• 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]

Kobie said:
Cue the people who start crying about "freedom of speech" without understanding what it means.
Click to expand...

So if an employee says "I'm gay" and his boss kicks his ass to the curb because he's a disruption to the company or work environment, what rights, if any, of the employee are violated?
 
Grant said:
Do you think that morality has increased or decreased during the last generation? What is the source of public morality, or is it all about laws?
Click to expand...

I think your morality is not sufficient reason by itself to decide whether or not it should be legal for me to do something. And vice versa. Do you really want the government of the United States enforcing someone else's moral code upon you based solely on the fact that they disapprove of your actions?
 
Grant said:
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
Click to expand...

I know this is old, but I've seen this argument about 30 times.

It's a good thing to change your mind. If Obama was against gay marriage before the election (I doubt it but it doesn't matter) then he's changed his mind, and has a record now, and a quite extensive one, of fighting for gay rights, including a repeal of DADT which is probably the biggest barrier for LGBT in the Federal government and therefore under his jurisdiction. He's also pushed for, and as far as I know enacted, regulations that give same sex couples federal benefits on par with heterosexuals. So Obama has a LONG history now in the highest position of government of direct ACTION on behalf of and in support of LGBT. When it mattered, and he had ultimate authority, Obama was on their side. Why in the world would anyone hold an opinion he might have held six years ago against him now?

Eich is part of an organization that treats it's gay employees by all accounts very well, so he can rightly claim that he has a record of supporting them AT WORK. But he wasn't CEO then, and he also has a history of action that would reduce gay rights and maintain their PRIVATE relationships as second class, and he's never waffled on that position. It's that last part that's key. Where did he say his gay employees deserve equal rights outside of work? He hasn't, and that's a key distinction between Eich and Obama (and Hillary AFAIK).

I've read accounts by Mozilla employees who admire Eich, but understand why he left. Essentially it comes down to 1) not waffling on his support for Prop 8, OR 2) not really even trying to explain the disconnect between supporting LGBT rights in the workforce, but also supporting efforts to reduce their rights to second class in their private lives.
 
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...

Yes, and similarly anti-miscegenation laws that prohibited interracial marriage also didn't restrict or strip anyone's rights. They simply defined marriage as only between a man and woman of the same RACE.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Lol, I just came across this article and want to ask if conservatives are in or out? Put your outrage to work-

Here's the question: Simply put, if conservatives are frustrated by the treatment of Eich for his role in Proposition 8, then they should be outraged by the treatment of ordinary people at the hands of the people who employ them.



Simply put, if conservatives are frustrated by the treatment of Eich for his role in Proposition 8, then they should be outraged by the treatment of ordinary people at the hands of the people who employ them."
Click to expand...

Sorry-- total strawman.

The argument is this:

Mozilla certainly had the right to request his resignation, because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it would be impossible for him to be effective in his job, in light of the campaign against him. There is no claim that his rights were violated, or that new laws need to be made.

Its the nature of the campaign that was objectionable. There were no claims that his job performance was tainted by his opposition to same sex marriage. No claims that, in 2008 as he was writing out his $1000 check, or that in any year, he was purging gays on the job, or creating a hostile workplace. He was not advocating his opposition on the job, or indeed to co-workers off job time. Nobody seemed to know of his opposition. He was a man who showed up to work everyday and did his job well, and who in the judgement of the Board of directors, was quite suitable for the job of CEO.

He had a personal opinion at odds with many employees of Mozilla. And they would not tolerate it.
And their lack of tolerance is the problem.
 
Grant said:
But then that raises the question of what is morality. If it is that flexible does true morality really exist, or do we only have laws to keep us in line?
Click to expand...

Essentially morality is nothing but laws (or rules) in one way or another. Morality is defined by society.
 
BobbyO said:
Sorry-- total strawman.

The argument is this:

Mozilla certainly had the right to request his resignation, because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it would be impossible for him to be effective in his job, in light of the campaign against him. There is no claim that his rights were violated, or that new laws need to be made.

Its the nature of the campaign that was objectionable. There were no claims that his job performance was tainted by his opposition to same sex marriage. No claims that, in 2008 as he was writing out his $1000 check, or that in any year, he was purging gays on the job, or creating a hostile workplace. He was not advocating his opposition on the job, or indeed to co-workers off job time. Nobody seemed to know of his opposition. He was a man who showed up to work everyday and did his job well, and who in the judgement of the Board of directors, was quite suitable for the job of CEO.

He had a personal opinion at odds with many employees of Mozilla. And they would not tolerate it.
And their lack of tolerance is the problem.
Click to expand...

:dohIt's not a strawman. He was forced to leave due to his actions (donating money) against gay marriage. The point is anyone working in a private place of business can get canned simply for voicing an opinion that may be disagreeable to someone who has the power to fire. It happens all the time. This same thing could happen to any hard working person. Maybe you need to go back and read the whole post.
 
It's a good thing to change your mind. If Obama was against gay marriage before the election (I doubt it but it doesn't matter)
Click to expand...


In a certain way it does, since the objection here is that Eich did not seem to have a principled opinion on the subject. Which is also conceded as a possibility on Obama end, but for which is dismissed as unimportant since he wound up doing the "right thing."

As an aside, when Obama announced his change of opinion, he said supporters of gay rights should not be vindictive toward who have differing opinions. Naturally, President Obama has said (through his spokesman) that the administration has no opinion one way or the other as this whole Mozilla issue.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
:dohIt's not a strawman. He was forced to leave due to his actions (donating money) against gay marriage. The point is anyone working in a private place of business can get canned simply for voicing an opinion that may be disagreeable to someone who has the power to fire. It happens all the time. This same thing could happen to any hard working person. Maybe you need to go back and read the whole post.
Click to expand...

I read the post. It is still not on point as to the nature of the objection.
 
BobbyO said:
He had a personal opinion at odds with many employees of Mozilla. And they would not tolerate it.
And their lack of tolerance is the problem.
Click to expand...

I guess I'll say it again. He didn't just have a personal opinion. He donated to an effort to enforce his opinion on EVERYONE, for all time.

And you have to love people claiming that intolerance of his enforced-by-the-Constitution-and-binding-on-future-generations-intolerance is somehow surprising or in any way illegitimate.
 
JasperL said:
I guess I'll say it again. He didn't just have a personal opinion. He donated to an effort to enforce his opinion on EVERYONE, for all time.

And you have to love people claiming that intolerance of his enforced-by-the-Constitution-and-binding-on-future-generations-intolerance is somehow surprising or in any way illegitimate.
Click to expand...

Prop 8 was overturned. What's the issue?
 
eohrnberger said:
1.)The only fact that you have that he is a bigot is that he donated to a particular cause only once. That's pretty thin evidence to destroy a man's career over.

2.) Although I suspect that this really matters little to you and others in the LGBT community.

3.)Facts I have brought, or have been posted:
3a)[*]Mozilla was an LGBT friendly workplace - Eich's personal blog posting
3b.)Eich was a founder of Mozilla - Wikipedia
3c.)LGBT see fit to force a man out of job on the mere fact that he contributed once to a prevalent political position at the time - demonstration and boycotts covered in media
[/list]
3.)What facts do you have that he's a bigot, barring a single donation to that one cause from years ago?
Click to expand...

1.) correct, it is a fact he donated money to keep help in the cause to stop gays from having rights. Theres nothign thin about that lol
second, who said i wanted to destroy his career or that i even said thats a reason to destroy his career?

oh thats right NOBODY, its another lie you posted and failed starwman that is meaningless to anything i actually said lol wow, so when your argument completely fails you just make more stuff up and post more lies, thats brilliant! but again nobody educated honest and objective buys it

2.) now, your strawmen dont matter to me or facts, secondly im not in the lgbt community lol why would you even think that?

3a.) meaningless to him being a bigot
3b.) meaningless to him being a bigot
3c.) meaningless to him being a bigot and he wasnt forced out he stepped down

thank you for posting two facts that have no impact on his bigotry and one thing that is not a fact but your meaningless opinion

4.) none nor do i need one. SInce that fact is HUGE and theres ZERO other facts that take away from it thats prefcient

it seems you think his donation is something "small", its not
if i donated 1000 dollars to not allow the religion of judism to be practiced any more because im a chrisitian thats not something little, that would make me factually a bigot. That is fighting to deny others rights, it doesnt get any more bigoted than that.

i reapeat:

Can you post anything that doesnt fail and get proven factually wrong?

let us know when you have a accurate, factual and logical argument to present. We'll be here PLEASE PLEASE let us know when you have any facts that show he isnt a bigot anymore. heck even one will do . . . . one

ONE is all you need,we'll wait
 
AGENT J said:
1.) correct, it is a fact he donated money to keep help in the cause to stop gays from having rights. Theres nothign thin about that lol
second, who said i wanted to destroy his career or that i even said thats a reason to destroy his career?

oh thats right NOBODY, its another lie you posted and failed starwman that is meaningless to anything i actually said lol wow, so when your argument completely fails you just make more stuff up and post more lies, thats brilliant! but again nobody educated honest and objective buys it

2.) now, your strawmen dont matter to me or facts, secondly im not in the lgbt community lol why would you even think that?

3a.) meaningless to him being a bigot
3b.) meaningless to him being a bigot
3c.) meaningless to him being a bigot and he wasnt forced out he stepped down

thank you for posting two facts that have no impact on his bigotry and one thing that is not a fact but your meaningless opinion

4.) none nor do i need one. SInce that fact is HUGE and theres ZERO other facts that take away from it thats prefcient

it seems you think his donation is something "small", its not
if i donated 1000 dollars to not allow the religion of judism to be practiced any more because im a chrisitian thats not something little, that would make me factually a bigot. That is fighting to deny others rights, it doesnt get any more bigoted than that.

i reapeat:

Can you post anything that doesnt fail and get proven factually wrong?

let us know when you have a accurate, factual and logical argument to present. We'll be here PLEASE PLEASE let us know when you have any facts that show he isnt a bigot anymore. heck even one will do . . . . one

ONE is all you need,we'll wait
Click to expand...

So all the people in the published and publicly available database of contributors to the anti-prop 8 campaign are all bigots and deserve the same fate. My how tolerant you are. Do please proceed and take comfort in your delusional belief that it's just, fair, and appropriate.

Not? So why is it that Eich deserves special attention and treatment?
 
eohrnberger said:
So all the people in the published and publicly available database of contributors to the anti-prop 8 campaign are all bigots
2.)and deserve the same fate.
3.)My how tolerant you are.
4.) Do please proceed and take comfort in your delusional belief that it's just, fair, and appropriate.
5.) Not? So why is it that Eich deserves special attention and treatment?
Click to expand...

1.) yes they are all bigots until something says othewise, just like all KKK members are all bigots
2.) there you go again posting lies, what fate are you talking about and when did i ever condone any fate what so ever? thats right I didnt. another failed strawman by you. You could you try to stay on topic and post about whats actually said. QUOTE me saying anything about supporting his fate.
3.) theres nothing intolerant about me since you made that lst part up and i never said it lol
4.) another failed strawman. Never mentioned my "beliefs" im christian by the way, nor do they matter to the fact he is a bigot
5.) again when did i say anything about his treatment? again i never did

thanks again for proving your own posts wrong. They will continue to fail each time you make stuff up and until you have ONE single fact to support you instead of made up lies and failed stawman.

all you need is ONE fat that supports you, please post that now so we can read it, thanks.
 
BobbyO said:
Prop 8 was overturned. What's the issue?
Click to expand...

People are still trying to force their morality onto others by enacting similar laws and constitutional amendments.

Stop doing that, and you'll stop hearing the complaints!
 
tres borrachos said:
I can't wait. But right now they're too wrapped up in the world where everyone who doesn't agree with them is a bigot.
Click to expand...

What makes me mad is that progressives believe their political beliefs should be law..... I personally enjoy dissent and different views on politics, however being in disagreement with progressives is just not good enough for them - they want their ideas enforced by the government, and that just makes me lose all respect for progressives and their political brand.

The funny part is that it drives me to be extra mean to progressives and otherwise I'm not a mean spirited guy.... I suppose their snootiness, arrogance and ignorance just pushes the wrong button with me.
 
Deuce said:
People are still trying to force their morality onto others by enacting similar laws and constitutional amendments.

Stop doing that, and you'll stop hearing the complaints!
Click to expand...

Eich wasn't. He gave a $1000 five years ago and that was it.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What makes me mad is that progressives believe their political beliefs should be law..... I personally enjoy dissent and different views on politics, however being in disagreement with progressives is just not good enough for them - they want their ideas enforced by the government, and that just makes me lose all respect for progressives and their political brand.

The funny part is that it drives me to be extra mean to progressives and otherwise I'm not a mean spirited guy.... I suppose their snootiness, arrogance and ignorance just pushes the wrong button with me.
Click to expand...

Libbos oppose making personal beliefs law, unless it's THEIR beliefs.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What makes me mad is that progressives believe their political beliefs should be law..... I personally enjoy dissent and different views on politics, however being in disagreement with progressives is just not good enough for them - they want their ideas enforced by the government, and that just makes me lose all respect for progressives and their political brand.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is that you've never make a good liberal / progressive. Same here for much the same reasons.

Mr.Nick said:
The funny part is that it drives me to be extra mean to progressives and otherwise I'm not a mean spirited guy.... I suppose their snootiness, arrogance and ignorance just pushes the wrong button with me.
Click to expand...

Again, same here.
 
eohrnberger said:
What you are saying is that you've never make a good liberal / progressive. Same here for much the same reasons.



Again, same here.
Click to expand...

I was a progressive when I was in my teens and early 20's but I grew up and saw how full of crap the progressive ideology actually is. I found that progressive politics and ideas had no basis in reality and if anything hurt more people than it helped both financially and even intellectually...

As far as my experience with progressives - they believe they're "do gooders" when in reality they're NOT - I suppose some progressives may have good intent, however the end result of their actions just destroys everyone... I think the biggest progressive flaw is the notion that government can solve everything, not to mention their incapability of judging anyone except those who question their loony intent. Then again you have the evil progressive communists that just cloak themselves as democrats but would love to see the destruction of capitalism and the implementation of a reboot of communism in the United States... Those jackasses tho are generally the progressive politicians like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Holder etc and the numerous progressives that were never democratically elected yet placed into appointed government positions..
 
Mr.Nick said:
I was a progressive when I was in my teens and early 20's but I grew up and saw how full of crap the progressive ideology actually is. I found that progressive politics and ideas had no basis in reality and if anything hurt more people than it helped both financially and even intellectually...

As far as my experience with progressives - they believe they're "do gooders" when in reality they're NOT - I suppose some progressives may have good intent, however the end result of their actions just destroys everyone... I think the biggest progressive flaw is the notion that government can solve everything, not to mention their incapability of judging anyone except those who question their loony intent. Then again you have the evil progressive communists that just cloak themselves as democrats but would love to see the destruction of capitalism and the implementation of a reboot of communism in the United States... Those jackasses tho are generally the progressive politicians like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Holder etc and the numerous progressives that were never democratically elected yet placed into appointed government positions..
Click to expand...

I suppose, now that I've publicly questioned the LGBT's motive in this attack against Eich, and my questioning of the motives of the liberal / progressives, that soon, I'll lose my job to political pressure from these groups. Such is the fall out from this LGBT fascism and fanaticism. If you don't agree with 'us' we'll punish you.

I think it well worth while to call attention to Andrew Sullivan's blog posting on the matter:
The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure:
In a post at Mozilla’s official blog, executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker confirmed the news with an unequivocal apology on the company’s behalf. “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Baker wrote. “We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”
The action comes days after dating site OKCupid became the most vocal opponent of Eich’s hiring. Mozilla offered repeated statements about LGBT inclusivity within the company over the past two weeks, but those never came with a specific response from Eich about his thousands of dollars of donations in support of Proposition 8, a California ballot measure that sought to ban gay marriage in the state.

​
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.
Update: A continuation of my stance here and my response to dissenting readers here.
Click to expand...
The Hounding Of A Heretic « The Dish
 
JasperL said:
Yes, and similarly anti-miscegenation laws that prohibited interracial marriage also didn't restrict or strip anyone's rights. They simply defined marriage as only between a man and woman of the same RACE.
Click to expand...

That's just nonsense.

I don't think you can find any evidence that even in the most strongly anti-miscegenation fringes of culture, that it was ever widely denied that a marriage between a man and a woman of two different races was a genuine marriage. The concern was not over any alleged undermining or redefining of what marriage is, but over the fact that a man and a woman of two different races were, in fact, as fully capable of procreation as a same-race couple. In the culture that regarded one race as inherently inferior to the other, the real concern was that these marriages would produce mongrel offspring, which were viewed as even more inferior than the pure Negro.

Homosexual “marriage” is a completely different, and unrelated issue. Here, the effort is to radically redefine what marriage is, and what role it is to play in society—a dangerous experiment that cannot possibly end well for any society which foolishly pursues it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom