• 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]

tres borrachos said:
I'm a woman who is married to a man. That means I support traditional marriage. I live it. Am I a bigot?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that "supporting traditional marriage," in the colloquial sense, means "being against gay marriage." There ain't too many people who are "against traditional marriage" while simultaneously being pro-gay marriage.
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody said that being anti-gay marriage should be illegal.
 
eohrnberger said:
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?
Click to expand...

:baby2. Cry me a river when actions have consequences.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I noted above, I'd be happy with a uniform free-fire zone. Anyone can be fired for any damn reason. I'd love to see a mass firing of every employee who donated in opposition to Proposition 8, just a wholesale mass firing of everyone simply for expressing a political opinion. That would be freaking fantastic. I love it when I see a sword being used to inflict damage also be turned against the self-righteous zealots.
 
Kobie said:
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.
Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:
I'm a woman who is married to a man. That means I support traditional marriage. I live it. Am I a bigot?
Click to expand...

I'd have to concur with tres borrachos, Kobie. If you define supporting traditional marriage as strictly being a bigoted position against SSM, then there's a lot of people that are going to have to be punished for it, and in the end, would the LGBT community calling for this would end up as bigoted as those that really do want to strip / prevent SSM.

Now suppose that one would support traditional marriage, and also support SS Civil Unions? What then? Also a bigoted position according to your definition?
 
Kobie said:
What I'm saying is that "supporting traditional marriage," in the colloquial sense, means "being against gay marriage." There ain't too many people who are "against traditional marriage" while simultaneously being pro-gay marriage.
Click to expand...

There is no law that says you have to support anything other than what's been the law and the norm of this country for almost 300 years.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'd have to concur with tres borrachos, Kobie. If you define supporting traditional marriage as strictly being a bigoted position against SSM, then there's a lot of people that are going to have to be punished for it, and in the end, would the LGBT community calling for this would end up as bigoted as those that really do want to strip / prevent SSM.

Now suppose that one would support traditional marriage, and also support SS Civil Unions? What then? Also a bigoted position according to your definition?
Click to expand...

Please see my most recent response to TB.
 
RiverDad said:
As I noted above, I'd be happy with a uniform free-fire zone. Anyone can be fired for any damn reason. I'd love to see a mass firing of every employee who donated in opposition to Proposition 8, just a wholesale mass firing of everyone simply for expressing a political opinion. That would be freaking fantastic. I love it when I see a sword being used to inflict damage also be turned against the self-righteous zealots.
Click to expand...

The king of strawmans. He wasn't fired.
 
tres borrachos said:
I can't believe some of what I'm reading.
Click to expand...

They're riding high on moral righteousness, like Crusaders chopping off the heads of infidels. The blood lust they're feeling from getting a scalp and ruining a man's career has them amped up.

What they don't realize is that lessons are being learned.
 
tres borrachos said:
There is no law that says you have to support anything other than what's been the law and the norm of this country for almost 300 years.
Click to expand...

Nobody ever said there was. And "the norm" doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans as far as I'm concerned. There's been lots of "norms" that have fallen by the wayside in this country because they were exclusionary (at best).

rabbitcaebannog said:
The king of strawmans. He wasn't fired.
Click to expand...

StrawPEOPLE. Let's not be sexist here! :2razz:
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
:baby2. Cry me a river when actions have consequences.
Click to expand...

Up until political correctly turns on you, of course, then it wouldn't be fair, right? Never mind everyone else, just as long as you're OK. Am I right?

Point being is no one is always 100% politically correct, especially when it's an evolving thing. Most anyone could be caught on it's wrong side at some point. Fair enough to dole out the same vindictive and retroactive punishment then?
 
Kobie said:
Nobody said that being anti-gay marriage should be illegal.
Click to expand...

So you agree that everyone has a right to believe marriage should be between a man and a woman without being questioned. It isn't illegal, so it's a private matter.

And remember, corporations aren't people. They can't be identified as people. Unless Mozilla was doing something that was oppressing LGBT employees, or hurting them, then the person involved did nothing wrong. And he was unfairly attacked by the Cupid site.
 
Kobie said:
Nobody ever said there was. And "the norm" doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans as far as I'm concerned. There's been lots of "norms" that have fallen by the wayside in this country because they were exclusionary (at best).



StrawPEOPLE. Let's not be sexist here! :2razz:
Click to expand...

And now, apparently, traditional marriage, and support of traditional marriage being on the targeted list now.
 
It's now come down to - don't ever donate to a political cause or candidate, because it offends the LGBT community, all hell will break loose. I wonder where this stops?

Meh, I actually hope this guy walked away with a gigantic severance package.
 
RiverDad said:
They're riding high on moral righteousness, like Crusaders chopping off the heads of infidels. The blood lust they're feeling from getting a scalp and ruining a man's career has them amped up.

What they don't realize is that lessons are being learned.
Click to expand...

There is way too much moral posturing in this thread. And I'm seeing an awful lot of intolerance of Eich's private rights from the people who are all screaming that he's an intolerant bigot.
 
tres borrachos said:
So you agree that everyone has a right to believe marriage should be between a man and a woman without being questioned. It isn't illegal, so it's a private matter.
Click to expand...

Not a single person in this thread is suggesting that Eich did anything illegal by donating to pro-Proposition 8 groups. That said, he chose to exercise his right to free speech by donating that money, and others have exercised theirs by negatively responding to Mozilla. Mozilla weighed the benefits vs. liabilities of keeping him on. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence.

tres borrachos said:
And remember, corporations aren't people. They can't be identified as people.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wish that were so.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

tres borrachos said:
Unless Mozilla was doing something that was oppressing LGBT employees, or hurting them, then the person involved did nothing wrong. And he was unfairly attacked by the Cupid site.
Click to expand...

The person involved engaged in activities that Mozilla saw as a potential liability to the company. And it wasn't OKCupid that exposed this or caused the initial firestorm -- it was Mozilla's own employees.
 
eohrnberger said:
Up until political correctly turns on you, of course, then it wouldn't be fair, right? Never mind everyone else, just as long as you're OK. Am I right?

Point being is no one is always 100% politically correct, especially when it's an evolving thing. Most anyone could be caught on it's wrong side at some point. Fair enough to dole out the same vindictive and retroactive punishment then?
Click to expand...

Right, it's called vindictive to not shop at a place whose CEO promotes and bankrolls something your against:roll: Last time I checked, people in the US have that right. If the company or the CEO doesn't like it, tough cookies.
 
eohrnberger said:
And now, apparently, traditional marriage, and support of traditional marriage being on the targeted list now.
Click to expand...

So "traditional marriage" (i.e. marriage between a man and a woman) is on the "target list" now?
 
tres borrachos said:
So you agree that everyone has a right to believe marriage should be between a man and a woman without being questioned. It isn't illegal, so it's a private matter.

And remember, corporations aren't people. They can't be identified as people. Unless Mozilla was doing something that was oppressing LGBT employees, or hurting them, then the person involved did nothing wrong. And he was unfairly attacked by the Cupid site.
Click to expand...

The more interesting angle to me was what OK Cupid did. If Hobby Lobby can't have a religion, how on Earth could OK Cupid have a philosophical position on homosexual marriage. I wonder if some shareholders of OK Cupids parent company are going to sue the executives for "fill in the blank" as a result of their actions.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Right, it's called vindictive to not shop at a place whose CEO promotes and bankrolls something your against.
Click to expand...

That's fair. I'm all for freedom. I'd love to see you getting fired for being a loudmouth woman.
 
Eich exercised his right to free speech by donating money to a political cause. Do not the employees of Mozilla and their supporters have the same right to free speech, utilized by putting pressure on the company?
 
Kobie said:
Not a single person in this thread is suggesting that Eich did anything illegal by donating to pro-Proposition 8 groups. That said, he chose to exercise his right to free speech by donating that money, and others have exercised theirs by negatively responding to Mozilla. Mozilla weighed the benefits vs. liabilities of keeping him on. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence.



Oh, I wish that were so.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The person involved engaged in activities that Mozilla saw as a potential liability to the company. And it wasn't OKCupid that exposed this or caused the initial firestorm -- it was Mozilla's own employees.
Click to expand...

So if he did nothing illegal, what business is it of anyone?

And if corporations are people made up of the personal views of the people, then why are all of the Liberals attacking Hobby Lobby?

The Mozilla employees must be either underworked or radical. There is no evidence whatsoever that Eich was anything but a good manager, and never did anything during his tenure at Mozilla that could be considered discrininatory towards gays. If they did this, then they are nothing but a lynch mob IMO, going after a man because of what he did in his personal life.
 
tres borrachos said:
I can't believe some of what I'm reading.
Click to expand...

I know, right? And he attempts to spout data left and right from the most suspect sources.

He's the type that has his beliefs and seeks out the 'data' that supports it, rather than the other way around...
 
Kobie said:
Eich exercised his right to free speech by donating money to a political cause. Do not the employees of Mozilla and their supporters have the same right to free speech, utilized by putting pressure on the company?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And since we agree that he did nothing illegal, and the employees should have the right to free speech, I think all of the supporters of traditional marriage should now have the same right. And I'm sure I'll see all of you come to the defense of the companies being boycotted when they decide to pressure employees who donated to causes that opposed Prop 8 to resign.
 
RiverDad said:
The more interesting angle to me was what OK Cupid did. If Hobby Lobby can't have a religion, how on Earth could OK Cupid have a philosophical position on homosexual marriage. I wonder if some shareholders of OK Cupids parent company are going to sue the executives for "fill in the blank" as a result of their actions.
Click to expand...

Nobody said Hobby Lobby can't have a religion. What they can't do is use their religion to withhold medical services from their employees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom