• 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]

Anthony60 said:
Now here is an important lie from the left. He's a "bigot" because he supports traditional marriage. No debate or disagreement allowed. No respect for your religion. In that case, anyone that opposes traditional marriage is also a bigot, as they refuse to accept the views of others that are not like their own.
Click to expand...

Sheesh, some consider him a bigot because he donated to an effort to strip gays of their rights. Can no conservatives see this as fundamentally different than merely having divergent VIEWS?

Let's try another example.

Person 1: I'm a devout Muslim
Person 2: I'm a devout Christian

We'd all agree, I think, that 1 and 2 should peacefully coexist in any workplace, and not be offended that their CEO takes a different view than them personally.

Person 1: I'm a devout Christian
Person 2: I'm a devout Muslim, and I donated to an effort to pass a Constitutional amendment to make "Sharia" the permanent law of California.

Can anyone see the difference, and get why in that situation Christian employees, suppliers, customers, etc. might vehemently object to the Muslim CEO? It's no longer merely different opinions, which should be tolerated, but in this case Person 2 wants to enforce his views on EVERYONE, even those who disagree. Why is this so hard to get.
 
JasperL said:
Sheesh, some consider him a bigot because he donated to an effort to strip gays of their rights. Can no conservatives see this as fundamentally different than merely having divergent VIEWS?
Click to expand...

Rock Hudson, a homosexual man, was married. Dr. Sally Ride, a homosexual woman, was married. No one has stripped homosexuals of their rights. Don't be disingenuous.
 
RiverDad said:
Rock Hudson, a homosexual man, was married. Dr. Sally Ride, a homosexual woman, was married. No one has stripped homosexuals of their rights. Don't be disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is amazingly obtuse.

How did those marriages work out?
 
RiverDad said:
Rock Hudson, a homosexual man, was married. Dr. Sally Ride, a homosexual woman, was married. No one has stripped homosexuals of their rights. Don't be disingenuous.
Click to expand...

That's pretty hilarious. :lamo I hope you're not being serious.

But if you are somehow claiming that the 'right' to marry is simply the 'right' to marry SOMEONE, and not the person you love, and want to spend a lifetime with, well, that's....special. Thanks for the insight!

Really, you didn't mean that, did you?
 
JasperL said:
Really, you didn't mean that, did you?
Click to expand...

Seriously, you don't mean to argue that a man can marry a man, do you? That's not marriage. Get it?
 
Mr.Nick said:
IMO, beyond small businesses there are few corporations that are NOT puppets of the government or labor unions...

I know this for a fact and it drives me nuts - especially knowing that nothing is for free..... Of course you can corporations that defy the government and the unions and they're treated like garbage, however they're more successful than the government and union puppet corporations, yet are consistently attacked by both entities, because they're not willing to play ball with the EPA and progressives in general. Then of course the government sicks the IRS on these corporations who tell the government to go **** off.

This is the United States man - government should mind their own business..... Taxation is not good enough for these corporations - government and unions want way more influence than that...

Hell, I'd love to open a business - a retail business - however it's just not worth it given the fact of government influence.
Click to expand...

This case has nothing to do with the government.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Who gets to decide which personal views are more equal than others?
Click to expand...

As long as they are the views of the liberals / progressives, there's no trouble. Stray from the liberal / progressive positions, and they'll cause you trouble.
May even make such a faux outrage to make you resign form the company you founded.
 
RiverDad said:
Seriously, you don't mean to argue that a man can marry a man, do you? That's not marriage. Get it?
Click to expand...

Sure it is. There's no logical reason for it not to be.
 
Mr.Nick said:
IMO, beyond small businesses there are few corporations that are NOT puppets of the government or labor unions...

I know this for a fact and it drives me nuts - especially knowing that nothing is for free..... Of course you can corporations that defy the government and the unions and they're treated like garbage, however they're more successful than the government and union puppet corporations, yet are consistently attacked by both entities, because they're not willing to play ball with the EPA and progressives in general. Then of course the government sicks the IRS on these corporations who tell the government to go **** off.

This is the United States man - government should mind their own business..... Taxation is not good enough for these corporations - government and unions want way more influence than that...

Hell, I'd love to open a business - a retail business - however it's just not worth it given the fact of government influence.
Click to expand...

It's hardly worth it anymore. The IRS has become dangerous to everyone's freedoms and they can ruin anyone's business or career.. IRS must be held responsible for leaking National Organization for Marriage donor list | Fox News

Freedom of speech is available, in theory, as long as you don't exercise it.
 
eohrnberger said:
As long as they are the views of the liberals / progressives, there's no trouble. Stray from the liberal / progressive positions, and they'll cause you trouble.
May even make such a faux outrage to make you resign form the company you founded.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Family Research Council. They often boycott or threaten to boycott pro-gay businesses.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...ervatives-should-be-allowed-boycott-companies

Tell that to Townhall writer John Hawkins.

http://townhall.com/columnists/john...ould-be-blacklisted-by-conservatives-n1672317

Tell that to Breitbart's Ben Shapiro.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/b...-shamefully-boycott-nabisco-over-sharpton-ad/

Oh, that's right. Only "the left" puts pressure on companies to divorce themselves from politically contentious people or organizations.
 
beefheart said:
Wow, that is amazingly obtuse.

How did those marriages work out?
Click to expand...

I should mention here that my brother is gay, and was married to a woman (who knew he was gay - they'd dated for nearly 10 years, loved each other, they thought he'd change, they could work it out, etc.). Didn't work. And there's a serious point to it. Lots of gay men DO marry women, and it's cowardly, and unfair to the wife, and any kids that follow, and it's especially unfair and cowardly if he wife enters into it unaware. It's what he finally had to confront and so they divorced, and it was the only honorable thing to do.

I laughed above, but it's really NOT funny.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Who gets to decide which personal views are more equal than others?
Click to expand...

Leftists, and that's always been the case. They'll shut down anyone who dares disagrees with their views and history demonstrates this repeatedly.
 
RiverDad said:
Seriously, you don't mean to argue that a man can marry a man, do you? That's not marriage. Get it?
Click to expand...

It may not be "marriage" for religious purposes, but from the point of view of the state, which is all anyone is arguing about, marriage is what the state says it is. It's a contract, rights, responsibilities, benefits, involving healthcare, inheritance, taxes, debt, assets, etc.
 
Grant said:
Leftists, and that's always been the case. They'll shut down anyone who dares disagrees with their views and history demonstrates this repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right, because a constitutional amendment to, for example, ban gay marriage is DEFINITELY NOT anyone deciding which views are more equal than others. Good point!
 
JasperL said:
It may not be "marriage" for religious purposes, but from the point of view of the state, which is all anyone is arguing about, marriage is what the state says it is.
Click to expand...

You're treating the state as though it were a sentient being. It's not. It doesn't have a mind of it's own. The State represents the people. The question of how to define marriage was asked of the people of California and they spoke.
 
RiverDad said:
Seriously, you don't mean to argue that a man can marry a man, do you? That's not marriage. Get it?
Click to expand...

It is in my state. And several others. Soon it will be all.

That is marriage.

Get it?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Who gets to decide which personal views are more equal than others?
Click to expand...

SSM is not any more or less equal. That doesnt actually make sense.

SSM is equal for American citizens....your personal view is just that...personal.
 
Kobie said:
This case has nothing to do with the government.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with government...

Government wants to steal my capital gains and redistribute that to others....

It's not worth it for me to start a business - hell my family had one and they had to shut it down because the economy was nasty and the government was greedy.

Honestly, the worst part is that I'm in the prime of my life and the only thing that is stopping me from being a successful business owner is government taxes and regulations....

Government wants their hand in everything and if that is their agenda then my dream needs to sit until I have a government that respects small businesses - instead of bleeding them dry.

In reality government is doing nothing more than regulating small businesses while they sit there and lie and claim they promote such ideas. Obama and his progressive ilk are nothing more than liars who do the exact opposite of what they claim.
 
Mr.Nick said:
It has everything to do with government...

Government wants to steal my capital gains and redistribute that to others....

It's not worth it for me to start a business - hell my family had one and they had to shut it down because the economy was nasty and the government was greedy.

Honestly, the worst part is that I'm in the prime of my life and the only thing that is stopping me from being a successful business owner is government taxes and regulations....

Government wants their hand in everything and if that is their agenda then my dream needs to sit until I have a government that respects small businesses - instead of bleeding them dry.

In reality government is doing nothing more than regulating small businesses while they sit there and lie and claim they promote such ideas. Obama and his progressive ilk are nothing more than liars who do the exact opposite of what they claim.
Click to expand...

Exactly none of which has a lick to do with Mozilla making its decision to distance itself from a potential PR liability. Sell your rant someplace else.
 
The way I see it Brandon Eich was asked to step down from his position because in 2008 he provided material support
to a proposition that said marriage was between a man and a woman.
Under that criteria President Obama should also step down, because in 2008 He said the same thing on CNN,
Barack Obama on Gay Marriage - YouTube
Thus providing support to the same concept.
 
ecofarm said:
Obama didn't hide that fact and thereby trick someone into hiring him.
Click to expand...

Given that he was actually in favor of SSM at the time, and only adopted the position that he did in order to win the election of 2008, yes, in fact, he did.
 
Kobie said:
Exactly none of which has a lick to do with Mozilla making its decision to distance itself from a potential PR liability. Sell your rant someplace else.
Click to expand...

It was made into a PR liability by people wishing to silence dissent by targeting individuals to intimidate others. And they are absolutely willing to use government to do it.

ecofarm said:
Bob Blaylock[/quote said:
Who gets to decide which personal views are more equal than others?
Click to expand...
Logic and reason.
Click to expand...

Incorrect - everyone will simply then disagree on what "logic and reason" say. The people who win are those who can garner the most public support.
 
Kobie said:
Exactly none of which has a lick to do with Mozilla making its decision to distance itself from a potential PR liability. Sell your rant someplace else.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And who could blame Stalin for murdering 15,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Forest to distance himself from a potential PR liability?:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom