• 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]

TeleKat said:
How was free speech stifled here? He was the CEO of a major company and he openly took a position on a controversial issue, losing them customers.
Click to expand...

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.
--Andrew Sullivan
 
It was a business decision by Mozilla driven by consumer response, i.e. the free market.
 
The Mark said:
I don't consider holding your CEO, as a representative of your company, to a higher standard than you might hold your customer support employees...unreasonable.

His job is to increase profits, basically...this was counter to that.

You might argue that Mozilla's customers are stifling his free speech with their free speech. These things happen.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that CEO's need to be held to a higher standard. Framing it in time, back in 2008 there were lots of people in and out of politics who were position supporting traditional marriage. Many in the political sphere.

So we now punish people for what they did years back, which has now, more recently, become politically incorrect?
 
Kobie said:
Cue the people who start crying about "freedom of speech" without understanding what it means.
Click to expand...

:shrug: freedom of speech does not mean that people cannot use it to act like bullies - nor that they shouldn't. The politicization of Every Single Part of Life is an unfortunate trend.
 
Demon of Light said:
Not even remotely comparable. Having a political position that you support outside of work is not the same as shouting it in people's ears at your workplace.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Demon of Light said:
The U.S. Constitution limits the government, but the rights themselves are inviolable by all. If you had any grasp of the law you might know that. Of course, most self-proclaimed "liberals" nowadays do not really give a **** about the Constitution unless it can be misinterpreted in a way that favors their position. BTW, I think you mean the first five words, not four.
Click to expand...

Passive-aggressive insults notwithstanding, a company is under no obligation to employ someone if they feel that person's out-of-work activities might reflect poorly on the company. There is no First Amendment violation here.

We can debate all day about whether Mozilla should have done what they did -- I'm iffy on it; it seems like a stretch although I think certain people are blowing it way out of proportion -- but I don't think there's much doubt that they could.
 
Jack Hays said:
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.
--Andrew Sullivan
Click to expand...

The "gay rights movement" had nothing to do with his being fired. He, being the CEO of a major company, decided to publicly take a stance on a controversial issue and then was surprised when it backfired and he was asked to step down. When you are the face of your company, you should really just stay out of politics completely. The outcome would have been no different had he endorsed gun legislation instead of anti-gay legislation, except partisan politics would be completely reversed and liberals would be offended instead of conservatives.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'd agree that CEO's need to be held to a higher standard. Framing it in time, back in 2008 there were lots of people in and out of politics who were position supporting traditional marriage. Many in the political sphere.
Click to expand...

So long as the same people are willing to be consistent, and push for Barack Obama to resign the Presidency, I'm in favor :lol:


...but they won't. Because targeting famous people in order to intimidate others only works on those whom you can actually successfully harm.
 
Kobie said:
It was a business decision by Mozilla driven by consumer response, i.e. the free market.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's true. A business decision only after all the outrage was raised. Yes. He became a corporate liability at that point.
 
cpwill said:
So long as the same people are willing to be consistent, and push for Barack Obama to resign the Presidency, I'm in favor :lol:


...but they won't. Because targeting famous people in order to intimidate others only works on those whom you can actually successfully harm.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't hide that fact and thereby trick someone into hiring him.
 
ecofarm said:
If a conservative, religious, company hired a CEO after asking him if there was anything in his personal life that could harm the company's image, and he tells them it's all good, and he turns out to be a drag queen... that's cool? They're stuck with him? Bull****. He committed fraud in the hiring process.

As -the- representative of the company, a CEO's personal life is on the table in the hiring process and he CLEARLY failed to disclose pertinent information.
Click to expand...


From where did the information come that he had endorsed Sen. Obama opinion on gay marriage in 2008 ($1000 versus $100 million spent)? That stuff is private.

Yep- leaked by the IRS. Pure thuggery.
 
BobbyO said:
From where did the information come that he had endorsed Sen. Obama opinion on gay marriage in 2008 ($1000 versus $100 million spent)? That stuff is private.

Yep- leaked by the IRS. Pure thuggery.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't hide the fact and thereby become fraudulently hired.
 
cpwill said:
So long as the same people are willing to be consistent, and push for Barack Obama to resign the Presidency, I'm in favor :lol:


...but they won't. Because targeting famous people in order to intimidate others only works on those whom you can actually successfully harm.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just have to look at what was done to Paula Dean, and her alleged indiscretion some 20 years earlier.

I mean, what's done is done, and SSM is probably, eventually, going to become the law of the land. So be it.

But do we also have to continue to destroy people's lives over it? For what came before? And if so, how much and how long and how deep do we have to keep picking at that scab, and keep it from healing?
 
TeleKat said:
The "gay rights movement" had nothing to do with his being fired. He, being the CEO of a major company, decided to publicly take a stance on a controversial issue and then was surprised when it backfired and he was asked to step down. When you are the face of your company, you should really just stay out of politics completely. The outcome would have been no different had he endorsed gun legislation instead of anti-gay legislation, except partisan politics would be completely reversed and liberals would be offended instead of conservatives.
Click to expand...

He did NOT publically take a stand. He donated $1000 five years ago. Privately. Without fanfare.
 
ecofarm said:
Obama didn't hide the fact and thereby become fraudulently hired.
Click to expand...

Are you really sure about that? I mean really, really sure? 'Cause I'm not. But that's done and over with at this point.

And who says that Eich hid the fact, and that this lead to being fraudulently hired? A citation please, because I've not heard about this.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: freedom of speech does not mean that people cannot use it to act like bullies - nor that they shouldn't. The politicization of Every Single Part of Life is an unfortunate trend.
Click to expand...

Just another episode to confirm that Orwell had it right in Animal Farm.:peace
 
BobbyO said:
He did NOT publically take a stand. He donated $1000 five years ago. Privately. Without fanfare.
Click to expand...

True. This was 'outted' by someone with an agenda. Gee. Wonder who they could be.
 
TeleKat said:
The "gay rights movement" had nothing to do with his being fired. He, being the CEO of a major company, decided to publicly take a stance on a controversial issue and then was surprised when it backfired and he was asked to step down. When you are the face of your company, you should really just stay out of politics completely. The outcome would have been no different had he endorsed gun legislation instead of anti-gay legislation, except partisan politics would be completely reversed and liberals would be offended instead of conservatives.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It's another Animal Farm.
 
eohrnberger said:
And who says that Eich hid the fact, and that this lead to being fraudulently hired? A citation please, because I've not heard about this.
Click to expand...

You don't think a company, when hiring a CEO, asks if there are any personal affairs in the past or present that would reflect poorly on the company's image? I'm sure such takes place. Thus, he failed to disclose and thereby committed fraud during the hiring process.

It's no different than lying on an application.
 
eohrnberger said:
How is it that punishing him for his right to express himself is justified in your mind?
Click to expand...

He wasn't just expressing an opinion. He financially supported stripping them of rights. Would you accept/support a CEO supporting efforts to strip rights dear to you?

LGBT rights would not damaged in the least if would have stayed as CEO.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But the point is if efforts to strip them arose (eg US Cons amendment) he has a record of supporting them.
 
Kobie said:
There is no First Amendment violation here.
Click to expand...

As I said, the Constitution limits government, but the rights are inviolable by all.
 
Deuce said:
Feel free to answer the question yourself:

Is a boycott an unwarranted use of force? Is a boycott violation of free speech?
Click to expand...

You tell us.
We now know that bakers cannot boycott same sex marriages.
 
MrVicchio said:
Oh so now Christians are the KKK? Why ****ing stop there? Let's go with the Nazi's!

It's quite clear, if you aren't pro-LGBT, Welfare, Obama you're a racist, Homophobe Nazi killer.
Click to expand...

That's just it...you dont have to be 'pro LGBT', you just have to be willing to recognize that they deserve equal rights.

It was an extreme example....or so it seems today. But 40 yrs ago....it would have been dismissed just as you did here...because culturally (sadly) so many people still believed in blacks as 2nd class citizens.

That's why I posted it. Not that I believed you would concur with the KKK example yourself.
 
ecofarm said:
You don't think a company, when hiring a CEO, asks if there are any personal affairs in the past or present that would reflect poorly on the company's image? I'm sure such takes place. Thus, he failed to disclose and thereby committed fraud during the hiring process.

It's no different than lying on an application.
Click to expand...

Excising one's political free speech, such as SOCUTS even recently rules is the case, is now equated with reflecting poorly on the company's image if it's in support of traditional marriage?

LGBT friendly litmus test soon to be a regular part of the employment application.
 
eohrnberger said:
Excising one's political free speech, such as SOCUTS even recently rules is the case, is now equated with reflecting poorly on the company's image if it's in support of traditional marriage?

LGBT friendly litmus test soon to be a regular part of the employment application.
Click to expand...

He lied during the hiring process, and later revealed personal affairs that reflect poorly on the company's image. He committed fraud and harmed the company.
 
JasperL said:
He wasn't just expressing an opinion. He financially supported stripping them of rights. Would you accept/support a CEO supporting efforts to strip rights dear to you?
Click to expand...

Privately supporting a political position that one agrees, and at the time many in public life agreed with, is now justification for dismissal years later?

I'm honestly puzzled by your sense of justice and fairness when it doesn't apply to the position you favor.

JasperL said:
Perhaps. But the point is if efforts to strip them arose (eg US Cons amendment) he has a record of supporting them.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom