• 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]

IRS didn't release anything on Eich, other employees found the information, as any political contribution $1,000 or more is public, and made it public, causing a huge, over zealous commotion in the customer base, turning Eich into a corporate liability, forcing him to resign.

I'd still like to know more about whom at the company pushed this info on Eich out to the public's attention, and why, as it was years ago in an environment where many prominent politicians and other public figures were of the same position without suffering the wrath of LBGT bigots and extremists.

There seems to be some controversy over whether the IRS was involved or not. IRS must be held responsible for leaking National Organization for Marriage donor list | Fox News
 
"Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."
--Andrew Sullivan:peace

Luckily there are other Gays like Sullivan speaking out against this atrocity.
 
Illegitimate repression is illegitimate repression. It is why Berkeley's free speech movement became the anti-war movement. The comparison is only unappealing to you because the moral connection makes you uncomfortable.:peace

Sorry, Jack, but Grant just took the gold from you. You can no longer claim to have contributed the dumbest post to this thread. Would you like to see if you can top him?
 
Sorry, Jack, but Grant just took the gold from you. You can no longer claim to have contributed the dumbest post to this thread. Would you like to see if you can top him?

To which Grant post are you referring?
 
To which Grant post are you referring?

It is an undeniable Witch Hunt. You may be next.

I will admit though that Grant offers a large variety of choices in this thread, such as the fact that not only are homosexuals not denied any rights, he cannot think of any rights that are even claimed to be denied.

Is this dumber than Jack's post? I will entertain that possibility, though I don't think it's an easy choice to make.
 
Oh shut up.

Right. Just like Brendan Eich and any others who oppose your point of view. Getting everyone to shut up and conform to one political ideology is the quickest way to achieve groupthink.
 
They're coming after all of us now:shock:

The general leftist consensus seems to be that if you contributed to a campaign in your past you might lose your job today, and they would be fine with that. Be careful who you vote for in the USA today or you may regret it in the future.
 
The general leftist consensus seems to be that if you contributed to a campaign in your past you might lose your job today, and they would be fine with that. Be careful who you vote for in the USA today or you may regret it in the future.

Gee, strange, but I don't remember saying he should have been chased away from his job. I specifically remember saying there are consequences to everyone's actions. CEOs aren't immune to this rule but more emotion is being used as if he is a victim of some mass lynching. It's rather ridiculous and does nothing for debate but carry on.
 
Gee, strange, but I don't remember saying he should have been chased away from his job. I specifically remember saying there are consequences to everyone's actions. CEOs aren't immune to this rule but more emotion is being used as if he is a victim of some mass lynching. It's rather ridiculous and does nothing for debate but carry on.

Right , there are consequences to our actions, and now this includes how we vote or what cause we contribute to. Questions will be raised about your personal lives, who your friends are and how much money you have in your wallet. All this is becoming normal and being defended by those of a leftist persuasion.
 
Right , there are consequences to our actions, and now this includes how we vote or what cause we contribute to. Questions will be raised about your personal lives, who your friends are and how much money you have in your wallet. All this is becoming normal and being defended by those of a leftist persuasion.

Such bull-hockey. At will employment leaves the door wide open for people to get fired for far more than a political cause one contributes toward. I've the feeling the latter doesn't factor much into the many firings happening on a daily basis. It's rare to hear the same rules that apply to regular workers may also apply to CEOs, but it seems so in this case. He'll probably fare far better than any average joe. Perhaps, the answer could be to give protection to everyone from such firings? I doubt that is even a plausible solution but thought I'd throw it out there so you could at least see that at best there seems to be a double standard being applied and at worst some people are fine with that because they've been properly groomed to feed off of such hype.
 
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.
He's refusing to accept the idea of same sex marriages, and unfairly so.

So I am a bigot because I dislike AgentJ? So illogical..
 
Mozilla obviously did a terrible job of vetting their candidate and having their finger on the pulse of the employee base and its social attitudes.

They did vet him. So much so this was PUBLIC knowledge to the board going back 2 years.
 
Pretty much yeah. Like it or not, private businesses after a certain theshold of fame become cultural institutions with emotional buy in from the public at large. Mostly companies try to use their to their advantage to generate business, however this is where it is a double edged sword because as perceptions change, so could their profitability.

And Mozilla isn't a company that relies on emotional buy, rather anti-Microsoft Internet Explorer mentality.
 
1.) correct they wont be given up you want to take them away by force, no thanks
2.) no they will factually be lesser
3.) churches and religion have ZERO meaning to this discussion
4.) yes religious marriage is that way
5.) sure do, again let me know when you are ready to discuss the topic and defend your failed stance

It's this simple. I am actually arguing and pointing out removing the standard of marriage which one (LBGT community) wants and the other (straight community) wants to keep for themselves. Then replacing it with just plain old Civil Unions and stating the State (Government) will only recognize Civil Unions. For the part of my argument you aren't getting is Marriage won't exist as a legal accepted form of relationship. Only Civil Unions will.
 
Last edited:
And Mozilla isn't a company that relies on emotional buy, rather anti-Microsoft Internet Explorer mentality.

I use a mac, and I choose Mozilla over Safari in spit of Firefox's massive memory leak, mostly for the reason that Firefox isn't a giant anti-privacy monster.
 
I used Mozilla products since the Netscape days. Always had problems getting viruses thru MS products.

Mozilla didn't do anything illegal but the social sensitivity towards tolerance is a two way door. You got to give a little, to get a little.
 
Sorry, you're the one with the low bar to hurdle if you think it's acceptable to vote against someone else's relationship being recognized by the government. As if that affects you.
If republicans stopped claiming such a high bar as their own, this wouldn't even be an issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom