Mozilla CEO steps down due to donations to an anti gay marriage bill in California

[angelatc]

If government exists somewhere, I want it to treat everyone equally. I'm for universal civil unions or straight out abolition of licenses period but I accept that people have to live in the interim between that and the current system of discrimination makes a bad system worse. Maybe it'd also get the traditional marriage types pushing for that solution as well and not be so tempted to force their morals to become law.

Marriage and civil unions are not about equality. They're about passing out government benefits based on marital status.

[KingNothing]

Conservative web sites should now all block all Firefox users.

That's the opposite of what should happen. If Conservatives were smart, instead of lowering themselves to the "GOTCHA!" game that progressive pieces of garbage play, they should be supporting free speech in its purest form. Nothing is off limits. No jobs lost over a donation or a joke. No massive, organized, boycotts. In virtually every instance, demands that someone be fired or that businesses be targeted are totally ridiculous. Let's lighten the hell up and let people speak and act as they choose. As long as they neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, I don't care what anyone else is up to.

[angelatc]

That's the opposite of what should happen. If Conservatives were smart, instead of lowering themselves to the "GOTCHA!" game that progressive pieces of garbage play, they should be supporting free speech in its purest form. Nothing is off limits. No jobs lost. No massive, organized, boycotts. In virtually every instance, demands that someone be fired or that businesses be targeted are totally ridiculous. Let's lighten the hell up and let people speak and act as they choose. As long as they neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, I don't care what anyone else is up to.

Wait...so it was ok for OKCUpid to make a political statement by blocking Firefox users from visiting their site, but it's not OK for conservatives to make political statements from using the exact same tactic?

I do see your point, but they fired the shot across the bow. The ex-CEO was fired for exercising his free speech rights before he was even the CEO.

Conservatives were not out on force insisting that OKCupid should not exist because they are friendly to the gay community. They were not organizing boycotts of businesses based on their CEOs political donations.

The live-and-let-live mentality won't work when your opponent is perfectly willing to murder you for merely disagreeing.

[RM918]

I meant persecuted by ridiculing them for expressing their political views to the point where they have to resign...

This I actually personally agree with. I'd rather just the way he ran his business affected whether or not they got rid of him, but as LGBT types are an arch protected class right now he got hit with the tide. My sympathies are tempered however because he was attacked for advocating for the legislation of morality, and people like that are the whole reason we're in this situation to begin with.

"At least they'd have a choice." Listen to you. Maybe we should give up now and be thankful that we get to pick a new master every four years because "at least we have a choice" of who oppresses us. How pathetic.

Could you argue at all without the needless hyperbole and insults? I don't know what you're hoping to do by acting holier-than-thou with someone who (I'd hope to assume) agrees with you that government should ultimately not be involved in marriage period. Is my slight disagreement with your views so profoundly disturbing that you have to lower yourself to name-calling?

Now if we're past all that, the elections are a poor analogy because we're stuck with the same bull$#@! no matter who gets picked. If you choose not to take a government license for marriage, a position you argued LGBT types should prefer taking as they could just call it marriage and be happy with it, you're not forced to get a license. You can just keep up that way, if you like, without the state interfering. Neither one of them are all that great a choice but they at least have meaningful consequences. Bush or Obama, you get your wars and corporatism and government regulation of marriage whether you like it or not.

Don't ignore the other parts of my post either... you're on a dangerous path to ignorance. I proposed to you that imposing marriage licenses on gays is advocating force. What is your answer to this? You're basically saying, "Hey, government! Go oppress those people over there, too!" You're advocating government control and oppression.

Unless gays right now have the ability to do all that stuff I was talking about earlier as being the benefit of having a license, which they don't, I don't see how having the option open now is actually oppressing them any differently than not having it open. Before, due to overall government regulation of marriage, they miss out on spousal benefits insurance custody rights etc. etc. because some religious types want their morality enshrined in law. Afterward, though, they get the option. They can still simply not get a license if they don't want to.

[angelatc]

Unless gays right now have the ability to do all that stuff I was talking about earlier as being the benefit of having a license, which they don't, I don't see how having the option open now is actually oppressing them any differently than not having it open.

BUt what about the single people????

[RM918]

Marriage and civil unions are not about equality. They're about passing out government benefits based on marital status.

I agree and I'd rather them not exist.

[angelatc]

I agree and I'd rather them not exist.

But you're of the mindset that as long as government benefits exist, we might as well expand the entitlement class?

[RM918]

BUt what about the single people????

As far as I'm aware they also have the option to get married or not get married.

Unless they're gay.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Wait...so it was ok for OKCUpid to make a political statement by blocking Firefox users from visiting their site, but it's not OK for conservatives to make political statements from using the exact same tactic?

I do see your point, but they fired the shot across the bow. The ex-CEO was fired for exercising his free speech rights before he was even the CEO.

Conservatives were not out on force insisting that OKCupid should not exist because they are friendly to the gay community. They were not organizing boycotts of businesses based on their CEOs political donations.

The live-and-let-live mentality won't work when your opponent is perfectly willing to murder you for merely disagreeing.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because OK Cupid doesn't like free speech, doesn't mean it makes sense for conservative web sites to lose a ton of users out of spite, thus preventing their message from getting out.

[angelatc]

As far as I'm aware they also have the option to get married or not get married.

Unless they're gay.

A gay man has the right to marry a woman. A gay woman has the right to marry a man.

[KingNothing]

Wait...so it was ok for OKCUpid to make a political statement by blocking Firefox users from visiting their site, but it's not OK for conservatives to make political statements from using the exact same tactic?

It is stupid and wrong for anyone to do it.

I do see your point, but they fired the shot across the bow. The ex-CEO was fired for exercising his free speech rights before he was even the CEO.

Conservatives were not out on force insisting that OKCupid should not exist because they are friendly to the gay community. They were not organizing boycotts of businesses based on their CEOs political donations.

The live-and-let-live mentality won't work when your opponent is perfectly willing to murder you for merely disagreeing.

But what you're suggesting just encourages that behavior from them. What I'm suggesting is that people ALWAYS do what they did when A&E tried to fire that rich duck-hunting religious guy. Just say no! The percentage of people who actually get outraged over such trivial nonsense is minuscule when compared to the rest of the country. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can take all power away from those who just want to walk into a room and shout "FIRED FIRED FIRED, YOU'RE SO FIRED FOR SAYING THAT THING I DO NOT AGREE WITH"

We have to practice what we preach. We've got to accept the words of others, without demanding that their livelihoods be destroyed for speaking them.

[RM918]

But you're of the mindset that as long as government benefits exist, we might as well expand the entitlement class?

So I'm against federal tuition aide, but does that mean I'd support a bill that cuts tuition aide to everyone but white people because it'll theoretically reduce the aide going out to minorities? No. No it doesn't.

[angelatc]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because OK Cupid doesn't like free speech, doesn't mean it makes sense for conservative web sites to lose a ton of users out of spite, thus preventing their message from getting out.

The conservative sites won't do it because they don't want to lose the ad revenue. But I disagree with them. This is a war, and we are losing specifically because we're still trying to educate the stupidest, meanest people on the planet.

It is long past time to draw battle lines.

[RM918]

The conservative sites won't do it because they don't want to lose the ad revenue. But I disagree with them. This is a war, and we are losing specifically because we're still trying to educate the stupidest, meanest people on the planet.

It is long past time to draw battle lines.

Let me know how many people you convince by calling them liberals (even people that mostly agree with you) and acting like you're declaring war on them.

[angelatc]

So I'm against federal tuition aide, but does that mean I'd support a bill that cuts tuition aide to everyone but white people because it'll theoretically reduce the aide going out to minorities? No. No it doesn't.

Playing the race card too?

We are not talking about cutting anything. We are talking about expanding a program.

Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as a male / female partnership. Now you're here advocating to redefine the partnership, which is essentially the same as raising the monthly stipend that the welfare Moms get.

I mean, why is it fair that my friends get food stamps and I don't just because I don't qualify for the program as currently structured? Obviously I think we need to restructure the program so that my family get free stuff too.

[angelatc]

Let me know how many people you convince by calling them liberals (even people that mostly agree with you) and acting like you're declaring war on them.

I'm not looking to convince anybody of anything. I am not interested in educational campaigns, because this is exactly what happens. The other side has no interest in philosophy, and will literally annihilate anybody who disagrees with them.

[AuH20]

I am patiently waiting for the arrival of a Gay/LGBT dictator so I can finally discard my brain.

[AuH20]

I'm not looking to convince anybody of anything. I am not interested in educational campaigns, because this is exactly what happens. The other side has no interest in philosophy, and will literally annihilate anybody who disagrees with them.

Don't forget anthropogenic climate change skeptics too. They need to reevaluate their position in a cold, dark cell.

[angelatc]

Don't forget climate skeptics too. They need to reevalaute their position in a cold, dark cell.

Heh. I agree that giving out green energy credits is wrong. But as long as they're giving them out, they should give them to the coal manufacturers too.

[AuH20]

Funny how paulites believe in the magic of the "free market" until they disagree with what happens...

Free market? This is fascism.

[PaulConventionWV]

This I actually personally agree with. I'd rather just the way he ran his business affected whether or not they got rid of him, but as LGBT types are an arch protected class right now he got hit with the tide. My sympathies are tempered however because he was attacked for advocating for the legislation of morality, and people like that are the whole reason we're in this situation to begin with.



Could you argue at all without the needless hyperbole and insults? I don't know what you're hoping to do by acting holier-than-thou with someone who (I'd hope to assume) agrees with you that government should ultimately not be involved in marriage period. Is my slight disagreement with your views so profoundly disturbing that you have to lower yourself to name-calling?

Now if we're past all that, the elections are a poor analogy because we're stuck with the same bull$#@! no matter who gets picked. If you choose not to take a government license for marriage, a position you argued LGBT types should prefer taking as they could just call it marriage and be happy with it, you're not forced to get a license. You can just keep up that way, if you like, without the state interfering. Neither one of them are all that great a choice but they at least have meaningful consequences. Bush or Obama, you get your wars and corporatism and government regulation of marriage whether you like it or not.



Unless gays right now have the ability to do all that stuff I was talking about earlier as being the benefit of having a license, which they don't, I don't see how having the option open now is actually oppressing them any differently than not having it open. Before, due to overall government regulation of marriage, they miss out on spousal benefits insurance custody rights etc. etc. because some religious types want their morality enshrined in law. Afterward, though, they get the option. They can still simply not get a license if they don't want to.

But you admit that marriage licenses are just another form of state control and oppression? Then, why do gay people want them? And don't give me that tripe about "They want the option...". Let's focus on getting rid of them for straight people, not getting them for gay people. That's working against liberty.

Can you describe to me how he was advocating the legislation of morality? I believe he wanted to prevent government licenses from being issued to gays. It is not morally reprehensible to oppose licenses for anyone. Maybe he simply wants to get rid of licenses for straight people. In any case, wanting to deny access to government licenses doesn't make one a statist.

Also, I never called you a name. I said, "How pathetic", referring to your pathetic argument, not you, personally.

[PaulConventionWV]

As far as I'm aware they also have the option to get married or not get married.

Unless they're gay.

Right, just like straight people are just as unable to get gay married as gay people are.

[PierzStyx]

The question you have to ask is if he supported government power to expand the state ownership of marriage, would this have happened? No, he would have been given a freakin medal.

Exactly. Any mentality that says the government has a right to interfere in private relationships, gay or straight, is a slave mentality.

[Antischism]

People were upset with his personal stance—what he donated money to—and very vocally stated they would simply switch browsers because they refused to use a product headed by someone with his personal views. The decision was made where he would step down as a result in order to save the company some face and keep their customers. With countless browser options out there, Firefox users would have no problem switching to something like Google Chrome or Opera. This is how the free market is supposed to work. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

[angelatc]

People were upset with his personal stance—what he donated money to—and very vocally stated they would simply switch browsers because they refused to use a product headed by someone with his personal views. The decision was made where he would step down as a result in order to save the company some face and keep their customers. With countless browser options out there, Firefox users would have no problem switching to something like Google Chrome or Opera. This is how the free market is supposed to work. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

The disconnect here is that a man's life was ruined and he was bullied out of a job because of a political campaign he donated to 4 years ago. A successful political campaign I might add....

I woudn't mind this type of open warfare if the right would ever engage. But they won't.

[dillo]

are the liberals going to boycott java script too?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

The disconnect here is that a man's life was ruined and he was bullied out of a job because of a political campaign he donated to 4 years ago. A successful political campaign I might add....

I woudn't mind this type of open warfare if the right would ever engage. But they won't.

And again, why should they? You're asking them to do the very same thing that you're complaining about. Free speech should not be centered around spite.

[angelatc]

And again, why should they? You're asking them to do the very same thing that you're complaining about. Free speech should not be centered around spite.

That's pretty ironic given the circumstances. This guy lost his job specifically out of spite because of a political donation, but we're supposed to just sit down and shut up about it?

I want every conservative business owner to fire everybody who has an Obama bumper sticker on their car. I want conservative websites to block Firefox for being intolerant $#@!s.

I did not start the fire, but I'm sure as hell ready to pour gasoline in it. If we don't teach them that this is a very dangerous game they will continue to bury us.

[Lucille]

The disconnect here is that a man's life was ruined and he was bullied out of a job because of a political campaign he donated to 4 years ago. A successful political campaign I might add....

I woudn't mind this type of open warfare if the right would ever engage. But they won't.

Vox thinks they will.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/m...ceasefire.html

Because while it is LEGAL for employers and businesses to discriminate on the basis of political beliefs and affiliations, it has most certainly not been the ACCEPTED PRACTICE for them to do so openly.
[...]
But now, thanks to the Eich affair, political employment discrimination is overt, and what was previously only legal is now PUBLIC AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE. It is purge or be purged time. So, if you are an employer in many states, you can now feel free to stop employing every non-critical employee who voted for Obama or is known to be a member of the Democratic Party. And you can impose a political litmus test on your new hires.

[...]there had been a de facto political ceasefire in the corporate world. The Mozilla debacle broke the ceasefire and now the political Right has the ability to return fire with impunity. I doubt it will do so openly yet, but I have no doubt that there will be more than a few unexpected dismissals quietly taking place over the next few months now that corporate executives understand what the new reality is.

[Keith and stuff]

This is so darn funny, I cannot stop laughing!