Social ***mozilla Firefox ceo forced to resign for personal views****

[Bukowski82]

I fully support this.

Gay Rights= Human Rights. If someone in charge of a Major Corporation is against Human Rights, I wanna know about it so that may boycott and completely shit on their product every time I get the chance. And there are a ton of people just like me in that respect... This Company is smart, knows that and took steps to eliminate a problem that would have lost them business.

They have corrected their mistake and I will go back to using their product now.

 

[ncordless]

So you concede that gender discrimination isn't always a bad thing. You just happen to draw the line at a different place than I do.



You're presupposing that there is a right to marry someone of the same sex.

First: Sure. I draw the line according to Supreme Court precedent which recognizes that there might be justified discrimination. That goes for race, sex, etc. What's your rationale for when gender discrimination is okay?

Second: I am not presupposing anything. There is undoubtedly a right to marry. Limiting that right to marry to someone of the opposite sex is a gender discrimination without the requisite government interest.

 

[Madmick]

To your first point, I'd say that what modern speech protections for political contributions mean is that, when you donate to a cause, you are in effect publicly concurring with what that cause says. So when he gave Prop 8 1k, everything that campaign said publicly is what he said publicly. Money is speech, and his 1,000 bucks helped say a lot of things that offend the customers and employees of Mozilla.

To your second point, yeah, if the Wall Street firm thinks that someone's private activities will have a negative effect on their business, they should be free to fire them as long as the activity isn't in some way protected. To your example, are we assuming that the liberal Wall-Streeter gave money to a cause that offended the Wall Street firm's customers? Or are they firing him just for being a liberal, regardless of whether it had a negative effect on his business? Because I think there is a difference. Here, while you state that there is no evidence that the guy's homophobia would have harmed Mozilla, I'd bet Mozilla has a better handle on that than you, and realized they were setting themselves up for a boycott. I know if they hadn't fired him, I wouldn't have given them any money because some of it would go to pay the large CEO salary of a guy who helped say everything that was said in the Prop 8 campaign, and I doubt I am the only one.

It could be this very issue. Some old, crotchety Jim Crow lovin' CEO hears that one of his young VP's gave $1000 to support Prop. 8- fired. It doesn't matter if this is a realistic narrative. If you support one position, then you support the other. Every conservative group- such as the Tea Party- now has free reign to grind their political gears in ousting people from their jobs due to their private political views (maintained separate from the company) because those political views upset them.

This is idiocy. The system loses all integrity. The point of democracy is that it can sustain normal function in the face of dissent. This cripples that system. The integrity of the system is more important than any issue, or ideological view point. That is the great underlying idea behind the two most important documents which are the pillars of our government.

 

[ncordless]

It could be this very issue. Some old, crotchety Jim Crow lovin' CEO hears that one of his young VP's gave $1000 to support Prop. 8- fired. It doesn't matter if this is a realistic narrative. If you support one position, then you support the other. Every conservative group- such as the Tea Party- now has free reign to grind their political gears in ousting people from their jobs due to their private political views (maintained separate from the company) because those political views upset them.

This is idiocy. The system loses all integrity. The point of democracy is that it can sustain normal function in the face of dissent. This cripples that system. The integrity of the system is more important than any issue, or ideological view point. That is the great underlying idea behind the two most important documents which are the pillars of our government.

So the difference between your scenario and this one is that in your scenario someone is being fired for their political beliefs. Here, what happened is someone is being let go because of the way their public political speech potentially harmed the company's relationship with its customers and with its other employees. I see that as a major difference, and where the correct line should be drawn. The CEO of Popeye's Chicken can be a racist. But if he dons his hood and marches with the KKK on the weekends, and customers don't like it and quit going to Popeye's because of it, why should Popeye's be forbidden from letting him go?

To your second paragraph, you get a little hyperbolic there. For one thing, people have been firing people for what they say in private since the founding and before. For two, you are kind of making up divisions that aren't there. There is no such thing as freedom from private repercussions for public speech, and there never has been.

 

[IDL]

It could be this very issue. Some old, crotchety Jim Crow lovin' CEO hears that one of his young VP's gave $1000 to support Prop. 8- fired. It doesn't matter if this is a realistic narrative. If you support one position, then you support the other.

So not supporting same sex marriage is racist?

 

[James Keith]

All rights should be presupposed, that should be the default position. You can argue for restrictions of rights/behavior. Often you can do so very effectively, very well, and very appropriately. You should never have to argue the opposite.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

A claim to a right of govt recognition of your relationship would be a positive "right", not a restriction on behavior. The situation is reversed for positive rights, you can dream up new things all day you think the govt should do for you, you wouldn't be entitled to those things as the default position.

 

[Jukai]

So not supporting same sex marriage is racist?

I have a theory that getting support for interracial marriage was just a distraction the mass media pushed on us to get us thinking about other things. I mean, why did everyone care about that?

 

[IDL]

I have a theory that getting support for interracial marriage was just a distraction the mass media pushed on us to get us thinking about other things. I mean, why did everyone care about that?

There is a point in there somewhere I'm sure of it.

 

[UpaLoompa]

A claim to a right of govt recognition of your relationship would be a positive "right", not a restriction on behavior. The situation is reversed for positive rights, you can dream up new things all day you think the govt should do for you, you wouldn't be entitled to those things as the default position.

That's different than what I was responding to.
For your scenario, government already recognizes marriage as a legal construct. Restricting it to some groups can be argued against under the 14th amendment as well as other grounds.

I've been saying for years that there are only two acceptable outcomes:
1) Governments recognizes no marriages and only recognizes civil unions.
2) Governments recognize gay and straight marriages.

Recognizing straight but not gay marriages doesn't hold under any argument. Importantly, opponents of gay marriage don't ever--that I've seen--argue "1". That's because they aren't actually viewing this in a positive rights framework but rather want their religious views legally enshrined.

 

[ncordless]

I have a theory that getting support for interracial marriage was just a distraction the mass media pushed on us to get us thinking about other things. I mean, why did everyone care about that?

Getting support for anything is always just a false flag distraction to keep us from thinking about something else.

NOTHING IS REAL!

 

[deise69]

I didn't misread, you did. Please, post his Mozilla contract where it stipulates, "Members of this company are not allowed to donate to political causes (and if it is discovered you did this before joining the company, then that is also grounds for termination- even though we could have vetted that before hiring you, and also we didn't terminate you)." This is a foreign concept to me.

There are plenty of political or religious causes I could donate to, that have nothing to do with my line of work. However if I was donating money to the KKK or likewise and it became public knowledge, resulting in a boycott of a company I work for. Is it worth the company's trouble to keep me ?

Would you spend money in a store/pub/restaurant that employed someone who made donations to Hamas ? Would you feel strongly enough to tell others not to go there ? Would you be upset if they were then fired ?

Should the UFC not offer a contract to someone because of a post when they were 17 ?

 

[James Keith]

That's different than what I was responding to.
For your scenario, government already recognizes marriage as a legal construct. Restricting it to some groups can be argued against under the 14th amendment as well as other grounds.

I've been saying for years that there are only two acceptable outcomes:
1) Governments recognizes no marriages and only recognizes civil unions.
2) Governments recognize gay and straight marriages.

Recognizing straight but not gay marriages doesn't hold under any argument. Importantly, opponents of gay marriage don't ever--that I've seen--argue "1". That's because they aren't actually viewing this in a positive rights framework but rather want their religious views legally enshrined.

Marriage is always restricted to some groups. Anyway this direction turns into a debate about semantics.

And there's also a #3: govt gets out of the relationship business altogether.

 

[Jukai]

There is a point in there somewhere I'm sure of it.

Do you disagree?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Marriage is always restricted to some groups. Anyway this direction turns into a debate about semantics.

At which point, like I implied in my earlier post, you have to make arguments against the inclusion of groups rather than vice-versa.

And there's also a #3: govt gets out of the relationship business altogether.

Doesn't really work because of legal and financial matters. Well, maybe it could but it would seemingly require a greater overhaul.

 

[Madmick]

There is a point in there somewhere I'm sure of it.

LOL, you're one to talk...

So not supporting same sex marriage is racist?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you really going to insist on being this literal?

 

[Madmick]

There are plenty of political or religious causes I could donate to, that have nothing to do with my line of work. However if I was donating money to the KKK or likewise and it became public knowledge, resulting in a boycott of a company I work for. Is it worth the company's trouble to keep me?

Would you spend money in a store/pub/restaurant that employed someone who made donations to Hamas ? Would you feel strongly enough to tell others not to go there ? Would you be upset if they were then fired ?

There was no boycott of the company. Nobody cared about this outside some insiders in the bay area, obviously. Furthermore, I haven't been careful not to argue that this is illegal. I have argued that it is unethical. I have no problem with people voting with their wallets, but that clearly wasn't the driving force- the catalyst- here. Those opposed felt a need to make an issue of an opinion that he wasn't grandstanding. The KKK is a terrorist group. They have carried out bombings, and lynchings. Hamas is also a terrorist group. They behead people in the streets.

You're pandering with blatantly disproportionate analogy. There are plenty of peaceful people who oppose gay marriage peaceably, according to the law, and even quietly, modestly (as Eich was). I believe there are boundaries, and that a person has a right to their private life as a fellow citizen. He has a right to disagree with me. That right is more important than either of our opinions.

Should the UFC not offer a contract to someone because of a post when they were 17 ?

A bit off-topic.

 

[deise69]

You're pandering with blatantly disproportionate analogy. There are plenty of peaceful people who oppose gay marriage peaceably, according to the law, and even quietly, modestly (as Eich was). I believe there are boundaries, and that a person has a right to their private life as a fellow citizen. He has a right to disagree with me. That right is more important than either of our opinions.

A blatantly disproportionate analogy, yes but it still applies none the less. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, who's right ? The boundaries have already been set by people, otherwise this situation would not have happened.

I agree "a person has a right to their private life as a fellow citizen. He has a right to disagree with me." However making a public donation, that effects the lives of those fellow citizens is open game. And they in turn showed that disagreement by protesting his position at Firefox. It may not be fair but that's life and it goes on everywhere, at every level. Everything is open to interpretation, an unpopular opinion may still be right, who's to say ?

 

[Madmick]

A blatantly disproportionate analogy, yes but it still applies none the less. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, who's right ? The boundaries have already been set by people, otherwise this situation would not have happened.

I agree "a person has a right to their private life as a fellow citizen. He has a right to disagree with me." However making a public donation, that effects the lives of those fellow citizens is open game. And they in turn showed that disagreement by protesting his position at Firefox. It may not be fair but that's life and it goes on everywhere, at every level. Everything is open to interpretation, an unpopular opinion may still be right, who's to say ?

Because it opens to the door to discrimination and bigotry influencing the private sector on the back of free speech. Now those deeply conservative communities can boycott someone who supported the prop. Suppose they actually know that this person is gay and don't like that, but they take this and run with it. This is a matter of sensitivity to dissent in understanding that you could at one point be the one losing the job, and asking if that is just, or sensible. I have no protested a co-worker's employment based on any belief, no matter how absurd or contrary to my own, or how much they post (with "public" tagging) on Facebook about it. We must co-exist.

 

[IDL]

Do you disagree?

I wasn't around then, so I really don't know

 

[OldGoat]

Donate to the wrong party or candidate and get forced out. Sounds good.