• 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]

Eich wasn't fired.

Hardly anyone at that level is fired. They're shown the door and allowed to claim it's voluntary. It's just social graces masquerading the brutal reality. We both know it. There's no way that this drama would continue for 4 months if he stood his ground and refused to leave. He'd have actually been publicly fired in short order.
 
Precisely. And enough people (apparently) told Mozilla they'd stop using Firefox that Mozilla divested itself of a potential liability, for better or worse.

So Mozilla was bought. Nice. That says even more about them.
 
1. I defy you to find me any time in this thread I've celebrated Eich's "scalp" or actually supported Mozilla's decision.

2. Eich wasn't fired.

"Da Dude" when have you ever articulated a solution rather than argue against others opinions and solutions?

There is a difference between an opinion and an authoritarian anecdote.
 
Why hide behind employment law? What makes expressing a political or theological or legal idea something worthy of targeting but not worthy of protection under employment law? Why not have an even playing field for everyone?

Ask the people who wrote the employment laws.

By your rationale, the act of responding negatively to someone saying or doing something they find objectionable is worse than the actual act itself.
 
1. I defy you to find me any time in this thread I've celebrated Eich's "scalp" or actually supported Mozilla's decision.

In that case I apologize to you for including you in that statement.
 
I never said he doesn't have a right to try and outlaw gay marriage. I simply said there are consequences.

Retroactive consequences. Nice. As if there are people with a past of pure driven snow. Dig hard enough and there'll be dirt that you can punishment with? Especially if now it's politically incorrect? And here I was thinking that to forgive is divine. Guess no luck for that with any liberals / progressives steering the boat.
 
I didn't say Eich was fired, Kobie.

Terminating him wouldn't be illegal. You can terminate people. Happens every day.

"Terminated" and "fired," generally speaking, mean the same thing.

But okay, in the Hobby Lobby example - how about if they pressure an employee to resign because of political contributions from 6 years ago to Prop 8 opposition causes. You support it, no question, right?

As long as said "pressure" didn't violate labor law, I respect their right to do it. I think it would be every bit as petty and vindictive as the Mozilla incident (probably moreso, since Hobby Lobby wouldn't be pushing their CEO out the door with a fat severance package).
 
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.


Personally I find boycotting business when investing to be silly.

More than once have I sold off shares and with a portion of my gains donated to causes which the companies themselves are against. (not selling off with this intent mind you, but there's nothing wrong with making alliances with the "enemy" when it benefits you..)

I'm pleased as punch to know that the money they made me is acting against what they publicly support.
 
Retroactive consequences. Nice. As if there are people with a past of pure driven snow. Dig hard enough and there'll be dirt that you can punishment with? Especially if now it's politically incorrect? And here I was thinking that to forgive is divine. Guess no luck for that with any liberals / progressives steering the boat.

People get fired all the time for such things. Ironically, it is corporate right to fire people at will. I would love Love LOVE to see a conservative want to change such a right of good ole corporate america:lol:
 
It's just a sad state of affairs when people are so frightened to actually stand for something and speak their mind. The left (and much of the right) today is a bunch of mind numbed robots. Afraid to take any position, afraid to actually care about anything until they check which way the political winds are blowing.

Kinda forced into this with all this holly observance of political correctness and faux injury if not strictly observed. What ever happened to the common sense of 'sticks and stones'?

They need to check and see what would be the acceptable stance for them to take, the one that would gain approval, not the true stance that they actually might care about. I guarantee that most of the politicians today don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage and would switch their stance tomorrow if they felt it would give them a better chance at reelection. Hell, Obama did it.

When political correctness meets politics and politicians, i.e. nothing good as a result.
 
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"

I'd have to agree. They have a legitimate gripe and the status quo wasn't right, so now they feel empowered to mete out punishment whether fairly, bigoted or not.
 
Ask the people who wrote the employment laws.

By your rationale, the act of responding negatively to someone saying or doing something they find objectionable is worse than the actual act itself.

There are hardly any "employment laws." The unions defined the alleged laws (which aren't laws beyond federal minim wage)...

Labor unions control 98% of the regulation.
 
People get fired all the time for such things. Ironically, it is corporate right to fire people at will. I would love Love LOVE to see a conservative want to change such a right of good ole corporate america:lol:

An at will state is a 2 sided thing. The company can fire anyone at anytime for any reason, the same way that an employee can quit at anytime for any reason. Also, the employee is not responsible for any sort of training or other expenses the company spends on them. No employment contract with a buy out clause and such.

It's not like it's all one sided or anything.

The counter example is like it is in some places in the EU. The worker finds a better job but has to give 3 months notice, or something stupid, and by the time he can leave, the other job is gone to someone else. Also, the company can't fire the deadwood in any reasonable time, nor make needed adjustments in staffing in response to business condition changes, so they don't hire in the first place.

All in all, I think that the 'at will' situation is better for both parties. So, no, it's not like you are making it out to be.
 
In the end, more than anything else, Brandon Eich was a victim of market forces. Mozilla, more than most companies since it's a nonprofit that relies largely on public contributions and its collaboration with Google for revenue, is in a unique position where the views of its executives could potentially be more impactful to the bottom line than most other entities.

Oh, and as far as how this became public, Eich's $1,000 donation met the threshhold for public disclosure in California. The IRS didn't have anything to do with it.
 
Oh, and as far as how this became public, Eich's $1,000 donation met the threshhold for public disclosure in California. The IRS didn't have anything to do with it.

And that disclosure law is likely not going to survive very long. Justice Clarence Thomas predicted this state of affairs in his opinion in Citizens United.
 
An at will state is a 2 sided thing. The company can fire anyone at anytime for any reason, the same way that an employee can quit at anytime for any reason. Also, the employee is not responsible for any sort of training or other expenses the company spends on them. No employment contract with a buy out clause and such.

It's not like it's all one sided or anything.

The counter example is like it is in some places in the EU. The worker finds a better job but has to give 3 months notice, or something stupid, and by the time he can leave, the other job is gone to someone else. Also, the company can't fire the deadwood in any reasonable time, nor make needed adjustments in staffing in response to business condition changes, so they don't hire in the first place.

All in all, I think that the 'at will' situation is better for both parties. So, no, it's not like you are making it out to be.

Then people need to put on those big boy/girl panties if they are okay with at will employment. You get what you want. If a person becomes a liability to a company.......time to stop playing the victim card.
 
In the end, more than anything else, Brandon Eich was a victim of market forces. Mozilla, more than most companies since it's a nonprofit that relies largely on public contributions and its collaboration with Google for revenue, is in a unique position where the views of its executives could potentially be more impactful to the bottom line than most other entities.

Oh, and as far as how this became public, Eich's $1,000 donation met the threshhold for public disclosure in California. The IRS didn't have anything to do with it.


That is just wrong.

What the **** are you advocating for anyways? censorship?
 
Yes they are.



Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.

Trying to shut people up is not freedom of speech.
 
But you will support Hobby Lobby if they terminate someone because she donated to a cause that opposed Prop 8, I hope.

You didn't address it before, but what do you think of Guns & Ammo firing their columnist for weakly supporting some 'gun control,' and reducing his editor to groveling rarely seen in print in an attempt to keep his job? Their readers and advertisers were up in arms because what he supported was viewed by them as a threat to their right to own a gun.
 
Trying to shut people up is not freedom of speech.

However, I have to agree that free speech doesn't mean without consequences.

In this case, it seems to me, that the consequences are unjust and the results of over reaction and over zealousness. So, on this, yes, I agree with Kobie.
(got Kobie right this time :) )

I'd add that I hope that this doesn't become a recurring theme, the unjust results and over reaction and over zealousness, as moderation is usually better for everyone involved.
 
Good response.



A private company has every right to censor.

What am I advocating for? Read the damn thread if you want to know.

IMO, beyond small businesses there are few corporations that are NOT puppets of the government or labor unions...

I know this for a fact and it drives me nuts - especially knowing that nothing is for free..... Of course you can corporations that defy the government and the unions and they're treated like garbage, however they're more successful than the government and union puppet corporations, yet are consistently attacked by both entities, because they're not willing to play ball with the EPA and progressives in general. Then of course the government sicks the IRS on these corporations who tell the government to go **** off.

This is the United States man - government should mind their own business..... Taxation is not good enough for these corporations - government and unions want way more influence than that...

Hell, I'd love to open a business - a retail business - however it's just not worth it given the fact of government influence.
 
IMO, beyond small businesses there are few corporations that are NOT puppets of the government or labor unions...

I know this for a fact and it drives me nuts - especially knowing that nothing is for free..... Of course you can corporations that defy the government and the unions and they're treated like garbage, however they're more successful than the government and union puppet corporations, yet are consistently attacked by both entities, because they're not willing to play ball with the EPA and progressives in general. Then of course the government sicks the IRS on these corporations who tell the government to go **** off.

This is the United States man - government should mind their own business..... Taxation is not good enough for these corporations - government and unions want way more influence than that...

Hell, I'd love to open a business - a retail business - however it's just not worth it given the fact of government influence.

And there folks is one of the reasons for the downward spiral and the anemic recovery that we've seen for the last years, all the while, the present administration and recent congresses have put regulation on steroids or human growth hormones., EPA, financial industry, ObaamCare, etc, etc. Welcome to the new normal, or at least until some of this excess regulation and restrictions are rolled back, if ever.

But there's probably a thread for that around here someplace. Now, only to find it.
 
Back
Top Bottom