would be fired would be cause of a law suit and Mozilla ponying up some money.

Actually they're not, since they didn't fire him. They bought him out, basically.
 
Actually they're not, since they didn't fire him. They bought him out, basically.

I would imagine that since the guy has been with mozilla since the netscape days, he probably wanted to protect his baby too and might have been willing to go.
 
I would imagine that since the guy has been with mozilla since the netscape days, he probably wanted to protect his baby too and might have been willing to go.

Mozilla obviously did a terrible job of vetting their candidate and having their finger on the pulse of the employee base and its social attitudes.
 
Mozilla obviously did a terrible job of vetting their candidate and having their finger on the pulse of the employee base and its social attitudes.

I dont think thats part of a company's job to do and honestly if it werent a ceo of a high profile company, nobody would care. However as mozilla came from open source and its inherent liberal ethic, mozilla's brand has that value (or baggage depending on how you look at it). If this guy had been the ceo of the local car wash conglomerate down town, nobody would probably care.
 
I dont think thats part of a company's job to do and honestly if it werent a ceo of a high profile company, nobody would care. However as mozilla came from open source and its inherent liberal ethic, mozilla's brand has that value (or baggage depending on how you look at it). If this guy had been the ceo of the local car wash conglomerate down town, nobody would probably care.

I absolutely think that's part of a company's job. As said earlier in the thread, a CEO is a representative of the company. Mozilla's origins only amplify that.
 
You don't know the law very well do you?

When you are at that level in a very public company, there are standards, by his actions, he reflected poorly on the company and caused injury to the company. It is different when you are a CEO versus an Accountant.

His actions, in 2008, was to be of the same opinion on the undesirability of same sex marriage as the man who would be elected president that year. That is it.

I think the outrage here is based upon the complete intolerance of those who favor same sex marriage of toward those who have a contrary view.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom