• 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]

Calling for a boycott is "no better" than physical violence?

And it's Kobie.

"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:peace
 
Simple. The CEO hid pertinent information regarding personal affairs and how they might reflect on the company's image.

If the CEO of a Christian network turned out to support gay rights, you would understand that fraud occured and the company was harmed.

Now you're making stuff up. There is no law that he was forbidden to make political contributions. And there is no requirement for any employee to disclose political contributions to an employer. And it's not allowed for the employer to ask.
 
Calling for a boycott is "no better" than physical violence?

And it's Kobie.

Kobie, (got it right this time - sorry :) ) Violence is violence. One physical, one based on emotional threats, yeah OK I admit a bad parallel.

But still, why punish a company for what one employee did 6 years ago, in private, supporting a prevalent position at the time, which only since then has become politically incorrect and politically toxic?

And why is it politically toxic to support traditional marriage? Even now. SSM in California is a pretty settled decision, right? What's the logical gain for doling out vindictive punishment for a counter position that's already years old?
 
Yeah, I'm overstating the matter.

I mainly meant that as a CEO, I suspect you must disregard emotional decisions that might negatively effect the company, in order to logically further the interests of it.

I consider his political donations emotional decisions, as indeed, the vast majority of political positions are. In this instance, he was unlucky enough to make a decision that negatively impacted the company, and I can find nothing unreasonable about his leaving.

I think that the customers who reacted negatively to the information are where the blame for his leaving should be placed - if his donations were with personal funds (as I understand is the case) and not company funds, it shouldn't really be an issue.

But when Mozilla consumers MADE it an issue, the company needed to act.

So nobody should make political contributions - ever - because years down the road your employer may force you out because of them?
 
Make your choice: Take a physical beating or lose your livelihood for the next 5 years.

Only the person who took the physical beating was being punished for being gay. The CEO is being punished for being a bigot. Big difference. People have a right to speak out against such bigotry.
 
So nobody should make political contributions - ever - because years down the road your employer may force you out because of them?

Unless of course they are in support of the politically correct agenda. Then it's OK. Thought police anyone?
 
Only the person who took the physical beating was being punished for being gay. The CEO is being punished for being a bigot. Big difference. People have a right to speak out against such bigotry.

So now being in support of traditional marriage is bigotry?
 
Nice red herring:roll:

Of course you don't want to own up to your actions. I get it. However, just because I get your desire to distance yourself from McCarthy doesn't mean that I'm going to play along and assuage your guilt. "Were you ever a member of the Communist Party" and all of the after-effects which flowed are exactly what you've replicated today. Good job, Brownie, own your McCarthyism.

You know what else you can own - a future movement to remove donor information from political databases. Thanks to zealots like you politics in the future is going to be less transparent because we all recognize that zealots troll through the databases and make life hell for people who are simply exercising their right to free political expression. No court is going to allow civil society to turn into a zone of Hatfield and McCoy feuds. Again, good job, Brownie.
 
Um, he was giving money to outlaw gay marriage. Sure, it is his right as it is the right of people to boycott him due to his actions.

The majority of donations from Intel were in support of Proposition 8, so are you ripping the Intel chip from your motherboard this evening?
 
Kobie, (got it right this time - sorry :) ) Violence is violence. One physical, one based on emotional threats, yeah OK I admit a bad parallel.

I do agree that the gay-rights movement is kinda overreaching here.

But still, why punish a company for what one employee did 6 years ago, in private, supporting a prevalent position at the time, which only since then has become politically incorrect and politically toxic?

Andrew Sullivan and his case of the vapors notwithstanding, I think the gay rights movement has a lot bigger fish to fry than this dude. And I don't think the uproar is really as widespread as people are making it out to be. If this had been a situation at nearly any other Silicon Valley company it wouldn't have been as big of a deal and Eich probably would still have a job.

And Prop 8 was pretty toxic in Silicon Valley even then. It passed with 52% support in California; in Silicon Valley, it was just 38%. (I read that earlier today, I'll see if I can find where if I have time).

And why is it politically toxic to support traditional marriage? Even now. SSM in California is a pretty settled decision, right? What's the logical gain for doling out vindictive punishment for a counter position that's already years old?

I think there's a difference between merely holding the position and helping to bankroll it, even for such a paltry sum.
 
So now being in support of traditional marriage is bigotry?

That's kind of a weak way of describing it. Being against gay marriage (which "being in support of traditional marriage" actually means) is bigotry. There's simply no reason not to allow it that's not steeped in bigotry based on religion.
 
Only the person who took the physical beating was being punished for being gay. The CEO is being punished for being a bigot. Big difference. People have a right to speak out against such bigotry.

Supporting marriage between a man and a woman is now being labeled as "bigotry" now.

I'm very much pro-gay marriage, but when I read words like this, I start to question if that only promotes these kinds of irresponsible posts.
 
Of course you don't want to own up to your actions. I get it. However, just because I get your desire to distance yourself from McCarthy doesn't mean that I'm going to play along and assuage your guilt. "Were you ever a member of the Communist Party" and all of the after-effects which flowed are exactly what you've replicated today. Good job, Brownie, own your McCarthyism.

You know what else you can own - a future movement to remove donor information from political databases. Thanks to zealots like you politics in the future is going to be less transparent because we all recognize that zealots troll through the databases and make life hell for people who are simply exercising their right to free political expression. No court is going to allow civil society to turn into a zone of Hatfield and McCoy feuds. Again, good job, Brownie.

What a hoot:lol: He is allowed to exercise his right but no one else is allowed to speak out against his right to contribute to outlawing gay marriage. Since when did his rights trump everyone else:roll: Yes, he has a right to want to outlaw marriage for gay people as people have a right to boycott his business because they dislike his politics. The beauty of living in a free nation. McCarthyism has to do with false claim. Are you saying he didn't make that donation?
 
That's kind of a weak way of describing it. Being against gay marriage (which "being in support of traditional marriage" actually means) is bigotry. There's simply no reason not to allow it that's not steeped in bigotry based on religion.

I'm a woman who is married to a man. That means I support traditional marriage. I live it. Am I a bigot?
 
Um, he was giving money to outlaw gay marriage. Sure, it is his right as it is the right of people to boycott him due to his actions.

At the time that he was supporting that position, it was a prevalent position of many others, many in high political office and other public figures. Much has changed on that front in the last 6 years, and it seems a bit late to punish him now for an action he took way back then in the situation as it was back then. Rather petty and vindictive. Rather retroactive.

It's rather like the actions and behavior of the LGBT community and their supports are now engaged in is the same behavior that they had legitimate beef with. Odd how now that the tables are turned, it all good and acceptable and perfectly in line with political correctness. Woe be the day when the shifting sands of political correctness catch up with someone's years old position. Dole out the vindictive and retroactive punishment! Political correctness demands it!

You are not seeing a problem with this?
 
Supporting marriage between a man and a woman is now being labeled as "bigotry" now.

I'm very much pro-gay marriage, but when I read words like this, I start to question if that only promotes these kinds of irresponsible posts.

Always remember, always, always, always, when you're dealing with a liberal you're dealing with someone who is a mass of raw emotions. Think of a teenager going through the worst bout of puberty you can imagine. You can't expect thinking or reason from the liberal in your encounter.
 
Supporting marriage between a man and a woman is now being labeled as "bigotry" now.

I'm very much pro-gay marriage, but when I read words like this, I start to question if that only promotes these kinds of irresponsible posts.

Um, when it takes rights away from another because one is against such a lifestyle.

big·ot·ry
ˈbigətrē/
noun
1.
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
 
Always remember, always, always, always, when you're dealing with a liberal you're dealing with someone who is a mass of raw emotions. Think of a teenager going through the worst bout of puberty you can imagine. You can't expect thinking or reason from the liberal in your encounter.

I can't believe some of what I'm reading.
 
Always remember, always, always, always, when you're dealing with a liberal you're dealing with someone who is a mass of raw emotions. Think of a teenager going through the worst bout of puberty you can imagine. You can't expect thinking or reason from the liberal in your encounter.

How ironic.
 
Um, when it takes rights away from another because one is against such a lifestyle.

big·ot·ry
ˈbigətrē/
noun
1.
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

You're being intolerant to the people who don't share your view. Are you a bigot?

There is no law that says people can't think marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no law that says little boys shouldn't wear pink or little girls shouldn't wear boxer shorts. But we were all raised with these things being what we're used to. If people think marriage is between two people of the opposite sex, that is their right. You're now trying to regulate the beliefs of private citizens. That's scary.
 
Back
Top Bottom