• 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]

cabse5 said:
Good. Now tell me why it's ignorant. Maybe you don't understand the simile?
Click to expand...

My suggestion to you is before you use complex things like similes you should first understand what the topic is about.
 
ludin said:
yep how dare people stand up for what they believe in. that isn't covered in the constitution at all.
the company wimped out instead of following chickfila which stood up and actually improved their business for doing it.
Click to expand...

Can't blame Mozilla for responding to free market rinciples and acting to protect the company's image.
 
ludin said:
yep how dare people stand up for what they believe in. that isn't covered in the constitution at all.
the company wimped out instead of following chickfila which stood up and actually improved their business for doing it.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not condemning Eich for his decision to stand up to them. As I've said several times in this thread it's an ethical dilemma everyone faces: acquiesce and keep your job, or stand up for your principals and risk losing it. Eich chose the latter. It's naive to think one should never face any risks for standing up for your principals. It's certainly naive to think that Mozilla didn't have the right for standing up for theirs. It's hypocritical if nothing else.
 
Grant said:
The analogy is silencing any opposition. That's become commonplace and accepted very easily among the leftists.
Click to expand...

But the employees of Mozilla should just shut up? Utter hypocrisy.
 
ludin said:
yep pretty much he was forced out. they didn't worry about it for the past 6 years so why now is it so much of a problem?

let them scream and cry and whine and pitch a fit. companies should just ignore them and their feigned outrage and they will go away. when they learn that people will just ignore them then they will stop.
Click to expand...

It's a problem now because the IRS, quite illegally, released the donor list to GLAAD. That really should be the crux of this story but many will support the illegal actions of big government if it suits their immediate agenda, not realizing at all the long term consequences of their actions.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Duh, no one silenced him. His actions were protested.
Click to expand...

By his 'actions' you mean the $1000 he contributed? Many people did the same thing. Should they all lose their jobs because it might harm their companies reputation? What does it say to anyone else who might oppose Gay marriage, or any other controversial subject?

We can see that Leftists will silence speakers with whom they disagree, as well as personally attack anyone who threatens their POV. It has become the same with Global Warming.
 
Cardinal said:
But the employees of Mozilla should just shut up? Utter hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Did the employees of Mozilla have a vote? Apparently you must lose your job if you contribute to any campaign of which others disagree. I cannot see the upside to this.
 
Cardinal said:
My suggestion to you is before you use complex things like similes you should first understand what the topic is about.
Click to expand...
Yet, you're unable to explain your caustic response to my post? Does my post have no place in American society? Does my simile (more likely an analogy) have any relevance to the discussion of gay marriage?
 
cabse5 said:
You are wrong. Has the New York Yankee organization, for example, stripped the rights of the Boston Red Sox of playing in a sumptuous palace like Yankees Stadium? Boston can play in a sumptuous palace like Yankee Stadium.. They just have to build one, themselves. Also, Boston can play baseball.. So, no rights stripped there, either.
Click to expand...

Is this another version of 'they can marry opposite sex partners like anyone else?' If so I have no interest debating that silly notion.

Gay rights activists always get it wrong (intentionally). Does anyone strip or prevent gays from entering into a legal union? No. Can this union have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage? Yes, with legislation. WHAT THE HECK ARE GAYS COMPLAINING ABOUT? That gay relationships aren't considered on the same vein as hetro relationships? Well.. they aren't the same.
Click to expand...

But you do understand the amendment was intended to PROHIBIT legislators, forever, from recognizing gay marriage. And yes, in California at that time civil unions were legal, but the reason 40 million was poured into that referendum was because it was believed then that it had national implications. And in my state, civil unions aren't legal, like most states.

BTW, the last bit just gives you away. You don't want them to have the same marriage rights, and so support the position the CEO took, and therefore object to the outrage/protests based on what was being protested. That's fine, but don't pretend that something else is at work.
 
Grant said:
By his 'actions' you mean the $1000 he contributed? Many people did the same thing. Should they all lose their jobs because it might harm their companies reputation? What does it say to anyone else who might oppose Gay marriage, or any other controversial subject?

We can see that Leftists will silence speakers with whom they disagree, as well as personally attack anyone who threatens their POV. It has become the same with Global Warming.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure it has. It's all a big conspiracy.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm actually not condemning Eich for his decision to stand up to them. As I've said several times in this thread it's an ethical dilemma everyone faces: acquiesce and keep your job, or stand up for your principals and risk losing it. Eich chose the latter. It's naive to think one should never face any risks for standing up for your principals. It's certainly naive to think that Mozilla didn't have the right for standing up for theirs. It's hypocritical if nothing else.
Click to expand...

so everyone should just roll over to your opinion or else be fired. no thanks we live in american not north korea
we don't punish people for opposing opinions. north korea does though.
 
ludin said:
so everyone should just roll over to your opinion or else be fired. no thanks we live in american not north korea
we don't punish people for opposing opinions. north korea does though.
Click to expand...

The government was not responsible for Mozilla's CEO to step down. It was the people who protested.
 
Grant said:
By his 'actions' you mean the $1000 he contributed? Many people did the same thing. Should they all lose their jobs because it might harm their companies reputation? What does it say to anyone else who might oppose Gay marriage, or any other controversial subject?

We can see that Leftists will silence speakers with whom they disagree, as well as personally attack anyone who threatens their POV. It has become the same with Global Warming.
Click to expand...

according to this thought police yes they should all be fired. that is what thought policing is. the silencing of opinion through force.
of course that doesn't stop them from doing the same thing.

you would see a dozen of lawsuits if the name of these protesters got released and they were fired for damaging their companies interest.
maybe that is what should happen though. these protestors have damaged their companies reputation so they should be fired as well.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The government was not responsible for Mozilla's CEO to step down. It was the people who protested.
Click to expand...

no one said anything about the government stop strawmaning. we live in the US not north korea.
if they want to act like we are in north korea then we can treat them like we live in north korea.

by protesting the way that they did they damaged the image of their company and their companies values. they should be fired for that or do you not agree?
i mean if you want to thought police then lets thought police.
 
JasperL said:
Is this another version of 'they can marry opposite sex partners like anyone else?' If so I have no interest debating that silly notion.



But you do understand the amendment was intended to PROHIBIT legislators, forever, from recognizing gay marriage. And yes, in California at that time civil unions were legal, but the reason 40 million was poured into that referendum was because it was believed then that it had national implications. And in my state, civil unions aren't legal, like most states.

BTW, the last bit just gives you away. You don't want them to have the same marriage rights, and so support the position the CEO took, and therefore object to the outrage/protests based on what was being protested. That's fine, but don't pretend that something else is at work.
Click to expand...

Ah, Jeeze, another 'reason' for gay rights activists to make gay marriage a mainstream topic. Let's disregard the rights and preferences of a majority of Americans to please a few who feel left out (as in not considered mainstream). If gay rights activists put as much energy into getting every state to legally give unions all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, there wouldn't be this redefinition (by the legal few) of marriage. And you'd be witnessing compromise in action... maybe for the first time in many years in American politics.

Just read your last paragraph. You couldn't be further from the truth. Isn't that called a straw man argument, hum?
 
ludin said:
no one said anything about the government stop strawmaning. we live in the US not north korea.
if they want to act like we are in north korea then we can treat them like we live in north korea.

by protesting the way that they did they damaged the image of their company and their companies values. they should be fired for that or do you not agree?
i mean if you want to thought police then lets thought police.
Click to expand...

The protesters were using their freedom of speech and right to protest.
 
Grant said:
By his 'actions' you mean the $1000 he contributed? Many people did the same thing. Should they all lose their jobs because it might harm their companies reputation? What does it say to anyone else who might oppose Gay marriage, or any other controversial subject?

We can see that Leftists will silence speakers with whom they disagree, as well as personally attack anyone who threatens their POV. It has become the same with Global Warming.
Click to expand...

Leftist seem to be doing a bad job of 'silencing' speakers with whom they disagree. And I love how protests from the left are 'personal attacks.' Ever hear any right winger on the radio talk about Obama? :censored Lordy, I haven't been here long, but I'm expecting to find lots of thread protesting the personal nature of those attacks! LMAO.

The CEO is the face of the company. That's part of why they get the big bucks. When the face of the company holds public views contrary to key demographics related to his business, and wants to enforce those views on others through a constitutional amendment, he should probably expect some backlash.
 
JasperL said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oh, I guess I missed the election where we voted on Obamacare. That would never happen, of course, because it would lose horribly. So, why would I oppose a lawsuit against Obamacare, that is a completely different situation? That is the other point, that the federal courts have no jurisdiction here. The Constitution does not grant the feds authority here, so it is thereby reserved by the states.

Stop trying to twist my words to fit your argument.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm actually not condemning Eich for his decision to stand up to them. As I've said several times in this thread it's an ethical dilemma everyone faces: acquiesce and keep your job, or stand up for your principals and risk losing it. Eich chose the latter. It's naive to think one should never face any risks for standing up for your principals. It's certainly naive to think that Mozilla didn't have the right for standing up for theirs. It's hypocritical if nothing else.
Click to expand...

He made a political donation several years ago and that information was leaked by the IRS. Any lost principals here were by the IRS and those who condemn him for making a legal contribution to a legal campaign. Leftists would never condemn Barrack Obama for sharing Eich's opinion, which further demonstrates their ongoing hypocrisies.
 
tres borrachos said:
So nobody should make political contributions - ever - because years down the road your employer may force you out because of them?
Click to expand...
You got THAT from my post?
 
Grant said:
Did the employees of Mozilla have a vote? Apparently you must lose your job if you contribute to any campaign of which others disagree. I cannot see the upside to this.
Click to expand...

Yes, the employees' opinions count, and as to the second part of your post, that has been covered to death. If you are politically active you will make enemies. Think I'm wrong? Tell us your real name.
 
ecofarm said:
If an employee in my company hurts the company, I have every right to fire them. CEOs are hired not only as managers but as representatives.
Click to expand...

He donated to prop 8 before he was a CEO. What if he had donated money to the foundation supporting the Equal Rights Amendment in the '80s?

I'm calling the gay rights agenda people out as being intolerant bigots, every bit as scary as the McCarthy era folks who sought to blacklist people based on their political views.

The current gay agenda is using fear, bigotry and intolerance as a club to get their way. How is this any different than the Westboro Church folks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom