• 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]

AGENT J said:
WRONG lol
"opinions" arent the issue here

its his ACTIONS that are, its the donation that is the issue with people

there are lots of people that have an OPINION that marriage should be between a man and woman but they would never fight against equal rights. Thats a HUGE difference.

so grouping all 3 together is factually false and intellectually dishonest[/QUOTE
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting this whole issue is indeed about shutting people up, and shutting them down.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
As I suspected, the issues involved are beyond you.:peace

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." --J.S. Mill
Click to expand...

translation: you still cant defend your claim and result to another failed insult instead of trying to defend your failed assumptions

let me know when you are ready to defend your stance and not dodge my questions

by all means tell me "my stance" and why those critiques matter to anything you claim, seems you are having an argument in your head that im not. Try to stick to facts and what i have actually said if you are going to try to have a honest conversation with me.

i bet your post deflects and run again
 
BobbyO said:
Thanks for admitting this whole issue is indeed about shutting people up, and shutting them down.
Click to expand...

translation: they never did donate and they are not the same so you move on to a different failed starwman lol.
and mo meed to thank me for probing your post wrong.

Let us know when you can support the lie you just posted with facts id love to read it
 
AGENT J said:
translation: you still cant defend your claim and result to another failed insult instead of trying to defend your failed assumptions

let me know when you are ready to defend your stance and not dodge my questions

by all means tell me "my stance" and why those critiques matter to anything you claim, seems you are having an argument in your head that im not. Try to stick to facts and what i have actually said if you are going to try to have a honest conversation with me.

i bet your post deflects and run again
Click to expand...

You stand with the oppressors.:peace


 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes its free speech i agree
2.) which is ALSO free speech, lets not forget this FACTS lol
3.) meaningless to anything being discussed
4.) no proof he was forced or illegal ativity
5.) again FREE speech you cant pick and choose when you want it
6.) yes some do feel that way, again nothing illegal happened
7.) there is no impact in reality since the whole issue is free speech, again you cant pick and choose
8.) again read above lol

this is why the free speech strawman completely fails it applies to us ALL

i dont like what west boro does but they have that right.

THe CEO has a right to be a bigot and other have a right to say they dont like it and boycott the company

all legal all protected by rights :shrug:

what is YOUR solution? only allow the CEO his rights and not others?

let me know what you come up with im dying to know
Click to expand...
I suppose the question is...should his or anyone's free speech choices negatively affect their job.

Granted it's almost a given that if you say something stupid/assholish enough and it gets back to your boss somehow, you WILL get in trouble.


But should you?
 
AGENT J said:
Obama and Hilary donated to prop 8?

link?
facts?

another posted lie and strawman fails lol
Click to expand...

No record of donations but plenty out there to define what they were relating to the people...



And Hillary couldn't be the CEo of Mozilla either under the same standards....

In 2006, Senator Clinton voted against a proposed federal marriage amendment, but asserted marriage is “not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” She added that she believed “the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”

Clinton continued to oppose same-sex marriage as a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, the same year Prop 8 passed. During that campaign she said, “I believe that DOMA served a very important purpose.”
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton can't be president of Mozilla, United States | The Daily Caller

Hypocrites!
 
j-mac said:
So, just a general question about this topic in general.

If one just thinks that a marriage is between a man and a woman, but doesn't care if guy people want to marry, and have that recognized for legal purposes, does that make this person a "bigot"? And why?
Click to expand...


no

think
feeling
saying
teaching your own
preaching

that gay marriage is wrong or being gay is wrong is not bigotry

trying to deni them rights or treating them as leasers is bigotry

theres a HUGE difference.

there are lots of people that feel marriage is a man woman thing personally but they fully support equal rights because they respect peoples rights
 
AGENT J said:
WRONG lol
"opinions" arent the issue here

its his ACTIONS that are, its the donation that is the issue with people

there are lots of people that have an OPINION that marriage should be between a man and woman but they would never fight against equal rights. Thats a HUGE difference.

so grouping all 3 together is factually false and intellectually dishonest
Click to expand...

OK, so here's a list of other people who have perpetrated actions of bigotry that the LGBT community need to force from their jobs, or organizations that they need to boycott.

Results for: $1 or more, $1,000 or less, donors supporting - Proposition 8 Campaign Contributions - Los Angeles Times

I mean, all these people and organizations are bigots in California, right? Just think how much better California would be with all these bigots punished. With all these people's free speech, as defined by SOCUTS ruling, abridged.

My gosh, it's almost as bad a having lost your rights or something. Oh wait. LGBT won that fight, and now the LGBT community is right in taking retribution?

Better get going on this, there are 91,575 left to go.
 
vesper said:
No record of donations but plenty out there to define what they were relating to the people...



And Hillary couldn't be the CEo of Mozilla either under the same standards....



Hillary Clinton can't be president of Mozilla, United States | The Daily Caller

Hypocrites!
Click to expand...

LMAO
you just proved yourself factually wrong by admitting there were ZERO donation and then sayign same standards
thank you for proving you have no idea about what people have actually said or are saying.
 
Last edited:
BobbyO said:
It doesn't happen all the time and there are laws against it. When these types of issues occur, its generally because that political issue is causing a work issue.

Eich did not go around Mozzilla proselthyzing his objection to Prop 8. The disruption is caused by people who do want to shut people up who have opinions on marriage as did Eich up.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of states that are at will and people can and do get fired for such things. There is no law to protect these people. A person can simply be supporting a political candidate and have something as benign as a bumper sticker on their car and be fired. Perhaps, it can be argued that such a sticker can cause a stir at work but so did Eich actions of contributing to a cause that outlaw marriage for gay people. Does that equally enrage you?
 
The Mark said:
1.)I suppose the question is...should his or anyone's free speech choices negatively affect their job.

Granted it's almost a given that if you say something stupid/assholish enough and it gets back to your boss somehow, you WILL get in trouble.


But should you?
Click to expand...

should?
well thats tricky

the fact is free speech will, it has no choice because free speech applies to us all.

the only way speech would not effect our job is if we didnt have it or only some of us did

the should is a matter of opinion and nothing else.

the fact is it can and thats the only way it works.

whats your solution to fix it?
 
AGENT J said:
called it, i knew you dodge and run, thats what i thought you got NOTHING lol

nope i stand with free speech and rights the rest you are desperately trying to make up and nobody educated and honest buys it l
you ready to answer the questions or you gonna dodge them again
Click to expand...

Decent respect for tolerance and free speech would have been best served by simply leaving this alone. This is not an example of free speech; this is intolerance enforced by a lynch mob, which you apparently have joined.:peace
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes its free speech i agree
2.) which is ALSO free speech, lets not forget this FACTS lol
3.) meaningless to anything being discussed
4.) no proof he was forced or illegal ativity
5.) again FREE speech you cant pick and choose when you want it
6.) yes some do feel that way, again nothing illegal happened
7.) there is no impact in reality since the whole issue is free speech, again you cant pick and choose
8.) again read above lol

this is why the free speech strawman completely fails it applies to us ALL

i dont like what west boro does but they have that right.

THe CEO has a right to be a bigot and other have a right to say they dont like it and boycott the company

all legal all protected by rights :shrug:

what is YOUR solution? only allow the CEO his rights and not others?

let me know what you come up with im dying to know
Click to expand...

I have no opposition to free speech. Eich's, LGBT's or anyone else's.
I do not believe that forcing someone out of their livelihood because of their exercise of free speech is justifiable.

This is exactly what the LGBT community engaged in, and I see it as a dangerous precedent, for any group to exercise this level of impact on someone they disagree with.

What happened to the most honorable 'I disagree with you completely, but support you right to say it'? Has that been cast to the way side?
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO
you just proved yourself factually wrong by admitting there were ZERO donation and then sayign same standards
thank you for proving you have no idea about what people have actually said or are saying.
Click to expand...
Because there are no records of donations to Prop. 8, that somehow gives these people a pass? When they went before the people claiming one thing and then turn around become cheerleaders for the opposite means nothing? Wow talke about double standards you haz them. You just proved yourself incapable of being able to discern the truth if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.
 
AGENT J said:
translation: they never did donate and they are not the same so you move on to a different failed starwman lol.
and mo meed to thank me for probing your post wrong.

Let us know when you can support the lie you just posted with facts id love to read it
Click to expand...

Yawn. there was no claim that either Obama of Clinton donated in support of Prop 8.

What was claimed in that Eich's opinion on gay marriage in 2008 was the same as the opinion of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton.
Which is true.

You choose to say that because neither Obama or Clinton donated to the supporters of Prop 8, it means there is a huge difference between the two senators and Eich.
Because Eich took "actions" in support of his belief.

Which means the issue has nothing to do with free speech-- its all about silencing opposition (believe what you want- but don't dare try to stop me). Which is not an exercise in free speech. Its an exercise in tyranny.
 
The Mark said:
I suppose the question is...should his or anyone's free speech choices negatively affect their job.

Granted it's almost a given that if you say something stupid/assholish enough and it gets back to your boss somehow, you WILL get in trouble.


But should you?
Click to expand...

Just as long as someone can perform their job - they should face no consequences for their political beliefs or affiliations. Individuals have the right to their own opinion weather if it is left or right.

It just seems that progressives love to degrade anyone who doesn't share their politics and will do everything in their power to destroy them.

Remember these are the same people who insist on "fairness" when they're nothing more than bullies and to some extent no different the the little ****s from "Lord Of The Flies."

The amount of tolerance I have for their intolerance is mind boggling.
 
eohrnberger said:
1.)OK, so here's a list of other people who have perpetrated actions of bigotry
2.) that the LGBT community need to force from their jobs, or organizations that they need to boycott.

Results for: $1 or more, $1,000 or less, donors supporting - Proposition 8 Campaign Contributions - Los Angeles Times

3.) I mean, all these people and organizations are bigots in California, right?
4.) Just think how much better California would be with all these bigots punished. With all these people's free speech, as defined by SOCUTS ruling, abridged.
5.)My gosh, it's almost as bad a having lost your rights or something. Oh wait. LGBT won that fight, and now the LGBT community is right in taking retribution?
6.)Better get going on this, there are 91,575 left to go.
Click to expand...

1.) yes they are all acts of bigotry
2.) yes people have the right to boycott others on this list if they want
3.) yes they are all factually bigots by definition
4.) what they did isnt illegal they dont need punished, Please again your failed strawmen are never going to work. Can you quote me sayign they need punished? nope its a lie you made up lol
5.) i have no idea what this sentence even means but all people have the right to free speech and NOBODY has lost their rights in this case.
6.) maybe people will

your post fails again, sorry you dont like free speech and equal rights. Maybe try russia?
 
eohrnberger said:
I have no opposition to free speech. Eich's, LGBT's or anyone else's.
I do not believe that forcing someone out of their livelihood because of their exercise of free speech is justifiable.

This is exactly what the LGBT community engaged in, and I see it as a dangerous precedent, for any group to exercise this level of impact on someone they disagree with.

What happened to the most honorable 'I disagree with you completely, but support you right to say it'? Has that been cast to the way side?
Click to expand...

The answer seems clear and although there have always been plenty of signs that this day was arriving they were usually ignored. What happens next?
 
eohrnberger said:
I have no opposition to free speech. Eich's, LGBT's or anyone else's.
I do not believe that forcing someone out of their livelihood because of their exercise of free speech is justifiable.

This is exactly what the LGBT community engaged in, and I see it as a dangerous precedent, for any group to exercise this level of impact on someone they disagree with.

What happened to the most honorable 'I disagree with you completely, but support you right to say it'? Has that been cast to the way side?
Click to expand...

Mozilla made a business decision. Like it or not, it was not OKCupid or the gaaaaaaays who made that decision. Mozilla did.
 

"One could be forgiven for throwing one’s hands up in despair at the sheer audacity of it all. A fortnight ago, as the federal government took to the courts to defend a rule that deliberately burdens the consciences of America’s more religiously devout entrepreneurs, the professional Left adopted the position that companies do not have consciences, griped that a harsh separation of the public and the private spheres was a recipe for the suffering of unpopular or put-upon individuals, and insisted that any links between the activities of an employee and the deeply held beliefs of his boss should be thoroughly shattered. Today, the opposite case is regnant. Defending the appalling hounding of Brendan Eich, progressives seem to have suddenly got the message: reminding critics that there exists no legal right to be the CEO of a non-profit; insisting correctly that this sordid and alarming little affair does not in any way implicate the First Amendment; and acknowledging that, the doctrine of at-will employment being what it is, a man may resign from his job for whatever reason — up to and including harassment.

Well, comrades — which is it to be?
The answer to this question, one suspects, is “whichever suits the moment.” Which is to say that the Eich affair is ultimately about power, not principle — the latest in a series of plays contrived to show who is in charge. Convenient as it might be to pretend otherwise, the Left does not truly believe that private companies may behave as they wish to, but that private companies may behave as the Left wishes them to — whether instructed by government or not.":peace
 
Jack Hays said:
1.)Decent respect for tolerance and free speech would have been best served by simply leaving this alone.
2.) This is not an example of free speech; this is intolerance enforced by a lynch mob,
3.)which you apparently have joined.:peace
Click to expand...
another dodge lol VERY VERY TELLING you keep running from the questions

1.) you are welcome to that opinion and i may even share it but that doesnt change the fact that all people did was operate within their rights
2.) nope its factually free speech by definition, nobody was lynched
3.) hey look another posted lie

your post fails again and facts win again
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
There are plenty of states that are at will and people can and do get fired for such things. There is no law to protect these people. A person can simply be supporting a political candidate and have something as benign as a bumper sticker on their car and be fired. Perhaps, it can be argued that such a sticker can cause a stir at work but so did Eich actions of contributing to a cause that outlaw marriage for gay people. Does that equally enrage you?
Click to expand...

Eich didn't do anything at work about that which he believed. The ruckus was caused by people who disagreed with him-- they caused the chaos.
 
AGENT J said:
another dodge lol VERY VERY TELLING you keep running from the questions

1.) you are welcome to that opinion and i may even share it but that doesnt change the fact that all people did was operate within their rights
2.) nope its factually free speech by definition, nobody was lynched
3.) hey look another posted lie

your post fails again and facts win again
Click to expand...

The point is tolerance and decency, not legality.:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom