• 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 guess, I see what your saying. Most opinions are a matter of free speech to a certain point. I don't take that as leading to a necessary action, only the desire.

I'm saying his financial contribution is an extension of his opinion, and not an unethical or illegal act. It can easily be countered by similar contributions for SSM.

I see. I really need to learn more about the details in this case. Based on what I know I disagree with him being forced out of his job.

If his actions within the organization had been consistently and widely in conflict with the stated mission of the company than I could understand it. But it doesn't appear they have been. It actually appears that despite his personal opinion he has helped to build a company that actively promotes inclusion and accessibility. If this is all there is to it,then I think it may be an over-reaction.

We can't know every opinion someone holds and we can't assume that anyone will act contrary to a companies mission just because their personal opinion is different no matter how much power or authority they have within that organization.

People should be free to think what they want no matter how messed up it is but how they behave is another matter.
 
Personally, I prefer opera on the sheer compatibility side. I tend to see fewer bugs with opera and better web page rendering.

Hmm. I wonder if I can make Opera handle it's tabs the same way that I can make Firefox handle it's tabs. Above all else, this is the feature set that I'm looking for more so than any other. LIFO order opening and closing tabs, new tabs are always opened at the right side end.
 
That's unrealistic to say someone didn't change their position or opinion. The percentage of people that are for SSM has changed dramatically, since that time in the polls, so a lot of other people have changed their minds.

Changed their minds or changed their stated opinions. I know a lot of people who are fatigued by the whole issue and have given up standing up for their principles. Their principles haven't changed but their stated position has.

This is simply a variant on the fact that small groups with super-heated intensity on their peculiar interest are going to be hammering away at an issue all the time where normal people can't get as worked up about that small issue and match the intensity, so they neglect it. The minorities capture the system.
 
I never said he had to apologize to me. What is you problem? You can't even follow your own discussion. You asked me why do I still believe he is still bigot. I replied with he has not apologized for the donation or stated that he no longer holds that position. So for all we know he is still a bigot when it comes to rights and the lgbt community.

So he does have to apologize for you to say he's not a bigot... so that's technically apologizing to you as you are making the judgement here, not me. And you full of ****. He was on the board of directors and run R&D at Mozilla for years.. ever hear of a case of him being a bigot before your last stand defense of his firing? Nope. Not a one.

So when you have Andrew Sullivan, the father of the same sex marriage movement, thinks you and others are hypocrites and intolerance.

That says volumes just too bad too many are deaf, dumb, and blind to realize what he's saying.
 
You don't get it do you.. same opinions and you treat Obama as untouchable. LGBT community should have called for him to resign as President or face whatever. Did they? No. So that's a double standard by the LGBT community starting right there. If you have a standard for one person (Obama) you need that same standard with all. Right? ****ing hypocrites are what they are.

Obama did not support prop 8 while in presidency. He made the statement, while still a senator, that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and did not support the court decision to overturn it. This statement did not go unheard and was subject to much scrutiny. He then changed his position prior to winning the election.

http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php


Let me exlain something to you. No one in the lgbt community is trying to change anyone's mind. The lgbt community is fighting legislation that denies them equal rights. You hate gays? Fine. Think they are disgusting? Ok. Want them to disappear? Whatever.

You are entitled to hate whoever you want to hate. However, the moment those opinions turn into action. The moment those opinions turn into laws, then there is an obvious problem.

It is the fear that your hate will turn into the law that scares the gay community, not your opinion alone. That is why these things spark so much outrage.
 
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.
You've got a feeling? The fact is that unions even stand up the child molesters among them, as well as drug users..

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.
Maybe, perhaps and probably? The fact is that you have nothing to support your position.
 
1.) 100% wrong. Facts and definitions cant be changed by how i see them. Lets review them, he donated money to try and stop people from having equality and rights, that fits the definition of bigotry :shrug:
2.) so it was HIM who designed/wrote and enforced this LGBT friendly policies and atmosphere Mozilla?
also what did they involve?
did they only exist because of him or were they in place before him?
are these policies just in accordance to LAW?
As one of the founders of Mozilla, yes, he would have much involvement in setting the culture of the organization. I believe they exceeded the law when they offered full benefits to SSM partners when they did, although the laws in CA may have caught up with Mozilla by now. I don't really know.

please answer these questions

3.) nope not "fair" just going by FACTS, fair has nothing to do with it

until there's new facts and evidence why would i ASSUME differently?
Personal blog posting I quoted is evidence to be considered, yes?

4.) no it counts for absolutely nothing LMAO why would it
again back to the culture/policies unless his idea, he wrote it, made sure it was enforced, didnt excist before he got there and it wasnt inspired by law and rights that already exist.

He founded the company for christ's sake. Its the embodiment of his value system.

if that happen THEN ill change my opinion

Somehow I doubt it. I think you are as bigoted as those you hate, but claim moral superiority in your own mind.

say a cop is a bigot against <insert group here> and he donated money to not grant them rights or to a hate group against them or was leader of a hate group against women or blacks or Christians etc etc

BUT

while he was a cop he never unjustly arrested one of said group and followed the law and practiced god job duties

whould that stop him from being a bigot?


nope. lol


so as soon as you have something that shows he isnt ill stick with facts and definitions
 
Might be, but doesn't make sense. From what has been posted in this thread any political donation in California of $1K or more is recorded and made public. So why would the IRS have to release any information if it's public already?

Perhaps you should investigate the issue yourself.
 
1.) lol no rant just wanted to show how dumb the idea is with examples
2.) that wouldnt be a claim that would be a fact
3.) yes it would be a cop out to call it somethign else
4.) you say that but still havent proved it
5.) dont care what people call it just like people dont call many marriages today real marriages, interracial, inter-religious, remarriages etc etc
6.) correct it is beside the point and not the goal
7.) Id accept it to IF it was possible, really equal and wasnt a cop out ot let the bigots win
8.) it would be interesting IF this wasnt a new argument to hide bigotry and there was a very simply way to grant factual equal rights besides using the word.

the word is only important because its the only honest and factual way to grant equal rights.

IF there was another honest, factual and equal way id be all for it but there isnt
It may be a bit underhanded, but given a choice between "not allowed at all" and "we'll change the name for everyone", I'd go with the latter. Could be modified later, anyway. Once everyone realized the world didn't end, and all that.


I still think it's BS that a word matters so much though. But then we're humans. Stupid mfers.
 
To forgive is divine. Yet there is no forgiveness for Eich? After all, he did apologize, in public, in writing.

You quoted the part of one of my previous post in which I told you that riverdad is a white nationlist and that homosexuals, despite riverdads refusal to accept this fact, are more subject to depression because of society.

In response you non chalantly referred to the burden we all must carry and the human condition. You also in the same post agreed that because africans commit the most crimes that it is ok to in effect hold them all accountable for the actions of complete strangers and judge accordingly.

Where is your own foregiveness?
 
They are upset over a donations from 6 years ago and practicing McCarthyism today. It's 2014 today.. not 2008. LBGT got what they wanted and now they are being the bigots.

Someone called them 'sore winners', and that about sums them up.
 
1.)As one of the founders of Mozilla, yes, he would have much involvement in setting the culture of the organization. I believe they exceeded the law when they offered full benefits to SSM partners when they did, although the laws in CA may have caught up with Mozilla by now. I don't really know.
2.)Personal blog posting I quoted is evidence to be considered, yes?
3.)He founded the company for christ's sake.
4.)Its the embodiment of his value system.


Somehow I doubt it. I think you are as bigoted as those you hate, but claim moral superiority in your own mind.

1.) link, proof, facts?
2.) evidence of what?
3.) yes he was a co founder :shrug:
4.) links? facts? proof?

like i said there have been judges, politicians, cops etc etc that have been found to be bigots and were leaders in hate groups or donated to hate groups or were in the KKK etc etc

and while they did thier jobs they did it with in the law, never doing anythign bigoted while on duty, that has ZERO impact on them being a bigot


ZERO, ZILCH, NOTA, NONE

why would it?
can you explain why it impacts that fact one bit?

are you saying if he was a KKK member but founder of Mozilla who had friendly minority policies and he never practiced racism at work that magically makes him not a bigot? LOL i hope not because thats hilariously terrible logic.
 
I see. I really need to learn more about the details in this case. Based on what I know I disagree with him being forced out of his job.

If his actions within the organization had been consistently and widely in conflict with the stated mission of the company than I could understand it. But it doesn't appear they have been. It actually appears that despite his personal opinion he has helped to build a company that actively promotes inclusion and accessibility. If this is all there is to it,then I think it may be an over-reaction.

We can't know every opinion someone holds and we can't assume that anyone will act contrary to a companies mission just because their personal opinion is different no matter how much power or authority they have within that organization.

People should be free to think what they want no matter how messed up it is but how they behave is another matter.


That's almost exactly my stance. I don't agree with anybody 100% about everything, and my best contributors to growth are my detractors. They're either going to influence me more towards another view or entrench my position with needed input. But none of these can happen, without the freedom to express our thoughts. Action on the other hand is much more limited by regulations, rules, legalities and accountability. Engaging in the political process, thru donations or votes is considered still within the arena of expression, as long as it's done legally.


Changed their minds or changed their stated opinions. I know a lot of people who are fatigued by the whole issue and have given up standing up for their principles. Their principles haven't changed but their stated position has.

This is simply a variant on the fact that small groups with super-heated intensity on their peculiar interest are going to be hammering away at an issue all the time where normal people can't get as worked up about that small issue and match the intensity, so they neglect it. The minorities capture the system.

No, many have changed their minds, and seen that it's simply unfair to make moral judgments of this nature on others. The social stigma about sexual orientation is changing rapidly because of people realizing, it's a personal matter that doesn't affect them directly.
 
That's unrealistic to say someone didn't change their position or opinion. The percentage of people that are for SSM has changed dramatically, since that time in the polls, so a lot of other people have changed their minds.

No, it's naive to think a 50 year old ideoleologue could change a life long opinion, that just so happens to be politically expediant in a instant.

Given his tendency to lie repeatedly to get his way politically it would be BEYOND naive and would actually qualify as willful ignorance to believe he was sincere when he claimed to have evolved on the issue.

Americans willingness to be so easily manipulated by corrupt Politicians is a HUGE problem for this Country as the dumbest among us are now imposing their will on the rest of us.
 
Somehow I doubt it. I think you are as bigoted as those you hate, but claim moral superiority in your own mind.

sorry i missed this part and its a VERY funny deflection

LOL is this the best failed strawman you got since your other argument totally failed and got destroyed by multiple posters?

well you are free to have that opinion but the issue is you theres no proof
I dont hate him at all or in the very least lol
also I didnt mention morals
but please feel free to make up more stories that wont help your failed posts

not to mention if you actually read this thread i said he has the right to feel the way he does, he also has the right to preach, say how he feels he can also teach his own those same views etc etc. That is his right.
I have no "judgement" of him personally i dont know know him just pointed out that going by facts and definitions he is a bigot.
 
The black people causing prop 8 to pass was good for a few yucks, but it was ultimately a false narrative. If you look at the actual demographics the largest contributing statistic wasn't race, or even old people, but religion.

Why would it bother you to know that Blacks and Hispanics share similar family values with the conservative whites?

Is being normal such a bad thing?
 
You quoted the part of one of my previous post in which I told you that riverdad is a white nationlist and that homosexuals, despite riverdads refusal to accept this fact, are more subject to depression because of society.

In response you non chalantly referred to the burden we all must carry and the human condition. You also in the same post agreed that because africans commit the most crimes that it is ok to in effect hold them all accountable for the actions of complete strangers and judge accordingly.

Where is your own foregiveness?

Where do you get from my post that I hold all of a group accountable for the bad actions of a few?

My main point in my post was similar values and value systems are more important than vastly different ones.
 
Why would it bother you to know that Blacks and Hispanics share similar family values with the conservative whites?

Is being normal such a bad thing?

The race isn't even a relevant factor.
 
100% correct, by definition that is bigotry.

He didnt donate to a group that happens to be opposed to gay rights or gays or gays sex, the donation was made has a pledge to prop 8 which its whole purpose was to stop gay rights. That is factual bigotry.

Since when did marriage become a 'right'? Is it ever mentioned in the Constitution?

Leftists are creating 'rights' from gossamer.
 
Since when did marriage become a 'right'? Is it ever mentioned in the Constitution?

Leftists are creating 'rights' from gossamer.

Wow, just...wow.
 
1.)It may be a bit underhanded
2.) but given a choice between "not allowed at all" and "we'll change the name for everyone", I'd go with the latter.
3.) Could be modified later, anyway. Once everyone realized the world didn't end, and all that.
4.)I still think it's BS that a word matters so much though.
5.) But then we're humans. Stupid mfers.

1.) a bit underhanded? lol come one now. If this was done to you or your family id guess you call it more than that "bit underhanded"
do you have kids? if this was done to one of them and the only reason they did it is because of thier race, gender, religion, origin etc etc im "guessing" youd call it a little more than that
2.) yes if that was the choice id probably agree but luckily this isnt russia, its america where we have rights and they are being protected
3.) this is true but its a dumb step to take when its not needed. Equal rights is winning
4.)its not the word though, its the rights and reality that come with that word
5.) cant disagree :)
 
Last edited:
Obama did not support prop 8 while in presidency. He made the statement, while still a senator, that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and did not support the court decision to overturn it. This statement did not go unheard and was subject to much scrutiny. He then changed his position prior to winning the election.

Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage - SFGate

Obama clearly states he's against gay marriage while running for the Presidency.


Let me exlain something to you. No one in the lgbt community is trying to change anyone's mind. The lgbt community is fighting legislation that denies them equal rights. You hate gays? Fine. Think they are disgusting? Ok. Want them to disappear? Whatever.

I am not against gays or think they are disgusting nor does Eich. So let's clear up the you to mean generally please.

LGBT community is forcing people to change their mind by threat. Either agree with us or we'll go after you and your company. That's the action that took place.

You are entitled to hate whoever you want to hate. However, the moment those opinions turn into action. The moment those opinions turn into laws, then there is an obvious problem.

No, that's your opinion. There are tons of people lobbying to remove my rights daily, rights we all enjoy but nobody that I know of and myself aren't trying to ruin the other sides livelihood because I disagree with them. But that's what happened here.

It is the fear that your hate will turn into the law that scares the gay community, not your opinion alone. That is why these things spark so much outrage.

Any maybe the gay community needs to grow up to the 2014 society in which no law is gonna be passed to ban gay rights anymore. Supreme Court has spoken and so has numerous State Supreme Courts. Being fearful is a bit too late and massive over reaction considering how much has changed since 2008 socially and politically. So their actions are vindictive lack of toleration. They should understand why I think they are idiots for their reaction to something that happened in 2008. They've shown themselves to be no different then the gay basher.
 
1.)Since when did marriage become a 'right'?
2.) Is it ever mentioned in the Constitution?
3.)Leftists are creating 'rights' from gossamer.

1.)are you claiming marriage isnt in a right? i hope not because youd be factually wrong lol
2.) is the right not to be raped in the constitution?
3.) you are free to have this opinion but thats all it will ever be lol

not to mention . . . . . .get close i have to whisper . . . shhhhh . . .

dont tell anybody but . . . .<looks around> millions of conservatives and rightist also know this is a right and also support it :)
 
Why would it bother you to know that Blacks and Hispanics share similar family values with the conservative whites?

Is being normal such a bad thing?

If "normal" means voting against someone else's relationship, then yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom