• 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]

JasperL said:
Leftist seem to be doing a bad job of 'silencing' speakers with whom they disagree.
Click to expand...
Not at all. There are regularly speakers at universities and elsewhere who are shouted down when trying to speak or who are 'dis-invited' because of 'security problems'.

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.
Click to expand...

His vote for proposition 8 occurred six years ago and 52% of the Californiia voters agreed with him, as well as Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Should they also lose their jobs or, in Hillary's case, be disallowed from seeking public office? Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
 
cabse5 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Cabse, you actually don't understand what rights are being denied to gay people. Until you can understand that you're simply not qualified to participate in any discussion on anything related to gay rights. It would be like me contributing to a discussion on zoroastrianism. I don't know **** about zorastrianism and would only make an idiot of myself if I were to throw my opinions around in a thread on that topic.
 
Last edited:
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...

Nice hysteria. Maybe you should throw the Holocaust into it while you're at it.
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where your argument fails is that nobody would argue that people shouldn't be allowed to vote against Obama because he's demonstrated that he doesn't share their beliefs.
 
Grant said:
No, it's a matter of ignorance of what the Constitution and the ideas of free speech really stand for.
Click to expand...

So, are you suggesting the protestors don't have a right to object to a CEOs policies by not buying the products he is selling?
 
Grant said:
Only to silence the free speech of others. Is that a worthy cause?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Eich is still free to voice his opinions as well as contribute to anti same sex marriage causes.
 
Grant said:
Only to silence the free speech of others. Is that a worthy cause?
Click to expand...

People should never be without accountability to the rest of society.
 
The Mark said:
You got THAT from my post?
Click to expand...

That would seem to be the logical conclusion. Eich could win his job back, look to see who protested against him, and then fire them all. Companies could fire people because in 2012 they voted for Obama and thus Obamacare.

All of this appears to make sense to leftists.
 
Grant said:
That would seem to be the logical conclusion. Eich could win his job back, look to see who protested against him, and then fire them all. Companies could fire people because in 2012 they voted for Obama and thus Obamacare.

All of this appears to make sense to leftists.
Click to expand...

Like the Board would allow that. I think your confusion stems from the belief that CEOs are supreme dictators, when in reality they're just hired employees.
 
Grant said:
Not at all. There are regularly speakers at universities and elsewhere who are shouted down when trying to speak or who are 'dis-invited' because of 'security problems'.



His vote for proposition 8 occurred six years ago and 52% of the Californiia voters agreed with him, as well as Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Should they also lose their jobs or, in Hillary's case, be disallowed from seeking public office? [bold mine]
Click to expand...


Great point. If this guy is a bigot then so is Obama and Clinton and a majority of the people in California. This is how we throw it back in their dishonest faces. We point out that most of America and the planet do not agree with them. We point out that except for weasel politicians, activist judges and some spineless corporate board of directors, they are in the minority view.

Treating this guy like he is Fred Phelps is illogical. He donated to a bonafide political group which sought to sponsor legislation to make laws democratically within in the system--- he is entitled to his view. Isn't that what this country is supposed be about?
 
Grant said:
You should be held accountable for your opinions or suffer the consequences. Is that your point?
Click to expand...

Is your point that people should not be held accountable for their beliefs?
 
Cardinal said:
Like the Board would allow that. I think your confusion stems from the belief that CEOs are supreme dictators, when in reality they're just hired employees.
Click to expand...

Has I opined that CEO's are "supreme dictators" I would have said so. Give your head a shake and then deal with what was actually said, not something that you happened to imagine.
 
JasperL said:
Read the amendment, and its history. It was an explicit attempt to strip rights then held by gays, and to forever limit them. This isn't actually up for debate.
Click to expand...

It says "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." So, it clearly defines marriage. It doesn't strip any rights from anyone. This isn't actually up for debate. (Cool how I can just make that declaration).
 
Grant said:
Has I opined that CEO's are "supreme dictators" I would have said so. Give your head a shake and then deal with what was actually said, not something that you happened to imagine.
Click to expand...

Well, something in your thinking is out of kilt if you think Eich could come back and be permitted to fire everybody.
 
cpwill said:
It was made into a PR liability by people wishing to silence dissent by targeting individuals to intimidate others. And they are absolutely willing to use government to do it.


Incorrect - everyone will simply then disagree on what "logic and reason" say. The people who win are those who can garner the most public support.
Click to expand...

Not even true, in this case.

In spite of all the wrong-wing political correctness on the subject, every time the matter has actually been put to a vote of the people—including twice in California—the people have overwhelmingly voted in favor of protecting marriage; and against upholding the sick mockery of marriage that the far-wrong is trying to force on us.

It's not about public support; it's about the effective use of lies, propaganda, intimidation, and abuse of power; on the part of a minority who want to force a radical view on a majority that opposes it; and knows very well that it can ever hope to successfully do so by honest, ethical means.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Great point. If this guy is a bigot then so is Obama and Clinton and a majority of the people in California. This is how we throw it back in their dishonest faces. We point out that most of America and the planet do not agree with them. We point out that except for weasel politicians, activist judges and some spineless corporate board of directors, they are in the minority view.

Treating this guy like he is Fred Phelps is illogical. He donated to a bonafide political group which sought to sponsor legislation to make laws democratically within in the system--- he is entitled to his view. Isn't that what this country is supposed be about?
Click to expand...

That they are hypocrites and not often familiar with the facts should be no surprise, but these people need be exposed as to who they really are, just as with any other charlatans.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not even true, in this case.

In spite of all the wrong-wing political correctness on the subject, every time the matter has actually been put to a vote of the people—including twice in California—the people have overwhelmingly voted in favor of protecting marriage; and against upholding the sick mockery of marriage that the far-wrong is trying to force on us.

It's not about public support; it's about the effective use of lies, propaganda, intimidation, and abuse of power; on the part of a minority who want to force a radical view on a majority that opposes it; and knows very well that it can ever hope to successfully do so by honest, ethical means.
Click to expand...

California could have voted to enslave Chinese people, it still would have been hilariously unconstitutional and thrown out by the courts.
 
Anthony60 said:
It says "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." So, it clearly defines marriage. It doesn't strip any rights from anyone. This isn't actually up for debate. (Cool how I can just make that declaration).
Click to expand...

You are correct. No rights were removed at all. The vote was on whether marriage should be recognized between a couple other than a man and a woman.
 
Grant said:
A few more shakes might help. That was a hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Well, your hypothetical doesn't even occupy this reality, so frankly it was a terrible hypothetical.
 
Grant said:
You are correct. No rights were removed at all.
Click to expand...

You are not qualified to participate in this discussion, though it's clear you will continue to do so anyway.
 
Cardinal said:
California could have voted to enslave Chinese people, it still would have been hilariously unconstitutional and thrown out by the courts.
Click to expand...

That would have been removing a right, not adding a right. It makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom