• 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]

Yes it does. Something that the left is completely against. Just have to look at how conservative speakers are shouted down, and how quickly and easily leftists should racist and bigot with opinions and positions they disagree with. Talk about squashing another's right to speech.

What a crock. The assholes have the right to speak their minds. And, in turn, "the left" has the right to tell the assholes that they're assholes and that we have no interest in doing business with them. Freedom of speech is a two-way street.
 
Might be, but doesn't make sense. From what has been posted in this thread any political donation in California of $1K or more is recorded and made public. So why would the IRS have to release any information if it's public already?

There is this link here regarding California but perhaps the IRS leaked it earlier. They are being sued so something seems to have happened. I'll try to find out more.

The link claims that it wasn't only link who was attacked when the names of the donors were made public. How did people find out that Mozilla’s CEO donated to support Prop 8? « Hot Air
 
1.) this link says he wrote all the policies for gay friendly environment, enforced them and did so on hos own not with regard to law/rights?
could you qoute that part for us? be even better if it wasnt wiki also, thanks

2.) he doesnt have one hence why he donated money to try and stop them from having equality and yes ive read his response to this.

3.) no, its not lol Its a reflection of LAW.

4.) agreed hence the talk about his actions of donating to try and keep gays as lessers

5.) false as already proven this is what you WANT to be but isnt what is. There are also laws and principles that guide those and if they want to make money or be succesfully many many times they will put other things aside especially bigoted views. ANd the books on leadership say that lol

see priests who molest, racist owners of company's or sports teams over the years who had above avg of number of women or minorities workign for them or serviced them t etc etc etc

its almost like you think your words erase facts, history and evidence. They do not, your opinions are yours to have but thats all they are.
Im sticking with facts, evidence and definitions.

6.) NOPE never even suggested a idea that is that mentally retarded. Has nothing to do with me. But you are free to try and sell that made up, failed strawman if you like. Like the other ones it wont work it will also just get mocked.

7.) nobody, good thing im not judging him LOL please keep these strawmen going they are funny

8.) you could but like i many already pointed out there is factual evidence of his bigotry, do you have any for me? currently you do not lol

i can give you some if you like though, im 100% bigoted against child rapist :shrug:
bigot is just a word, if it bothers anybody they can simply not be one

9) i agree again good thing it never happened and your strawmen are failing

10.) no need he isnt guilty of any crimes, nor is Mozilla at this point

nice dodge of my question to, i knew you would dodge it.

Let us know when you have somethign REAL to argue and be advise ill be 100% on your side that he isnt a bigot when there are any facts to counter the ones that already prove he is.

So guilty until proven innocent? Nice.
 
What a crock. The assholes have the right to speak their minds. And, in turn, "the left" has the right to tell the assholes that they're assholes and that we have no interest in doing business with them. Freedom of speech is a two-way street.

How profound.
 
So guilty until proven innocent? Nice.
LOL still nothing huh
another failed strawman

nope his donation already proved him guilty
now if you want him to be innocent youll need evidence of the contrary.

Basic logic, facts and relaity.

Let us know when you have something
 
There is this link here regarding California but perhaps the IRS leaked it earlier. They are being sued so something seems to have happened. I'll try to find out more.

The link claims that it wasn't only link who was attacked when the names of the donors were made public. How did people find out that Mozilla’s CEO donated to support Prop 8? « Hot Air

So good friends of LGBT. Here is your database of other people to hound out of jobs, nice and conveniently online and a searchable database:
Rumors are floating around Twitter that proof of Brendan Eich’s donation was illegally leaked by people in government sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage. Not so. I’d forgotten about it, but friends reminded me that the LA Times obtained a list of people who gave, for and against, to the fight over the Prop 8 referendum in 2008. They put the whole database online and made it searchable. Search it today and, sure enough, there’s Eich with a $1,000 donation in favor. Under California law, that disclosure is perfectly legal: The state is authorized to provide certain personal information about anyone who donates more than $100 to a ballot measure. Why the state is allowed to do that, I’m not sure. The reason you want transparency when donating to a candidate is to prevent an elected official, who’s supposed to serve the public interest, from being secretly coopted by huge sums of money provided by a special interest. In a ballot measure, though, the money being spent is designed to influence the public itself. They’re the final arbiter of the public interest, no?
How did people find out that Mozilla’s CEO donated to support Prop 8? « Hot Air

Make sure that each of the bigots is hounded out of town, hanging their heads in shame as they go. Do please proceed with wreaking their lives, so that you can feel good.

Probably most of them will end up bringing their talents, skills and wealth to the great state of Texas, to the continued greater detriment of California. But hey, at least you'll be able to feel good and righteous about doing so.
 
Last edited:
Also as a general note

to ANYBODY claiming that this is a right or left issue please stop, this type of intellectual dishonest fools nobody.

As an independent there are MILLIONS of righties and lefties that support equal rights.

There are also millions of both that are against it unfortunate

denying this fact only weakens the validity of anything else said
 
Yeah, wasn't relevant:

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed.​

Blacks = 70%
Christians = 66%

Liberals know that it's not politically correct to attacks blacks, so they remain silent instead and direct their attacks on the only group they've permitted themselves to attack - the Christians who they hate.

Nope, regular church attendance was the overwhelming contributing factor at a whopping 84%, and ideology with conservatives clocking in at 82%. Conservatives just took the race factor and ignored everything else because it fit in with a funny but ultimately false narrative.
 
Last edited:
LOL still nothing huh
another failed strawman

nope his donation already proved him guilty
now if you want him to be innocent youll need evidence of the contrary.

Basic logic, facts and relaity.

Let us know when you have something

I provide solid references, and you dismiss them. Fine. I'm now dismissing you.
 
1.)I provide solid references, and you dismiss them. Fine.
2.)I'm now dismissing you.

1.)LMAO no you didnt you provided a bunch that in your OPINION you think makes his bigotry magically disappear.
you provided NOTHING factual that makes that happen.

Once you provide a FACT that erases his bigotry then youll have somethign, until then you got nothing.

2.) good move since your posts are failing, i accept your concession
 
Last edited:
Being for traditional marriage doesn't mean someone is anti-Gay. This man apparently treated gays with respect with nothing in his past that showed any bias whatsoever but he drew the line at marriage.

Soon there will be the same debate regarding polygamy. Should those who are not for polygamous marriages be called 'bigots' because they disagree with the idea?

You know, I hear you and I understand your concerns about the "traditional" definition of marriage changing and how that concerns some. I don't share that concern though. Think about it for a minute. Historically, how humans define marriage has changed again and again. If it did change (again), from our current definition, how exactly would that harm anyone? How would it harm you? It wouldn't. You would live your and promote your understanding of it and others would do the same. Nothing in your life would change.

As for the rest of the world or for future generations, I would guess that some would have concerns about the moral decay our society but there are many things that are rotting us from within at a much faster clip than the changing definition of marriage.

It's hard not to believe that those who oppose altering our current definition of marriage, are primarily motivated by a fear of change or a fear that people will start marrying sheep or some such nonsense. I see their fear as their problem and while I would certainly make an effort to reassure them that everything will be okay, it's not enough to warrant not allowing the definition to evolve to something more inclusive.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is not a 'right' If you can show that it is please point it out.
It is against the law and all laws are guided by the constitution.


My opinion tends to be formed by facts.

I already told you when marriage became a right. June 12, 1967.
 
no sigh, what do you disagree with lol
You using my post as a springboard to post your pre-fab post about ssm.

Thread is barely even about ssm, even though we were discussing it like the easily distracted mfers I am.
 
1.)LMAO no you didnt you provided a bunch that in your OPINION you think makes his bigotry magically disappear.
you provided NOTHING factual that makes that happen.

Once you provide a FACT that erases his bigotry then youll have somethign until then you got nothing.

2.) good move since your posts are failing, i accept your concession

I get it. Assume he's a bigot unless proven otherwise. That's the same as guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever thought that he may have donated to that cause and still not be a bigot?
Oh of course not. Shows exactly how extreme and unreasonable you are on this topic.
 
A recent remake of Planet of the Apes contained a perfect depiction of a modern American liberal…
To make it conservative, replace the quote with this:

"I mean, I'm all for individual freedom unless it's something I personally disapprove of."
 
1.)You using my post as a springboard to post your pre-fab post about ssm.
2.)Thread is barely even about ssm, even though we were discussing it like the easily distracted mfers I am.

1.) no I was just providing info you didnt seem to have. I got that impression from you saying that it "seems" to be moving that direction. Its definitely moving that direction thats all
2.) i agree 100% (including myself)

I think thats because theres nothing to discuss about the real op, its really an empty issue so other things spread from it

the Op basically adds up to, a person did something bigoted that people didnt like but that he has the right to do. People voiced thier opinions about what he did like they had the right to do. THat person stepped down. Nothing illegal happen so far as we know.

theres nothing to talk about until then so people went in other directions
 
1.)I get it. Assume he's a bigot unless proven otherwise.
3.)That's the same as guilty until proven innocent.
4.)Have you ever thought that he may have donated to that cause and still not be a bigot?
Oh of course not.

5.)Shows exactly how extreme and unreasonable you are on this topic.

1.) no the fact is you dont, your posts prove that
2.) nope i would never assume that about anybody. WHat i am doing is going by the facts and definitions until theres evidence otherwise lol
3.) yes that WOULD be, good thing thats factually not being done. But you are free to try and sell that lie as much as you wont. Nobody honest, educated and objective will buy it
4.) this is IMPOSSIBLE unless of course you want to ASSUME it was a mistake lol

its thats what you are saying? you want me to now IGNORE facts and evidence and ASSUME it was a mistake?

sorry your post fails again

5.) another failed straw man, yes its unreasonable to use facts and logic.
Can you post anything that doesnt fail and get proven factually wrong? I thought you were done?

let me know when you have a accurate, factual and logical argument to present. We'll be here PLEASE PLEASE let us know when you have any facts that show he isnt a bigot anymore. heck even one will do . . . . one
 
Nope, regular church attendance was the overwhelming contributing factor at a whopping 84%.

Do you understand reality? Church attendance is a SUBSET of Christian. You don't provide us with the composition of Attend Church and Don't Attend Church which constitutes the group Christian. Of those who do attend Church, 84% voted in favor and some good portion of that group was also black and Hispanic.

Current research on church attendance by Christians puts the figure at 20.4% and African church attendance is exploding:

Almost all the U.S. Mainline denominations have liberalized their views on homosexuality, as on so many other theological and ethical issues. But the United Methodists are edging in the opposite direction thanks mostly to the dramatic growth of conservative African churches. At its next governing convention in 2012, about 40 percent of the delegates will come from outside the U.S., virtually guaranteeing United Methodists will not follow the Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, United Church of Christ and others whose membership declines accelerated after accommodating liberal sexual standards. Those denominations also have suffered schisms, with conservatives forming new communions. Many traditional Episcopalians are now aligned with autonomous, and thriving, Anglican churches in Africa.

Church liberals, so proud of their historic liberationist solidarity with the Global South, are befuddled by conservative African churches. The American United Methodist bishops even contrived to contain the African influence by proposing a new U.S. only church convention that would omit the Africans and other internationals. That plan failed in 2009 when local United Methodist annual conferences voted overwhelmingly against it. The Africans will remain full partners in United Methodist governance, with increasing repercussions for U.S. church members. African church growth will dramatically affect global Christianity. The International Bulletin of Missionary Research reports that Africa had fewer than 9 million Christians in 1900, compared to 475 million today, and 670 million expected by 2025​
.

So let's do the math.

Top level = Christian @ 70% of voters.
Sublevel = Attend Church @20.4%
Subsublevel = 84% approval

All told, church goers accounted for (.84 x .204 x .70) = 12% of all votes cast.
 
1.) no the fact is you dont, your posts prove that
2.) nope i would never assume that about anybody. WHat i am doing is going by the facts and definitions until theres evidence otherwise lol
3.) yes that WOULD be, good thing thats factually not being done. But you are free to try and sell that lie as much as you wont. Nobody honest, educated and objective will buy it
4.) this is IMPOSSIBLE unless of course you want to ASSUME it was a mistake lol

its thats what you are saying? you want me to now IGNORE facts and evidence and ASSUME it was a mistake?

sorry your post fails again

5.) another failed straw man, yes its unreasonable to use facts and logic.
Can you post anything that doesnt fail and get proven factually wrong? I thought you were done?

let me know when you have a accurate, factual and logical argument to present. We'll be here PLEASE PLEASE let us know when you have any facts that show he isnt a bigot anymore. heck even one will do . . . . one

The only fact that you have that he is a bigot is that he donated to a particular cause only once. That's pretty thin evidence to destroy a man's career over. Although I suspect that this really matters little to you and others in the LGBT community.

Facts I have brought, or have been posted:
  • Mozilla was an LGBT friendly workplace - Eich's personal blog posting
  • Eich was a founder of Mozilla - Wikipedia
  • LGBT see fit to force a man out of job on the mere fact that he contributed once to a prevalent political position at the time - demonstration and boycotts covered in media
What facts do you have that he's a bigot, barring a single donation to that one cause from years ago?
 
The only fact that you have that he is a bigot is that he donated to a particular cause only once. That's pretty thin evidence to destroy a man's career over. Although I suspect that this really matters little to you and others in the LGBT community.

Facts I have brought, or have been posted:
  • Mozilla was an LGBT friendly workplace - Eich's personal blog posting
  • Eich was a founder of Mozilla - Wikipedia
  • LGBT see fit to force a man out of job on the mere fact that he contributed once to a prevalent political position at the time - demonstration and boycotts covered in media
What facts do you have that he's a bigot, barring a single donation to that one cause from years ago?

He was asked whether he'd do it again and wasn't willing to say no.
 
Do you understand reality? Church attendance is a SUBSET of Christian. You don't provide us with the composition of Attend Church and Don't Attend Church which constitutes the group Christian. Of those who do attend Church, 84% voted in favor and some good portion of that group was also black and Hispanic.

Current research on church attendance by Christians puts the figure at 20.4% and African church attendance is exploding:

Almost all the U.S. Mainline denominations have liberalized their views on homosexuality, as on so many other theological and ethical issues. But the United Methodists are edging in the opposite direction thanks mostly to the dramatic growth of conservative African churches. At its next governing convention in 2012, about 40 percent of the delegates will come from outside the U.S., virtually guaranteeing United Methodists will not follow the Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, United Church of Christ and others whose membership declines accelerated after accommodating liberal sexual standards. Those denominations also have suffered schisms, with conservatives forming new communions. Many traditional Episcopalians are now aligned with autonomous, and thriving, Anglican churches in Africa.

Church liberals, so proud of their historic liberationist solidarity with the Global South, are befuddled by conservative African churches. The American United Methodist bishops even contrived to contain the African influence by proposing a new U.S. only church convention that would omit the Africans and other internationals. That plan failed in 2009 when local United Methodist annual conferences voted overwhelmingly against it. The Africans will remain full partners in United Methodist governance, with increasing repercussions for U.S. church members. African church growth will dramatically affect global Christianity. The International Bulletin of Missionary Research reports that Africa had fewer than 9 million Christians in 1900, compared to 475 million today, and 670 million expected by 2025​
.

So let's do the math.

Top level = Christian @ 70% of voters.
Sublevel = Attend Church @20.4%
Subsublevel = 84% approval

All told, church goers accounted for (.84 x .204 x .70) = 12% of all votes cast.

I had to post a screen cap from the source because it's not allowing me to copy and paste easily.

poll.jpg

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

So you have the largest contributing factors being ideology (with Republicans and Conservatives voting at 81% and 82% respectively), church attendance at 70% (whoops, my memory was off), 65 and older at 67% (I owe Deuce an apology) and finally black people at 58%. Of course, the idea that it was older conservative religious church goers who were overwhelmingly in favor of prop 8 is boring and predictable (and obvious), so conservatives just ignore this and go with the idiotic "Liberals can't control their black people har har!" theme. Unless you want me to believe the conservative republican church goers over 65 were all black people?
 
Don't know what people are getting so worked up about. It frankly doesn't matter if it was a long time ago or not, it's power politics. Different websites like OKCupid were already blocking Mozilla in protest. If Mozilla didn't take this action and fire the CEO, they would have hemorrhaged Firefox users left and right simply by virtue of not being able to access popular websites. This was one effective online campaign, and Mozilla made the right choice to save their skin.

It's too bad that this level of effectiveness can't be applied to other kinds of protest because the public could get some real results.
 
He was asked whether he'd do it again and wasn't willing to say no.

AgentJ's going to want a reference, or it didn't happen. Would you happen to have one?
 
I had to post a screen cap from the source because it's not allowing me to copy and paste easily.

I don't believe those numbers. Look at what they signal - 45% of all California voters (not just pro, but both pro and con) attend church weekly. I might believe that if we were talking deep in the Bible Belt, and even that would be a stretch, but there's no way I see Jeff Spicoli putting Sunday church attendance high on his list. That high of a result, 45% of all voters, just doesn't characterize California.
 
I don't believe those numbers. Look at what they signal - 45% of all California voters (not just pro, but both pro and con) attend church weekly. I might believe that if we were talking deep in the Bible Belt, and even that would be a stretch, but there's no way I see Jeff Spicoli putting Sunday church attendance high on his list. That high of a result, 45% of all voters, just doesn't characterize California.

LOL, of course you don't. And where are you from to characterize California like that? Do you look over here and just see West Hollywood and San Francisco?
 
Back
Top Bottom