• 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]

j-mac said:
Yet according to Kobie a majority of Moville employees wanted Eich out. That is a the least unprovable and most likely pulled straight out of his ass.
Click to expand...

This story is fitting into a trend which mocks the intent, and wording, of the First Amendment.
Federal Snipers Train Guns on Family For Filming Cattle: "Outside the Bounds of Designated First Amendment Area"

Constitution 'exemption' zone spans 100 miles inland of US border? judge ? RT USA

"The First Amendment is Not an Area" :: SteynOnline

These are areas that should concern everyone and the even the brighter leftists should see the dangers.
 
j-mac said:
Yet according to Kobie a majority of Moville employees wanted Eich out. That is a the least unprovable and most likely pulled straight out of his ass.
Click to expand...

Yes it is unprovable as well. People from BOTH sides are just making assumptions.
 
Grant said:
This story is fitting into a trend which mocks the intent, and wording, of the First Amendment.
Federal Snipers Train Guns on Family For Filming Cattle: "Outside the Bounds of Designated First Amendment Area"

Constitution 'exemption' zone spans 100 miles inland of US border? judge ? RT USA

"The First Amendment is Not an Area" :: SteynOnline

These are areas that should concern everyone and the even the brighter leftists should see the dangers.
Click to expand...

It's funny that many on the right are upset at this, but have no problem with religious institutions actually FIRING people that don't go along with their faith. The right only seems to care about the first amendment when it goes along with their beliefs.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's funny that many on the right are upset at this, but have no problem with religious institutions actually FIRING people that don't go along with their faith. The right only seems to care about the first amendment when it goes along with their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Well just like its no fair to group those on the left its also no fair to group those on the right. There are many righties that have no problem with free speech and equal rights for gays anyway, not accusing you of anythign just pointing that out.



But you are right it seems there are a handful of people totally upset at the employees and customers practicing thier free rights but are fine with the CEO doing it and its HUGELY hypocritical.


This is why my question to a solution has STILL not been answered lol
 
j-mac said:
Yet according to Kobie a majority of Moville employees wanted Eich out. That is a the least unprovable and most likely pulled straight out of his ass.
Click to expand...

I never said a majority. Link to where I said that or admit YOU pulled that out of YOUR ass.
 
AGENT J said:
Well just like its no fair to group those on the left its also no fair to group those on the right. There are many righties that have no problem with free speech and equal rights for gays anyway, not accusing you of anythign just pointing that out.



But you are right it seems there are a handful of people totally upset at the employees and customers practicing thier free rights but are fine with the CEO doing it and its HUGELY hypocritical.


This is why my question to a solution has STILL not been answered lol
Click to expand...

You are correct, there are some. But given laws that are trying to be passed from BOTH sides, the majority are that way.
 
TheNextEra said:
You are correct, there are some. But given laws that are trying to be passed from BOTH sides, the majority are that way.
Click to expand...

im not sure what you are saying here

are you saying you feel the majority of republicans are against equal rights for gays and or free speech when it doesn't match thier opinions
 
AGENT J said:
im not sure what you are saying here

are you saying you feel the majority of republicans are against equal rights for gays and or free speech when it doesn't match thier opinions
Click to expand...

I'm saying the majority of Republican leaders are against it.
 
TheNextEra said:
I'm saying the majority of Republican leaders are against it.
Click to expand...

hmmmmm
if you mean high profile leaders id say i probably agree, its what i call a "squeaky wheel" issue and the people running for office or trying to catch a sound bite definitely throw the oil around.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's funny that many on the right are upset at this, but have no problem with religious institutions actually FIRING people that don't go along with their faith. The right only seems to care about the first amendment when it goes along with their beliefs.
Click to expand...

An example or two would be welcome here
 
TheNextEra said:
I'm saying the majority of Republican leaders are against it.
Click to expand...

And yet the evidence says it was the Democrats who crafted 'Don't Ask - Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama always claimed to be against Gay Marriage.
 
Grant said:
And yet the evidence says it was the Democrats who crafted 'Don't Ask - Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama always claimed to be against Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...

Democrats have always been the biggest enemy of gay rights. They have jumped on the bandwagon because it's popular now and they need votes. The Democratic endorsement of gay rights was purely political opportunism.
 
TeleKat said:
Democrats have always been the biggest enemy of gay rights. They have jumped on the bandwagon because it's popular now and they need votes. The Democratic endorsement of gay rights was purely political opportunism.
Click to expand...

What?? You mean they did it only out of political opportunism and were not actually taking a moral stand? Would the Democrats, aka Lawyers for The American People, ever really be that hypocritical?

Shocking!
 
Grant said:
And yet the evidence says it was the Democrats who crafted 'Don't Ask - Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama always claimed to be against Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...

And what were the Republicans pushing for at the time?
 
Grant said:
And yet the evidence says it was the Democrats who crafted 'Don't Ask - Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama always claimed to be against Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...

Not true. As I understand it, around the time of DADT, Congress, led by GOPers, passed a law codifying a ban on allowing gays to serve in the military. DADT was the directive by Clinton that didn't overturn the ban, just directed the military to "Don't ask" and for gays to "Don't tell." But the reason those who were found out were discharged is because the law was for them to be discharged. Clinton had supported open service for gay - DADT was the supposed compromise between that and an outright ban.

And DOMA was proposed in both houses by a republican, passed with large veto proof majorities, and Clinton signed it but never supported it.
 
JasperL said:
Not true. As I understand it, around the time of DADT, Congress, led by GOPers, passed a law codifying a ban on allowing gays to serve in the military. DADT was the directive by Clinton that didn't overturn the ban, just directed the military to "Don't ask" and for gays to "Don't tell." But the reason those who were found out were discharged is because the law was for them to be discharged. Clinton had supported open service for gay - DADT was the supposed compromise between that and an outright ban.

And DOMA was proposed in both houses by a republican, passed with large veto proof majorities, and Clinton signed it but never supported it.
Click to expand...

Clinton signed it but never supported it, huh? He said this "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position".

Was he lying again?
 
Grant said:
Clinton signed it but never supported it, huh? He said this "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position".

Was he lying again?
Click to expand...

Granted. I should have said it was drafted by republicans, Clinton to my knowledge never campaigned on it, didn't hold a signing ceremony for it, which happened at 1am after a trip, and probably did what politicians do and signed a bill that passed with a veto proof majority, and the likely support of the independents he'd need 4 months later, and signed it, and threw his gay supporters overboard to help his chances in November 1996.
 
JasperL said:
Granted. I should have said it was drafted by republicans, Clinton to my knowledge never campaigned on it, didn't hold a signing ceremony for it, which happened at 1am after a trip, and probably did what politicians do and signed a bill that passed with a veto proof majority, and the likely support of the independents he'd need 4 months later, and signed it, and threw his gay supporters overboard to help his chances in November 1996.
Click to expand...

Isn't it funny that when liberals enact legislation that is unpopular later, then it's never their fault, they had to do it. But a repub? Aw, their racist, homophobic, fill in the blank.
 
JasperL said:
Granted. I should have said it was drafted by republicans, Clinton to my knowledge never campaigned on it, didn't hold a signing ceremony for it, which happened at 1am after a trip, and probably did what politicians do and signed a bill that passed with a veto proof majority, and the likely support of the independents he'd need 4 months later, and signed it, and threw his gay supporters overboard to help his chances in November 1996.
Click to expand...

Do you not feel a twinge of embarrassment trying to cover for him when his position was made perfectly clear? It is the same with Obama.

Why not just accept the truth and deal with is rather than feel the need to defend 'your side', even at the cost of your own integrity?
 
Grant said:
Do you not feel a twinge of embarrassment trying to cover for him when his position was made perfectly clear? It is the same with Obama.

Why not just accept the truth and deal with is rather than feel the need to defend 'your side', even at the cost of your own integrity?
Click to expand...
Politicians don't HAVE positions.
 
Thought Police on Patrol - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

". . . . Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.":peace
 
Grant said:
And yet the evidence says it was the Democrats who crafted 'Don't Ask - Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama always claimed to be against Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...

Don't ask don't tell was a compromise to the anti-gay right so gay people can serve. Before that gay people couldn't serve without lying. I'd say Clinton did more for gays than any CON or the right did previously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom