• 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]

ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Shame on you. I have a right to express my disapproval of this CEO, who are you to take that away from me?
 
Deuce said:
He wasn't forced out by a court, and I think you need to go back and read the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

no the other people of the company probably said either quit or we vote you out. yes he was forced out.

what should have happened is that the company goes we believe in free speech and what people do in their personal time and money is not a reflection of this company.
 
Deuce said:
Shame on you. I have a right to express my disapproval of this CEO, who are you to take that away from me?
Click to expand...

where did i say that ol yea i didn't. strawman.
 
ludin said:
this makes 0 sense.
Click to expand...

You've admitted defeat. The activists pwn. You are now a subject. You must do as we say, or we will destroy you.
 
ecofarm said:
You've admitted defeat. The activists pwn. You are now a subject. You must do as we say, or we will destroy you.
Click to expand...
i have no clue about what you are talking about. maybe if you hadn't hacked my post apart this would make more sense to you, but from what i have seen you don't seem to read the whole post.
 
ludin said:
where did i say that ol yea i didn't. strawman.
Click to expand...

How come you only care about his freedom of speech and not mine, then?

He expressed his belief, and his customers expressed their disapproval. The company made the business decision to have him step down.

No part of this violates the first amendment.
 
Deuce said:
How come you only care about his freedom of speech and not mine, then?

He expressed his belief, and his customers expressed their disapproval. The company made the business decision to have him step down.

No part of this violates the first amendment.
Click to expand...

again i didn't say any of that. strawman.

so what if they disapproved. there is always a % that will disapprove of something. they can get over it.
the more businesses stand up and people stand up to them the less rail roading they will do.

the problem is just encourages them and their behavior.
sure trying to stifle and or punish someone for speaking their personal opinion is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

we are not a thought police state the last time i checked.
 
A common theme seems to be that if he had never done the action of donating he'd still be CEO, and that's ok. In other words: If he had kept his views to himself, and not had the audacity to expose or support his own views, we'd let him stay.

Oh, isn't that ever so tolerant. :roll:
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Terrorized by whom? the people who were upset by the guys statement?
 
ocean515 said:
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
Click to expand...

Saying that he's "evolved" on the issue would have diffused the situation instantaneously. He's stood his ground, and good for him, but when one stands by their principles one must be prepared to also face certain consequences.
 
ludin said:
i have no clue about what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You should read you own posts, seriously.


ludin said:
It doesn't matter the activist are extreme. they will destroy any business or person that doesn't agree with them.
Click to expand...

Get in line or we will destroy you.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what? I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Maybe you don't. Maybe some COE's do and some don't. I don't think that the ones that disagree with me should be forced out of their jobs. These people need to learn tolerance, instead of their militant, shove their opinion down your throat strategy. They need to respect the views of others, and need to respect the freedoms we all should enjoy, not just those that want to destroy other opinions.
 
ludin said:
again i didn't say any of that. strawman.

so what if they disapproved. there is always a % that will disapprove of something. they can get over it.
the more businesses stand up and people stand up to them the less rail roading they will do.

the problem is just encourages them and their behavior.
sure trying to stifle and or punish someone for speaking their personal opinion is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

we are not a thought police state the last time i checked.
Click to expand...

No part of this violates the first amendment. The government cannot punish him for that speech.

How do you think this works? If your business does something I disagree with, I'm required to purchase your products anyway or else I'm violating your first amendment rights? Or do I have the right to take my business elsewhere?

And if enough people take their business elsewhere, does your business have the right to fire you for costing them that business? Or is the business forced to keep employing you so as to not violate your first amendment rights?
 
radcen said:
A common theme seems to be that if he had never done the action of donating he'd still be CEO, and that's ok. In other words: If he had kept his views to himself, and not had the audacity to expose or support his own views, we'd let him stay.

Oh, isn't that ever so tolerant. :roll:
Click to expand...

At its most basic, it shows that bigotry does have consequences.

Are any of us spared the consequences of our actions? I guess sometimes, but sometimes...nope.
 
Anthony60 said:
So what? I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Maybe you don't. Maybe some COE's do and some don't. I don't think that the ones that disagree with me should be forced out of their jobs. These people need to learn tolerance, instead of their militant, shove their opinion down your throat strategy. They need to respect the views of others, and need to respect the freedoms we all should enjoy, not just those that want to destroy other opinions.
Click to expand...

Same questions to you, from post #314.
 
tacomancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. And the world is still searching for Nazi guards.

I don't see those historical issues as being equivalent to the issue here.

Where does the line get drawn? Why not look at political party donations as a qualifier? How about religious beliefs?

The fact is, this matter, and the desire for revenge that is being exposed by it, is setting a precedent that is very dangerous.
 
Anthony60 said:
So what? I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Maybe you don't. Maybe some COE's do and some don't. I don't think that the ones that disagree with me should be forced out of their jobs. These people need to learn tolerance, instead of their militant, shove their opinion down your throat strategy. They need to respect the views of others, and need to respect the freedoms we all should enjoy, not just those that want to destroy other opinions.
Click to expand...

Would you say the same if he had contributed to the KKK?

Is this CEOs leaving only offensive to you because you also share his beliefs that gays dont deserve equal civil rights?
 
Kobie said:
Cue the people who start crying about "freedom of speech" without understanding what it means.
Click to expand...

You were not wrong.
 
Anthony60 said:
So what? I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Maybe you don't. Maybe some COE's do and some don't. I don't think that the ones that disagree with me should be forced out of their jobs. These people need to learn tolerance, instead of their militant, shove their opinion down your throat strategy. They need to respect the views of others, and need to respect the freedoms we all should enjoy, not just those that want to destroy other opinions.
Click to expand...

Imagine, if you will, there was popular support for conservatives not being allowed to be married due to some people's moral disagreement some aspect of their lives. However, to you, being conservative (I assume) is a fundamental part of who you are (if not, then hypothetically).

How far would you be willing to go so you could live in peace?
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, I understand. And the world is still searching for Nazi guards.

I don't see those historical issues as being equivalent to the issue here.

Where does the line get drawn? Why not look at political party donations as a qualifier? How about religious beliefs?

The fact is, this matter, and the desire for revenge that is being exposed by it, is setting a precedent that is very dangerous.
Click to expand...

Baloney. Political figures are accountable to their constituency for their political beliefs and endorsements all the time.
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, I understand. And the world is still searching for Nazi guards.

I don't see those historical issues as being equivalent to the issue here.

Where does the line get drawn? Why not look at political party donations as a qualifier? How about religious beliefs?

The fact is, this matter, and the desire for revenge that is being exposed by it, is setting a precedent that is very dangerous.
Click to expand...

It is not setting a dangerous precedent for individuals to express their disapproval of a business' actions. It's setting a dangerous precedent if you force people to just accept anything that any business does under the guise of protecting that business' freedom.
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, I understand. And the world is still searching for Nazi guards.

I don't see those historical issues as being equivalent to the issue here.

Where does the line get drawn? Why not look at political party donations as a qualifier? How about religious beliefs?

The fact is, this matter, and the desire for revenge that is being exposed by it, is setting a precedent that is very dangerous.
Click to expand...

Well, I will leave the historical precedent being absolutely equivalent being alone for now (my point was human nature, but oh well).

Lets say the other side reacts and in a howard beale moment, they are mad as hell and won't take it anymore, what do you expect the response to be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom