• 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 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.

Being for traditional marriage doesn't mean someone is anti-Gay. This man apparently treated gays with respect with nothing in his past that showed any bias whatsoever but he drew the line at marriage.

Soon there will be the same debate regarding polygamy. Should those who are not for polygamous marriages be called 'bigots' because they disagree with the idea?
 
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
What is with all the numbering of my statements, anyways? I suppose it's easier than quoting individual sections...

I agree that the trend seems to be towards allowing equal rights/gay marriage/same sex marriage/whateveryoucallit.

I figured this could be a shortcut, but whatever.

I wouldn't put it past some areas to hold out for a long time.
 
Obama clearly states he's against gay marriage while running for the Presidency.

Exactly!!!

Then he is "factually a bigot" according to Agent J--- LOL this is just too funny.
 
1.) link, proof, facts?
Brendan Eich (/ˈk/; born 1961)[SUP][1][/SUP] is an American computer programmer and creator of the JavaScript scripting language. He cofounded Mozilla, briefly becoming the chief executive officer before resigning on April 3, 2014.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Brendan Eich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.) evidence of what?
His pro LGBT stance. Seems like you've not bothered to read his blog post or my quoting of it in this forum. I'd suggest to go back and do so.

3.) yes he was a co founder :shrug:
As a founder, the organization is a direct reflection of his values and value system, as the way he leads. His actions speak louder than your indictment against him as a bigot.

4.) links? facts? proof?

It is a well known leadership principal that the culture and values of the organization are a reflection of the leader's values. If you doubt that, I'd suggest reading a few books on leadership.

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.

And here you are trying to tell me that regardless of how a person acts professionally and the leadership example he sets, he's still a bigot until your are satisfied that he's not? Who made you judge and jury? By that same logic, I can accuse you of being a bigot and you are until you prove otherwise. That's pretty much McCarthyism right there. Plan to hold Senate hearing too?
 
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?
Actually I'm not certain which way its going. It seems that there has been a sequence of actions here where the IRS has been involved though I'm not clear on how that may conflict with California law..
 
Being for traditional marriage doesn't mean someone is anti-Gay. This man apparently treated gays with respect with nothing in his past that showed any bias whatsoever but he drew the line at marriage.

Soon there will be the same debate regarding polygamy. Should those who are not for polygamous marriages be called 'bigots' because they disagree with the idea?

Oh don't try to bring up logic in this debate by asking a question about polygamy, they won't hear you, their hands are over their ears.

But you see it works this way with those in that camp: If you can change the definition of "gay" to mean homosexual. Then why stop at the definition of "bigotry"? Didn't you get the memo? Bigotry now means disagreement.
 
What do any of these questions have to do with anything? I freely admit to being human. I have acted out of bigotry in life I have suffered the consequences just like everyone else. I currently do not hold any bigoted views.

You've just openly admitted otherwise, in the very same posting:

The CEO never stated that he regrets the donation. So as far as any one is concerned he is still convinced the homosexuals should be barred from marriage and thus he is still a bigot.

Your opinion that someone who respects sanctity of marriage, and opposes having a sick mockery of it being forced upon society, must be a bigot, is itself a bigoted opinion. You openly defend depriving anyone who holds such an opinion of their right to freely express it, and even interfering with their means of livelihood. You have here, unabashedly engaged in far more blatant bigotry than that of which you are falsely accusing others.

Once again, an observation is proven, that I have repeatedly made; that those who most loudly proclaim their opposition to bigotry usually turn out to be the worst bigots of all.
 
1.)are you claiming marriage isnt in a right? i hope not because youd be factually wrong lol

Marriage is not a 'right' If you can show that it is please point it out.
is the right not to be raped in the constitution?
It is against the law and all laws are guided by the constitution.
3.) you are free to have this opinion but thats all it will ever be lol

My opinion tends to be formed by facts.
 
Oh don't try to bring up logic in this debate by asking a question about polygamy, they won't hear you, their hands are over their ears.

I answered the question about polygamy waaaay back in the thread.

But you see it works this way with those in that camp: If you can change the definition of "gay" to mean homosexual. Then why stop at the definition of "bigotry"? Didn't you get the memo? Bigotry now means disagreement.

:roll:
 
1.)What is with all the numbering of my statements, anyways? I suppose it's easier than quoting individual sections...
2.)I agree that the trend seems to be towards allowing equal rights/gay marriage/same sex marriage/whateveryoucallit.

3.)I figured this could be a shortcut, but whatever.

4.)I wouldn't put it past some areas to hold out for a long time.

1.) correct thats exactly why i do it and i also do it so as a courtesy to try my best to not miss any individual points so they can all be addressed and so you clearly know what im responding too.
Over the years i have seen confusion on this with many many threads/posts/posters so i "try" to avoid it in mine.

2.) this is true the amount of states have doubled in years and this is head for SCOUTS. In fact only ONE federal court of appeals doesnt have a case on this and only 5 states dont have court cases or legislation in the works for this issue.

3.) shortcut? I doubt that.
It may have been a POSSIBLE PATH, 25 years ago but not now.

also are you away how many states that banned gay marriages also banned gay civil unions, domestic partnerships or any gay unions that resemble marriage.

this is ANOTHER reason why the ant-gays that say its just a word are completely full of **** lol it that was true those bans wouldnt excist.

Its about gays being "icky" and treating them as lessers

4.) well like i already said, they wont get that choice. They technically never had that choice they just got away with it. Just like in loving vs Virginia, soon they will not be allowed to deny equal rights and id guess at the longest it will be 2017.

just some info on it, this is a chart i post and try to keep updated

Changes/Updates in RED
3/21/14 Version 8.2

23 States with Equal Rights (5 pending/stay)

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 Currently Stayed and will be ruled on with OK)
Oklahoma - Currently Stayed and will be ruled on with UT)
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Kentucky - February 2/14/14 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages) which will lead to their ban being defeated
Virginia - February 2/14/14 (Stayed)
Texas - February 2/26/2014 (pending 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Michigan - March - 21, 2014 (Stay being requested)

22 States Working Towards Equal Rights

13 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights[/B]
Alabama
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming)
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


6 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decision Pending and 2016 ballot)
Florida
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

3 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska
Colorado
Oregon

thats 42 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - pending
4th - april/may court case
5th- pending
6th - pending
7th- pending
8th- two cases that the plaintiffs PLAN to take all the way up if needed but nothing pending
9th- pending (statement released "as soon as possible")

Also 3 State Attorney Generals no longer defending the constitutionality of bans, joining the case against them or reviewing their constitutionality
Nevada
Oregon
Pennsylvania

5 States that still have unequal rights and nothing pending to change it yet, that’s it 5
Indiana
Montana
Nebraska
Georgia
North Dakota
South Dakota

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!



also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks
 
You're gonna have to do better than a copy of a questionnaire claimed by whom?

Let me guess... Dan Rather?

:shrug: the guy filled it out. I'm sorry if it makes your already incorrect claim look doubly foolish, but again, this isn't exactly conspiracy-theory-forum stuff; ABC News, Politifact, etc - generally supportive media agree that Obama did this, and that his views have evolved in this manner. If the best you can do is insist that the evidence that exists is made up :shrug: well, there's a crazy-hair lady you should talk to about his birth certificate, too.
 
If "normal" means voting against someone else's relationship, then yes.

1nor·mal
adjective \ˈnȯr-məl\

: usual or ordinary : not strange

: occurring naturally

: sane

: healthy
 
Oh don't try to bring up logic in this debate by asking a question about polygamy, they won't hear you, their hands are over their ears.

But you see it works this way with those in that camp: If you can change the definition of "gay" to mean homosexual. Then why stop at the definition of "bigotry"? Didn't you get the memo? Bigotry now means disagreement.

They've overused the term 'fascist', which is what they called anyone who disagreed with them, then 'racist', now 'bigot'. There are probably a few of their fashionable terms I missed along the way but the point is that they cannot have a real debate without using these hysterical terms. They are adolescents.
 
Freedom of speech means letting the assholes speak their minds.

Yes it does. Something that the left is completely against. Just have to look at how conservative speakers are shouted down, and how quickly and easily leftists should racist and bigot with opinions and positions they disagree with. Talk about squashing another's right to speech.
 
The race isn't even a relevant factor.

Yeah, wasn't relevant:

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed.​

Blacks = 70%
Christians = 66%

Liberals know that it's not politically correct to attacks blacks, so they remain silent instead and direct their attacks on the only group they've permitted themselves to attack - the Christians who they hate.
 
They've overused the term 'fascist', which is what they called anyone who disagreed with them, then 'racist', now 'bigot'. There are probably a few of their fashionable terms I missed along the way but the point is that they cannot have a real debate without using these hysterical terms. They are adolescents.

:yes:

Yeah, but they sure know how to organize a colorful parade.


And let's not forget the their completely fabricated word "homophobe", that one always makes me laugh.
 
Yeah, wasn't relevant:

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed.​

Blacks = 70%
Christians = 66%

Liberals know that it's not politically correct to attacks blacks, so they remain silent instead and direct their attacks on the only group they've permitted themselves to attack - the Christians who they hate.

And hence the left's attack on traditional marriage in the guise of equal right to marriage, their attack on traditional religion, and Christmas. Won't be satisfied until traditional religion is totally shouted off the town square, or at least relegated to a tiny restricted corner of it. Dam freedom of religion and dam free speech in the process.
 
1.)Brendan Eich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2.)His pro LGBT stance. Seems like you've not bothered to read his blog post or my quoting of it in this forum. I'd suggest to go back and do so.
3.)As a founder, the organization is a direct reflection of his values and value system, as the way he leads.
4.) His actions speak louder than your indictment against him as a bigot.
5.)It is a well known leadership principal that the culture and values of the organization are a reflection of the leader's values. If you doubt that, I'd suggest reading a few books on leadership.
6.)And here you are trying to tell me that regardless of how a person acts professionally and the leadership example he sets, he's still a bigot until your are satisfied that he's not?
7.) Who made you judge and jury?
8.) By that same logic, I can accuse you of being a bigot and you are until you prove otherwise.
9.)That's pretty much McCarthyism right there.
10.) Plan to hold Senate hearing too?

1.) this link says he wrote all the policies for gay friendly environment, enforced them and did so on hos own not with regard to law/rights?
could you qoute that part for us? be even better if it wasnt wiki also, thanks

2.) he doesnt have one hence why he donated money to try and stop them from having equality and yes ive read his response to this.

3.) no, its not lol Its a reflection of LAW.

4.) agreed hence the talk about his actions of donating to try and keep gays as lessers

5.) false as already proven this is what you WANT to be but isnt what is. There are also laws and principles that guide those and if they want to make money or be succesfully many many times they will put other things aside especially bigoted views. ANd the books on leadership say that lol

see priests who molest, racist owners of company's or sports teams over the years who had above avg of number of women or minorities workign for them or serviced them t etc etc etc

its almost like you think your words erase facts, history and evidence. They do not, your opinions are yours to have but thats all they are.
Im sticking with facts, evidence and definitions.

6.) NOPE never even suggested a idea that is that mentally retarded. Has nothing to do with me. But you are free to try and sell that made up, failed strawman if you like. Like the other ones it wont work it will also just get mocked.

7.) nobody, good thing im not judging him LOL please keep these strawmen going they are funny

8.) you could but like i many already pointed out there is factual evidence of his bigotry, do you have any for me? currently you do not lol

i can give you some if you like though, im 100% bigoted against child rapist :shrug:
bigot is just a word, if it bothers anybody they can simply not be one

9) i agree again good thing it never happened and your strawmen are failing

10.) no need he isnt guilty of any crimes, nor is Mozilla at this point

nice dodge of my question to, i knew you would dodge it.

Let us know when you have somethign REAL to argue and be advise ill be 100% on your side that he isnt a bigot when there are any facts to counter the ones that already prove he is.
 
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?

Those on the wrong think they own blacks and Hispanics. Those on the wrong also hold moral family values in great contempt. There is nothing at all surprising that the wrong wing would take great offense at their own “property” upholding these values.
 
1.)Marriage is not a 'right' If you can show that it is please point it out.
2.)It is against the law and all laws are guided by the constitution.


My opinion tends to be formed by facts.

1.) SCOTUS disagreed with you 14 times, if you disagree with them write them a letter. Lol glas i could help with your confusion. <que rouge judges and they dont have that power routine
2.) so its NOT in the constitution right? thats what i thought.
3.) and yet you havent presented any about marriage not being a right

keep trying though its funny
 
Back
Top Bottom