New Mozilla Ceo A "hateful" Anti-Gay?

[rockpond]

I get a kick out of the hypocrisy of several posters on here.

What? Man up. There are consequences to your actions and choices. Gosh, it is just freedom.

Yeah, right. I support tolerance for everyone except if you disagree with me. If you disagree with me, even privately, then I have the right to make you pay. Yeah, that is the freedom that so many of our good Muslim zealots believe in. You can do whatever you want, BUT if you don't believe exactly like I do I am justified in killing you. After all, man the heck up! If you believe in gay marriage, stand up and shout it out and let that bullet take you to the next world with an open heart full of love for that twisted sense of justice.

You see, everything changes when the shoe is on the other foot. How anyone can have the hypocrisy to criticize any group for demanding that everyone toe the line in order to maintain "purity" of thought and belief. Yup, you guys make me proud for your deep logic and belief in tolerance.

People, citizens, societies learn lessons. Our culture teaches everyone every day what they can do and what they cannot do. When you reap the rewards of this type of tolerance, let's talk again.

Really? You're comparing this to killing someone for their beliefs?

The man sought to and succeeded in denying freedom to a minority group in his state. Those people turned around as said: we don't want to work for you because of that. And he resigned.

Let's keep it in perspective.

[california boy]

As expected, the intentional disconnect from reality perpetuated by SSM supporters continues.

 

If you oppose SSM, you are automatically considered a hateful bigot, continuing to persecute gays who are the only "real victims" here. And we all know that bigots need to be shut down by any means possible, don't we.

 

There's absolutely no acknowledgment that a person can have a principled opposition to SSM and not be anti-gay. It's non-negotiable. SSM supporters are going to control the definitions and as demonstrated with Eich, total demonization of SSM opponents is fair game without regard to what their real interactions with gays are.

 

And in consistent SSM supporter fashion, after the punishment has been meted out, they loudly proclaim that nobody demonized him or attacked  him. Ignore those comments on HuffPost and ARS Techinca attacking Eich. It's laughable to think that anyone being called a hateful bigot is being attacked.

 

I'm interested in seeing what the next target for SSM supporters is going to be. If their rationalizations about Hobby Lobby being a hate organization are any indication, we're going to see the Church accused of being a hate organization, and members who oppose SSM being bigots who need to be disenfranchised.

 

It's the 19th century all over again.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The CEO is not being called out because his religious beliefs are against gay marriage,.  The CEO is being called out because he actively worked to take away the right of gay people to marry.  Completely different issue, and you know it.  

 

The reason religion is loosing this battle against gay marriage is not because of their belief in immorality of gay behavior.  The reason they are loosing this battle both in court and within the public is because they are actively denying the constitutional right interpreted by court after court after court to marry.  In America, when you deny someone equal protection under the law, no matter how you justify it, eventually this country has always turned against those that suppress.  As they should.

 

The truth is, religion thought they could get away with it because such a small percentage of Americans are gay.  What they miscalculated is that far more Americans believe in justice.

[Mystery Meat]

There's something that really disturbs me about this idea and I can't figure out what it is exactly. Probably somewhat close to what BB mentioned. His job has has almost nothing to do with Prop 8, gay rights, etc. It's not the same note as boycotts back in the 60's where the companies would actively discriminate against black customers or the same payments were given for lesser services/care. That makes perfect sense....there's a direct correlation between one's capacities/quality of life and the actions of said business. Here there is no such direct link. At best there is some possible indirect links that appear pretty flimsy. It appears more vindictive and petty than moving and progressive. Here the consequences really do not fit the actions at all. It feels less as an appeal to see and respect another's view in dialogue and more of a way to force one's view as the only right way to believe. 

 

And I think it's that force that just really does not set well in me at all. In the long run I don't think it really helps LGBT community receive real and meaningful acceptance. It only furthers/continues the divide.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Thread over. We have a winner.

[rockpond]

There's absolutely no acknowledgment that a person can have a principled opposition to SSM and not be anti-gay. It's non-negotiable. SSM supporters are going to control the definitions and as demonstrated with Eich, total demonization of SSM opponents is fair game without regard to what their real interactions with gays are.

 

I acknowledge that someone can have a principled opposition to gay marriage.  But, if you are anti-gay-marriage, you anti-gay.  Funny how that works.

 

Consider it this way... Who gets to decide what constitutes an "anti-Mormon"?  Mormons?  Or the people working against the LDS church?

[bluebell]

I acknowledge that someone can have a principled opposition to gay marriage.  But, if you are anti-gay-marriage, you anti-gay.  Funny how that works.

 

Consider it this way... Who gets to decide what constitutes an "anti-Mormon"?  Mormons?  Or the people working against the LDS church?

 

I disagree.  I see no way to logically or reasonably suggest that if a person is anti gay marriage, they are anti gay.  

 

That's like saying if you are anti-boy scouts you are anti-boy.

 

Someone who is against SSM might be anti-gay as well, but they don't have to be.

[rockpond]

There's something that really disturbs me about this idea and I can't figure out what it is exactly. Probably somewhat close to what BB mentioned. His job has has almost nothing to do with Prop 8, gay rights, etc. It's not the same note as boycotts back in the 60's where the companies would actively discriminate against black customers or the same payments were given for lesser services/care. That makes perfect sense....there's a direct correlation between one's capacities/quality of life and the actions of said business. Here there is no such direct link. At best there is some possible indirect links that appear pretty flimsy. It appears more vindictive and petty than moving and progressive. Here the consequences really do not fit the actions at all. It feels less as an appeal to see and respect another's view in dialogue and more of a way to force one's view as the only right way to believe. 

 

And I think it's that force that just really does not set well in me at all. In the long run I don't think it really helps LGBT community receive real and meaningful acceptance. It only furthers/continues the divide.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Thread over. We have a winner.

 

I'm sorry, how was financing the removal of legal marriage rights (Prop "an appeal to see and respect another's view in dialogue"?  Because it sure seems more like it was "a way to force one's view as the only right way to believe".

 

I agree that pushing this CEO to resign doesn't help the LGBT cause.  Likewise, Prop 8 did not help the causes of tolerance, religious freedom, and general Christian charity.

[rockpond]

I disagree.  I see no way to logically or reasonably suggest that if a person is anti gay marriage, they are anti gay.  

 

That's like saying if you are anti-boy scouts you are anti-boy.

 

Someone who is against SSM might be anti-gay as well, but they don't have to be.

 

You can be against the BSA without taking away legal rights of boys.

 

How do you define "anti-gay"?

[bluebell]

As expected, the intentional disconnect from reality perpetuated by SSM supporters continues.

 

If you oppose SSM, you are automatically considered a hateful bigot, continuing to persecute gays who are the only "real victims" here. And we all know that bigots need to be shut down by any means possible, don't we.

 

There's absolutely no acknowledgment that a person can have a principled opposition to SSM and not be anti-gay. It's non-negotiable. SSM supporters are going to control the definitions and as demonstrated with Eich, total demonization of SSM opponents is fair game without regard to what their real interactions with gays are.

 

And in consistent SSM supporter fashion, after the punishment has been meted out, they loudly proclaim that nobody demonized him or attacked  him. Ignore those comments on HuffPost and ARS Techinca attacking Eich. It's laughable to think that anyone being called a hateful bigot is being attacked.

 

I'm interested in seeing what the next target for SSM supporters is going to be. If their rationalizations about Hobby Lobby being a hate organization are any indication, we're going to see the Church accused of being a hate organization, and members who oppose SSM being bigots who need to be disenfranchised.

 

It's the 19th century all over again.

 

There have been quite a few pro gay marriage supporters who actually agree with you J.

 

Here is just one of many examples i have seen in the last couple of months.  It was written by a gay man.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/harry-cooper/gay-marriage-being-a-bigot_b_3452247.html

 

I especially like where he says-"I find the notion of forcing a group of people to accept a view they do not agree with a horrifying one. I do not believe a church should be forced to marry people they do not want to, even if its policy may seem old-fashioned or bigoted. That change in stance has to come from within the church itself, otherwise it is a disturbing expression of totalitarianism."

 

This is a how i feel about economic boycotts when someone in a business professes a belief that someone else doesn't agree with.  If the change in stance does not come from within, but is instead forced upon someone (or a business) because of a promise of some kind of pain (be it financial or whatever) if they don't comply, then what has really been gained?

 

Nothing.  The person still feels exactly as they did before and probably more so in the negative (because people tend to hate their bullies, not suddenly decide they are great when their bullies force them to do something).

 

All that is accomplished is a 'disturbing expression of totalitarianism', which I don't want any part of.

[jwhitlock]

The SSM supporter rationalizations for demonizing their opponents continue. These rationalizations are non-negotiable in their eyes. It doesn't matter that they're inherently ridiculous; they must be accepted as fact or no discussion or dialogue about the real problems of SSM marriage can occur.

 

For instance, you are anti-gay if you oppose SSM. Yet there are quite a number of radical gays who oppose SSM as a straight institution that they want no part of. Evidently that means radical gays are inherently anti-gay because of that opposition.

 

The methodologies being used by SSM supporters in foisting their agenda on society are intended to be polarizing and to lead to conflict. Their methodologies are in contrast to those used by faithful members of the church who recognize the problems SSM creates and who oppose SSM because of those problems. Members of the church, when acting as counseled by their leaders, treat their opponents as people. They take them cookies and give them water if they're thirsty. They recognize them as people.  SSM supporters, on the other hand, demonize their opponents as anti-gay and as bigots. They create commercials about missionaries ransacking homes and tearing up gay marriage certificates. They scream and shout hate slogans outside temples. They do their best to destroy people's businesses and livelihoods through publicly demonizing them.  The contrast was stark in the Prop 8 debate, and has only become worse as evidenced by comments on the Eich articles and in comments on this board.

 

It's becoming increasingly difficult to have any real dialogue or discuss any of the real issues surrounding SSM with any active SSM supporter. You can't have dialogue when your points are ridiculed and dismissed out of hand, when terms such as equality, rights, and diversity are redefined to mislead, and when you are labeled an anti-gay bigot simply for opposition to SSM without regard to you you relate to gays in real life.

 

Evidently Mozilla is a fairly gay-friendly place to work at, and Eich supported that environment. Yet that didn't matter. He opposed SSM and nothing else mattered.

 

Such an attitude on the part of SSM supporters must inevitably lead to conflict as they continue to seek revenge and punishment for those who oppose SSM without regard to anything else. Should SSM become the law of the land you can bet that the church and its members will be the victims of that revenge.

[bluebell]

You can be against the BSA without taking away legal rights of boys.

 

How do you define "anti-gay"?

 

Anti-gay is someone who is against gays.  That is the definition of 'anti'

 

And for those who don't believe that people should have a 'legal' right to marry whoever they want, they can just as easily say that you can be against SSM without taking away the legal rights of gay people.

[rockpond]

The SSM supporter rationalizations for demonizing their opponents continue. These rationalizations are non-negotiable in their eyes. It doesn't matter that they're inherently ridiculous; they must be accepted as fact or no discussion or dialogue about the real problems of SSM marriage can occur.

 

For instance, you are anti-gay if you oppose SSM. Yet there are quite a number of radical gays who oppose SSM as a straight institution that they want no part of. Evidently that means radical gays are inherently anti-gay because of that opposition.

 

The methodologies being used by SSM supporters in foisting their agenda on society are intended to be polarizing and to lead to conflict. Their methodologies are in contrast to those used by faithful members of the church who recognize the problems SSM creates and who oppose SSM because of those problems. Members of the church, when acting as counseled by their leaders, treat their opponents as people. They take them cookies and give them water if they're thirsty. They recognize them as people.  SSM supporters, on the other hand, demonize their opponents as anti-gay and as bigots. They create commercials about missionaries ransacking homes and tearing up gay marriage certificates. They scream and shout hate slogans outside temples. They do their best to destroy people's businesses and livelihoods through publicly demonizing them.  The contrast was stark in the Prop 8 debate, and has only become worse as evidenced by comments on the Eich articles and in comments on this board.

 

It's becoming increasingly difficult to have any real dialogue or discuss any of the real issues surrounding SSM with any active SSM supporter. You can't have dialogue when your points are ridiculed and dismissed out of hand, when terms such as equality, rights, and diversity are redefined to mislead, and when you are labeled an anti-gay bigot simply for opposition to SSM without regard to you you relate to gays in real life.

 

Evidently Mozilla is a fairly gay-friendly place to work at, and Eich supported that environment. Yet that didn't matter. He opposed SSM and nothing else mattered.

 

Such an attitude on the part of SSM supporters must inevitably lead to conflict as they continue to seek revenge and punishment for those who oppose SSM without regard to anything else. Should SSM become the law of the land you can bet that the church and its members will be the victims of that revenge.

 

And I suppose if the roles were reversed, and groups were out there actively taking away our right to be be married as we believe God desires, you would say that we shouldn't fight back?  We should just roll over and say "well, I guess that's how they believe so we better respect that".

[rockpond]

Anti-gay is someone who is against gays.  That is the definition of 'anti'

 

And for those who don't believe that people should have a 'legal' right to marry whoever they want, they can just as easily say that you can be against SSM without taking away the legal rights of gay people.

 

But they are taking away a legal right of gay people.  Prop 8 did exactly that!

 

So if taking away a legal right of gay people doesn't make you "against gays", then what does?

[Mystery Meat]

And I suppose if the roles were reversed, and groups were out there actively taking away our right to be be married as we believe God desires, you would say that we shouldn't fight back?  We should just roll over and say "well, I guess that's how they believe so we better respect that".

 

I don't believe we would be grabbing pitchforks and pressuring their employers to fire them, no. I don't believe there would be mass villainizations. I don't think we would pour through donor lists (let alone publish them in the Deseret News) so those who thought differently could be publicly condemned. I do think there would be outreach, expressions of hurt and love while at the same time asking for understanding.

 

I think jwhitlock does a good job actually of showing how one side was much more tolerant, loving, and Christ-like than the other in disagreeing. 

[bluebell]

But they are taking away a legal right of gay people.  Prop 8 did exactly that!

 

So if taking away a legal right of gay people doesn't make you "against gays", then what does?

 

So before Prop. 8 SSM was legally recognized in California?

[rockpond]

So before Prop. 8 SSM was legally recognized in California?

 

Yes.

[rockpond]

I don't believe we would be grabbing pitchforks and pressuring their employers to fire them, no. I don't believe there would be mass villainizations. I don't think we would pour through donor lists (let alone publish them in the Deseret News) so those who thought differently could be publicly condemned. I do think there would be outreach, expressions of hurt and love while at the same time asking for understanding.

 

I think jwhitlock does a good job actually of showing how one side was much more tolerant, loving, and Christ-like than the other in disagreeing. 

 

Yes, Prop 8 was all about love, tolerance, and being Christ-like.

[Mystery Meat]

Yes, Prop 8 was all about love, tolerance, and being Christ-like.

 

That's not what I said (of it was let me clarify). I think members of the church who do not support SSM are generally loving, tolerant, and treat those who disagree with them on the issue as Christians generally should. In my experience. I am sure there are exceptions, but they are a quiet minority. Compare that to the actions of a very vocal group of marriage equality supporters and I believe there is a stark contrast.

[thesometimesaint]

So before Prop. 8 SSM was legally recognized in California?

 

Yes.

[thesometimesaint]

That's not what I said (of it was let me clarify). I think members of the church who do not support SSM are generally loving, tolerant, and treat those who disagree with them on the issue as Christians generally should. In my experience. I am sure there are exceptions, but they are a quiet minority. Compare that to the actions of a very vocal group of marriage equality supporters and I believe there is a stark contrast.

 

It is unfair to compare their worst with our best.

[Mystery Meat]

It is unfair to compare their worst with our best.

 

Probably so. 

[jwhitlock]

There have been quite a few pro gay marriage supporters who actually agree with you J.

 

Here is just one of many examples i have seen in the last couple of months.  It was written by a gay man.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/harry-cooper/gay-marriage-being-a-bigot_b_3452247.html

 

I especially like where he says-"I find the notion of forcing a group of people to accept a view they do not agree with a horrifying one. I do not believe a church should be forced to marry people they do not want to, even if its policy may seem old-fashioned or bigoted. That change in stance has to come from within the church itself, otherwise it is a disturbing expression of totalitarianism."

 

This is a how i feel about economic boycotts when someone in a business professes a belief that someone else doesn't agree with.  If the change in stance does not come from within, but is instead forced upon someone (or a business) because of a promise of some kind of pain (be it financial or whatever) if they don't comply, then what has really been gained?

 

Nothing.  The person still feels exactly as they did before and probably more so in the negative (because people tend to hate their bullies, not suddenly decide they are great when their bullies force them to do something).

 

All that is accomplished is a 'disturbing expression of totalitarianism', which I don't want any part of.

 

This is an excellent point, and I appreciate the quote from the gay writer. It is interesting to note in passing how deeply entrenched (as evidenced in the quote) the concept is among SSM supporters that opposition to SSM is still basically bigotry. Hating gays is bigotry. Opposing an agenda item that you view as problematic is not bigotry. In my opinion, some of these entrenched worldviews among SSM supporters pretty much rule out any accommodation or compromise in other areas.

 

Still, it is encouraging to see that at least some view forcing people to think a certain way as troubling.

[rockpond]

That's not what I said (of it was let me clarify). I think members of the church who do not support SSM are generally loving, tolerant, and treat those who disagree with them on the issue as Christians generally should. In my experience. I am sure there are exceptions, but they are a quiet minority. Compare that to the actions of a very vocal group of marriage equality supporters and I believe there is a stark contrast.

 

I agree that there are church members who do not support marriage equality and are generally loving, tolerant, and treat those who disagree in a Christ-like manner.  My beautiful wife is a great example of that.

 

But Prop 8 was not generally loving, tolerant, or Christ-like.  So, to demand a loving, tolerant, Christ-like response is a bit hypocritical.

[bluebell]

Yes.

 

I realize that they were recognized by the state, but they were not federally recognized yet, correct?  

[rockpond]

I realize that they were recognized by the state, but they were not federally recognized yet, correct?  

 

It has to be legally recognized in the state before it can be federally recognized.

 

Federal recognition came back in June 2013 along with the overturning of Prop 8.  So while there is now federal recognition for gay marriage, marriage equality only exists in the 17 states where it is legally recognized.

[bluebell]

Yes.

 

Federally?

 

I'm only asking because so often i see the SSM issue compared with the civil rights issue, and those in support of the civil rights never complain that it was bigoted to force certain states to alter some of the 'legal rights' of whites to match federal law.

 

If the issue truly is only about the evils of changing what is considered a legal right in a state, then the double standard that exists needs to be explained.  

 

I personally don't believe that this argument really has anything to do with the sanctity of a the legal rights in any given state, or the evils of taking away legal rights that might have once existed though.