• 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]

RiverDad said:
My problem is with the uneven application of that principle. Someone can be fired for believing in marriage but another person can't be fired for believing in homosexual "marriage."

I say it's now fair game - start firing everyone who supports the notion of homosexual "marriage."
Click to expand...

You've just been going berserk railing against equity (fairness and impartiality) in education. How come when it's your favourites on the receiving end you're suddenly all in favour of fairness?

I scent a whiff of hypocrisy.

Here's the very thread...
 
He shouldn't have stepped down. He and Obama shared the same opinion on Gay marriage until Obama "evolved" on the issue. ( he didn't change his mind on anything )

People need to grow a friken spine in this Country
 
Andalublue said:
You've just been going berserk railing against equity (fairness and impartiality) in education. How come when it's your favourites on the receiving end you're suddenly all in favour of fairness?

I scent a whiff of hypocrisy.

Here's the very thread...
Click to expand...

Wrong people shouldn't be fired or hired based on personal political belief.

the problem is the left does what it always does which is slander and demean anyone that doesn't think like them. it truely is disgusting in a society that is suppose to pride itself on free speech and freedom of thought and idea's.

the left is not a very tolerant group of people as they claim to be nor are they very accepting as they claim to be either.
 
ludin said:
Wrong people shouldn't be fired or hired based on personal political belief.

the problem is the left does what it always does which is slander and demean anyone that doesn't think like them. it truely is disgusting in a society that is suppose to pride itself on free speech and freedom of thought and idea's.

the left is not a very tolerant group of people as they claim to be nor are they very accepting as they claim to be either.
Click to expand...

Anyone who generalizes about "the left" as if it is a hivemind has no clue what they're talking about.
 
Kobie said:
Anyone who generalizes about "the left" as if it is a hivemind has no clue what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

not really because i know people that are on the left and they are not like these loud mouths out there that scream for people to be let go of and shut down businesses.
while we might disagree on certain things we have a mutual respect for each others opinions.

these people are extremists that are attempting to thought police the nation. the problem is that the problem, but instead of standing up against them the liberal democrats embrace them.
 
BobbyO said:
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.
Click to expand...

"complete intolerance" of a customer base still harms your business...
 
tacomancer said:
"complete intolerance" of a customer base still harms your business...
Click to expand...

didn't for chickfila just saying. if anything it has increased their business.
 
ludin said:
not really because i know people that are on the left and they are not like these loud mouths out there that scream for people to be let go of and shut down businesses.
while we might disagree on certain things we have a mutual respect for each others opinions.

these people are extremists that are attempting to thought police the nation. the problem is that the problem, but instead of standing up against them the liberal democrats embrace them.
Click to expand...

Not all opinions deserve respect.
 
RiverDad said:
Maybe you're right. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, is homosexual. If his being homosexual gets in the way of Apple's image then I'm sure that you'd be OK with them firing him. Same with a woman CEO.

I'm fine with one standard being applied across the board.

But here's some more history about liberal/homosexual totalitarianism:

Scott Eckern, the Sacramento theater director whose political donation in support of California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage has become a lightning rod in the debate over gay rights, resigned today.​

Frontiers magazine is reporting that Marjorie "Margie" Christoffersen has stepped down as manager of El Coyote restaurant and resigning as a board member over all the Prop 8 hooplah. The controversy started when the LGBT community found out Christoffersen donated $100 to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign​

The whole point of open-records laws is to bring transparency to politics, to insure that corruption is not taking place. Instead we see liberals/homosexuals launching vendettas. OK, if that's the new game, then I say employers should have complete freedom to fire homosexuals and liberals just for voting Democrat.
Click to expand...

Do you equally call other types of anti-bigotry "totalitarianism"? You being all so 'equal' and stuff... I mean, if a CEO were going around donating to campaigns to deny black people the right to marry, would a company be 'bullying' them by getting rid of them?
 
ludin said:
didn't for chickfila just saying. if anything it has increased their business.
Click to expand...

yes, branding has social power, thats already been pointed out and is largely the basis for these types of decisions. imagine if one of the top people who works for chick fil a was found by journalists to be donating money to planned parenthood or something.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just have the balls enough to say that you were wrong, gives you character.
 
He as a representative of the company was bringing the company's name down, With sites like OKcupid urging the boycott of the browser, isn't that considered material damage to the company and the brand?

Legally speaking isn't that enough grounds to fire a him?
 
Another just interesting little notion that popped in my head over this....

