• 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]

Carjosse said:
Free speech does not mean people can't hate you, it is not fascist to want to remove your CEO because he is homophobic. The CEO was harming the reputation of the company and employees disagreed with him.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of Californians who voted in that election, voted in favor of Proposition 8. Eight years earlier, Proposition 22 passed, also by a vast majority.

The simple, undeniable fact is that the majority of Californians—at least of those who actually voted in these two elections—oppose the efforts on the part of the pervert-rights lobby to radically redefine and corrupt the concept of marriage. The vast majority of Californians agree with the side to which Mr. Eich gave his support. It is likely that the vast majority of Mozilla employees also support Eich's position in this matter.

It is this company's absurd and completely unjustifiable act of blatant discrimination against Mr, Eich that has harmed this company's reputation.
 
1.) 100% correct
Click to expand...

2.) meaningless to rights and free speech
Click to expand...

False. Mozzilla is business. Its not a college debate room.
Eich's opinion had nothing to do with his job.

3.) 100% false they cant shut him up they have no right to nor did they he is still free to say what he wants
Click to expand...

Of course they can. They drove him out of his job. Its called thuggery.

4.) no need to apologize for being wrong it is free speech because what you are making up didnt happen
Click to expand...


Its exactly what happened. You seem to think free speech s a contact sport. It isn't. free speech is not driving Eich out of a job because of a disagreement that had nothing to do with the job. Free speech is those employees supporting laws, candidates ect wh support gay marriage.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Just as long as someone can perform their job - they should face no consequences for their political beliefs or affiliations. Individuals have the right to their own opinion weather if it is left or right.

It just seems that progressives love to degrade anyone who doesn't share their politics and will do everything in their power to destroy them.

Remember these are the same people who insist on "fairness" when they're nothing more than bullies and to some extent no different the the little ****s from "Lord Of The Flies."

The amount of tolerance I have for their intolerance is mind boggling.
Click to expand...

Those on the wrong used to love to portray themselves of the champions of free speech, and to accuse those of us on the right of being against free speech. Back then, the “free speech” that was under controversy consisted of valueless, degrading expression, such as foul language, pornography, and promotion of harmful and degrading behavior, and such. That's what those on the wrong think needs to be protected as “free speech”.

When it comes to genuine free speech—the expression of beliefs and opinions with which some may disagree—we now see that the wrong is most solidly opposed to it; and will stop at nothing to silence or retaliate against those who dare to express opinions which the wrong finds disagreeable.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The vast majority of Californians who voted in that election, voted in favor of Proposition 8. Eight years earlier, Proposition 22 passed, also by a vast majority.

The simple, undeniable fact is that the majority of Californians—at least of those who actually voted in these two elections—oppose the efforts on the part of the pervert-rights lobby to radically redefine and corrupt the concept of marriage. The vast majority of Californians agree with the side to which Mr. Eich gave his support. It is likely that the vast majority of Mozilla employees also support Eich's position in this matter.

It is this company's absurd and completely unjustifiable act of blatant discrimination against Mr, Eich that has harmed this company's reputation.
Click to expand...

Vast majority? Prop 8 passed with 52% support. That is not a "vast majority."

The rest of your post is pure twaddle.
 
BobbyO said:
1.)Well, you would need to show that Eich pushed that particular opinion about while at work. I have seen no suggestion he did.
2.)They absolutely have the right to think Eich is wrong. But as above-- nothing has been said that Eich was pushing that opinion on them.
3.)False. They can have whatever opinion they want. as can Eich.
4.)Two different subjects here:A. employees-- they sought to drive out somebody else. Because of that person's speech. Sorry-- that isn't exercising free speech
5.)B. Customers-- this would seem to be a no brainer-- Mozzilla has no right to do business with OKCupid (minus any contractual obligations which evidently did not exist). OKCupid could do business with whom it chooses.
6.) Except that we now know that bakers and photographers cannot refuse service at gay weddings should they have an opposition to it.
7.) The don't have free speech rights here. In light of this, the question has to be asked: Would OKCupid have had the free speech right to refuse to do business with Mozzilla because it objected to the CEO's opinion of gay marriage? Its no longer a clearcut "yes."



100% true. You are describing thuggery, not free speech.
Click to expand...

1.) wrong YOU made the claim its not a businesses matter, they it shouldnt be talked about there that is your opinion
2.) no one claimed he pushed it on them but the fact is he did try and
3.) so now you take back what you said, you said keep it out the work place, they have ever right to discuss it there
4.) see 4 now you are posting more lies you dont want them to say it at work you want to take their rights away you said it in post 1353
5.) nope not two different subjects at all they have every single right to their speech no matter what your opinion of their speech is
6.) wrong again all customers and employees have free speech
7.) correct because this is ILLEGAL and BREAKS THE LAW and violates peoples RIGHTS
8.) yes they do they just cant violate the rights as others as facts, law, rights and court cases show
this is no new concept try to keep up
9.) wrong again and facts prove you wrong, its free speech and your opinions dont affect that fact lol
but you are free to call it thuggery if you wish but it is still free speech this fact will not change no matter how dishonest your posts are about it.

if you disagree then simply FACTUALLY prove it

prove they have no right to free speech and people cant boycott a company I cant wait to read this lol

sorry free speech bothers you but we ALL have it not just the people YOU want to have it.
facts win and your post fails again
 
Jack Hays said:

"One could be forgiven for throwing one’s hands up in despair at the sheer audacity of it all. A fortnight ago, as the federal government took to the courts to defend a rule that deliberately burdens the consciences of America’s more religiously devout entrepreneurs, the professional Left adopted the position that companies do not have consciences, griped that a harsh separation of the public and the private spheres was a recipe for the suffering of unpopular or put-upon individuals, and insisted that any links between the activities of an employee and the deeply held beliefs of his boss should be thoroughly shattered. Today, the opposite case is regnant. Defending the appalling hounding of Brendan Eich, progressives seem to have suddenly got the message: reminding critics that there exists no legal right to be the CEO of a non-profit; insisting correctly that this sordid and alarming little affair does not in any way implicate the First Amendment; and acknowledging that, the doctrine of at-will employment being what it is, a man may resign from his job for whatever reason — up to and including harassment.

Well, comrades — which is it to be?
The answer to this question, one suspects, is “whichever suits the moment.” Which is to say that the Eich affair is ultimately about power, not principle — the latest in a series of plays contrived to show who is in charge. Convenient as it might be to pretend otherwise, the Left does not truly believe that private companies may behave as they wish to, but that private companies may behave as the Left wishes them to — whether instructed by government or not.":peace
Click to expand...

Are you asking those on the wrong to act in a manner that is logically consistent? Consistency has never been a trait that has been demonstrated by that side. They will take whatever position it takes to pout forth their wicked agenda, regardless of whether or not that position directly contradicts one that they previously took, in order to promote some other evil. The only consistency that you can ever expect from that side is that they will always favor evil over good; and they will take whatever secondary positions are most expedient in any given situation at any given time, to promote their greater agenda.
 
BobbyO said:
1.)False. Mozzilla is business. Its not a college debate room.
Eich's opinion had nothing to do with his job.
2.)Of course they can. They drove him out of his job. Its called thuggery.
3.)Its exactly what happened. You seem to think free speech s a contact sport. It isn't. free speech is not driving Eich out of a job because of a disagreement that had nothing to do with the job. Free speech is those employees supporting laws, candidates ect wh support gay marriage.
Click to expand...


1.) maybe if you learn how to quote you wont get confused. Post 1356 you said the CEO didnt bring his opinions to work.
and i said thats meaningless to rights and speech and that remains true. You reply makes no sense and changes nothign
2.) nope he still has it right to speech NOBODY took that from him and nobody shut him up, thanks for proving your own post false again
he can say right now that he hates gays if he wants, not saying thats how he feels just pointing out the fact that your statment is wrong and he is free to say what he likes
3.) thank you for again proving you dont know what free speech is or what actually happened

they ALL have free speech, im sorry that you only want the CEO to have it but they all have it.

if free speech, rights and freedoms bothers you theres always russia


again if you disagree PLEASE PLEASE factually prove people have no right to boycott and say they disagree with him or shouldn't run a company etc etc Id love to read it
 
AGENT J said:
solutions to free speech?

anybody?
anybody?

bueller?

bueller?
Click to expand...

nobody yet huh?

its very telling nobody has a solution to this pesky free speech issue
 
AGENT J said:
1.) then i guess you should haven argued against things i never said and acted like i did. Typically when qouting somebody you are agreeing with them or disagreeing with them
2.) another poster already pointed this out also and i have no interest in doing so.
glad i could clear up your confusion for you
Click to expand...

1. Actually, I was indifferent to your view.
2. The other poster was in error on that score are you, apparently.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
1. Actually, I was indifferent to your view.
2. The other poster was in error on that score are you, apparently.:peace
Click to expand...

1.) you were indifferent to a view you didnt know i had. wow sounds like magic
2.) says you but i know you mentioned rights lol and if i get bored ill go back and quote, nice try though.

good luck with your argument that people should only get to practice there rights of free speech if YOU think its decent.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) you were indifferent to a view you didnt know i had. wow sounds like magic
2.) says you but i know you mentioned rights lol and if i get bored ill go back and quote, nice try though.

good luck with your argument that people should only get to practice there rights of free speech if YOU think its decent.
Click to expand...

Your post was merely a convenient entree into the discussion. Your "view" didn't matter. As for rights, what you "know" seems to spring from your imagination. Your unprovoked hostility is puzzling.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
1.)Your post was merely a convenient entree into the discussion.
2.)Your "view" didn't matter. As for rights, what you "know" seems to spring from your imagination.
3.) Your unprovoked hostility is puzzling.:peace
Click to expand...

1.) sure i believe you, for 20 posts it was just a spring board LMAO
2.) hey look another failed insult since your posts failed and you still have no logical way to defend them.
are you implying that we all dont have free speech? i hope not because thats ALL i said i know so PLEASE do tell what i imagined, i cant what to see you try to back this lie up
3.) i have no hostility im laughing at your posts lashing out and trying failed insults after your failed posts.

now if you will please do my request above and stay on topic. Let us know how your opinion of they should only have free speech if YOU think its decent works. WHo gets to determine this decency?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) sure i believe you, for 20 posts it was just a spring board LMAO
2.) hey look another failed insult since your posts failed and you still have no logical way to defend them.
are you implying that we all dont have free speech? i hope not because thats ALL i said i know so PLEASE do tell what i imagined, i cant what to see you try to back this lie up
3.) i have no hostility im laughing at your posts lashing out and trying failed insults after your failed posts.

now if you will please do my request above and stay on topic. Let us know how your opinion of they should only have free speech if YOU think its decent works. WHo gets to determine this decency?
Click to expand...

Since we agree about free speech I'm not sure what your problem is. I'm not trying to defend anything. The point I have been making from the beginning is about decency and tolerance, not rights, which I never mentioned.:peace
 
AGENT J said:
should?
well thats tricky

the fact is free speech will, it has no choice because free speech applies to us all.

the only way speech would not effect our job is if we didnt have it or only some of us did

the should is a matter of opinion and nothing else.

the fact is it can and thats the only way it works.

whats your solution to fix it?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter whether I have a solution or not.

I asked "should it?"

Personally, I say no. But everyone with a scrap of sense knows that however hard you try to make it otherwise, it still matters.

Because we humans tend to give too many ****s.
 
1.) wrong YOU made the claim its not a businesses matter, they it shouldnt be talked about there that is your opinion
Click to expand...

False. Employers have a legal responsibility to ensure a safe and harassment free workplace. Trying to drive somebody out of his job can absolutely run afoul of this requirement.
And its not a question of thinking and saying Eich is wrong; its driving him out of his job is the problem.

2.) no one claimed he pushed it on them but the fact is he did try and
Click to expand...

Yes-- this whole issue had nothing to do with Eich at his job. He expressed his opinion off the job, it was found out a few years later, and people who did not like it tried, and succeeded, in getting him pushed out. Silencing him.

3.) so now you take back what you said, you said keep it out the work place, they have ever right to discuss it there
Click to expand...

Its probably best not to have political discussions at work, since after all you are work, and are expected to work and not have political discussions. Its probably not a good idea to discuss such political issues after work hours, as that can poison the well.
But what happened at Mozzilla wasn't that people said 'I dissagree with Eich and I am going to-- give money to lamda, write a letter to the local paper ect ect ect.' It was - 'We are going to work to get rid of him, because we don't like what he says.'

4.) see 4 now you are posting more lies you dont want them to say it at work you want to take their rights away you said it in post 1353
Click to expand...

As above

5.) nope not two different subjects at all they have every single right to their speech no matter what your opinion of their speech is
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

6.) wrong again all customers and employees have free speech
Click to expand...

You are behind the times. Bakers and photographers can face legal sanction if they decline to take a gay couple marrying as customers, because they are gay, and because said baker et. al. oppose such activities. They do not have free speech on this issue.

7.) correct because this is ILLEGAL and BREAKS THE LAW and violates peoples RIGHTS
Click to expand...

Oh-- the bakers don't have free speech rights then?
Of course, if a baker can be compelled to bake a wedding cake against his or will, why couldn't OKCupid be compelled to continue using Mozzilla? Doesn't Eich have a right to be anti-gay marriage? Certainly, Eich was harmed and certainly Mozzilla would have been harmed by the actions of OKCupid. "Action" is what makes the difference, yes?

8.) yes they do they just cant violate the rights as others as facts, law, rights and court cases show
this is no new concept try to keep up
Click to expand...

Oh I see-- free speech is just one of many competing rights. It is of no greater significance than other rights.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
1.)Since we agree about free speech I'm not sure what your problem is.
3.) I'm not trying to defend anything.
4.) The point I have been making from the beginning is about decency and tolerance, not rights, which I never mentioned.:peace
Click to expand...

1.)we do not agree on free speech
2.) no problem just pointing out the failure of your stance
3.) so spring board, stances, now your not trying to defend anything lol
4.) this is simply a lie

your stance is people shouldn't practice their free speech unless YOU deem it decent and tolerant

no thanks i pefer we just have rights and your opinion shouldnt matter to them
 
AGENT J said:
I love that free speech bothers people only when they dont agree with it

and the question a couple people keep running from because nobody can answer it

what is the solution?

very telling nobody showed any integrity and answered that, they only want free speech to be in place when it suits them

west boro has free speech just like us all, you may not like it but its the only way it works :)
Click to expand...
Convincing or forcing someone to leave (according to articles I would assume former) their job is not something that "free speech" encompasses.

Talking about it, sure.
 
BobbyO said:
1.)False. Employers have a legal responsibility to ensure a safe and harassment free workplace. Trying to drive somebody out of his job can absolutely run afoul of this requirement.
And its not a question of thinking and saying Eich is wrong; its driving him out of his job.
2.)Yes-- this whole issue had nothing to do with Eich at his job. He expressed his opinion off the job, it was found out a few years later, and people who did not like it tried, and succeeded, in getting him pushed out. Silencing him.
3.)Its probably best not to have political discussions at work, since after all you are work, and are expexted to work and not have political discussions. Its probably not a good idea to discuss such political issues after work hours, as that can poison well.
But what happened at Mozzilla wasn't that people said I dissagree with Eich and I am going to-- give money to lamda, write a letter to the local paper ect ect ect. It was - We are going to work to get rid, because we don't like what he says.
4.)As above
5.)absolutely.
6.)You are behind the times. Bakers and photographers can face legal sanction if they decline to take a gay couple marrying as customers, because they are gay, and because said baker et. al. oppose such activities. They do not have free speech on this issue.
7.)Oh-- the bakers don't have free speech rights then?
8.)Of course, if a baker can be compelled to bake a wedding cake against his or will, why couldn't OKCupid be compelled to continue using Mozzilla? Doesn't Eich have a right to be anti-gay marriage?



Oh I see-- free speech is just one of many competing rights. It is of no greater significance than other rights.
Click to expand...

1.) no laws were broken thanks for another failed strawman and your OPINIONS are meaningless to facts. Seem you have issues with this
2.) nobody buys this lie and its already been proven false LMAO repeated 10 more times it will be a lie each time.
they practiced their free speech and he isnt silenced in any way. WHy do you post lies ad make stuff up? do you think it will work?
again sorry free speech bothers you
3.) your meaningless opinion and all FACTUALLY free speech
4.) exactly your argument fails twice
5.) then stop being upset about them practicing their rights
6.) facts prove you wrong again, look up the court cases, laws and people srights those people BROKE THE LAW and VIOLATED the rights of others, thier free speech is 100% intact.

thank you again for proving you dont understand rights. You have the rights to sewing your fist but if you swing the fist into somebody you violated somebody else rights. Your mistake.

7.) see above of course they do as already proven
they dont have the right to break the law and infringe on others rights though, this is basic 101 stuff
8.) this didnt happen nobody was forced to bake a cake LOL please stop with the lies
and PLEASE keep repeating this ok cupid analogy that you think makes sense it further shows how little you know on this subject.
9.) correct rights have no hierarchy your rights end where others begin again thank you for proving you are not well educated on this particular subject
facts win aand your post loses again

let me know when you are ready to explain how the employees and customers dont have their right to free speech, its funny you dodge that
 
The Mark said:
1.)It doesn't matter whether I have a solution or not.
2.)I asked "should it?"
3.)Personally, I say no. But everyone with a scrap of sense knows that however hard you try to make it otherwise, it still matters.
4.)Because we humans tend to give too many ****s.
Click to expand...

1.)meaning there is none
2.) and i answered theres no way it cant
3.) personally i think babies and kids should never die but thats not reality. It matters because you cant have freedom without it
4.) reality is a bitch :)
 
AGENT J said:
1.)we do not agree on free speech
2.) no problem just pointing out the failure of your stance
3.) so spring board, stances, now your not trying to defend anything lol
4.) this is simply a lie

your stance is people shouldn't practice their free speech unless YOU deem it decent and tolerant

no thanks i pefer we just have rights and your opinion shouldnt matter to them
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts. I believe in unlimited, unfettered free speech. But a tolerant society by definition asks us all to live with our disagreements. This is not a legal requirement so much as a matter of decent respect for each other. People are free to exercise their rights to the fullest; I am free to suggest that judgment in that exercise is not out of place.:peace
 
The Mark said:
Convincing or forcing someone to leave (according to articles I would assume former) their job is not something that "free speech" encompasses.

Talking about it, sure.
Click to expand...

yes it actually does, thats exactly what it does, are whole system works on similar premises as long as they are with in the law. Voting is just an official way of the same thing. Unless you are claiming we dont have free speech.

example. I think you shouldnt post here any more and im gonna tell everybody and boycott this site until you are not posting here any more.

are you claiming i dont have that right? I most certainly do.
 
Grant said:
Society is all over the place as far as morals go. There are no defining public morals anymore.
Click to expand...

Sorry I should have clarified myself in this regard. People individually decide what is moral and what isn't. Society decides what morals are LEGAL and what isn't.

A serial killer decides that murder is moral, society decides that it isn't legal.
 
Jack Hays said:
1.)Wrong on all counts. I believe in unlimited, unfettered free speech. But a tolerant society by definition asks us all to live with our disagreements. This is not a legal requirement so much as a matter of decent respect for each other. People are free to exercise their rights to the fullest; I am free to suggest that judgment in that exercise is not out of place.:peace
Click to expand...

translation: you dont believe in free speech unless you find it tolerant :shrug:
thanks for clearing that up

and yes you are free to think people should practice their rights unless you think they should but luckily the system doesnt work that way because then it wouldnt be rights or freedom
 
AGENT J said:
translation: you dont believe in free speech unless you find it tolerant :shrug:
thanks for clearing that up

and yes you are free to think people should practice their rights unless you think they should but luckily the system doesnt work that way because then it wouldnt be rights or freedom
Click to expand...

No, I believe in free speech always and everywhere. I just hope for decency and tolerance from my fellow man. You're benefiting from it now.:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom