• 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]

Oh, and I missed the fact that more significant than black people (again) was whether or not somebody had a gay family member. Shocker, that.
 
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?

Here's the ABC News poll, not some contrived poll from "California Voters for Equality" which is most certainly not an unbiased observer.

Prop8poll_zpse1b31228.jpg
 
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.
I share your feelings about marriage and its changes over the years. Personally I'm not against Gay marriage or polygamous marriages so long as the children and the rights of the individuals are protected. It seems that unwed mothers are a greater problem for society than Gay marriages.

But this isn't about Gay marriage. It's about the harassment of a man for legally donating to a cause in which he believed and for which he was publicly vilified, losing his job in the process. That is shameful and no matter where anyone stands on marriage this selective attack on people for their view supporting traditional marriage between a man and a woman is worse than anything McCarthy is said to have stood for.
 
Here's the ABC News poll, not some contrived poll from "California Voters for Equality" which is most certainly not an unbiased observer.

Prop8poll_zpse1b31228.jpg

Yes, I'm familiar with the NEP poll. It's an outlier, and literally the only one that reports a number at 70%. All the rest are down in the mid 50's, which actually makes sense. As for the rest it supports what I've said, which is that ideology, party identification and faith were the driving factors behind prop 8 passing. Did you even read it?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm familiar with the NEP poll. It's literally the only one that reports a number at 70%. All the rest are down in the 58% neighborhood, which actually makes sense. As for the rest it supports what I've said, which is that ideology, party identification and faith were the driving factors behind prop 8 passing. Did you even read it?

If you want me to believe that 45% of Californians report going to church weekly, then post some other evidence in support of that position. As it stands now I believe that that poll was manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. I'll change my mind if you can actually support the fact that Californians are so overtly religious that 45% of them go to weekly service.

Here's the LA Times on the black vote:

He was thrilled that the nation elected its first African American president. But he was disappointed that black voters, traditionally among the most reliably liberal in the state, voted overwhelmingly to ban same-sex marriage. . . .

Although many of the state's black political leaders spoke out against Proposition 8, an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters favored the measure by a ratio of more than 2 to 1. Not only was the black vote weighted heavily in favor of Proposition 8, but black turnout -- spurred by Barack Obama's historic campaign for president -- was unusually large, with African Americans making up roughly 10% of the state electorate.

The exit poll didn't ask voters why they voted the way they did. But Madison Shockley, pastor of Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Carlsbad and among the roughly one-third of blacks who opposed Proposition 8, said the vote was understandable. "Black folks go to church, probably more than the Caucasian population, and the churches they go to tend to be very traditional."
 
Last edited:
If you want me to believe that 45% of Californians report going to church weekly, then post some other evidence in support of that position. As it stands now I believe that that poll was manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. I'll change my mind if you can actually support the fact that Californians are so overtly religious that 45% of them go to weekly service.

Here's the LA Times on the black vote:

He was thrilled that the nation elected its first African American president. But he was disappointed that black voters, traditionally among the most reliably liberal in the state, voted overwhelmingly to ban same-sex marriage. . . .

Although many of the state's black political leaders spoke out against Proposition 8, an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters favored the measure by a ratio of more than 2 to 1. Not only was the black vote weighted heavily in favor of Proposition 8, but black turnout -- spurred by Barack Obama's historic campaign for president -- was unusually large, with African Americans making up roughly 10% of the state electorate.

The exit poll didn't ask voters why they voted the way they did. But Madison Shockley, pastor of Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Carlsbad and among the roughly one-third of blacks who opposed Proposition 8, said the vote was understandable. "Black folks go to church, probably more than the Caucasian population, and the churches they go to tend to be very traditional."

So now you don't like your own source? LOL.

Anyway, about all those black people voting "overwhelmingly" to ban same sex marriage. Let's look at all the polls instead of just the outlier that everybody peed their pants over.

differentpolls.jpg

Yeah, I know you don't like my source, but I tracked down enough of the polls in that screen cap to see they were real. Simply put, the numbers don't support your narrative. In fact, you continue to cherry pick your own source by ignoring the ideology, party identification and age factors.
 
Last edited:
In fact, you continue to cherry pick your own source by ignoring the ideology, party identification and age factors.

Don't start arguing against a strawman. You made a claim that race was irrelevant to the vote. I falsified your claim. That's all I did. I didn't advance some counter argument that race was the only issue or whatever you may be imagining.

All of our comments to each other are quoted, so you can backtrack up the chain and see what you said to start this and what I said in response.

Also, the only poll taken on the day of the vote was the NEP poll.
 
I'll change my mind if you can actually support the fact that Californians are so overtly religious that 45% of them go to weekly service.

Not so sure why you are so concerned with that. Fact remains many people, even religious, are more open now to gay marriage being legal.

It's much like pornography. Religious people will tell you that pornography is wrong. The majority of those same people believe that pornography shouldn't be illegal. Now you don't believe me? Why isn't pornography illegal? Because there isn't a majority that believes it should be.

It's going to be the same with gay marriage. People will still believe it isn't moral, but they don't believe it should be illegal either.

That's the beuaty of this country, people can believe something isn't moral, however, it's legal. There are people TO THIS DAY that believe interracial marriage is immoral. They just don't have the legal power federally to say so. Freedom of religion still can happen with SSM being legal, just like some people believe to this day that interracial marriage is immorally wrong. They just don't have the federal legal power to say so.

What many religious folk don't realize is, that legal does not equate to moral.

Pornography is legal, but not moral to many religious folk.
 
Not so sure why you are so concerned with that. Fact remains many people, even religious, are more open now to gay marriage being legal.

It's much like pornography. Religious people will tell you that pornography is wrong. The majority of those same people believe that pornography shouldn't be illegal. Now you don't believe me? Why isn't pornography illegal? Because there isn't a majority that believes it should be.

It's going to be the same with gay marriage. People will still believe it isn't moral, but they don't believe it should be illegal either.

That's the beuaty of this country, people can believe something isn't moral, however, it's legal. There are people TO THIS DAY that believe interracial marriage is immoral. They just don't have the legal power federally to say so. Freedom of religion still can happen with SSM being legal, just like some people believe to this day that interracial marriage is immorally wrong. They just don't have the federal legal power to say so.

What many religious folk don't realize is, that legal does not equate to moral.

Pornography is legal, but not moral to many religious folk.
Do you think that morality has increased or decreased during the last generation? What is the source of public morality, or is it all about laws?
 
Do you think that morality has increased or decreased during the last generation? What is the source of public morality, or is it all about laws?

In EVERY generation morality is different. Why should YOUR morality be the BASELINE? I mean when what YOU were doing as a kid was different than your parents. What YOU did as a generation was different than your parents. And don't try to tell me it wasn't. You may not have participated personally but your generation did and it changed things.
 
In EVERY generation morality is different. Why should YOUR morality be the BASELINE? I mean when what YOU were doing as a kid was different than your parents. What YOU did as a generation was different than your parents. And don't try to tell me it wasn't. You may not have participated personally but your generation did and it changed things.
Yes, morality certainly changes with the times and many do not change with them, sometimes with good cause. But then that raises the question of what is morality. If it is that flexible does true morality really exist, or do we only have laws to keep us in line?
 
Don't start arguing against a strawman. You made a claim that race was irrelevant to the vote. I falsified your claim. That's all I did. I didn't advance some counter argument that race was the only issue or whatever you may be imagining.

The combined impact from ideology, age, religiosity, and party identification -- each of which had greater impact than race on their own -- was 50.3%. The impact of race was 5.5%. Yeah, I'm gonna call that irrelevant. If nothing else it doesn't remotely feed the "democrats couldn't control their black people" narrative that people who oppose same sex marriage love to play.

All of our comments to each other are quoted, so you can backtrack up the chain and see what you said to start this and what I said in response.

Also, the only poll taken on the day of the vote was the NEP poll.

So? You have one poll, and there were other polls. Looking at just one poll is stupid. Smart people look at all the polls to look for the trend and dismiss the erratic results.
 
So? You have one poll, and there were other polls. Looking at just one poll is stupid. Smart people look at all the polls to look for the trend and dismiss the erratic results.

Smart people look at the poll taken on election day. They account for the big hulabaloo that resulted from the 70% black vote news coverage and how this creates incentives to "massage the truth" in polls taken a week later.

Regardless, a 5.5% voting bloc switch would have flipped the result, which means it wasn't irrelevant.
 
Smart people look at the poll taken on election day. They account for the big hulabaloo that resulted from the 70% black vote news coverage and how this creates incentives to "massage the truth" in polls taken a week later.

Regardless, a 5.5% voting bloc switch would have flipped the result, which means it wasn't irrelevant.

Compared to the impact from religiosity, party identification, age and ideology even bringing up race is stupid.

Smart people look at one poll that shows a bizarre spike and wonder why that poll and that alone would show such aberrant results. Do you have any evidence that the numbers in every single other poll were massaged? Unless you do it's clear that you're just fighting to keep the poll that feeds your narrative.
 
Last edited:
Smart people look at one poll that shows a bizarre spike and wonder why that poll and that alone would show such aberrant results.

WE both know that the news coverage of the high black vote was intensive after the defeat. The NEP poll was the only one taken on election day. Every respondent had no way of knowing how every other respondent was answering. Only after the news broke did the black community come to know how high their support for Prop. 8 actually was. Then the pollsters came a calling a week later. Now the response drops down significantly.

We're still left with the incredible claim that 45% of Californians attend church weekly. I just find the inflation of church goers and the depression of black voters to be too convenient in order to arrive at the desired end result. If blacks go down, then some other groups have to go up.

Look, it was a nice intellectual exercise, but it's really not the point. Your claim was falsified, that's that.
 
WE both know that the news coverage of the high black vote was intensive after the defeat. The NEP poll was the only one taken on election day. Every respondent had no way of knowing how every other respondent was answering. Only after the news broke did the black community come to know how high their support for Prop. 8 actually was. Then the pollsters came a calling a week later. Now the response drops down significantly.

All of that is purely speculation on your part.
We're still left with the incredible claim that 45% of Californians attend church weekly. I just find the inflation of church goers and the depression of black voters to be too convenient in order to arrive at the desired end result. If blacks go down, then some other groups have to go up.

And you still haven't explained what your basis is for doubting the 45% figure.

Look, it was a nice intellectual exercise, but it's really not the point. Your claim was falsified, that's that.

You can say that all you like, but I was arguing that black people didn't throw the election, but the much larger impacting factors like age, religiosity, ideology and party identification, which every single poll supports.
 
All of that is purely speculation on your part.

Of course it is, that's what people do when they suspect that someone (not you, but the poll) is lying to them.

And you still haven't explained what your basis is for doubting the 45% figure.

Gallup puts California church attendance far lower, at 35%, and that's when they ask "do you attend ALMOST every week" rather than what your poll asked by restricting the issue to "Do you attend weekly" - Utah can only get up to 56% by Gallup criteria, Missouri is at 45%, Virginia is at 43%, Florida is at 40% and West Virginia is at 43%, so I'm having a real hard time believing a poll which tells me that 45% of Californians attend church every week when only 43% of West Virginians respond that they attend ALMOST every week. What this looks like to me is post-hoc adjustments of some kind - the numbers had to add up to the vote outcome but how the different groups were weighted was a polling decision. To put such a heavy emphasis on church goers and reduce the role of the black community might do the trick. I don't know what's up, but that poll just doesn't smell right.

California is not in the Bible Belt and yet it's supposed to have a weekly church attendance phenomena which exceeds that of the most religious region of the nation?

You can say that all you like, but I was arguing that black people didn't throw the election.

Of course I can say that because it's true. It doesn't matter what you INTENDED to write, what matters is what you wrote. You're not telling me anything new, I'm not disputing most of your arguments. You dismissed someone's point upthread, you didn't have a basis to do so, I falsified your rebuttal. We could have been spared this dance if you had given a more nuanced answer initially, but you didn't. I'm happy to accept your more nuanced answer but I wasn't disputing this nuanced position of yours.
 
Of course it is, that's what people do when they suspect that someone (not you, but the poll) is lying to them.

Alright, then I too will speculate. The other polls have black people voting for prop 8 all in the mid fifties range, from the lowest at 41 (which is too low, actually) to the highest at 58. So we're supposed to believe that all these people said they'd vote against prop 8 before and after the election, but in the exit poll that spikes to 70%? A spike of about five percent? I can wrap my head around that, but 12% That doesn't sound right at all to me.

Gallup puts California church attendance far lower, at 35%, and that's when they ask "do you attend ALMOST every week" rather than what your poll asked by restricting the issue to "Do you attend weekly" - Utah can only get up to 56% by Gallup criteria, Missouri is at 45%, Virginia is at 43%, Florida is at 40% and West Virginia is at 43%, so I'm having a real hard time believing a poll which tells me that 45% of Californians attend church every week when only 43% of West Virginians respond that they attend ALMOST every week. What this looks like to me is post-hoc adjustments of some kind - the numbers had to add up to the vote outcome but how the different groups were weighted was a polling decision. To put such a heavy emphasis on church goers and reduce the role of the black community might do the trick. I don't know what's up, but that poll just doesn't smell right.

California is not in the Bible Belt and yet it's supposed to have a weekly church attendance phenomena which exceeds that of the most religious region of the nation?

I don't know. My own research has figures in the 30's consistently as well.

Of course I can say that because it's true. It doesn't matter what you INTENDED to write, what matters is what you wrote. You're not telling me anything new, I'm not disputing most of your arguments. You dismissed someone's point upthread, you didn't have a basis to do so, I falsified your rebuttal. We could have been spared this dance if you had given a more nuanced answer initially, but you didn't. I'm happy to accept your more nuanced answer but I wasn't disputing this nuanced position of yours.

I was this nuanced pretty much from the moment you and I started. Here was the first post where I went into real detail:

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?

So right from the beginning my point was about what the largest and most important factors were, which was specifically to counter the narrative that black people caused prop 8 to pass. As you accept my point, however, then I'm content to let it drop.
 
The GOP loved him, eh?

It was pressure from the GOP leadership that got him to step down. But, speaking of healthy heterosexual activity, how about Senator Diaper Dan Vitter? LOL.
 
It was pressure from the GOP leadership that got him to step down.
But, speaking of healthy heterosexual activity, how about Senator Diaper Dan Vitter? LOL
.




What's that expression? Whatever turns you, him, her or it on.

As long as it's not illegal and you don't do it in the street and scare the horses.
 
It was pressure from the GOP leadership that got him to step down. But, speaking of healthy heterosexual activity, how about Senator Diaper Dan Vitter? LOL.

It amuses me sometimes that the Republican diehards will claim that a. Democrats are the party of sexual indiscretion, and b. Republicans always step down when caught with their pants down, when Vitter the ****ter is still happily occupying 1% of the Senate.
 
And we can all remember how Larry Craig was treated by the Democrats.

Oh, you mean the guy who ran on "family values" with one hand while jacking people off with the other, and was the guy who led the charge to censure Barney Frank? Yeah, poor Larry Craig.
 
Maybe, perhaps and probably? The fact is that you have nothing to support your position.

Well, it depends which part of my post you mean. You didn't quote any one specific part. I can tell you for FACT a person working a private sector at will job can be fired for saying anything about his or her political views no matter how innocent. For instance, someone could say, "I think 'insert any name' was the worst president ever" in the break room and be sent packing that day. Political speech in the private sector is NOT protected. I'm certainly not agreeing with that restriction of freedom but that is the reality of what we are dealing with[sic]. I'm sorry to hear that some people in the company were offended enough from Eich's actions that they felt it unpalatable for him to be CEO but I can fully understand it. It happens all the time for those average workers. You say something that ticks off a higher up and you are gone. Sometimes with zero compensation. I'm rather surprised people are unaware that workers in private companies do NOT have such freedoms at the workplace, rather your opinions are work related or not. Someone like me pushes for those workers to enjoy the same freedoms. People who work for private companies can get fired for having the wrong bumper sticker on their private property, for being too fat, having bad habits off the job etc..etc....I digress. That currently is the way it works so Eich feeling pressure to step down is not a shocker to me. What's good for the goose is good for the gander unless people want to change this for EVERYONE. Not just some CEO the media is making into some kind of sacrificial lamb.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, Jack, but Grant just took the gold from you. You can no longer claim to have contributed the dumbest post to this thread. Would you like to see if you can top him?

I take your squawking as a badge of honor. Thanks.:peace
 
Lol, I just came across this article and want to ask if conservatives are in or out? Put your outrage to work-

Here's the question: Simply put, if conservatives are frustrated by the treatment of Eich for his role in Proposition 8, then they should be outraged by the treatment of ordinary people at the hands of the people who employ them.

Snip- Mozilla and Brendan Eich’s resignation: Why don’t conservatives want to protect ordinary people from discrimination?

"But let’s grant that Sullivan and the National Review are right. That Eich’s forced resignation is an attack on speech, and that this is an ugly bout of bullying against someone who hasn’t expressed his views in the context of his job. If that’s true, then Eich is just the highest profile victim of a status quo that threatens countless workers.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act might protect workers from discrimination on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin, but almost everything else is fair game for private employers who want to get rid of workers. Not only can you be fired for your political views—for sporting the wrong bumper sticker on your car, for instance—or for being “sexually irresistible” to your boss, but in most states (29, to be precise), you can be fired for your sexual orientation or gender identification, no questions asked.

Overall, the large majority of Americans have at-will employment, which means that—outside of protected classes such as race or religion—they can be fired for any reason at all. For someone like Eich, this isn’t a huge deal: He will survive his brush with joblessness. The same can’t be said for millions of low-income workers who face termination lest they give their bosses their complete obedience.

For a taste of what this looks like, and if you’ve never worked a retail job, you should read former Politico reporter Joseph Williams on his time in a sporting goods store. For a pittance of a paycheck, he consented to constant searches, unpaid labor, and borderline wage theft. It’s a precarious existence, made worse by the fact that saying the wrong thing at the wrong time—either on the job or off it—could result in you losing your job, with no recourse.

And of course, employment discrimination against LGBT Americans is a real and ongoing problem. According to a 2011 report from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, at least 15 percent of gay Americans have faced discrimination and harassment at the workplace on the basis of their orientation, and at least 8 percent report being passed over for a job or fired. A whopping 90 percent of transgender individuals report some sort of harassment on the job. It’s doesn’t minimize Eich’s situation (if you’re opposed to his resignation) to note that gay people are far more likely to face discrimination than opponents of same-sex marriage.

In any case, there’s nothing conservatives can do about Eich’s resignation. But they can join with labor activists and others to push for greater worker protections, like the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. For as much as employer flexibility is important to a dynamic economy, it’s also true that no one should fear firing for the people they love, the identity they claim, or the donations they make.

Simply put, if conservatives are frustrated by the treatment of Eich for his role in Proposition 8, then they should be outraged by the treatment of ordinary people at the hands of the people who employ them."
 
Back
Top Bottom