So we're saying that the private actions of an executive made public are reasonable targets for scorn, condemnation, and calls for removal from his professional office?
 
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...

I'm not judging you. Defensive much?

I'm saying that anybody who picks a web browser based on "the browser's" political views is pretty silly. How does the code know what its opinions are?
 
I know the very act of posting on this thread doesn't exactly conform to my next statement but......

Who cares? Not a story that deserves endless pages of debate.
 
Zyphlin said:
Another just interesting little notion that popped in my head over this....

So we're saying that the private actions of an executive made public are reasonable targets for scorn, condemnation, and calls for removal from his professional office?
Click to expand...

Pretty much yeah. Like it or not, private businesses after a certain theshold of fame become cultural institutions with emotional buy in from the public at large. Mostly companies try to use their to their advantage to generate business, however this is where it is a double edged sword because as perceptions change, so could their profitability.
 
BobbyO said:
There are laws against creating hostile workplaces.
Click to expand...

you are correct :shrug:
like everything else that has a basic legal definition and sometimes more clearly defined by company policies but proof is needed that those definitions were met.

Is there any proof that there was a factual and legal hostile workplace?

again so far i see zero issue with the actual info and facts we have
 
Hard Truth said:
I would have mixed feelings about this if he was fired or forced to resign. I believe that employees have a right to express their political (or any other) opinions outside of work and I support legislation to protect that right. I also have no problem with the boycott. On the other hand, his actions were materially harming the company and a CEO represents the company to the public much more than any other employee does. Ultimately, CEO's do not need or deserve the same protections for their off-work activities that most other employees should have.
Click to expand...

Why is legisaltion needed. If the right is there, then legisaltion is not needed. Legisation can not give rights.
 
austrianecon said:
1.)Nobody is giving up a right.
2.)Rather the rights are equal.
3.) If you choose to get "married" in a church.. it's only a ceremonial thing.
4.) Just as it is already in the US.
5.) But you knew that right? ;)
Click to expand...

1.) correct they wont be given up you want to take them away by force, no thanks
2.) no they will factually be lesser
3.) churches and religion have ZERO meaning to this discussion
4.) yes religious marriage is that way
5.) sure do, again let me know when you are ready to discuss the topic and defend your failed stance
 
So, for those keeping score at home: Corporations can not have a religious ideology that infringes on it's employees benefits, but we should applaud a corporations political ideology when it enforces that ideology through firing employees.
 
Last edited:
BobbyO said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obama opposed the proposition.

And of course the outrage is about 'intolerance' of an opponent of SSM. But I am unclear why this is surprising or frankly objectionable. If the CEO of a chain of religious bookstores, or publisher of religious textbooks targeted at evangelical home schoolers was revealed to have contributed to "pro-abortion" groups, that would predictably generate a lot of outrage among that company's suppliers/customers/workforce. Any BOD would appropriately find a way to oust that CEO. Of course, because the CEO is the public face of the company, and it would be unacceptable for him to financially support causes that are an anathema to their corporate base.

The easiest real life example of this on the right is when Guns & Ammo dumped a long time writer/columnist for publishing an article mildly supporting training for concealed carry and other long standing 'gun control' measures. The magazine's advertising and subscriber base erupted in anger, and he was tossed overboard a few days later. I might have missed it, but I didn't see any conservatives whining about the fired writer's rights being violated or scolding Guns & Ammo for not accepting diversity of opinions about gun control on their editorial staff....

Mozilla's workforce, customer base, and business partners are (apparently) strongly in favor of SSM and equal rights for homosexuals. Why is it surprising that a CEO who doesn't share their view, and financially supports efforts that undermines SSM and equal rights for homosexuals, faces vocal opposition from them, or that the BOD arranges from his ouster?
 
Last edited:
Mozilla is now gone from my computer. Yes I use other browsers such as IE, NEVER will use Google and I sure as hell don't use their search engine, AND I know they support "equal rights" but they don't go firing their employees for their personal political views. Mozilla did, and now they are gone. Oh I know they technically didn't fire him, but we all know what happened.

Tim-
 
hicup said:
mozilla is now gone from my computer. Yes i use other browsers such as ie, never will use google and i sure as hell don't use their search engine, and i know they support "equal rights" but they don't go firing their employees for their personal political views. Mozilla did, and now they are gone. Oh i know they technically didn't fire him, but we all know what happened.

Tim-
Click to expand...

rofl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom