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

[Torami]

Nobody forced his being asked to leave, it just made business sense once the uproar begin. Thats how society works, dont see the issue with that at all.

Lets not kid ourselves he would have been pushed out eventually or maybe was already. Regardless he used his free speech and people retaliated with theirs.

 

[LionExMachina]

Free Speech.

Yes, free speech. so why didn't he own his free speech?

He had a view that was controversial.
No one fired him.
If he had the courage he would have stayed and kept his position. But he was too chickenshit to stand by his convictions and backed himself down.

So again, whats the problem?

 

[nixkid]

Free Speech.

His free speech wasn't violated. Whats the problem?

 

[ncordless]

Good. People have the right to say what they believe. And others have the right to speak out against that view, and to threaten boycott of enterprises.


Remember, money is speech. The threat those who support marriage equality speaking out against Mozilla with a boycott was very real.

You have the right to think and say whatever you want without government intervention. But you don't have the right to not be held responsible by others for what you say. Those who publicly support a bigoted cause can fully expect to face the rancor of those who believe differently.

 

[Jimmy Tuna**]

There's just too many cultural divisions. I don't see them going away soon. State's rights might be the future. I certainly hope so.

 

[Torami]

His free speech wasn't violated. Whats the problem?

Its an issue because people on this forum and other places claim he was harassed into leaving when the public decided to use their free speech against him. The old Double Standard.

 

[nixkid]

Its an issue because people on this forum and other places claim he was harassed into leaving when the public decided to use their free speech against him. The old Double Standard.

Oh. I think I misunderstood your post then. We're on the same page.

 

[ncordless]

Depends what you mean by the "right". The right to use official names others use for things? Do you have an equal right to call yourself a black man under the law, or a woman? Can a single person call themselves married too? This is a semantics argument not one about outlawing gayness or something.

Yes. Of course a single person can call themselves married.

I am married to myself. See. I did it.

But what we are really talking about her is more than mere semantics isn't it? We are talking about legal recognition of some pairings of people versus others. There are some good reasons to limit the legal recognition of relationships. The sex of the couple isn't one of them.

 

[ncordless]

No, it's grossly unethical, and counter-intuitive. It's bullying on a tangent. It's intolerance in the guise of a call-for-tolerance extending beyond its scope. It's going to hurt the pro-gay movement.

BS. Same argument was made of the efforts to rid private enterprise of racial discrimination. Just as a business owner has the right to believe whatever evil thing he wants, the customer has the right to vote on those views with his wallet.

 

[Torami]

BS. Same argument was made of the efforts to rid private enterprise of racial discrimination. Just as a business owner has the right to believe whatever evil thing he wants, the customer has the right to vote on those views with his wallet.

GL with that. We had this argument a few pages ago.

 

[James Keith]

Yes. Of course a single person can call themselves married.

I am married to myself. See. I did it.

But what we are really talking about her is more than mere semantics isn't it? We are talking about legal recognition of some pairings of people versus others. There are some good reasons to limit the legal recognition of relationships. The sex of the couple isn't one of them.

By "under the law" I meant officially. Call yourself married on a tax form when you are single and you are committing a crime. Clearly you do not have a right to do so therefore.

Prop 8 does not refuse to recognize "pairings", it refuses to allow the govt to call those pairings "marriage" instead of "civil unions". When I said semantics I meant semantics and only semantics.

 

[Snackbar]

Just like it is within his right to donate money to whom he chooses, it is within other people and company's rights to not do business with Mozilla because the CEO has those beliefs.

Then why are flower shops, bakeries, and dress makers facing legal actions, and having thier business' shut down for not doing gay weddings? Do they not share in this right? Oh wait, its only a right to those who share your view.

 

[Rusk]

I don't understand why people care so much about gays.

 

[ncordless]

By "under the law" I meant officially. Call yourself married on a tax form when you are single and you are committing a crime. Clearly you do not have a right to do so therefore.

Prop 8 does not refuse to recognize "pairings", it refuses to allow the govt to call those pairings "marriage" instead of "civil unions". When I said semantics I meant semantics and only semantics.

What legitimate purpose does the government have in calling pairings between a man and a woman a "marriage" while calling pairings between a man and a man or a woman and a woman a "civil union"?

 

[llperez22]

I don't understand why people care so much about gays.

ive never lost sleep or felt emotional over any gay/anti gay issues. I 100% support equal rights, but it doesnt legit get to me when i read this stuff. I mostly just like seeing all these religious folk get rustled over stuff that has no impact on their personal lives. Its like we see shitty marriages everywhere with domestic abuse and divorces and all kinds of crap. But the second two loving men or two loving women want to tie the knot, now the sanctity of marriage is being trashed? And the government should have no say on this issue. People can think and feel however they want and gay marriages. But once your beliefs start becoming laws that impact others, then its an issue.

 

[Count Zero]

I support marriage equality (although if we want to get technical, I don't think the government should recognize any marriage - only civil unions, but for any consenting adults who wish to register as such), but I also support free speech.

Progressives are cannibalizing themselves. Our two-party system really lets the extremists on both sides taint everything else.

A lot of folks are saying that free speech also encompasses the freedom to pressure this guy into stepping down. While that's true, we really need some common sense. If the positions were reversed, they would not be singing the same tune: if this guy had donated to a pro marriage-equality group, and got pressured to step down, they would absolutely not still be saying it's fair game.

This is just beyond ridiculous. Social media and the 24/7 news cycle are magnifying our social tensions.

 

[ncordless]

Then why are flower shops, bakeries, and dress makers facing legal actions, and having thier business' shut down for not doing gay weddings? Do they not share in this right? Oh wait, its only a right to those who share your view.

Because the laws of those states in which those people do business forbid discriminating against customers based on their sexual orientation.

Those people can still believe and speak against gays, but if they want to engage in commerce in that state, they have to abide by the laws of the state regulating commerce.

 

[ncordless]

I support marriage equality (although if we want to get technical, I don't think the government should recognize any marriage - only civil unions, but for any consenting adults who wish to register as such), but I also support free speech.

Progressives are cannibalizing themselves. Our two-party system really lets the extremists on both sides taint everything else.

A lot of folks are saying that free speech also encompasses the freedom to pressure this guy into stepping down. While that's true, we really need some common sense. If the positions were reversed, they would not be singing the same tune: if this guy had donated to a pro marriage-equality group, and got pressured to step down, they would absolutely not still be saying it's fair game.

This is just beyond ridiculous. Social media and the 24/7 news cycle are magnifying our social tensions.

That's kind of the thing about free speech and free markets, though. Until very recently, taking a vocally pro-gay stance would be career-suicide for most. Now thee shoe's on the other foot.

 

[Snackbar]

Because the laws of those states in which those people do business forbid discriminating against customers based on their sexual orientation.

Those people can still believe and speak against gays, but if they want to engage in commerce in that state, they have to abide by the laws of the state regulating commerce.

So your agreeing that these rights only apply to those who share the views of the LGBT community.

Do businesses in those states have to legally provide services to registered sex offenders? Known philes? Or do we still pick and chose in this age of enlightenment

 

[llperez22]

So your agreeing that these rights only apply to those who share the views of the LGBT community.

Do businesses in those states have to legally provide services to registered sex offenders? Known philes? Or do we still pick and chose in this age of enlightenment

not really commenting on the law issue, but why do you compare sex offenders and philes with gay people? Who is being hurt by gay marriages?