• 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]

JasperL said:
So, you're saying LGBT rights aren't important enough for Mozilla's gay employees and customers and partners and advertisers to justify any meaningful protest? If the subject isn't at "the heart" of the company's narrow line of business, it shouldn't matter to those whose rights are threatened? I'm sure you feel that way because I've not seen any indication you care about LGBT rights or support SSM, but obviously others disagree with you.

BTW, I suppose then that anti-gay bigotry is at "the heart" of the conservative movement so banning gay GOP groups is OK?
Click to expand...

:shock: WOW! And that ladies, and gentlemen is how a false liberal narrative is born....Way to go Jasper, You've shown that you are able to fall in line with the ranks of dishonest spin masters.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Right because protest is the same as murdering:roll:
Click to expand...

Kobie said:
Yes, pushing a CEO out the door with what I'm sure is a lovely severance package and systematically murdering 15,000 people is a comparable scenario. :roll:

Congratulations, though, you're the first person I've seen to drag a 60-years dead Soviet dictator into the conversation. I'm sure you're VERY proud.
Click to expand...

Suppression is suppression. The two acts are on the same continuum. Orwell had it right.:peace
 
JasperL said:
So, you're saying LGBT rights aren't important enough for Mozilla's gay employees and customers and partners and advertisers to justify any meaningful protest? If the subject isn't at "the heart" of the company's narrow line of business, it shouldn't matter to those whose rights are threatened? I'm sure you feel that way because I've not seen any indication you care about LGBT rights or support SSM, but obviously others disagree with you.

BTW, I suppose then that anti-gay bigotry is at "the heart" of the conservative movement so banning gay GOP groups is OK?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that they didn't have a right to protest at Mozilla. I asked what the correlation is to the Guns and Ammo story. I don't see it anywhere.

By the way, I'm vocally and non-apologetically in favor of gay marriage, and I'm a conservative. I think every consenting adult should have the right to marry if they chose. Polygamists, gay people, siblings, whoever.

And I am fully in support of the protest they launched. I'm still not clear on what they wanted the end effect to be though. What did they want? They didn't say that the Mozilla culture was anti-gay, or that gay employees were treated unfairly, so there's seemingly nothing to change there. Did they just want Eich to be punished for doing something that offended them?
 
The Mark said:
Ah, but do the Koch brothers live by these standards?

Edit: Actually, don't they set their own standards? I thought they more-or-less owned several companies or something...who are they, anyways?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think they do support SSM and own their company.

I'm talking about the double standard being set in how they actively fund and support organizations that contribute significantly to Republican candidates, and that lobby against universal health care and climate change legislation. If any CEO supports certain political agenda's should they be held accountable? I don't care what the issue is, if you allow no expression of opinions by threat of punishment, that will become a principle that works both ways.

You have to be careful what you wish for because you might just get it. ;)
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Protest is the opposite of suppression.
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:peace
 
j-mac said:
Well, are you really trying to put forth the argument that "they did it too" justifies your own support of intolerance? That is IMHO, weak.

What has happened supposedly to "Log cabin Republican's" or to an editor for writing an editorial, doesn't justify an outside group pressuring a company to fire someone for donating to a cause, 10 years ago, that they don't like.

The two are not comparable in a rational sense.
Click to expand...

You specifically targeted liberals for their intolerance for dissenting views. If you want to make it partisan, should examples of intolerance, and they are many, of conservatives for dissenting views be ignored?

Here's your quote: "This story just shows the level of intolerance liberals display against dissenting opinions...." Firing a decade or two writer over ONE article shows tolerance for dissenting views about matters important to conservatives? Banning a gay group from a political gathering shows GOP tolerance for dissenting opinions?

I think the "not comparable" there means when you AGREE with those showing intolerance, it's all righteous and good. When you disagree with those being intolerant, not so much.

And I believe we should all be tolerant of differing opinions, but no one should be tolerant of others trying to strip rights important to us, through the law. I've said this 10 times on this thread that there is a difference in being opposed to SSM (a different opinion), and donating to a cause that attempts to strip LGBT rights and enshrine second class status to their relationships in the Constitution (an act to strip someone of their rights). If the CEO attended a conservative church that refused to marry gay people, but didn't attempt to prevent the STATE from recognizing ANY gay marriage, LGBT and their supporters should tolerate that difference.

If some group tries to strip you of rights dear to you, I'd expect you to be VERY intolerant of those attempts - you can and should fight their efforts to the best of your ability.
 
tres borrachos said:
I love that the free market spoke. And I will embrace it when the free market works the other way and executives get pressure when it's revealed that a person gave money to a group that opposed Proposition 8.
Click to expand...

Given the trend of opinions on this topic, I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
I wasn't a member here in 2008. Were there this many people calling the blacks in California bigots for opposing gay marriage since 70% of them did?
 
tres borrachos said:
Wow. 7 in 10 black voters supported Proposition 8 in the 2008 election.

The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage

Those bigots.

Most of California's Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban

I'm sure the Cupid site called for a mass boycott of black owned businesses in California, but it musn't have made the news.
Click to expand...

Prop 8 Myths | FiveThirtyEight

And don't say "wow," as if this is something you've just now "discovered." So full of it.
 
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:peace
Click to expand...

Right, because the bullies are the ones protesting those funding laws that suppress their right. Welcome to America were protest is allowed.
 
JasperL said:
You specifically targeted liberals for their intolerance for dissenting views. If you want to make it partisan, should examples of intolerance, and they are many, of conservatives for dissenting views be ignored?

Here's your quote: "This story just shows the level of intolerance liberals display against dissenting opinions...." Firing a decade or two writer over ONE article shows tolerance for dissenting views about matters important to conservatives? Banning a gay group from a political gathering shows GOP tolerance for dissenting opinions?

I think the "not comparable" there means when you AGREE with those showing intolerance, it's all righteous and good. When you disagree with those being intolerant, not so much.

And I believe we should all be tolerant of differing opinions, but no one should be tolerant of others trying to strip rights important to us, through the law. I've said this 10 times on this thread that there is a difference in being opposed to SSM (a different opinion), and donating to a cause that attempts to strip LGBT rights and enshrine second class status to their relationships in the Constitution (an act to strip someone of their rights). If the CEO attended a conservative church that refused to marry gay people, but didn't attempt to prevent the STATE from recognizing ANY gay marriage, LGBT and their supporters should tolerate that difference.

If some group tries to strip you of rights dear to you, I'd expect you to be VERY intolerant of those attempts - you can and should fight their efforts to the best of your ability.
Click to expand...

Nearly every issue is partisan to a few in here.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Right, because the bullies are the ones protesting those funding laws that suppress their right. Welcome to America were protest is allowed.
Click to expand...

Andrew Sullivan was merely offering his opinion as a gay man. I don't think he ever said anywhere in his full piece that he opposes protest.
 
Kobie said:
Tell that to the Family Research Council. They often boycott or threaten to boycott pro-gay businesses.

More FRC Hypocrisy: Only Conservatives Should be allowed to Boycott Companies | Right Wing Watch

Tell that to Townhall writer John Hawkins.

5 Corporations That Should Be Blacklisted By Conservatives - John Hawkins - Page 1

Tell that to Breitbart's Ben Shapiro.

Ben Shapiro boycotts Nabisco over Sharpton ad | The Daily Caller

Oh, that's right. Only "the left" puts pressure on companies to divorce themselves from politically contentious people or organizations.
Click to expand...

Seems that the left groups have a 10:1 ratio in boycott efforts. But I could be wrong. Could it be that only the leftist boycott actions are significantly covered in the media? To garner more support? Might have something to do with that.
 
eohrnberger said:
Seems that the left groups have a 10:1 ratio in boycott efforts. But I could be wrong. Could it be that only the leftist boycott actions are significantly covered in the media? To garner more support? Might have something to do with that.
Click to expand...

and this is bad because?
 
tres borrachos said:
By the way, I'm vocally and non-apologetically in favor of gay marriage, and I'm a conservative. I think every consenting adult should have the right to marry if they chose. Polygamists, gay people, siblings, whoever.

And I am fully in support of the protest they launched. I'm still not clear on what they wanted the end effect to be though. What did they want? They didn't say that the Mozilla culture was anti-gay, or that gay employees were treated unfairly, so there's seemingly nothing to change there. Did they just want Eich to be punished for doing something that offended them?
Click to expand...

From what I've read there is a concern about the disconnect between his support of LGBT rights in the workplace, and funding changes to the Constitution intended to discriminate against those employees in their private lives. And I think it was a problem that he never did disavow his support for those efforts to discriminate against them in the public arena.

And I saying they "wanted to punish" Eich for supporting efforts to strip their rights isn't really it - they didn't want a man who wanted to strip them of their rights, their relationships forever second class, as the public face of their company.
 
I hope the Left keeps this up. What a great way to isolate and marginalize their agenda by pissing off a vast majority of Americans.

You would have thought they would have learned their lesson back when they attacked Phil Robertson.
 
Fenton said:
I hope the Left keeps this up. What a great way to isolate and marginalize their agenda by pissing off a vast majority of Americans.

You would have thought they would have learned their lesson back when they attacked Phil Robertson.
Click to expand...

What, another partisan?
 
JasperL said:
From what I've read there is a concern about the disconnect between his support of LGBT rights in the workplace, and funding changes to the Constitution intended to discriminate against those employees in their private lives. And I think it was a problem that he never did disavow his support for those efforts to discriminate against them in the public arena.

And I saying they "wanted to punish" Eich for supporting efforts to strip their rights isn't really it - they didn't want a man who wanted to strip them of their rights, their relationships forever second class, as the public face of their company.
Click to expand...

And from what I've read, he never did anything in the workplace to infringe on the rights of LGBT employees, in his own particular staff or otherwise.

So what did they want to accomplish?

Where was their outcry against the 7 out of 10 blacks in California who also opposed their right to marry in 2008? A little consistency in the target of their outrage would have been nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom