New Mozilla Ceo A "hateful" Anti-Gay?

[ERayR]

It's alright to have an opinion. It's alright to voice it. It's alright to financially support legislation to back your opinion. Eich did all those things freely and was constitutionally protected. But he cannot expect those who he spoke out against and acted out against to give him their loyalty and support as a CEO. The employees and partners of Mozilla Foundation are using the same freedom of conscience that Eich used.

Eich had the additional benefit of having his marriage legally protected ... something he helped deny to some of his employees at Mozilla for 5 years.

 

I still don't see anyone hounding anyone from the homosexual community and going after their jobs and livelihoods for their opposition to Prop 8.

[rockpond]

I still don't see anyone hounding anyone from the homosexual community and going after their jobs and livelihoods for their opposition to Prop 8.

Opposing Prop 8 did not victimize anyone.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals have not been the object of discrimination? It's still legal to fire people or deny them housing just for being gay in many parts of our country.

[webbles]

Fine.  Can you point to ONE case where a gay couple has forced a church in America to perform a religious sacrament?  Maybe you can point to ONE case where some person who is against SSM was forced to marry someone of the same gender?  Tell me what ya got.  What supports your position?

 

Marriage is also a secular practice.  Have you ever heard of a justice of the peace marrying someone? 

 

Judge Tabor.  News article: http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/05/2759870/state-admonishes-judge-over-wedding.html.  Actual commission report: http://www.cjc.state.wa.us/Case%20Material/2013/7251%20Tabor%20Stip%20FINAL.pdf.  He discussed privately with other judges on whether they would be willing to "sub" for him if a same-sex marriage was in front of him.  He was reprimanded and he choose instead to not perform any marriages.

 

 

Never said anything about being prohibited from voicing your opinions did I.  Never said anything about having a different view than others.  In fact, I have challenged this board to find ONE case where a person has been fired, or forced to resign for having their own religious beliefs.  NO ONE HAS COME UP WITH ONE.  Your premise is false.  Yet, I have provided quite a few cases where a person has been fired for their beliefs.  None of them tried to force their beliefs on a single person.

 

Now, actively taking away someone's civil right is an entirely different issue isn't it.  Courts seems to frown on those that take away citizens civil rights.  So do I.  And over time, so does the majority of Americans.  We are seeing this very thing unfold before us once again.

https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/2014/02/12/walgreens-fires-pharmacist-for-refusing-to-violate-his-religious-beliefs/ - He was fired because he wouldn't distribute "Plan B" even though there was a procedure (which he was following) to allow employees from not distributing "Plan B".

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130816/NEWS05/308160021/AF-sgt-claims-he-fired-religious-views-gays - Sergeant that felt he was removed because of his beliefs on same-sex marriage.

[california boy]

Unless I am misreading you, you are fine with the persecution of Mr. Brendan Eichs.  Note, I understand its alright to have any opinion I want just don't support it publicly.

No I am not fine with persecution of Mr. Eichs.  Never said I was.  So yes, you do misread me.  

 

What I am uncomfortable with is blaming his firing on his freedom of conscience, or his religious beliefs, or his belief against SSM.  None of those are true.  He resigned because he tried to impose those beliefs on others.  Evidently those that would be working under him were not ok with him imposing his personal beliefs on others as well.  I also am not ok with that.  I too would have a hard time working for someone who actively forced his religious beliefs on me.  I would hope you would not be ok with that as well.  But evidently you are.

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

I don't have a lot of time, and haven't read past this thoroughly due to this. But let me try to explain. The man is not forcing anything. It was a legal movement that he supported and gave to. The legal prop wasn't his. It was apart of the political format and was something that 52% voted for. This, to me, isn't forcing. It was a vote that went through the proper channels and he has a political right to contribute to it and support his view point with his personal funds. That's how a democracy works....even when one may or may not approve of any given movement. There are checks and balances to it and the law, though passed by popular vote, would not hold up in higher courts. He did not insist that those who vote against prop 8 should be fired or let them be harassed in the work-place. That would be force/coercive. Frankly I do not see the correlation between his 1K of support to support his own position with forcing one's view when other against prop 8 could also throw in their 1K or more if they so pleased....and did. Force to me insists in an inequity in capacity to change things.

 

But my prob goes far beyond prop 8 and more to the philosophy of getting someone fired for putting their lots in with something we disagree with that was within his legal right to do and has no real effect in the workplace. I feel, for example, that healthcare should be considered a legal right that should be universal. It has real detriments to the health of large marginalized portions of society because it's not. I feel there are ethical and moral reasons to supporting this. Another person (or 10) thinks that health care should not be "socialized." That this is wrong for a number of reasons. We both vote, we both give time/money to supporting our cause. We both work at the same company that has nothing to do with healthcare. His side loses out in a vote but he later receives a promotion in the company a few years later. He's followed the laws and company rules in non-discrimination, benefits, and hasn't pushed the against-healthcare position on the company. He's nice and treats those around him fairly. He's done a lot of good in the company. And yet I and a bunch of other will not support him because of the way he voted and supported something I feel infringes on other's rights. There's no point, it's passed into law....he hasn't done anything to infringe my personal security, and he acts fairly. What is the point in this?...there's not amazing source of civil progress to be made. The only one is to culturally shame and ostracize him for his views.

 

You may say that this isn't just because he held beliefs but that he tried to have his beliefs be enforced by law. But that also makes no sense. Sure, he did. But so did I. So does anyone that ever votes for various laws. And if there was something that I was ethically/ideologically opposed to that was coming up to the vote I would throw in what support I felt was appropriate to change things as well. If I believed in something strongly, I may donate to it. It's called democracy and civil engagement. People should not be punished for participating in the process...even if we disagree with their views.

 

I don't want to get hyperbolic with this. I've tried very hard not to. But this idea of punishing, coercing, or allowing excessive actions against people who's views we disagree with and don't want to have a place in shaping our society is dangerous. The problem is who gets to decide what is ok to support or not support? When this has been taken to far greater lengths than coercive resignations it hasn't been pretty. My own grandfather was killed by local-terrorists in his country because he voiced and supported his own political positions. I have no idea what those positions were. Nor do I care much. It doesn't matter, it's an affront to true democracy. Again, I don't see this in any way as a direct parallel or that it will one day lead to this, but I do want you to know where I'm coming from and why a similar (though far milder) form of this ideal is repugnant to me.

 

I do not like the idea that supporting one's position in properly legal channels should ever be something that needs punishment in one's personal life that has little connection to it. He should resign if his positions means that he actively discriminates in his workplace or that he refuses to follow the company's rules. He should be fired if what he did was illegal. If he is using company time/resources (ie. not his own pay) to back this, I would feel free to pressure or insist on change. But no matter how much I may hate his views and activities outside of the work environment, does not give me the right to decide whether he is worthy to work in the office when the only real way that it effects the job-performances is my own prejudices/dislike of his views. If it were in reverse and he'd voted for SSM and the co-workers insisted he not be promoted due to this, I would have an equal problem with it.   Whether his position is SSM, abortion, race issues, voter's rights, education systems, health care, etc for or against or in-between doesn't matter. Whether I personally believe his vote or support to a political position is wrong should not infringe on his capacity to maintain his employment in an unrelated job.  They have just as much right to shape the society they live in as I do.

 

With luv,

BD

[jwhitlock]

It's very clear that the continued distortion SSM supporters use to portray Prop 8, along with their non-negotiable demands that anyone opposing SSM be considered a bigot and thus be marginalized, is creating a polarizing situation that will only get worse. The Eich situation is clear evidence of the lengths SSM supporters will go to in order to exact revenge and punish those who they deem are bigoted - and purely because of opposition to SSM. In addition, the continued misuse of terms such as "equality" and "rights" in regard to SSM by them make open discussion next to impossible.

 

Not only are legitimate concerns about SSM being dismissed, but those who raise them are being demonized and ridiculed. There is plenty of evidence of that in this thread.

 

The great majority of members of the church appear to have acted honorably and in a Christlike manner during the Prop 8 debate. There were no Prop 8 supporters holding up hate signs outside of gay rights groups' headquarters. There were no calls by Prop 8 supporters (as has been noted) to demonize their opponents and to publish lists of those contributing to groups supporting SSM. There were no dishonest commercials like those showing missionaries ransacking the homes of gays. There were not significant numbers of demands on message boards and in comments to burn gay homes, tax the burned out structures, and to drive them  from the state. Those were the tactics of many SSM supporters and those actions shaped the face of SSM support, in direct and clear contrast to the actions of most Prop 8 supporters.

 

Again, I appreciate bluebell's earlier post about those gays who decry the thought police mentality that is becoming the norm among those who support SSM. However, I suspect that those voices of dissent about the methodology being used are not going to gain much traction. The type of intolerance that forced Eich to leave is going to become the primary driver for pushing the agenda of SSM and punishing those who have opposed it.

 

It's been interesting to read the lame rationalizations provided by SSM supporters in this thread about why Eich - and anyone who opposes SSM - should really be considered a bigot and anti-gay. Any clear thinking person should be able to see the fallacy in those rationalizations. However, SSM supporters are not trying to influence clear thinking people. Their sound bits are intended for those who do not really think too deeply about such things, and unfortunately, they have a large audience in that respect.

 

The large and spacious building is filling up, the lights are all on, and mocking and deriding of those who understand and follow the will of God in this matter is growing more intense each day. The imagery of that building, having no foundation, is particularly fitting when it comes to the alternate reality that must be concocted to justify SSM.

[rockpond]

I don't have a lot of time, and haven't read past this thoroughly due to this. But let me try to explain. The man is not forcing anything. It was a legal movement that he supported and gave to. The legal prop wasn't his. It was apart of the political format and was something that 52% voted for. This, to me, isn't forcing. It was a vote that went through the proper channels and he has a political right to contribute to it and support his view point with his personal funds. That's how a democracy works....even when one may or may not approve of any given movement. There are checks and balances to it and the law, though passed by popular vote, would not hold up in higher courts. He did not insist that those who vote against prop 8 should be fired or let them be harassed in the work-place. That would be force/coercive. Frankly I do not see the correlation between his 1K of support to support his own position with forcing one's view when other against prop 8 could also throw in their 1K or more if they so pleased....and did. Force to me insists in an inequity in capacity to change things.

But my prob goes far beyond prop 8 and more to the philosophy of getting someone fired for putting their lots in with something we disagree with that was within his legal right to do and has no real effect in the workplace. I feel, for example, that healthcare should be considered a legal right that should be universal. It has real detriments to the health of large marginalized portions of society because it's not. I feel there are ethical and moral reasons to supporting this. Another person (or 10) thinks that health care should not be "socialized." That this is wrong for a number of reasons. We both vote, we both give time/money to supporting our cause. We both work at the same company that has nothing to do with healthcare. His side loses out in a vote but he later receives a promotion in the company a few years later. He's followed the laws and company rules in non-discrimination, benefits, and hasn't pushed the against-healthcare position on the company. He's nice and treats those around him fairly. He's done a lot of good in the company. And yet I and a bunch of other will not support him because of the way he voted and supported something I feel infringes on other's rights. There's no point, it's passed into law....he hasn't done anything to infringe my personal security, and he acts fairly. What is the point in this?...there's not amazing source of civil progress to be made. The only one is to culturally shame and ostracize him for his views.

You may say that this isn't just because he held beliefs but that he tried to have his beliefs be enforced by law. But that also makes no sense. Sure, he did. But so did I. So does anyone that ever votes for various laws. And if there was something that I was ethically/ideologically opposed to that was coming up to the vote I would throw in what support I felt was appropriate to change things as well. If I believed in something strongly, I may donate to it. It's called democracy and civil engagement. People should not be punished for participating in the process...even if we disagree with their views.

I don't want to get hyperbolic with this. I've tried very hard not to. But this idea of punishing, coercing, or allowing excessive actions against people who's views we disagree with and don't want to have a place in shaping our society is dangerous. The problem is who gets to decide what is ok to support or not support? When this has been taken to far greater lengths than coercive resignations it hasn't been pretty. My own grandfather was killed by local-terrorists in his country because he voiced and supported his own political positions. I have no idea what those positions were. Nor do I care much. It doesn't matter, it's an affront to true democracy. Again, I don't see this in any way as a direct parallel or that it will one day lead to this, but I do want you to know where I'm coming from and why a similar (though far milder) form of this ideal is repugnant to me.

I do not like the idea that supporting one's position in properly legal channels should ever be something that needs punishment in one's personal life that has little connection to it. He should resign if his positions means that he actively discriminates in his workplace or that he refuses to follow the company's rules. He should be fired if what he did was illegal. If he is using company time/resources (ie. not his own pay) to back this, I would feel free to pressure or insist on change. But no matter how much I may hate his views and activities outside of the work environment, does not give me the right to decide whether he is worthy to work in the office when the only real way that it effects the job-performances is my own prejudices/dislike of his views. If it were in reverse and he'd voted for SSM and the co-workers insisted he not be promoted due to this, I would have an equal problem with it. Whether his position is SSM, abortion, race issues, voter's rights, education systems, health care, etc for or against or in-between doesn't matter. Whether I personally believe his vote or support to a political position is wrong should not infringe on his capacity to maintain his employment in an unrelated job. They have just as much right to shape the society they live in as I do.

With luv,

BD

Okay, so by your logic, Eich did not force his views upon anyone else. Similarly, the employees and consumers of Mozilla did not force their views on him. They simply expressed their views, just like he did with Prop 8 (he wasn't fired, he resigned). So I guess there isn't an issue. We're all good. Glad we got that settled.

[rockpond]

It's very clear that the continued distortion SSM supporters use to portray Prop 8, along with their non-negotiable demands that anyone opposing SSM be considered a bigot and thus be marginalized, is creating a polarizing situation that will only get worse. The Eich situation is clear evidence of the lengths SSM supporters will go to in order to exact revenge and punish those who they deem are bigoted - and purely because of opposition to SSM. In addition, the continued misuse of terms such as "equality" and "rights" in regard to SSM by them make open discussion next to impossible.

Not only are legitimate concerns about SSM being dismissed, but those who raise them are being demonized and ridiculed. There is plenty of evidence of that in this thread.

The great majority of members of the church appear to have acted honorably and in a Christlike manner during the Prop 8 debate. There were no Prop 8 supporters holding up hate signs outside of gay rights groups' headquarters. There were no calls by Prop 8 supporters (as has been noted) to demonize their opponents and to publish lists of those contributing to groups supporting SSM. There were no dishonest commercials like those showing missionaries ransacking the homes of gays. There were not significant numbers of demands on message boards and in comments to burn gay homes, tax the burned out structures, and to drive them from the state. Those were the tactics of many SSM supporters and those actions shaped the face of SSM support, in direct and clear contrast to the actions of most Prop 8 supporters.

Again, I appreciate bluebell's earlier post about those gays who decry the thought police mentality that is becoming the norm among those who support SSM. However, I suspect that those voices of dissent about the methodology being used are not going to gain much traction. The type of intolerance that forced Eich to leave is going to become the primary driver for pushing the agenda of SSM and punishing those who have opposed it.

It's been interesting to read the lame rationalizations provided by SSM supporters in this thread about why Eich - and anyone who opposes SSM - should really be considered a bigot and anti-gay. Any clear thinking person should be able to see the fallacy in those rationalizations. However, SSM supporters are not trying to influence clear thinking people. Their sound bits are intended for those who do not really think too deeply about such things, and unfortunately, they have a large audience in that respect.

The large and spacious building is filling up, the lights are all on, and mocking and deriding of those who understand and follow the will of God in this matter is growing more intense each day. The imagery of that building, having no foundation, is particularly fitting when it comes to the alternate reality that must be concocted to justify SSM.

The employees and customers of Mozilla simply expressed their views as Eich did in the Prop 8 campaign. Why was it okay for him but wrong for them?

And I see nothing Christlike about the Prop 8 campaign. But that's not really news to you.

[BlueDreams]

Okay, so by your logic, Eich did not force his views upon anyone else. Similarly, the employees and consumers of Mozilla did not force their views on him. They simply expressed their views, just like he did with Prop 8 (he wasn't fired, he resigned). So I guess there isn't an issue. We're all good. Glad we got that settled.

 

No, but I don't feel much need to continue with this and will just reiterate that this does not feel right and feels vaguely like a dangerous idea to promote. Again. if this was reversed and it was the person who did vote for SSM who was boycotted and felt the need to resign due to someone leaking his personal contributions that spurred a boycott/heavy criticism in the workplace how would you feel about this? If it's anything but, "well he just has to deal with the consequences of his actions" it's a double standard. Simple as that. 

 

This goes beyond expressing one's views in vote/contributions, due process, and in a manner of respectful dialogue and moves into shaming one for their views. So no, I'm not ok with that. We're not all good. I don't care if the man had voted to try an instate sharia law, i do not believe his consequences match up to his actions. There is nothing just, fair, or good about what happened in this matter IMHO.  

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Storm Rider]

No, but I don't feel much need to continue with this and will just reiterate that this does not feel right and feels vaguely like a dangerous idea to promote. Again. if this was reversed and it was the person who did vote for SSM who was boycotted and felt the need to resign due to someone leaking his personal contributions that spurred a boycott/heavy criticism in the workplace how would you feel about this? If it's anything but, "well he just has to deal with the consequences of his actions" it's a double standard. Simple as that. 

 

This goes beyond expressing one's views in vote/contributions, due process, and in a manner of respectful dialogue and moves into shaming one for their views. So no, I'm not ok with that. We're not all good. I don't care if the man had voted to try an instate sharia law, i do not believe his consequences match up to his actions. There is nothing just, fair, or good about what happened in this matter IMHO.  

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

The shoe does not like being warned on the other foot. They are still so determined to portray the Gay agenda as "those poor, poor, loving, kind, pure, sweet individuals that are striving to be 'me'" that they cannot see that discrimination is discrimination. There were no victims; the emperor still is not wearing any clothes regardless of that tired argument that they are victims. 

 

No one stopped them from being gay or having gay sex until their eye balls fell out of their heads. No one told them they could not live together. What is happening is that if you think a certain way or support a certain cause then you just need to "man up" and bear the consequences of your actions and choices.  

 

Now that I know it is completely acceptable to discriminate, I assure you that I will. I will only support those who think exactly like me and I will support all actions to destroy the lives of those who think differently. Why you might ask?  Because I believe in a tolerant and free society as like as they think just like me.  

[rockpond]

No, but I don't feel much need to continue with this and will just reiterate that this does not feel right and feels vaguely like a dangerous idea to promote. Again. if this was reversed and it was the person who did vote for SSM who was boycotted and felt the need to resign due to someone leaking his personal contributions that spurred a boycott/heavy criticism in the workplace how would you feel about this? If it's anything but, "well he just has to deal with the consequences of his actions" it's a double standard. Simple as that.

This goes beyond expressing one's views in vote/contributions, due process, and in a manner of respectful dialogue and moves into shaming one for their views. So no, I'm not ok with that. We're not all good. I don't care if the man had voted to try an instate sharia law, i do not believe his consequences match up to his actions. There is nothing just, fair, or good about what happened in this matter IMHO.

With luv,

BD

Well, I agree that there was nothing good about what happened this week with the CEO. And I think it is a dangerous idea to promote. I am not promoting it as a course of action for either side. But I am also not willing to condemn either side more than the other.

Eich freely expressed his views in 2008 and it led to a denial of a legal right for gay citizens of CA. The employees and customers of Mozilla freely expressed their views and it led to Eich choosing to resign his position. Both instances were ugly.

[rockpond]

The shoe does not like being warned on the other foot. They are still so determined to portray the Gay agenda as "those poor, poor, loving, kind, pure, sweet individuals that are striving to be 'me'" that they cannot see that discrimination is discrimination. There were no victims; the emperor still is not wearing any clothes regardless of that tired argument that they are victims.

No one stopped them from being gay or having gay sex until their eye balls fell out of their heads. No one told them they could not live together. What is happening is that if you think a certain way or support a certain cause then you just need to "man up" and bear the consequences of your actions and choices.

Now that I know it is completely acceptable to discriminate, I assure you that I will. I will only support those who think exactly like me and I will support all actions to destroy the lives of those who think differently. Why you might ask? Because I believe in a tolerant and free society as like as they think just like me.

I'm quite comfortable with the shoe on either foot. Let's just be fair in our assessment... Either it was wrong for Eich to discriminate via his Prop 8 support and it's wrong for the employees/customers to speak up. Or, they are all in the right.

p.s. With respect to your second paragraph it's a Strawman. The issue is legally recognized marriage equality.

[emarkp]

lol.  Those that you spoke of has been firing people for years simply because they are gay.  What are you talking about?

 

I realize that gay-everything is all you live for, but should you really be surprised at people who shouldn't have been employed by Catholic institutions because they're ACTUALLY in a same-sex union?  Seriously?

 

I continue to be amazed at you nazis who must force everyone to behave as you demand, all while claiming that civilized society is doing the same.

[emarkp]

Now, actively taking away someone's civil right is an entirely different issue isn't it.  Courts seems to frown on those that take away citizens civil rights.  So do I.  And over time, so does the majority of Americans.  We are seeing this very thing unfold before us once again.

 

No one was taking away a civil right.  Except the board, and the fascists of the left who demand that you be on their side of an issue (excluding the freaking majority of California).

 

Why aren't all of you nazis clamoring for Obama to resign?  He had the same opinion of the ousted CEO at the same time.  Because you're hypocrites, and have no principles but demand that all people worship everything gay.  That is your God and your cause.

 

I just wish you cowards would come at people armed in the open so people could fight back.  Even the brownshirts fought openly.

[emarkp]

The issue is legally recognized marriage equality.

 

Making up a new phrase doesn't mean it has semantic meaning.  Your turkey of a phrase is nonsense.  You mock logic, language, common sense and decency with that made up term.

[rockpond]

Making up a new phrase doesn't mean it has semantic meaning. Your turkey of a phrase is nonsense. You mock logic, language, common sense and decency with that made up term.

What do you think I have "made up"?

[rockpond]

No one was taking away a civil right. Except the board, and the fascists of the left who demand that you be on their side of an issue (excluding the freaking majority of California).

Why aren't all of you nazis clamoring for Obama to resign? He had the same opinion of the ousted CEO at the same time. Because you're hypocrites, and have no principles but demand that all people worship everything gay. That is your God and your cause.

I just wish you cowards would come at people armed in the open so people could fight back. Even the brownshirts fought openly.

Good, now I can go to bed and rest easy knowing that we have already hit Godwin's Law.

And yes, Prop 8 did take away a civil right. That's just a fact.

[Storm Rider]

There has never been a right to marry a person of the same sex. This is a created right that has nothing to do with logic, fairness, or any other construct of a civil society. It does have everything to do with perversion and evil becoming recognized as acceptable in an equally perverted culture of the Left and of elitism. 

 

There was no civil right in the first place. It is this process of turning logic on its head that is the topic. It did not exist before and never has existed in the history of the world. It has always been a perversion of sexuality. 

[Mystery Meat]

And yes, Prop 8 did take away a civil right. That's just a fact.

 

I am sure you know this, but that is actually the definition of an opinion.

[Mystery Meat]

I want to take a moment and make two predictions:

 

1. History will look back at prop 8 and those who supported it as ignorant and misguided.

 

2. History will look back at the backlash from those who supported gay marriage against those who disagreed with them and consider it one of the most troubling episodes of our country.

 

Number 1 has already taken shape. The events that cause number 2 are just starting to ramp up. 

[rockpond]

I am sure you know this, but that is actually the definition of an opinion.

Not according to our constitution.

[rockpond]

I want to take a moment and make two predictions:

1. History will look back at prop 8 and those who supported it as ignorant and misguided.

2. History will look back at the backlash from those who supported gay marriage against those who disagreed with them and consider it one of the most troubling episodes of our country.

Number 1 has already taken shape. The events that cause number 2 are just starting to ramp up.

I'm kinda surprised you're willing to admit to #1 ... unless I have misunderstood you and you actually are not a supporter of Prop 8.

As for number 2, a lot will have to happen because a CEO resigning is not going to make history.

[Hestia]

This topic, as usual has become hostile and political. Time to close.