• 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]

Hicup said:
Mozilla is now gone from my computer. Yes I use other browsers such as IE, NEVER will use Google and I sure as hell don't use their search engine, AND I know they support "equal rights" but they don't go firing their employees for their personal political views.
Click to expand...

Except as a pro equal rights company they won't be hiring known homophobes or racists and other filth to represent them. So you should probably uninstall IE as well for their discrimination.
 
Hicup said:
I'm just a single voice, but it's mine and I intend to use it whenever I can.

Tim-
Click to expand...

another browser bites the dust!!!

Microsoft Endorses Gay Marriage In Washington State

can't use opera either.

maybe you can use some crappy browser on a smart phone or tapatalk or something.

nope, your screwed.

http://business.time.com/2013/12/15/apple-ceo-tim-cook-gives-remarkable-speech-on-gay-rights-racism/

looks like you can't use android, iphones, or windows phones either

maybe a blackberry?

you certainly can't use linux, apple, or windows computers.

so, why are you still on the internet?
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
another browser bites the dust!!!

Microsoft Endorses Gay Marriage In Washington State

can't use opera either.

maybe you can use some crappy browser on a smart phone or tapatalk or something.
Click to expand...

I find it strange that people think 'doing the same thing, they don't like' is a point well made?

I don't like Chrome or Google because they're invasive and IE is a security hazard. I'd probably use Firefox if the makers were Nazi's. It's simply a better and more - user friendly software.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, corporations are democratic to some degree. I'm sure there was a vote before the Board told Brendan Eich he could leave the easy way or the hard way.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to democracy within a company, I'm referring to the general political impact of people facing a risk of getting fired for expressing their political opinions outside of work.
 
ecofarm said:
If an employee in my company hurts the company, I have every right to fire them. CEOs are hired not only as managers but as representatives.
Click to expand...

As I said, I think it is OK to limit a CEO's public expression of opinion because CEOs do represent the company to investors, clients and the public. For lower level employees there should be a right to freely express opinions or live any lifestyle outside of work. I would like to laws protecting that right. Such a law would also protect companies form being held responsible for the opinions of their employees since they would not be allowed to control the employee's activities outside of work.
 
You make a public statement like words or a donation against SSM and you should expect to be fired eventually (or have to fall on your sword like this schmuck). It sucks that it works this way, but you cannot claim ignorance these days.
 
He was the CEO of a major company. When you are a CEO, everything you do reflects back onto the company. You are the face of your company. This is why CEOs really shouldn't be vocal about any political issue. I highly doubt this would be any different if he came out in support of some other controversial issue like gun control. Would there still be whining from the traditionalists if he were fired for supporting gun legislation, instead of anti-gay legislation? Probably not. But such is the nature of partisan politics...
 
tacomancer said:
another browser bites the dust!!!

Microsoft Endorses Gay Marriage In Washington State

can't use opera either.

maybe you can use some crappy browser on a smart phone or tapatalk or something.

nope, your screwed.

Apple CEO Tim Cook Gives Remarkable Speech on Gay Rights, Racism | TIME.com

looks like you can't use android, iphones, or windows phones either

maybe a blackberry?

you certainly can't use linux, apple, or windows computers.

so, why are you still on the internet?
Click to expand...


Boy people really can't read can they? I already stated that I don't care if another browser support gay marriage. What I despise is corporations firing or inviting to leave employees who donate to political ideology. As River has been saying all through this thread that this is a dangerous precedent for ANY corporation to follow. People will and often do vote with their pocket books, and as many people who support gay marriage there are as many if not more that support traditional marriage and find absolutely nothing wrong with anyone donating to a cause that is trying to preserve that philosophy.

The bigots here are the Mozilla firefox clowns. Facebook, Twitter and any other social media can flare up quickly, and Mozilla and any other corporation doesn't want that, and would be wise to just stay out of the whole taking a stand routine. This man didn't do anything wrong, and he should not be pressured to step down for doing it.

Tim-
 
Hard Truth said:
As I said, I think it is OK to limit a CEO's public expression of opinion because CEOs do represent the company to investors, clients and the public. For lower level employees there should be a right to freely express opinions or live any lifestyle outside of work. I would like to laws protecting that right. Such a law would also protect companies form being held responsible for the opinions of their employees since they would not be allowed to control the employee's activities outside of work.
Click to expand...

I believe those protections should be in place for all levels.
 
Hard Truth said:
I wasn't referring to democracy within a company, I'm referring to the general political impact of people facing a risk of getting fired for expressing their political opinions outside of work.
Click to expand...

The CEO is the face of the company, and will always face greater scrutiny than some schlub in accounts. Would you say Obama is more or less accountable for their opinions than, say, me? Would you say his opinions and political endorsements have such an impact on the country that he should be accountable for them?
 
Zyphlin said:
Another just interesting little notion that popped in my head over this....

So we're saying that the private actions of an executive made public are reasonable targets for scorn, condemnation, and calls for removal from his professional office?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the CEO was DEFINITELY asked if he had any private affairs, past or present, that might embarrass the company by going counter to the company's image.

I'm pretty sure that's a standard part of a CEO interview process. And he presumably told them "no worries". That's fraud.
 
AGENT J said:
you are correct :shrug:
like everything else that has a basic legal definition and sometimes more clearly defined by company policies but proof is needed that those definitions were met.

Is there any proof that there was a factual and legal hostile workplace?

again so far i see zero issue with the actual info and facts we have
Click to expand...

Campaigning to get another employee fired seems rather hostile.
 
Hicup said:
Boy people really can't read can they? I already stated that I don't care if another browser support gay marriage. What I despise is corporations firing or inviting to leave employees who donate to political ideology. As River has been saying all through this thread that this is a dangerous precedent for ANY corporation to follow. People will and often do vote with their pocket books, and as many people who support gay marriage there are as many if not more that support traditional marriage and find absolutely nothing wrong with anyone donating to a cause that is trying to preserve that philosophy.

The bigots here are the Mozilla firefox clowns. Facebook, Twitter and any other social media can flare up quickly, and Mozilla and any other corporation doesn't want that, and would be wise to just stay out of the whole taking a stand routine. This man didn't do anything wrong, and he should not be pressured to step down for doing it.

Tim-
Click to expand...

You are wrong about public opinion on same sex marriage

Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right - The Washington Post

wGayPoll05CLR.jpg


Also, here is another interesting article:

Majority of young conservatives accept same-sex marriage | The Daily Texan

In poll data released last week, the Pew Research Center reported 61 percent of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party aged 18 to 29 favor the legal marriage of same-sex couples, as opposed to the 27 percent aged 50 and older.
College Republicans, a conservative student group on campus, adheres to the official ideology of the GOP, according to Zach Berberich, accounting junior and communications director for the organization. Berberich said students coming into UT tend to have a high respect for individual liberty.
“College students tend to come in with really libertarian viewpoints,” Berberich said. “A lot of students think it’s not the government’s job to intervene at all in marriage. A lot of us tend to say ‘it’s not our business. As long as it’s not hurting us, then let it be.’”
Click to expand...

looks like the younger generations on all ideologies are shifting towards acceptance. Younger folks being the most tech oriented, it was a good move on mozilla's part.
 
apdst said:
Well hell, let's make votes piblic, too.
Click to expand...

Votes are private because we don't want voters to be forced to choose someone againist their beliefs.

Political donations on the other hand should be public knowledge because there is a difference between a political donation and bribery.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes, because the CEO was DEFINITELY asked if he had any private affairs, past or present, that might embarrass the company by going counter to the company's image.

I'm pretty sure that's a standard part of a CEO interview process. And he presumably told them "no worries". That's fraud.
Click to expand...

Why would his opinion be embarrassing? Heck , their Mozzila own press release says the value of the opinions and diversity of all their employees. Even praises public actions, which Eich did not do .
 
BobbyO said:
Why would his opinion be embarrassing? Heck , their Mozzila own press release says the value of the opinions and diversity of all their employees. Even praises public actions, which Eich did not do .
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hicup said:
I'm just a single voice, but it's mine and I intend to use it whenever I can.

Tim-
Click to expand...

I just find it funny that a thousand dollar contribution to an anti same sex marriage campaign could culminate into some dude taking a web browser off his computer. What a strange world we live in today.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Votes are private because we don't want voters to be forced to choose someone againist their beliefs.

Political donations on the other hand should be public knowledge because there is a difference between a political donation and bribery.
Click to expand...

Political donations are the same as a vote: supporting a political belief.
 
apdst said:
Political donations are the same as a vote: supporting a political belief.
Click to expand...

but not everyone has the same financial advantages. A corperation with lots of money should not have greater political influence than a average worker. one man, one vote levels the playing field while money stacks the deck.
 
BobbyO said:
Why would his opinion be embarrassing? Heck , their Mozzila own press release says the value of the opinions and diversity of all their employees. Even praises public actions, which Eich did not do .
Click to expand...

It really depends on how much his opinion reflects on the company. The CEO's public effect is disproportionate to the rest of the employees, and his beliefs will disproportionately reflect on the company. If Bob in accounting is a homophobe, then who cares? He's just Bob. Of course, Bob's behavior could escalate such that he too will begin to reflect on the company, and would probably be asked to leave.

As I said earlier in the thread, the lines can be quite blurry on this type of issue. Perfect (and real life) example: a teacher, in her off time, makes a porn video, which is eventually discovered by one of her students. She is subsequently fired. Was this her own off time behavior and is thus immune to disciplinary action, or does her making a porn video reflect negatively on the image the school is trying to project and thus warrant a firing? For what it's worth I don't think there's a black and white answer to that question, but when the subject is the ceo/principal I think the answer becomes decidedly less murky.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
It really depends on how much his opinion reflects on the company. The CEO's public effect is disproportionate to the rest of the employees, and his beliefs will disproportionately reflect on the company. If Bob in accounting is a homophobe, then who cares? He's just Bob. Of course, Bob's behavior could escalate such that he too will begin to reflect on the company, and would probably be asked to leave.

As I said earlier in the thread, the lines can be quite blurry on this type of issue. Perfect (and real life) example: a teacher, in her off time, makes a porn video, which is eventually discovered by one of her students. She is subsequently fired. Was this her own off time behavior and is thus immune to disciplinary action, or does her making a porn video reflect negatively on the image the school is trying to project? I don't think there's a black and white answer to that question, but when the subject is the ceo/principal I think the answer becomes decidedly less murky.
Click to expand...

I suspect if bob from accounting went on the news and said, I am bob from accounting at xyz company and I donated against prop 8. He would probably get fired or at least a reprimand.
 
tacomancer said:
I suspect if bob from accounting went on the news and said, I am bob from accounting at xyz company and I donated against prop 8. He would probably get fired or at least a reprimand.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom