• 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]

I was responding to a overtly 'partisan' assertion, that intolerance is a particularly liberal trait. I'm not sure what your point is since I wasn't responding to you. If you keep it non-partisan, I'll try to do the same.

I'm just pointing out the obvious. It's the same few people in every thread. I'm just saving you time.
 
I hope the Left keeps this up. What a great way to isolate and marginalize their agenda by pissing off a vast majority of Americans.

You would have thought they would have learned their lesson back when they attacked Phil Robertson.

As is always the case, no mater if right, left or center, when one feels righteous and morally superior, learning from experience and listening to dissenting points of view seems to go out the window.
 
From what I've read there is a concern about the disconnect between his support of LGBT rights in the workplace, and funding changes to the Constitution intended to discriminate against those employees in their private lives. And I think it was a problem that he never did disavow his support for those efforts to discriminate against them in the public arena.

And I saying they "wanted to punish" Eich for supporting efforts to strip their rights isn't really it - they didn't want a man who wanted to strip them of their rights, their relationships forever second class, as the public face of their company.

Wow! So now, we have to not only accept what you want to consider "rights", but, have to grovel, and apologize publicly....Nice....Should we all wear scarlet letters too?
 
I'm not Jack so you have to ask him.

I personally was very interested in the opinions of a man who has been gay for many years and who has been discussing gay rights for many years.

That's fine but Jack's response to my post makes zero sense.
 
That's fine but Jack's response to my post makes zero sense.

I'm not Jack so I can't answer.

It would benefit everyone to read Sullivan's piece if they want to get the point of view of a man who has been writing about gay rights for years but I support everyone's right to not care about it.
 
As is always the case, no mater if right, left or center, when one feels righteous and morally superior, learning from experience and listening to dissenting points of view seems to go out the window.

Only, that's not the case and is a typical strawman.
 
I'm not Jack so I can't answer.

It would benefit everyone to read Sullivan's piece if they want to get the point of view of a man who has been writing about gay rights for years but I support everyone's right to not care about it.

Jack gave me that response to my "protest is the opposite of suppression" post. I doubt Andrew Sullivan has much to do with it. I guess I'll just have to await his response which I'll gladly do.
 
And from what I've read, he never did anything in the workplace to infringe on the rights of LGBT employees, in his own particular staff or otherwise.

Well, he wasn't CEO, and are their private lives irrelevant - all that should matter to them is how they're treated from 9-5?


Where was their outcry against the 7 out of 10 blacks in California who also opposed their right to marry in 2008? A little consistency in the target of their outrage would have been nice.

That's unfair - they have to protest ALL opponents at the same time they protest one particularly high profile one? Or, which of those 7 of 10 was appointed CEO without protest?
 
Well, he wasn't CEO, and are their private lives irrelevant - all that should matter to them is how they're treated from 9-5?




That's unfair - they have to protest ALL opponents at the same time they protest one particularly high profile one? Or, which of those 7 of 10 was appointed CEO without protest?

No, he was CTO, and as CTO was responsible had a very large number of company employees report up to him.

So then they just wanted him to lose his job I guess, since there is no evidence that he negatively impacted anyone's job at Mozilla in all his years there, even though he wasn't concerned with what they did on their non-work time. Wait - are you saying managers are supposed to worry about their employees' personal time too? That's a new one. So managers are now responsible for employees' private lives and what goes on in their private lives? Can managers have a say in their employees' private lives too?

Okay, so nobody protested the black bigots when they opposed gay marriage. I get it now.
 
Wow! So now, we have to not only accept what you want to consider "rights", but, have to grovel, and apologize publicly....Nice....Should we all wear scarlet letters too?

Not "grovel" but publicly stating he no longer supports the state enforcing a second class citizenship for them in their time outside work would be nice.

I get you don't respect the position of LGBT here, but that's not the point. If the rights were important to you, would you accept a CEO dedicated to stripping them? For example, should an org with evangelical roots accept a CEO dedicated to abortion on demand in public, even IF at work the health plan doesn't cover abortion or contraception? That in the narrow confines of the workplace, he supports an anti-abortion stance, but has a different public stance?
 
Sheesh, some consider him a bigot because he donated to an effort to strip gays of their rights. Can no conservatives see this as fundamentally different than merely having divergent VIEWS?

Let's try another example.

Person 1: I'm a devout Muslim
Person 2: I'm a devout Christian

We'd all agree, I think, that 1 and 2 should peacefully coexist in any workplace, and not be offended that their CEO takes a different view than them personally.

Person 1: I'm a devout Christian
Person 2: I'm a devout Muslim, and I donated to an effort to pass a Constitutional amendment to make "Sharia" the permanent law of California.

Can anyone see the difference, and get why in that situation Christian employees, suppliers, customers, etc. might vehemently object to the Muslim CEO? It's no longer merely different opinions, which should be tolerated, but in this case Person 2 wants to enforce his views on EVERYONE, even those who disagree. Why is this so hard to get.

He (#2) wants to enforce his views on everyone, in a perfectly legal and provided for manner. Gays want to enforce their view that everyone should change the meaning of marriage. But they should do it legally and morally. They have not accepted statewide votes and the will of the people. They have used tactics to damage people's lives and to try and get one person or a handful of people to enforce their will on everyone else, like it or not.
 
Only, that's not the case and is a typical strawman.

How so? If someone is so wrapped up in their position, feel so righteous in their position, they are not likely to change from that position no matter what differing positions, counter evidence, and reasoned and reasonable arguments you present. They stop listening. They stop taking in new counter position information into consideration. This happens to people on all points of the political spectrum. How is this not the case? Can you elaborate?
 
So then they just wanted him to lose his job I guess, since there is no evidence that he negatively impacted anyone's job at Mozilla in all his years there, even though he wasn't concerned with what they did on their non-work time. Wait - are you saying managers are supposed to worry about their employees' personal time too? That's a new one. So managers are now responsible for employees' private lives and what goes on in their private lives? Can managers have a say in their employees' private lives too?

No, they're not supposed to 'worry about their' private lives, but employees might expect them to refrain from actively stripping their personal rights from them. I'm really not sure why you want to diminish the act he supported. It was an attempt to reduce LGBT he treated well at work to second class status when they went home. There simply IS a big disconnect there.

Okay, so nobody protested the black bigots when they opposed gay marriage. I get it now.

You're grasping at straws. Off point and not relevant to this discussion.
 
Sheesh, some consider him a bigot because he donated to an effort to strip gays of their rights. Can no conservatives see this as fundamentally different than merely having divergent VIEWS?

If he's a bigot, then those pushing gay marriage are also bigots. No rights were stripped, or proposed to be stripped from anyone. What's so hard to understand?
 
How so? If someone is so wrapped up in their position, feel so righteous in their position, they are not likely to change from that position no matter what differing positions, counter evidence, and reasoned and reasonable arguments you present. They stop listening. They stop taking in new counter position information into consideration. This happens to people on all points of the political spectrum. How is this not the case? Can you elaborate?

It can be debated either point was "righteous". People have a right to hear both sides and decide if they support side A or B or neither. That's called living in a democracy.
 
No, they're not supposed to 'worry about their' private lives, but employees might expect them to refrain from actively stripping their personal rights from them. I'm really not sure why you want to diminish the act he supported. It was an attempt to reduce LGBT he treated well at work to second class status when they went home. There simply IS a big disconnect there.



You're grasping at straws. Off point and not relevant to this discussion.

You can't expect people to worry about their employees' non-work time and at the same time say they have no right to worry about their employees' private lives, which is what is legal today.

Either Eich was responsible for what goings on in their private lives, or he wasn't. It can't be both ways.

He also was entitled to a private life without having to justify what he did on his own time. He was as free as anyone else to support Prop 8. There should be no expectation that his private views should have to be explained or justified.
 
Not "grovel" but publicly stating he no longer supports the state enforcing a second class citizenship for them in their time outside work would be nice.

So, he doesn't "have to" but that "would be nice" or you'll work to get him fired from his job....Nah, no strong arming there....pfft.

I get you don't respect the position of LGBT here, but that's not the point.

Actually, just to illustrate your totally unfounded assumptions here, I used to vehemently rail against gay marriage, until before even being a member of this site, I was in a debate on another site, and was in a respectful, and informative debate I changed my mind. So, long story short, for about the past 6 years, I have supported the right of anyone to "marry" anyone they wish...But, apparently the bar now seems to be not only support, but I must shout it from the rooftops to be believed. I just don't care about it that much....However, your assumption is wrong. And to avoid looking foolish in the future, I would suggest that you hold off on assuming things about people you don't even know.

If the rights were important to you, would you accept a CEO dedicated to stripping them?

Not every thing you want to change about society is all of the sudden "a right"..... THAT is more what I am arguing against rather than whether or not Joe, and Steve whom have been together for 20 years want to have a wedding.

For example, should an org with evangelical roots accept a CEO dedicated to abortion on demand in public, even IF at work the health plan doesn't cover abortion or contraception? That in the narrow confines of the workplace, he supports an anti-abortion stance, but has a different public stance?

Hypothetical arguments are for losing debates....Stick with facts and you'll fare better.
 
Yeah, right, because a constitutional amendment to, for example, ban gay marriage is DEFINITELY NOT anyone deciding which views are more equal than others. Good point!

Marriage between Gays is not a point of view its a change in long held laws, and everyone should have an opportunity to speak on any of these historical changes to any long held traditions and laws.. I happen to support Gay marriage (my son is Gay) but what is happening now is the silencing of any opposing opinions and the threats from employers and the court if you don't adhere to the fashionable belief of the day.

This fascism is truly more dangerous than any idea of Gay marriage, and will continue on long after whatever controversial subjects may arrive next.
 
Actually, just to illustrate your totally unfounded assumptions here, I used to vehemently rail against gay marriage, until before even being a member of this site, I was in a debate on another site, and was in a respectful, and informative debate I changed my mind. So, long story short, for about the past 6 years, I have supported the right of anyone to "marry" anyone they wish...But, apparently the bar now seems to be not only support, but I must shout it from the rooftops to be believed. I just don't care about it that much....However, your assumption is wrong. And to avoid looking foolish in the future, I would suggest that you hold off on assuming things about people you don't even know.

Interesting, as I feel the same way you do. I'm fine with any consenting adults having the chance to marry whomever they choose. I resent the concept that I'm supposed to make it my number one cause in order to be believed, and I'm also supposed to expect everyone who doesn't share my view to have to publicly denounce their own views for....some reason, I don't know what it is.

People who see "conservative" in my disclosed leaning in my user panel see it and automatically assume I'm anti-gay.
 
He (#2) wants to enforce his views on everyone, in a perfectly legal and provided for manner. Gays want to enforce their view that everyone should change the meaning of marriage. But they should do it legally and morally. They have not accepted statewide votes and the will of the people. They have used tactics to damage people's lives and to try and get one person or a handful of people to enforce their will on everyone else, like it or not.

That just makes no sense in the context of this discussion. Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. And gays have pursued their efforts entirely legally, unless I missed when Dictator Rainbow unilaterally changed the laws in California or elsewhere (morally is subjective).

But since you don't approve of using the courts to affect legislation, I expect you opposed the filing of lawsuits seeking to overturn Obamacare? I'm sure that was an illegitimate effort to get a handful of people in black robes to enforce their will to repeal Obamacare on everyone else, like it or not. Right?
 
Tell that to the Family Research Council. They often boycott or threaten to boycott pro-gay businesses.

More FRC Hypocrisy: Only Conservatives Should be allowed to Boycott Companies | Right Wing Watch

Tell that to Townhall writer John Hawkins.

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

Tell that to Breitbart's Ben Shapiro.

Ben Shapiro boycotts Nabisco over Sharpton ad | The Daily Caller

Oh, that's right. Only "the left" puts pressure on companies to divorce themselves from politically contentious people or organizations.

Looked at the first link and that was about a company who didn't want to print Gay T-Shirts. The organized Gay response was just more of the same.
 
So now that this is all over, and Eich is no longer CEO, is the issue closed, or is there something more the "Eich-is-a-bigot" folks are looking for?
 
Back
Top Bottom