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

[James Keith]

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"?

Accuracy in use of the language would be the most obvious answer here. One side wants to retain the historical use of a term and also the use the majority agrees with, whilst the other side wants to change it.

 

[Snackbar]

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?

You said business cant descriminate based on sexual orientation. Although unpopular, they are still sexual orientations.

This is when you make some comparison to black civil rights to skirt the conversation instead of admitting western society picks and chooses what sex acts are moral and which are immoral, then attempts to force these views on the whole of the population through laws and media.

 

[kuromusha]

we must all conform to a pro gay attitude or risk public condemnation and the loss of ones occupation/financial security.

You would think a guy named Charles Xavier would be advocate for gay rights. LOL

 

[LionExMachina]

You said business cant descriminate based on sexual orientation. Although unpopular, they are still sexual orientations.

This is when you make some comparison to black civil rights to skirt the conversation instead of admitting western society picks and chooses what sex acts are moral and which are immoral, then attempts to force these views on the whole of the population through laws and media.

Im pretty sure the comparison you are making is invalid.

Goofing a child is illegal.

Loving a person of the same sex is not.

 

[Jukai]

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.

Right, of course, except that "word" carries immense monetary benefits that they aren't entitled to. I've heard a lot of arguments against gay marriage, but this is bottom of the barrel

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.

Can't a flower shop, bakery and dress maker face legal action by not doing a black person's wedding?

 

[glennrod]

What?!? Being a bigot has repercussions?

I am shocked. Shocked I say!

Awesome, I look forward to all the anti-Christian atheists stepping down from their positions

 

[ncordless]

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

The way it works is, absent a regulation, the businesperson is free to refuse service for any reason. However, states, with their general police power, are free to regulate when a businessperson may refuse service. Common reasons that are forbidden are because that person is black, or white, or brown, or asian, or a catholic, or a jew, or a muslim. Many also don't allow businesses to people with disabilities, or women, or men. More recently, some states have included sexual orientation.

So no, I don't agree that these rights only apply to those who share the views of the LGBT community. I do agree that where the will of the majority as expressed by the laws of the state decide to regulate why businesses can refuse service to others, the business has no right to be immune from that law.

 

[Execute]

He made the right move by stepping down. When you take on a role that is public facing, and you have a personal view that is not favorable for the business...you should expect pressure to resign. They lost up to three Director's when he was promoted if I remember correctly, so it tells me that there's more to this than that donation.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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.

Imagine there is a business manager in the heart of the Bible Belt. He donates money to some pro-gay cause. This private donation becomes known to citizens of the community. They threaten to boycott the business unless something is "done" about the situation. So the owner of the business acts in the financial best interests of the business by encouraging/forcing the pro-gay manager to resign.

You would be OK with this? This is how you want society to function?

 

[Snackbar]

Right, of course, except that "word" carries immense monetary benefits that they aren't entitled to. I've heard a lot of arguments against gay marriage, but this is bottom of the barrel



Can't a flower shop, bakery and dress maker face legal action by not doing a black person's wedding?

And one post later the black comparisons begin as predicted.

 

[James Keith]

Right, of course, except that "word" carries immense monetary benefits that they aren't entitled to. I've heard a lot of arguments against gay marriage, but this is bottom of the barrel

That would be the entire point of civil unions, which exist in california. Even George Bush supported them. As did 2008 Obama.

If you pretend these attempts at remedies for the issue you cite don't exist, then you aren't arguing honestly. If you feel civil unions are not implemented perfectly you can still fix that problem in other ways besides semantics.

 

[ncordless]

Accuracy in use of the language would be the most obvious answer here. One side wants to retain the historical use of a term and also the use the majority agrees with, whilst the other side wants to change it.

Language is constantly changing and evolving. An attempt to freeze it in time is not a legitimate interest. I've been to several marriages between two men performed by christian churches. De facto, theirs is a marriage and to call it otherwise is inaccurate.

 

[Torami]

And one post later the black comparisons begin as predicted.

Well didn't America have a period they did this? So yes it makes sense. Common sense, as predicted.

 

[Magooglie]

i think the point overall is that he is able to separate his personal views from his work

he did something on his own in 2008 and he has been working in a company that is sympathetic to gay rights

he is able to compartmentalise his critics are calling for a boycott of his company's product, firefox

so regardless of how he feels on a personal level, he's not going to allow it to affect people's stance toward mozilla

you're framing him up as a spineless individual, i don't see it that way

Before he had no choice, but now he has a choice since I posted a link saying Firefox didn't ask him to step down? Before he was some hapless victim of bullying but now he's a martyr for people who can separate personal from public life?

It would have been much more interesting if he stuck around and explained his position.

 

[James Keith]

Well didn't America have a period they did this? So yes it makes sense. Common sense, as predicted.

and it was of course solved by expanding the definition of white people to include black people.

 

[ncordless]

That would be the entire point of civil unions, which exist in california. Even George Bush supported them. As did 2008 Obama.

If you pretend these attempts at remedies for the issue you cite don't exist, then you aren't arguing honestly. If you feel civil unions are not implemented perfectly you can still fix that problem in other ways besides semantics.

You are arguing semantics too. So the question becomes why do we hold our opposite views of the semantics of it. Some dislike calling it a civil union because it holds their marriage to be something that it is not. You seem to dislike marriage for no good reason at all.

 

[Torami]

and it was of course solved by expanding the definition of white people to include black people.

wat.

 

[James Keith]

Language is constantly changing and evolving. An attempt to freeze it in time is not a legitimate interest. I've been to several marriages between two men performed by christian churches. De facto, theirs is a marriage and to call it otherwise is inaccurate.

You are implying that the language changes are the mainstream culture and these laws which have majority support are some kind of attempt at activism. You have things backwards.

 

[ncordless]

Imagine there is a business manager in the heart of the Bible Belt. He donates money to some pro-gay cause. This private donation becomes known to citizens of the community. They threaten to boycott the business unless something is "done" about the situation. So the owner of the business acts in the financial best interests of the business by encouraging/forcing the pro-gay manager to resign.

You would be OK with this? This is how you want society to function?

This is how society does function and has functioned. I don't have to imagine your scenario. It has been common.

What would you have done? Make a law forcing the community to buy from the business?

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I never spoke against gay civil unions, nor did i speak of the ceo himself either.

Aren't you a advocate for human and mutant equal rights? What happened to you Professor X? Has Magneto really gotten to you?