• 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]

No, only stupid people disagree on what logic and reason say and they can be safely ignored.

That sounds like nothing other than an excuse to undermine the very most basic roots of any democracy or republic. If you disagree with the clearly-expressed will of the people, you can deem the majority who supported a position that you oppose to be “stupid”, and call for then to be “safely ignored”.
 
That sounds like nothing other than an excuse to undermine the very most basic roots of any democracy or republic. If you disagree with the clearly-expressed will of the people, you can deem the majority who supported a position that you oppose to be “stupid”, and call for then to be “safely ignored”.

No one believes in absolute democracy. Do you? How do you spew crap like that and then complain about the ACA, or anything else that was voted in. Please, take the obvious and pathetic hypocrisy elsewhere.
 
you stop being a protestor and starting being the thought police when you try to force people to be fired because they don't believe what you do.
just like the chicfila backlash this will have a backlash to.

all of it negative on the gay right movement. they are doing themselves more harm than good.

When the pendulum inevitably swings the other way, those on the wrong had better pray that those of us on the right do not avail ourselves of the precedents that the wrong are now establishing. Surely, they are forming the very weapons that may ultimately be used to destroy them.
 
It's more than just a change in laws. It represents an effort to radically alter and redefine one of the most essential institutions that is at the foundation of every stable human society, to the likely detriment of any society which accepts this alteration. All to cater to the will of a tiny minority of immoral perverts.

Hard to believe that you could lose your job for this belief and have others applaud when you do.

I don't agree with your categorizing Gays as "immoral perverts" but would never demand you be fired for saying so. I'd rather try to bring you around too the idea that we are all God's children and to do unto others, etc. My son is Gay, it was not of his choosing, and neither of us want rights for him that are not available to anyone else. He treats others with the respect he expects for himself and that's all. I am for Gay marriage but will always defend the right of anyone to peacefully disagree.
 
When the pendulum inevitably swings the other way, those on the wrong had better pray that those of us on the right do not avail ourselves of the precedents that the wrong are now establishing. Surely, they are forming the very weapons that may ultimately be used to destroy them.

And that's the inevitable consequence of this madness.
 
So you not only think they're not being denied rights, you don't even know what right is being discussed? Please tell me you're trolling and are not as ignorant as this.

I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify yourself here.
 
Of course people have a right to hear both sides. I was not saying that they don't or shouldn't.

What I was pointing out is that once people wrap themselves up in what they believe to be a righteous position, they tend not to listen to any additional information or the other side anymore. This is a behavior pattern exhibited on both sides of nearly any issue.

Perhaps. We do have very polarizing politics. I think it's unfortunate since both parties have a right to their beliefs and political freedom of pushing policy and protesting policy. No one is inherently wrong. With that said there is always a price we pay for living in a democracy and I wouldn't have it any other way. Unfortunately, this will only lead to a push for less transparency because money buys power. I'm a realist and acknowledge not much good will be won out of this case. The protestors may have won this battle but not necessarily the war.
 
When the pendulum inevitably swings the other way, those on the wrong had better pray that those of us on the right do not avail ourselves of the precedents that the wrong are now establishing. Surely, they are forming the very weapons that may ultimately be used to destroy them.

Fighting (or in my case arguing) for the rights of a minority is going to piss certain people off. It's to be expected.
 
the gay movement was given a little power and it took them all of 5 minutes to become hair-trigger mccarthyists. bodes well for the future doesn't it?
 
the gay movement was given a little power and it took them all of 5 minutes to become hair-trigger mccarthyists. bodes well for the future doesn't it?

No it doesn't bode well at all. Mark my words, in ten years we'll all have to be gay.
 
No it doesn't bode well at all. Mark my words, in ten years we'll all have to be gay.

shhh, don't reveal the plans of the brovolution!
 
Perhaps. We do have very polarizing politics. I think it's unfortunate since both parties have a right to their beliefs and political freedom of pushing policy and protesting policy. No one is inherently wrong. With that said there is always a price we pay for living in a democracy and I wouldn't have it any other way. Unfortunately, this will only lead to a push for less transparency because money buys power. I'm a realist and acknowledge not much good will be won out of this case. The protestors may have won this battle but not necessarily the war.

Personally, I think that while Mozilla and its employees had a right to do as they did, they made a mountain out of a molehill. It's true that Eich did not bring his politics with him into the workplace (that we know of), and it required digging just to uncover his contribution to Prop 8. That said, Eich didn't have to go into war mode as he did. Him losing his job was spectacularly avoidable. Personally, I think there are no winners here - literally everyone walks away looking kind of petty.

As Ecofarm said, there just has to be more to this story. It doesn't make rational sense that Eich would be pushed out for this and this alone. I don't accept it.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think that while Mozilla and its employees had a right to do as they did, they made a mountain out of a molehill. It's true that Eich did not bring his politics with him into the workplace (that we know of), and it required digging just to uncover his contribution to Prop 8. That said, Eich didn't have to go into war mode as he did. Him losing his job was spectacularly avoidable. Personally, I think there are no winners here - literally everyone walks away looking kind of petty.

I agree. Probably no winners and ultimately we will lose more transparency. Of course, that's speculation on my behalf. I hope I'm wrong.
 
I'm straining my memory and I can't recall instances of corporations using their right to free speech to target one individual in the private sector and call for him to be destroyed. The issue isn't about having the right of free speech, it's how it's used.

I was just reading some commentary and, if it was correct, then it appears that it's perfectly legal to fire people for their political beliefs. We've long known that media and academia don't hire, block promotion and do fire on the basis of political beliefs but now the Left has blown away all their plausible deniability that this is a favored tactic. I'm damn sure that those normal people who didn't subscribe to 100% politicization of EVERYTHING (they're normal people after all, not Leftists) are now learning a lesson - eat or be eaten.

Damn, I guess you have never seen a negative political ad then.
 
Damn, I guess you have never seen a negative political ad then.

No, I've never seen a negative political ad directed at someone working in the private sector. Running for political office is a whole different game.
 
It doesn't make rational sense that Eich would be pushed out for this and this alone. I don't accept it.

You're expecting too damn much here. These are liberals we're talking about here, get it? This is about FEELINGS, not reasoning. Having a tantrum doesn't depend on having a reason to go bat**** insane.
 
No it doesn't bode well at all. Mark my words, in ten years we'll all have to be gay.

The homosexuals already have all the liberals kneeling down in front of them, ahem, doing something orally, so your prediction is based on an extrapolation of existing trends.
 
As I understand it, he gave the donation 8 years ago. 8 years ago Barrack Obama stated not only that he believes homosexuality to be immoral (he still holds that belief) but that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. 5 years ago, gay rights group supported Obama in the presidential election. Perhaps the CEO should have maintained his belief while being a proud democrat and contributing to the party. They wouldnt have said **** about it then.
 
You're expecting too damn much here. These are liberals we're talking about here, get it? This is about FEELINGS, not reasoning. Having a tantrum doesn't depend on having a reason to go bat**** insane.

Oh shut up.
 
Oh shut up.

Look, your position that there was some rational reason to have this guy fired that we don't know about doesn't even hold together under the conditions of your premise. This very thread has people cheering on the movement to fire this guy simply on the basis of his donation alone. No one here was arguing that he should be fired based on his donation PLUS "for other things that he did that we don't know."
 
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.
My understanding was that he left (probably after being convinced to do so) the company due to some percentage of their customers complaining about his actions (unreasonably, I think).

It may not be fair to him, but I can see the logic behind not having a controversial person as CEO.
 
Last edited:
No one believes in absolute democracy. Do you? How do you spew crap like that and then complain about the ACA, or anything else that was voted in. Please, take the obvious and pathetic hypocrisy elsewhere.

The ACA was never voted in. In fact the majority of the American public has always been against it. But in fact one of the things we always have to be on guard for is 'the tyranny of the majority'.
 
Back
Top Bottom