• 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]

Deuce said:
It is not setting a dangerous precedent for individuals to express their disapproval of a business' actions. It's setting a dangerous precedent if you force people to just accept anything that any business does under the guise of protecting that business' freedom.
Click to expand...

It will be unfortunate if society is allowed to regress to the point other societies have reached, when approved and correct thought determines life or death.

Given the type of society the people who forced this action appear to be trying to create, they had better keep a close watch on their actions, lest they find themselves on the wrong side of the line, and judged in the same way they are supporting.
 
Deuce said:
No part of this violates the first amendment. The government cannot punish him for that speech.

How do you think this works? If your business does something I disagree with, I'm required to purchase your products anyway or else I'm violating your first amendment rights? Or do I have the right to take my business elsewhere?

And if enough people take their business elsewhere, does your business have the right to fire you for costing them that business? Or is the business forced to keep employing you so as to not violate your first amendment rights?
Click to expand...

All of that is true.
 
tacomancer said:
Well, I will leave the historical precedent being absolutely equivalent being alone for now (my point was human nature, but oh well).

Lets say the other side reacts and in a howard beale moment, they are mad as hell and won't take it anymore, what do you expect the response to be?
Click to expand...

The general response was figured out and written down more than two centuries ago. As for California, the specific response was agreed to on May 7, 1879, and has been edited on an ongoing basis since then.
 
ocean515 said:
The general response was figured out and written down more than two centuries ago. As for California, the specific response was agreed to on May 7, 1879, and has been edited on an ongoing basis since then.
Click to expand...

So you think there will be a violent revolution?
 
ocean515 said:
It will be unfortunate if society is allowed to regress to the point other societies have reached, when approved and correct thought determines life or death.

Given the type of society the people who forced this action appear to be trying to create, they had better keep a close watch on their actions, lest they find themselves on the wrong side of the line, and judged in the same way they are supporting.
Click to expand...

What you want is a society with no accountability. If you can point to a single example in history where this has existed I'll eat my shoes, otherwise what you want is pure fantasy.
 
RiverDad said:
I'm eagerly awaiting the movies that Hollywood is going to produce about this new Blacklist and how they're going to paint homosexuals as evil totalitarians enforcing their viewpoint on everyone. I suspect I'm going to have to wait until the universe explodes for that to happen.

I can't wait until I can exercise some firing authority over a liberal or a homosexual I disagree with. I think that I can warm up to this notion that the Left is birthing - firing people for their opinions. You guys sure know how to win friends and influence people. No holds barred. I personally wouldn't have gone with that strategy, but I can learn new tricks and unilateral disarmament is not one of those tricks.
Click to expand...

Nobody was fired. The guy resigned because the employees weren't happy.

Sorry that doesn't feed your persecution complex.
 
Kobie said:
Cue the people who start crying about "freedom of speech" without understanding what it means.
Click to expand...
Cue the people demanding tolerance, diversity unless you disagree.
 
ecofarm said:
He was released for going against the company's image. You don't think they asked the CEO, in interview, if he had any personal affairs that might be counter to the company's image?

I'm sure they did.


Sure, who cares about cashiers, but the CEO is -the- representative of the company. His personal life is in play during the interview process.
Click to expand...

Certainly.

However Eich did not go to rallies, publically endorse the prop, write letters to the newspaper . He gave a $1000. And that was it.

The intolerance was by those folks who rooted around to look for their political opponents in order to attack them.
 
MrVicchio said:
Cue the people demanding tolerance, diversity unless you disagree.
Click to expand...

Would you say the same if he had made a big donation to the KKK?
 
BobbyO said:
Certainly.

However Eich did not go to rallies, publically endorse the prop, write letters to the newspaper . He gave a $1000. And that was it.

The intolerance was by those folks who rooted around to look for their political opponents in order to attack them.
Click to expand...

I agree that the offense is slight. I think perhaps there's something else that we don't know about.
 
tacomancer said:
Imagine, if you will, there was popular support for conservatives not being allowed to be married due to some people's moral disagreement some aspect of their lives. However, to you, being conservative (I assume) is a fundamental part of who you are (if not, then hypothetically).

How far would you be willing to go so you could live in peace?
Click to expand...

I don't think that analogy really works. Are you taking marriage away from conservatives that were previously allowed to marry? There is no correlation with a moral disagreement with some aspect of their lives. For instance, my opposition to changing the definition of marriage has nothing to do with anyone's behavior and whether or not I agree with it.
 
tacomancer said:
So you think there will be a violent revolution?
Click to expand...

No. I don't think there will be a violent revolution. Like many times throughout the history of the nation, issues will become big deals, and then they will die out.

Consider the collective thought that must have been prevalent to allow Progressives of the day to successfully sell a Constitutional Amendment that banned the sale and consumption of alcohol. That's remarkable if you think about it. Yet, eventually, the people came to their senses, the fad of Progressivism faded out, and people moved on.

I believe we are in a similar period of time. Like before, these agendas and ideologies will change, and people will move on. My guess is that people will grow weary of the constant bickering and those behind the agenda will be exposed for what they are.
 
BobbyO said:
Certainly.

However Eich did not go to rallies, publically endorse the prop, write letters to the newspaper . He gave a $1000. And that was it.

The intolerance was by those folks who rooted around to look for their political opponents in order to attack them.
Click to expand...

At that point he had the kind of choice that we're all faced with given enough time:

1)Claim that he's evolved on the matter, thus diffusing the situation instantly and keeping his job.
2)Stand by his principles and lose his job.

This is a standard ethical problem, there's rarely a way around it, and Eich made his choice.
 
Anthony60 said:
I don't think that analogy really works. Are you taking marriage away from conservatives that were previously allowed to marry? There is no correlation with a moral disagreement with some aspect of their lives. For instance, my opposition to changing the definition of marriage has nothing to do with anyone's behavior and whether or not I agree with it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but the point is, to some you are denying fundamentally who they are. This provokes strong reactions in people. It makes sense to me that people would go pretty far to secure the ability to be themselves.
 
ocean515 said:
No. I don't think there will be a violent revolution. Like many times throughout the history of the nation, issues will become big deals, and then they will die out.

Consider the collective thought that must have been prevalent to allow Progressives of the day to successfully sell a Constitutional Amendment that banned the sale and consumption of alcohol. That's remarkable if you think about it. Yet, eventually, the people came to their senses, the fad of Progressivism faded out, and people moved on.

I believe we are in a similar period of time. Like before, these agendas and ideologies will change, and people will move on. My guess is that people will grow weary of the constant bickering and those behind the agenda will be exposed for what they are.
Click to expand...

so what happened over two hundred years ago then?
 
Deuce said:
How do you think this works? If your business does something I disagree with, I'm required to purchase your products anyway or else I'm violating your first amendment rights? Or do I have the right to take my business elsewhere?
Click to expand...

Well, we do know that bakers and photographers can be mandated to provide their services to same sex marriages. So yeah, maybe okcupid was violating law by refusing to do business with Mozilla because they dissaproved of its CEO view of same sex marriage.
 
Cardinal said:
What you want is a society with no accountability. If you can point to a single example in history where this has existed I'll eat my shoes, otherwise what you want is pure fantasy.
Click to expand...

I never suggested such a thing. As I see it, what you are suggesting is a society of total accountability to a very limited source of it. Toe the line, or else. I think that is dangerous and should be absolutely rejected.

As to shoe eating, there are so many examples from history, I'm afraid you'll never own another shoe again. I don't want to be held responsible for any injuries that may occur as a result.
 
BobbyO said:
Well, we do know that bakers and photographers can be mandated to provide their services to same sex marriages. So yeah, maybe okcupid was violating law by refusing to do business with Mozilla because they dissaproved of its CEO view of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

They didn't refuse anything. I have friends who have been using firefox with OK Cupid this whole time (its from them I first heard about this)

they just got a message.
 
ecofarm said:
I agree that the offense is slight. I think perhaps there's something else that we don't know about.
Click to expand...

This is becoming a typical response of "outrage mania".
 
Cardinal said:
And I would agree.

One of the many misunderstandings regarding the freedom of speech is that it merely grants you the right to voice your opinion. What it does not do is grant you immunity from any consequences that result from that opinion.
Click to expand...

And with liberals comprising only 20% of the population and conservatives 40%, this is good news for many companies who come to understand this new politicized labor market - fire liberals for voting for Obama, fire liberals for opening their yaps and expressing their Totalitarian Liberal views.
 
ocean515 said:
I never suggested such a thing. As I see it, what you are suggesting is a society of total accountability to a very limited source of it. Toe the line, or else. I think that is dangerous and should be absolutely rejected.
Click to expand...

Not at all. For example, I would say that everybody is accountable, just not to everybody. Eich was accountable to his company's image.

ocean515 said:
As to shoe eating, there are so many examples from history, I'm afraid you'll never own another shoe again. I don't want to be held responsible for any injuries that may occur as a result.
Click to expand...

Try me.
 
Lursa said:
We have freedom of speech but that should only mean there are no consequences from the govt.

Individuals, customers, the public....all can act or react as they choose, within the law.

There are definitely consequences to free speech.
Click to expand...

That's right - some of us have been saying this all along. This is what freedom looks like. Next on the firing line, homosexuals, women, minorities, white dudes, old people, it doesn't matter.
 
RiverDad said:
And with liberals comprising only 20% of the population and conservatives 40%, this is good news for many companies who come to understand this new politicized labor market - fire liberals for voting for Obama, fire liberals for opening their yaps and expressing their Totalitarian Liberal views.
Click to expand...

What you're describing isn't actually "new." There's a very, very good reason why it's considered smart to leave your politics at home when you go to work.
 
Deuce said:
No part of this violates the first amendment. The government cannot punish him for that speech.

How do you think this works? If your business does something I disagree with, I'm required to purchase your products anyway or else I'm violating your first amendment rights? Or do I have the right to take my business elsewhere?

And if enough people take their business elsewhere, does your business have the right to fire you for costing them that business? Or is the business forced to keep employing you so as to not violate your first amendment rights?
Click to expand...

you can rant, rage and feign moral outrage all you want to.

businesses should just leave it at that and let you.
my kids like to pitch fits every now and then. i ignore them and they stop.

if you want to rant, and rage that is fine, businesses should ignore you and go about their business as normal.
again i never said anything you are arguing so i have to assume that you don't care to be honest in a discussion.
 
Deuce said:
In an interview recently he was asked if he would do it again, and dodged the question.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was for the good that he was let go because this is now two instances I've observed where he made the wrong decision. Here he is accepting the framing of the issue put forth by the interviewer, the presumption that he did something wrong. No, this is when you take the opportunity presented to you and you turn the attention onto the rigid thought control being injected into society by Totalitarian Liberalism and the Lavender Mafia. They're the bad guys here, they're the ones who need to rethink their zealotry. Don't be a meek coward - stand up for your beliefs and don't flinch from telling the truth that the bad guys are the ones who are out there braying for blood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom