P.S. I think you will find marriage as a social contract, historically has included much than one man one woman as you are implying. Let’s get a citation to go with your thinly veiled prejudice.
2 Likes
I’m personally all for gay marriage. That’s not the argument.
1 Like
I’d say it does; our rampant overuse of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change, which is already beginning to cause very real human suffering, and not in the “oh no I can’t get married” kind of way, but the “oh no I don’t have anything to eat because the flood/drought killed everything” and “oh no the superstorm blew my house away” kind of way.
And we as the first world routinely buy products that support organizations that effectively enslave millions. He isn’t perfect.
I think it is, because the man is gone, several board members are gone, but the damage is done. There are people who will continue to boycott, will refuse to contribute, and so on, because it was found out that the CEO once contributed to a pro-Prop 8 cause and they hadn’t dug for this.
And Mozilla is pretty important. As far as browsers go, the only other major players are Google, Apple, and Microsoft (and iirc, Opera is Webkit now.) I’d like for there to be a truly open source party out there, and tbh I think we need something other than just Webkit and Internet Explorer. I know people like to bag on Firefox nowadays, but technologically it’s truly impressive again (imho.)
You appear to have missed the entire point of the first amendment. The first amendment is the freedom to express your views without reprisal from the government. It isn’t protection against people thinking that you are a worthless asshole and wanting nothing to do with you. Thinking that someone is an asshole for seeking to use the state to brutalize a minority and wanting nothing to do with said asshole is also an expression of speech.
A CEO today can’t express how much they miss Jim Crow laws or donate to the American Nazi party without expecting to be fired. People will rightfully be disgusted and seek to avoid a corporation that employs that sort of person. In large parts of the country, seeking to use the force of government to brutalize sexual minorities is starting to (rightfully) get tossed into the same bin as people who want racial segregation laws.
It isn’t “regardless of the subject”. The subject matters. No one is going to boycott your company over your feels on tax policy or the proper level of military spending. People will boycott your company if you seek to systematically use the state to brutalize sexual minorities. Sorry bro. If it makes you feel better, if you want to use the state to systematically brutalize racial minorities and prevent them from marrying, you would also get the same treatment.
He got the shit kicked out of him for bullying people. I really can’t think of many things more brutal and bullying than to focus in a minority and declare them unable to marry. We let child rapist marry, but not two consenting men who love each other. Further, the forceful expression of speech through boycotts and criticism of people seeking to use state oppression on minorities obviously and objectively is making a positive difference in the world. For every person that was convinced by kind words not to be an open racist, another dozen were convinced by being afraid that everyone will think that they are an asshole if they spew their racist opinion. The same is happening with homophobia. It is slowly but surely becoming embarrassing to be an open bigot. People will use their 1st amendment rights to let you know that you are an asshole if you spew your bigoted opinion in public.
The effects are pretty dramatic. A decade ago a gay couple couldn’t marry in any place other than Massachusetts and you could spew whatever hatefilled crap you want about gay people without any sort of worry. Now, at least in some parts of the country, if you spew hate filled bile people will think you are an asshole, and while gay folks still are brutally oppressed in much of the US, in 1/3 of the states they are not. This has been one of the most rapid cultural shifts in US history. It is hilariously and objectively wrong to declare that the strategy of forcefully expressing what an asshole someone is when they advocate for state sponsored oppression of sexual minorities isn’t working.
19 Likes
You attempted to reduce the very reasonable position that all people should enjoy equal protection under the law, to an absurd and leading premise.
This sort of argument is a known logical fallacy: “reductio ad absurdum”.
Marriage is important because it relates to things like, wills, health benefits, the right to see your dying spouse in the hospital, legal entitlement to property. You can pretend that it is a niche issue, and that really GLBT folks shouldn’t care about it that much, but there are many good reasons why this is a big deal.
I also want to reiterate: You suggested that marriage has historically been only between persons of opposite gender. However if you looked at the history of marriage it is replete with historical examples of marriages that include same sex couples, more than 2 persons, even people marrying animals. Your premise is false.
You claim to be in favor of gay marriage, but the apologetics, and leading portrayal of marriage as a minor hetero compact, suggest to me that you should revisit just exactly what you believe.
9 Likes
Well, this time public opprobrium managed to get the CEO of a large corporation to resign based on his support of something unpleasant. Let’s keep on going.
5 Likes
Looking at your post, and actually looking for citations on your post, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage, btw). I see you are correct on many points. The once accepted view of marriage in the US is now virtually extinct, and very well could have been a figment of the collective imagination. I get that. I get that there are many reasons why this is a very good thing.
I don’t get people hating on someone. Yes, he did something that would have had long term consequences for a group of people. Yes, this is wrong to many people. Why are we responding to something clearly considered as hate with more hate?
Look at MLK’s opinion on what should be done. His quote: “The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him.” I’m not sure if this outpouring against this guy is hate or not. That question has to be answered by each.
EDIT: As I will not be able to reply any more, I do want to express gratitude to the frank opinions in here, whether I agree with them or not. Discourse is a great way to get reactions, refine, and even change my opinions. There was a lot brought up that I had never considered or encountered before. Thanks to all.
4 Likes
I’m a big supporter of gay marriage … I don’t think people should be fired for their personal beliefs if they don’t affect the performance of a job
Not in my opinion. In my opinion you are a tepid supporter of civil rights. Also, please get it straight. He was not fired, he was asked to step down by people that support civil rights and he resigned.
You’re supporting this homophobic bigot by proxy with moral “relativism” gone haywire. Just goes to show how many people really need to get outdoors more often and interact with the general public beyond a computer screen. Life isn’t just a 0 and a 1, there is much grey in between if you look at the bigger picture.
Just as it’s Brendan Eich’s prerogative and right to pump money into bigoted politicians and organizations that attack the civil rights of Americans, it’s also the prerogative for Americans who work at Mozilla to ask that he step down in order to resist these attacks on our civil rights.
They have every right to say that they don’t want to work with someone who attacks civil rights and they are exercising that right. If they were saying that they didn’t want to work with someone who is an unremorseful NAMBLA donator, they’d have that right as well.
Just as the CEO of Chick-fil-A has a right to be a bigot, we have the right to call him out on it. I personally will no longer purchase products from Chick-fil-A and I’ll let anyone and everyone know why. I would also suggest that everyone should quit Chick-fil-A until he resigns, as is my right.
Those that say that they are fine with working with a homophobic bigot who attacks the civil rights of Americans as long as he does a good job are perfectly within their rights to say that unethical drivel. But, it’s also my right to think much less of you, question your overall ethics and have that affect any dealings I have with you in the future.
So, keep whining about the civil right of free speech that these workers are exhibiting while giving a man who attacks civil rights a pass. It’s my right to lose respect for your ethical judgement and I sure as hell will never work with any of you, nor do anything to enable you in any way, as is my right.
14 Likes
Marriage, at least in general practice across the US, does not equally favor within the manner it is generally practiced within the US. If it was, it would be a huge “win” for men’s rights activists. Historically, it often involved family property decisions, young children, and even rape. I wouldn’t call it a glorious institution.
Obviously, the harm Brendan Eich caused with his relatively small donation against such a right mixed with his neutral public stance outweighed any possible good he may have been able to promote towards promoting Mozilla’s core values of openness. Does that make you proud?
1 Like
I can’t figure why he’d actually back that initiative. Why’dja do it? Stupid.
Pretty clear to me. He’s a bigot who is against civil rights.
6 Likes
There’s a distinction between personally opposing gay marriage and taking concrete steps to deny people their civil rights.
But even so, would you have the same compunctions if he’d said, say, that black folks should know their place and not be allowed to marry white women?
3 Likes
Except, with the exception of maybe one board member, the board members being gone (and a new one joining) have nothing to do with this controversy. They were leaving with any new CEO and had already indicated such.
I would argue that giving a large group dedicated to codifying in law that gay people have less rights than straight people is taking concrete steps to deny people their civil rights.
5 Likes
Or perhaps they were acting out of genuine moral integrity.
3 Likes
CEOs are fired all the time. Look on google news for “CEO fired -mozilla”
1 Like
He didn’t put Mozilla’s name on the cheque, the law required those who made political contributions beyond a certain threshold to disclose their employer.
He didn’t simply choose a side and lose. He chose a side that successfully restricted the civil rights of other people (though thankfully, it was only temporary). Would you be saying that he “chose a side and lost” if he were a segregationalist or an anti-miscegenation supporter?
4 Likes
About a third of the US thinks that applies to unborn children, as well.
So I assume that you will only endorse Pro-Life CEOs for Mozilla?
