• 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]

The Mark said:
I am apparently using a different definition of "speech".

In this case I meant actually campaigning against something, not simply speaking their mind.
Click to expand...

well speech encompasses a lot and that was my whole point

different forms of speech will get different reactions, hence the reactions to his donation or a reaction to just saying somethign or a reaction to what people did about his donation.

And now we have come full circle to my example about insulting your wife in different ways and how one might get blown off and one could get me free dental work :) and you can see how all speech is factually not equal, the same or has the same intent
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Highly dishonest.
Click to expand...

well thank you for demonstrating the standard left wing approach to this debate: When you are faced with someone who disagrees, instead of attempting to reason with them and convince them of your side, go for the ad hominem. well done :roll:
 
cpwill said:
well thank you for demonstrating the standard left wing approach to this debate: When you are faced with someone who disagrees, instead of attempting to reason with them and convince them of your side, go for the ad hominem. well done :roll:
Click to expand...

The irony here is that no more than three posts above your own is a right wing user doing the exact same thing. Hm, wonder what that says about your own kin. The fact that your side commits the same, percieved, fallacies and the fact that the right is continously oblivious to their own underhand tactics in debates. It's very telling.
 
Zinthaniel said:
The irony here is that no more than three posts above your own is a right wing user doing the exact same thing. Hm, wonder what that says about your own kin. The fact that your side commits the same, percieved, fallacies and the fact that the right is continously oblivious to their own underhand tactics in debates. It's very telling.
Click to expand...

It's fairly routine for conservatives to call out liberals for using a tactic they don't like while ignoring when other conservatives do the exact same thing, and vice versa.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
They called a boycott against a man that gave money to outlaw marriage for them. That is what happened. Both these people have rights to speak out.
Click to expand...



cpwill said:
Wrong. The guy gave money to continue to define marriage as between a man and a woman, not "outlaw" anyone's marriages, or outlaw it as a ceremony for anyone.
Click to expand...
rabbitcaebannog said:
Highly dishonest.
Click to expand...
100% correct
cpwill said:
well thank you for demonstrating the standard left wing approach to this debate: When you are faced with someone who disagrees, instead of attempting to reason with them and convince them of your side, go for the ad hominem. well done :roll:
Click to expand...

your post was factually wrong, he did donate to try and outlaw legal marriage for some people. Saying otherwise is a flat out lie.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
That's funny, "radically"? Sorry but it is allowing two people of the same sex to marry, nothing "radical" about it.
Click to expand...

Actually two men marrying each other, or two women, is quite 'radical' and very uncommon throughout the world. That it is occurring more frequently in some western nations doesn't make the practice any less radical.
 
cpwill said:
well thank you for demonstrating the standard left wing approach to this debate: When you are faced with someone who disagrees, instead of attempting to reason with them and convince them of your side, go for the ad hominem. well done :roll:
Click to expand...

Mark Steyn has an interesting take one this. ~


THE CONFORMISM OF COOL: As an example of the groupthink of the cutting edge of new media, consider an exception that proves the rule:

Mozilla CEO Resists Calls to Resign Amid Furor Over Anti-Gay Marriage Donation

The "anti-gay marriage donation" was $1,000 that Brendan Eich gave to California's Proposition 8, which in November 2008 was approved by the same electorate that voted for President Obama and which banned same-sex marriage in the state - until the Supreme Court ruled that the voice of the people on this matter was "unconstitutional". A five-year-old one-grand donation to a losing cause is apparently enough to render Mr Eich unfit for office at an American technology company. Because what matters in this brave new world is that everybody think alike - or at least pretend to. Invited to eat gay crow, Mozilla's CEO is for the moment holding his own:

In a blog post last week, Eich expressed "sorrow at having caused pain" but stopped short of saying his beliefs on gay marriage have changed... Eich says it remains to be seen whether pressure from the community forces his ouster. But given another chance to offer support of gay marriage, he wouldn't take it. Asked whether he would support Prop. 8 today, Eich responded, "I hadn't thought about that. It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to answer hypotheticals."

I would doubt Mr Eich's views have changed. He appears to hold the same definition of marriage that 99.99 per cent of the civilized world held until the day before yesterday, and which even today half of America still quaintly believes in. But the author of this piece, "senior reporter" Casey Newton, seems to think it entirely normal that in order to keep his job a man should be bullied into a false public recantation of his personal beliefs. Mr Newton's publication covers all the cool stuff - "the intersection of technology, science, art, and culture" - but the assumptions underpinning the story are as thuggish and totalitarian as any state commissar prescribing re-education camp for ideological deviancy. And nobody young and hip seems to find that in the least bit weird.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Wrong in one very important detail(and a couple small ones I will let slide): the controversy was not over his beliefs, but over his actions. This is a large, unsubtle, important distinction.
Click to expand...

So if someone was fired over donating money to Obama's campaign, you'd be fine with that?
 
Redress said:
You must admit, if he had not taken that action, he would still be employed, no matter what his beliefs are. No thought police.
Click to expand...

So if he's simply said that he supports the traditional definition of marriage, there would have been no pressure for him to step down? Is it really good public policy to say that donating your own private money to campaigns and charities others my disagree with is a good reason to fire somebody? You don't see how that could be misused?
 
Last edited:
Zinthaniel said:
Voting for obama and donating in a effort to deny rights are not synonymous. Not all actions are equal.
Click to expand...

I see, only the actions you agree with should be protected. Convenient. I've donated to pro-life groups before, should I be fired over that? If my boss is pro-life and an employee donates to an abortion advocacy group, I assume you'd be fine if the employee was fired over that.
 
digsbe said:
I'm typing this on Google chrome right now and have both browsers installed...

My views are that I'm pro SSM. I'm just against the hackery and bigotry/hate that constantly comes from the pro-SSM side directed at those that support traditional marriage though.

Thanks for the judgement though.
Click to expand...

I'm also not opposed to SSM, but some of the pro SSM crowd makes it difficult sometime to be on their "side".
 
X Factor said:
So if someone was fired over donating money to Obama's campaign, you'd be fine with that?
Click to expand...

It was my understanding he was not fired. Am I wrong in that?
 
X Factor said:
I see, only the actions you agree with should be protected. Convenient. I've donated to pro-life groups before, should I be fired over that? If my boss is pro-life and an employee donates to an abortion advocacy group, I assume you'd be fine if the employee was fired over that.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah one day i want marry the one I love - so I do believe my right to do so should be protected.

No one was fired, he was asked to step down since the ceo is the pinnacle of image for a company. Morzilla is pro gay rights and eich, apparently, is not. That's a conflict.

If in your hypothetical the boss's establishment caters to a consumer base that is primarily pro life and, after the employee is promoted to head manager, it is revealed to the public that he donates to a pro abortion advocacy group, then of course I could understand ultimately agree with that boss's action to prptect his business's image. This would obviously mean not having a manager who is pro choice working such a high position in a pro life endorsing business

The boss could obviously not fire the employee. That is against the law.
 
X Factor said:
So if he's simply said that he supports the traditional definition of marriage, there would have been no pressure for him to step down? Is it really good public policy to say that donating your own private money to campaigns and charities others my disagree with is a good reason to fire somebody? You don't see how that could be misused?
Click to expand...

Speaking is an action.

Companies are not public but privately owned by shareholders.
 
X Factor said:
So if he's simply said that he supports the traditional definition of marriage, there would have been no pressure for him to step down? Is it really good public policy to say that donating your own private money to campaigns and charities others my disagree with is a good reason to fire somebody? You don't see how that could be misused?
Click to expand...

Let's get started on the "Big Sort" already. Workplaces will be more efficient and more pleasant places to work when everyone doesn't have to worry about thought control, reeducation seminars and always having to bite their tongue. Liberals can create the kind of totalitarian workplaces that they desire and normal people can create pleasant work environments. Everyone will be happy. If you have cancer, there is little sense in putting off the treatment and taking vitamins as the cure - get the surgery or chemotherapy, get that cancer out of your body, suffer the trauma, heal from the surgery and get on with living and enjoying life. The sooner the better.
 
Zinthaniel said:
The boss could obviously not fire the employee. That is against the law.
Click to expand...

Let me give you a civics lesson. Laws can be changed. There, problem solved.
 
RiverDad said:
Let me give you a civics lesson. Laws can be changed. There, problem solved.
Click to expand...

Thanks captain obvious.

Currently the law prohobits termination on such a basis. Therefore, while the law is still upheld, it can't be done without repricussions
 
Zinthaniel said:
Thanks captain obvious.

Currently the law prohobits termination on such a basis. Therefore, while the law is still upheld, it can't be done without repricussions
Click to expand...

Let's all join hands and get to work on overturning these laws which violate human rights.
 
Zinthaniel said:
Well, yeah one day i want marry the one I love - so I do believe my right to do so should be protected.
Click to expand...

Yes, as long as someone espouses some position you support, you feel they should be protected, but if someone supports something you disagree with you don't. Ok.

No one was fired, he was asked to step down since the ceo is the pinnacle of image for a company. Morzilla is pro gay rights and eich, apparently, is not. That's a conflict.

If in your hypothetical the boss's establishment caters to a consumer base that is primarily pro life and, after the employee is promoted to head manager, it is revealed to the public that he donates to a pro abortion advocacy group, then of course I could understand ultimately agree with that boss's action to prptect his business's image. This would obviously mean not having a manager who is pro choice working such a high position in a pro life endorsing business

The boss could obviously not fire the employee. That is against the law.
Click to expand...

So, since my boss is a Democrat, should he be able to fire me over my donations to pro-life groups or conservative groups?
 
Redress said:
Speaking is an action.

Companies are not public but privately owned by shareholders.
Click to expand...

Well, that's interesting, isn't it? Is it your argument that since it's privately owned, it can hire, fire or pressure someone into not taking actions on their beliefs under threat of losing their jobs? I don't have a problem if that is your position, it just needs to be true for all positions.
 
X Factor said:
Yes, as long as someone espouses some position you support, you feel they should be protected, but if someone supports something you disagree with you don't. Ok.



So, since my boss is a Democrat, should he be able to fire me over my donations to pro-life groups or conservative groups?
Click to expand...

What part of "you can't be fired over political affiliations" do you not understand?

Otherwise your managment can promote and demote you at their own discretion. Those decisions have been and always be based on your employers bias.
 
X Factor said:
Well, that's interesting, isn't it? Is it your argument that since it's privately owned, it can hire, fire or pressure someone into not taking actions on their beliefs under threat of losing their jobs? I don't have a problem if that is your position, it just needs to be true for all positions.
Click to expand...

Depends on the state and an employees contract what constitutes cause for firing. I again point out that it was my understanding that the guy was not fired in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom