New Mozilla Ceo A "hateful" Anti-Gay?

[bluebell]

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

 

Not so.  The federal government often forces states to comply with laws they don't want to recognize.  That's why every now and then we see states threatening to secede.

 

If a state and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins every time.

[rockpond]

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.

 

Sorry - I'm not getting what you are saying.  What double standard?

[thesometimesaint]

Not so.  The federal government often forces states to comply with their laws.  That's why every now and then we see states threatening to secede.  

 

That hasn't worked out real well for the secessionists.

[bluebell]

That hasn't worked out real well for the secessionists.

 

I agree.  

[rockpond]

Not so.  The federal government often forces states to comply with laws they don't want to recognize.  That's why every now and then we see states threatening to secede.

 

If a state and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins every time.

 

Not true.  Colorado & Washington have legalized the use of marijuana which is still illegal federally.  As a resident, I can assure you that marijuana is being used and marijuana businesses are thriving despite the federal law.

 

In the case of marriage equality, the federal government has let states define marriage thus far.  The exception has been where our judicial system has determined that some of those laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

[thesometimesaint]

Not true.  Colorado & Washington have legalized the use of marijuana which is still illegal federally.  As a resident, I can assure you that marijuana is being used and marijuana businesses are thriving despite the federal law.

 

In the case of marriage equality, the federal government has let states define marriage thus far.  The exception has been where our judicial system has determined that some of those laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution is still there. Whether it is enforced or not is another question.

[bluebell]

Sorry - I'm not getting what you are saying.  What double standard?

 

I'm sorry if i'm not being clear.

 

What i mean is, i don't find the 'but you took away someone's legal rights!!' argument as to why prop. 8 was evil and bigoted to be very persuasive.  

 

The main reason i don't see it as valid is because I have never heard the people who espouse it try to suggest that it was evil and bigoted to take way the legal rights of white racists in the south during the civil rights movement.  

 

Anyone who argues that removing someone's legal rights has to be 'bad' and also supports things like the civil rights movement, is arguing a double standard. They are essentially saying that removing a legal right is bad when i don't agree with it, but good when i do.  

 

If the mere act of taking away someone's legal right is wrong, then it has to be wrong whenever it occurs, not only when it occurs and you don't agree with it.

 

If you want to argue that prop. 8 was wrong, then I have no problem with that.  Using the 'it's wrong because it took someone's rights away' argument though is a double standard that makes no sense in my opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm sorry if i'm not being clear.

 

What i mean is, i don't find the 'but you took away someone's legal rights!!' argument as to why prop. 8 was evil and bigoted to be very persuasive.  

 

The main reason i don't see it as valid is because I have never heard the people who espouse it try to suggest that it was evil and bigoted to take way the legal rights of white racists in the south during the civil rights movement.  

 

Anyone who argues that removing someone's legal rights has to be 'bad' and also supports things like the civil rights movement, is arguing a double standard. They are essentially saying that removing a legal right is bad when i don't agree with it, but good when i do.  

 

If the mere act of taking away someone's legal right is wrong, then it has to be wrong whenever it occurs, not only when it occurs and you don't agree with it.

 

If you want to argue that prop. 8 was wrong, then I have no problem with that.  Using the 'it's wrong because it took someone's rights away' argument though is a double standard that makes no sense in my opinion.

 

Your legal right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

[rockpond]

The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution is still there. Whether it is enforced or not is another question.

 

But the 10th Amendment is also there.  Don't those two compete against each other in some respects?

[bluebell]

Not true.  Colorado & Washington have legalized the use of marijuana which is still illegal federally.  As a resident, I can assure you that marijuana is being used and marijuana businesses are thriving despite the federal law.

 

In the case of marriage equality, the federal government has let states define marriage thus far.  The exception has been where our judicial system has determined that some of those laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

 

Only because the federal government has stated they won't prosecute.  Not because they couldn't if they wanted to.  

 

Selling marijuana in Montana for medical purposes was legal a few years ago.  The state made it a law that it could be done.  The federal government decided to prosecute anyway and some of those people who were following state law are now serving time in federal prison.

 

From an article in 2013-

 

"The three-year investigation by the U.S. attorney's office, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies wrapped up last week when the last of 33 convicted defendants was sentenced."

 

The same thing happened in California.

[rockpond]

I'm sorry if i'm not being clear.

 

What i mean is, i don't find the 'but you took away someone's legal rights!!' argument as to why prop. 8 was evil and bigoted to be very persuasive.  

 

The main reason i don't see it as valid is because I have never heard the people who espouse it try to suggest that it was evil and bigoted to take way the legal rights of white racists in the south during the civil rights movement.  

 

Anyone who argues that removing someone's legal rights has to be 'bad' and also supports things like the civil rights movement, is arguing a double standard. They are essentially saying that removing a legal right is bad when i don't agree with it, but good when i do.  

 

If the mere act of taking away someone's legal right is wrong, then it has to be wrong whenever it occurs, not only when it occurs and you don't agree with it.

 

If you want to argue that prop. 8 was wrong, then I have no problem with that.  Using the 'it's wrong because it took someone's rights away' argument though is a double standard that makes no sense in my opinion.

 

What legal rights were taken away from "white racists in the South during the civil rights movement"?

[bluebell]

What legal rights were taken away from "white racists in the South during the civil rights movement"?

 

They had legal rights to refuse to serve blacks at a lunch counter for example, and legal rights to separate schooling for white and black children.  Legal rights to sit at the front of the bus, etc....

 

The civil rights movement took all those legal rights away (and rightly so).

[rockpond]

They had legal rights to refuse to serve blacks at a lunch counter for example, and legal rights to separate schooling for white and black children.  Legal rights to sit at the front of the bus, etc....

 

The civil rights movement took all those legal rights away (and rightly so).

 

And so your argument is that it is a double standard to be critical of those who took away the rights of gays in California to marry while not being critical of those who took away the "right" to send Rosa Parks to the back of the bus and then refuse to serve her lunch at a local diner?

[Mystery Meat]

But the 10th Amendment is also there.  Don't those two compete against each other in some respects?

 

In a way. The Supremacy Clause means that any state action that conflicts with federal law is invalid. Also any state action that seeks to tax or regulate federal action is also invalid. The 10th Amendment has been interpreted very narrowly (an interpretation I STRONGLY disagree with) to mean that the federal government cannot pass legislation that requires the states to likewise pass some sort of legislation.

 

For what it's worth. 

[bluebell]

And so your argument is that it is a double standard to be critical of those who took away the rights of gays in California to marry while not being critical of those who took away the "right" to send Rosa Parks to the back of the bus and then refuse to serve her lunch at a local diner?

 

If someone attempts to argue that prop. 8 was bad because it removed someone's rights they previously had, then yes, it is a double standard not to be critical of every case where rights have been taken away.

[rockpond]

If someone attempts to argue that prop. 8 was bad because it removed someone's rights they previously had, then yes, it is a double standard not to be critical of every case where rights have been taken away.

 

Fascinating perspective.  But the equivalence does not work for me.  The "right" you are referring to as being taken away by the civil rights movement was an unconstitutional "right" to discriminate against people due to their skin color.

[Mystery Meat]

Fascinating perspective.  But the equivalence does not work for me.  The "right" you are referring to as being taken away by the civil rights movement was an unconstitutional "right" to discriminate against people due to their skin color.

 

I agree with bluebell, but I think her reasons are wrong. I think you are right that a lot of the things the civil rights movement did was to remove unconstitutional rights, such as forcing certain people to the back of public transportation. That is in violation of the Constitution and I think comparing that to marriage rights is wrong. However, I think private individuals have a right under the constitution to discriminate against anyone for any reason so long as they are not acting in a public role. (I absolutely believe a private business should have the right to refuse me service because I am Mormon). In that sense (and at least according to my view) a racist had their constitutional rights stripped away to discriminate and I think bluebell makes a good point: you can't hate taking one constitutional right away without hating the other or you are a hypocrite. 

 

The conflict arises I am sure that you feel you are morally right to be opposed to discrimination AND marriage inequality, and I sympathize with you in both cases. But I don't think we can get all hot and bothered by the fact that people were depriving rights from one group and celebrate and laud the deprivation of rights of others.

[thesometimesaint]

But the 10th Amendment is also there.  Don't those two compete against each other in some respects?

 

No; Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[ERayR]

I have mixed feelings about a CEO leaving the company under pressure because of his political views.  But I find this statement the pinnacle of HYPOCRISY.  You belong to a church that actively fought to take away the FREEDOM of gay couples to legally marry who they love.  What business was it of you to deny someone that freedom that is so basic to human relationships.  Court after court after court after court has ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional RIGHT under the 14th amendment, yet you  now think that freedom has been taken away?  That CEO has every right to his religious beliefs as do you, but he should be ashamed of himself for trying  to take that freedom to marry away from another.  THAT is what this is about not his religious belief.  No one is asking him to change his religious beliefs, they are calling him out for taking away other American's freedom.  People are rightly outraged at those who would deny others the freedom to marry.  How can a person lead a company that values diversity when that person leading the company has no problem supporting a law that limits another person's freedom just because they do not share the same religious beliefs.  

 

After Prop 8 passed, this CEO could still be married to who he loved.  He could still attend his church and retain his religious beliefs about gays.  But thousands of gay people could no longer marry.  Their freedom to marry had been restricted because this man and others like him thought it was ok to deny a person the right to marry.  Sorry, but the banner of freedom is not on the side of those that supported Prop 8.

 

The important and telling point is you don't see this kind of vindictiveness exercised against those who were active on the other side of the issue.  This kind of vindictiveness is coming, primarily , from the homosexual community.

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

Yeah, really. It is your logic that you are denying.  In this country we demand tolerance from all people.  The degree of tolerance has specific lines i.e. you can only be tolerant IF you think like a certain segment of society. In fact, you are not allowed to have a job unless you have an identical political thought process, beliefs, and ideas as this elite group of people.  If you don't believe like them you are anti - insert your descriptor of choice.  

 

This is the same philosophy that is espoused by the Taliban and every other perceived radical group in the Middle East.  They invite you to think and do whatever you want. Unfortunately, if it is not exactly what they want they prevent you from maintaining a job - they kill you, cut off your hands, etc.  It is the same, identical philosophy. You are just uncomfortable because it is not obviously as bloody to demand a qualified CEO resign than just taking him out back and cutting off his head.  The motivation is the same - you don't think like I do and therefore you don't deserve to work.

 

This is that "man up" thing you espoused.  You need to bear the consequences of your choices. The Taliban, the Salafis, and every other group thinks the same thing.  No need to get queasy about it; people are just paying a price for their choices.  

 

You need to be honest. You dress that sows ear up in silk and it is still just a sows ear.  People either need to pay the consequences for their choices, beliefs, and ideas or not.  We either live in a tolerant society i.e. we tolerant all ideas or not.  At present, we are teaching people that if you support certain political ideas or proposed laws, you may not get to work; you many not have a job.  Big Brother is watching and he is demanding that each member tow the party line.  

 

This kind of tyranny always, every time, results in the destruction of civil society.  Always. 

[rockpond]

Yeah, really. It is your logic that you are denying.  In this country we demand tolerance from all people.  The degree of tolerance has specific lines i.e. you can only be tolerant IF you think like a certain segment of society. In fact, you are not allowed to have a job unless you have an identical political thought process, beliefs, and ideas as this elite group of people.  If you don't believe like them you are anti - insert your descriptor of choice.  

 

This is the same philosophy that is espoused by the Taliban and every other perceived radical group in the Middle East.  They invite you to think and do whatever you want. Unfortunately, if it is not exactly what they want they prevent you from maintaining a job - they kill you, cut off your hands, etc.  It is the same, identical philosophy. You are just uncomfortable because it is not obviously as bloody to demand a qualified CEO resign than just taking him out back and cutting off his head.  The motivation is the same - you don't think like I do and therefore you don't deserve to work.

 

This is that "man up" thing you espoused.  You need to bear the consequences of your choices. The Taliban, the Salafis, and every other group thinks the same thing.  No need to get queasy about it; people are just paying a price for their choices.  

 

You need to be honest. You dress that sows ear up in silk and it is still just a sows ear.  People either need to pay the consequences for their choices, beliefs, and ideas or not.  We either live in a tolerant society i.e. we tolerant all ideas or not.  At present, we are teaching people that if you support certain political ideas or proposed laws, you may not get to work; you many not have a job.  Big Brother is watching and he is demanding that each member tow the party line.  

 

This kind of tyranny always, every time, results in the destruction of civil society.  Always. 

 

I distinguish between free market actions taken by employees/consumers and violence.

[california boy]

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.

 

Are you serious?  Is this some kind of further whitewashing of Mormon history?  Sorry, but I was around during the Prop 8 campaign when there were plenty of members of the church doing dishonorable things, pushing lies in order to get prop 8 passed and resorting to blackmail to try and get companies to donate to their cause.  There was the famous certified letter sent by ProtectMarriage.com, a group headed by Mark Jansson, a self-described member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that said in part:

 

Withdraw your support of Equality California, (a nonprofit organization that was helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.)

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

 

 

And then there were all of the lies funded by the church members.  Here is a YouTube featuring just ONE of the ads that were funded.  Here is the link. Prop 8:  Five little lies

 

The distortions got so bad that California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell had to issue a formal statement denouncing the lies.  

 

"our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage." In fact, every education authority in the state has rejected the lies and distortions of the Prop 8 campaign, including the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association.

 

 

jThere was actually a formal letter delived to the LA temple to give to President Monson signed by thousands demanding  that the church stop funding the blatant lies of the "Yes on 8" campaign.

 

Want more?  I could easily go on.  

 

So it is time to get off your self righteous horse, claiming that members or the church would never resort to such tatics.

[bluebell]

Fascinating perspective.  But the equivalence does not work for me.  The "right" you are referring to as being taken away by the civil rights movement was an unconstitutional "right" to discriminate against people due to their skin color.

 

For a long time though, it was supported by the constitution (just like slavery was).  These things were only considered unconstitutional later.

 

What is a right and what isn't, changes pretty frequently in this country.  

[rockpond]

For a long time though, it was supported by the constitution (just like slavery was).  These things were only considered unconstitutional later.

 

What is a right and what isn't, changes pretty frequently in this country.  

 

I agree.  And I hope that we can reach a point of equality for our gay & lesbian citizens without as much difficulty & pain as we passed through with the civil rights movement for African-Americans.

[Mystery Meat]

Yeah, really. It is your logic that you are denying.  In this country we demand tolerance from all people.  The degree of tolerance has specific lines i.e. you can only be tolerant IF you think like a certain segment of society. In fact, you are not allowed to have a job unless you have an identical political thought process, beliefs, and ideas as this elite group of people.  If you don't believe like them you are anti - insert your descriptor of choice.  

 

This is the same philosophy that is espoused by the Taliban and every other perceived radical group in the Middle East.  They invite you to think and do whatever you want. Unfortunately, if it is not exactly what they want they prevent you from maintaining a job - they kill you, cut off your hands, etc.  It is the same, identical philosophy. You are just uncomfortable because it is not obviously as bloody to demand a qualified CEO resign than just taking him out back and cutting off his head.  The motivation is the same - you don't think like I do and therefore you don't deserve to work.

 

This is that "man up" thing you espoused.  You need to bear the consequences of your choices. The Taliban, the Salafis, and every other group thinks the same thing.  No need to get queasy about it; people are just paying a price for their choices.  

 

You need to be honest. You dress that sows ear up in silk and it is still just a sows ear.  People either need to pay the consequences for their choices, beliefs, and ideas or not.  We either live in a tolerant society i.e. we tolerant all ideas or not.  At present, we are teaching people that if you support certain political ideas or proposed laws, you may not get to work; you many not have a job.  Big Brother is watching and he is demanding that each member tow the party line.  

 

This kind of tyranny always, every time, results in the destruction of civil society.  Always. 

 

Nailed it.