• 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]

So "traditional marriage" (i.e. marriage between a man and a woman) is on the "target list" now?

If people who say they support traditional marriage are being called bigots now, yes Kobie, they are being targeted.
 
Absolutely. And since we agree that he did nothing illegal, and the employees should have the right to free speech, I think all of the supporters of traditional marriage should now have the same right. And I'm sure I'll see all of you come to the defense of the companies being boycotted when they decide to pressure employees who donated to causes that opposed Prop 8 to resign.

They always have had that same right.

Boycotts are pretty much the only exercise in free speech that the common person has that can have any measurable effect. If people want to boycott gay-friendly businesses, have at it. We'll see how that goes.
 
If people who say they support traditional marriage are being called bigots now, yes Kobie, they are being targeted.

We've been over what I meant by that. "Supporting traditional marriage," in the colloquial sense, is a nice way of saying "I'm against gay marriage."
 
Nobody said Hobby Lobby can't have a religion. What they can't do is use their religion to withhold medical services from their employees.

But you would enthusiastically support Hobby Lobby forcing an employee to leave because the employee donated money to a political group that opposed Prop 8?
 
We've been over what I meant by that. "Supporting traditional marriage," in the colloquial sense, is a nice way of saying "I'm against gay marriage."

You can't assume that.

If someone says "I support the NAACP" do you assume he is saying "I'm against white people"?
 
It's now come down to - don't ever donate to a political cause or candidate, because it offends the LGBT community, all hell will break loose. I wonder where this stops?

Meh, I actually hope this guy walked away with a gigantic severance package.

He very well might have. It is my understanding that he was one of the founders of Mozilla. Inventor and developer of Javascript which is now in every single browser. So a technical web pioneer of high regard and success. Too bad for Mozilla to have lost him and his abilities, and it's not like Mozilla was a place where LGBT was penalized. Equal benefit for SS partners, and equal consideration for promotion, from what I understand.

Right, it's called vindictive to not shop at a place whose CEO promotes and bankrolls something your against:roll: Last time I checked, people in the US have that right. If the company or the CEO doesn't like it, tough cookies.

I guess it'll be tough cookies as well when political correctness turns on your previous actions and positions as well then.

So "traditional marriage" (i.e. marriage between a man and a woman) is on the "target list" now?

Has not someone posted that it was impossible / improbable to be pro tradition marriage as well as pro SSM (or SS civil unions)?

That being the case and given the present environment of (over) political correctness, who could afford to have a traditional marriage anymore? The potential for the punishment of loosing your career, and who can afford that? Who can afford that on an ongoing basis?

Being so cowed as to not express politically incorrect correct ideas, why risk the possibility of punishment? Better to not have a marriage at all and be 'safe' from political over correctness.
 
They always have had that same right.

Boycotts are pretty much the only exercise in free speech that the common person has that can have any measurable effect. If people want to boycott gay-friendly businesses, have at it. We'll see how that goes.

Boycotts are for sissies. I want to see a company force out an executive who supports gay marriage through political donations. Nobody can complain about it - not even the love pimpers at the Cupid site. It wouldn't be illegal. And it would be their right. Correct?
 
He very well might have. It is my understanding that he was one of the founders of Mozilla. Inventor and developer of Javascript which is now in every single browser. So a technical web pioneer of high regard and success. Too bad for Mozilla to have lost him and his abilities, and it's not like Mozilla was a place where LGBT was penalized. Equal benefit for SS partners, and equal consideration for promotion, from what I understand.

If Mozilla was doing anything to oppress or otherwise hurt their LGBT employees, it would have come out. They did everything right. I guess it wasn't good enough for the employees. They wanted to make some kind of statement with all this. Strange.
 
So if he did nothing illegal, what business is it of anyone?

By donating, he put his beliefs in the public square.

And if corporations are people made up of the personal views of the people, then why are all of the Liberals attacking Hobby Lobby?

"All of the Liberals" are attacking Hobby Lobby? That's funny, I'm a liberal and I haven't said a word about Hobby Lobby until this thread (and I didn't bring it up). Do we seriously not see the difference between two unrelated cases?

The Mozilla case is about a company divesting itself from what it sees as a potential liability due to the (overzealous) backlash his employment caused. The Hobby Lobby case is about a company attempting to get out of covering medical services in its insurance policies.

The Mozilla employees must be either underworked or radical. There is no evidence whatsoever that Eich was anything but a good manager, and never did anything during his tenure at Mozilla that could be considered discrininatory towards gays. If they did this, then they are nothing but a lynch mob IMO, going after a man because of what he did in his personal life.

I said earlier that I think this is overreach by the Anti-Eich Brigade.
 
Only the person who took the physical beating was being punished for being gay. The CEO is being punished for being a bigot. Big difference. People have a right to speak out against such bigotry.

Now here is an important lie from the left. He's a "bigot" because he supports traditional marriage. No debate or disagreement allowed. No respect for your religion. In that case, anyone that opposes traditional marriage is also a bigot, as they refuse to accept the views of others that are not like their own.
 
They're riding high on moral righteousness, like Crusaders chopping off the heads of infidels. The blood lust they're feeling from getting a scalp and ruining a man's career has them amped up.

What they don't realize is that lessons are being learned.

Hyperbolic twaddle
 
I guess it'll be tough cookies as well when political correctness turns on your previous actions and positions as well then.

I have zero desire to speak out against other people's rights. None of my business, but you bet your bottom dollar if I started speaking out against any group of people, I'd lose my job.
 
Boycotts are for sissies.

5 Corporations That Should Be Blacklisted By Conservatives - John Hawkins - Page 1

Not all conservatives agree.

I want to see a company force out an executive who supports gay marriage through political donations. Nobody can complain about it - not even the love pimpers at the Cupid site. It wouldn't be illegal. And it would be their right. Correct?

It would be their right; whether it's a smart business decision remains to be seen.
 
By donating, he put his beliefs in the public square.



"All of the Liberals" are attacking Hobby Lobby? That's funny, I'm a liberal and I haven't said a word about Hobby Lobby until this thread (and I didn't bring it up). Do we seriously not see the difference between two unrelated cases?

The Mozilla case is about a company divesting itself from what it sees as a potential liability due to the (overzealous) backlash his employment caused. The Hobby Lobby case is about a company attempting to get out of covering medical services in its insurance policies.



I said earlier that I think this is overreach by the Anti-Eich Brigade.

So you support the right of Hobby Lobby, Chik Fil-A, Contran, or any Christian-founded company getting the history of all political contributions made by all of their employees, and forcing out those who made political contributions to pro-gay causes.
 
5 Corporations That Should Be Blacklisted By Conservatives - John Hawkins - Page 1

Not all conservatives agree.



It would be their right; whether it's a smart business decision remains to be seen.

People are free to boycott. I think it's stupid, but I respect peoples rights to do it. I boycott Progressive but not because of their politics - I'm sick of that freaking Flo woman! Argh!

I'm glad you support the idea of a Christian company forcing out someone who donated to pro-gay causes. Because that's going to happen, and I'll remind you.;)
 
Now here is an important lie from the left. He's a "bigot" because he supports traditional marriage. No debate or disagreement allowed. No respect for your religion. In that case, anyone that opposes traditional marriage is also a bigot, as they refuse to accept the views of others that are not like their own.

Here's a news flash, I don't care about his religion one way or another. If he wants to outlaw gay marriage so be it. Please just don't cry when people speak out against you taking their right away. Furthermore, if they stop buying your product don't cry victim.
 
If Mozilla was doing anything to oppress or otherwise hurt their LGBT employees, it would have come out. They did everything right. I guess it wasn't good enough for the employees. They wanted to make some kind of statement with all this. Strange.

No. Not so strange. Bigoted and overzealous. Same as those they say, or were, oppressing them. Although much of that has already fallen to the way side, but never mind that, as long as they can extract their pound of flesh for the sins of years past, they feel totally justified and moral. Now that IS strange, that they can't see how closely similar they are to what they say they hate.
 
So you support the right of Hobby Lobby, Chik Fil-A, Contran, or any Christian-founded company getting the history of all political contributions made by all of their employees, and forcing out those who made political contributions to pro-gay causes.

If they're willing to face the public backlash for it, more power to them, if they can do it legally and aren't outright firing people (which Mozilla didn't do). I think the chance of that happening is about zero.

Note that I support their right to; not that I support the action. I haven't supported Mozilla's actions either.
 
Now here is an important lie from the left. He's a "bigot" because he supports traditional marriage. No debate or disagreement allowed. No respect for your religion. In that case, anyone that opposes traditional marriage is also a bigot, as they refuse to accept the views of others that are not like their own.

Traditional marriage is the new bigotry.
 
I could very easily be seen as a threat for speaking against policy.

That would be too legitimate. It has to be because of your personal opinions. Your boss found out you voted for a Democrat or you support homosexual marriage and boom, that's why you're fired. Nothing to do with your speech or actions in regard to your employer.
 
No. Not so strange. Bigoted and overzealous. Same as those they say, or were, oppressing them. Although much of that has already fallen to the way side, but never mind that, as long as they can extract their pound of flesh for the sins of years past, they feel totally justified and moral. Now that IS strange, that they can't see how closely similar they are to what they say they hate.

I still think they don't get the irony of their own words. "You're intolerant and a bigot because you don't see it my way", that's what I keep reading. That's I guess a more progressive way of saying "When I want your opinion I'll give it to you"
 
Back
Top Bottom