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

[wlu29]

Mozilla itself says they didn't ask him to step down.

I support gay marriage. But this guy has no backbone.

he doesn't want to bring bad press and distract the mission of his company

he's recusing himself from the situation so that the company can proceed (without him)

 

[Magooglie]

he doesn't want to bring bad press and distract the mission of his company

he's recusing himself from the situation so that the company can proceed (without him)

That's different than the company itself issuing an ultimatum as you tried to put forward before. It was his decision.

If he still thinks gays shouldn't be able to get married he should be able to stand by his views and actions.

 

[Concrete]

Most of these tech/social firms seem unbelievably left wing. I'm not saying I agree with this man, but just an observation.

 

[Madmick]

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

Don't be an imbecile.

 

[glennrod]

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

Yep, pathetic

 

[Magooglie]

Most of these tech/social firms seem unbelievably left wing. I'm not saying I agree with this man, but just an observation.

The Bay Area is known for its liberalism.

 

[Madmick]

This is outrageous but you think gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. OK. This and those ideas against gay marriages are equally ridiculous.

Oh for the love of Christ.

+1. Chrome is still catching up. This is outrageous. I don't see what his personal views have to do with his operations as a businessman. It was his money, not Mozilla's money. It's not like I've ever been blocked from visiting pro-gay websites due to a built-in filter by Firefox, LOL.

I support gay civil unions. I don't support this nonsense.

Learn to read.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

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

Pretty much this. The tolerant/intolerant left strikes again. I wonder who the LGBT crowd will decide to bully next.

 

[Madmick]

point proven. Why attack with insults?

No, your position is imbecilic because, first, he wasn't forced to resign, and second, nowhere have you established (nor would you possibly be capable of establishing) that this attitude applies to everyone. There are millions of Americans who openly advocate discrimination against gay marriage whose jobs are not in jeopardy.

cant we all just get along and advocate equality?

"Equality" would suggest support of gay civil unions. I'm glad to see we're agreed on that point.

 

[Jukai]

At first, I thought the company 'forced' him to retire because they disagreed with his personal views, which I thought was a little ridiculous.

But after reading it, it seemed like he retired on his own because the company was worried about the financial hit it would take after this came out. No one protested it, no one tried to force him out, this was preemptive damage control.

So what's the problem?

 

[wlu29]

That's different than the company itself issuing an ultimatum as you tried to put forward before. It was his decision.

If he still thinks gays shouldn't be able to get married he should be able to stand by his views and actions.

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

 

[Madmick]

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

I didn't assert that you did, so that's irrelevant, especially since I tore apart the rest of your post independent of either of those assumptions you're dishonestly trying to attribute to me.

 

[Poatan Power]

Free speech is not an open door for hate speech.

the fuck? yes it is.

there's nothing inherently bigoted about wanting marriage to be between a man and a woman and civil unions to be for homosexuals.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

At first, I thought the company 'forced' him to retire because they disagreed with his personal views, which I thought was a little ridiculous.

But after reading it, it seemed like he retired on his own because the company was worried about the financial hit it would take after this came out. No one protested it, no one tried to force him out, this was preemptive damage control.

So what's the problem?

Well, I personally find it a little troubling that homosexuality has become normalized to the point where being anti-gay has essentially the same ramifications as being racist.

 

[Gervinho]

Well, I personally find it a little troubling that homosexuality has become normalized to the point where being anti-gay has essentially the same ramifications as being racist.

Same here. It reached a level where they are demanding to get married in churches despite knowing Christianity is against their action. Its just matter of time before they demand anything negative about gays in any holy book has to be removed. Re-write these religious books

 

[Madmick]

the fuck? yes it is.

there's nothing inherently bigoted about wanting marriage to be between a man and a woman and civil unions to be for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Fixed. Anything that doesn't guarantee absolutely equality in the eyes of the state is, indeed, bigoted by default. I believe this is your position, but I wanted to clarify. Religion is free to maintain all the inconsistency and hypocrisy and bigotry to its heart's desire. That kind of illogicality and unenlightened, ancient thinking is sort of the foundation of religion, after all.

Did I attribute them to you?

You implied it, yes.

tore apart my post? Your anger seems misplaced as is your reading comprehension.

My reading comprehension is superior to your own, as are my skills in this absurdist forensic form of semantic nitpicking, and that's you've been reduced to trolling/squirming with such celerity.

your aggression is quite disturbing and I'm sure you want to have the last word, so have at it hoss and then please keep this topic ON TOPIC, afterall that's what a mod is supposed to do.

Attempting to draw the attention away from the argument (about why your comment was imbecilic and logically indefensible) and towards my moderation is a classic fold.

Move along, little fish. Today was not your day.

 

[Bagatur]

I am pro gay marriage. Well, actually I dont care either way.
But that was some bullshit. Please accept us for being gay and give us equal rights, but we dont accept if you dont like us and you will lose your job. some serious double standards here.

 

[Torami]

the fuck? yes it is.

there's nothing inherently bigoted about wanting marriage to be between a man and a woman and civil unions to be for homosexuals.

The fact that you have to call the same thing by two different names for two groups says it is.

 

[Madmick]

The fact that you have to call the same thing by two different names for two groups says it is.

No, it does not.

First, Veggie defended the reality that the freedom of speech does guarantee the right to hate speech (or at least it should...this is the only thing the Westboro Church people actually comprehend accurately).

The second part of his post is a bit more controversial, but I don't think there's anything inherently bigoted about supporting the stance that the unions that unite a man and woman are different than those that unite a man/man or woman/woman or whatever/whatever. That can be argued on the grounds that the latter unions are undeniably already distinct in nature. Thus, so long as one acknowledges that gays should be guaranteed perfect equality in the eyes of the state, then I'm not sure how you can compellingly allege "bigotry" based on the position (although I would understand if you still suspected that intent/personal belief).

 

[Torami]

No, it does not.

First, Veggie defended the reality that the freedom of speech does guarantee the right to hate speech (or at least it should...this is the only thing the Westboro Church people actually comprehend accurately).

The second part of his post is a bit more controversial, but I don't think there's anything inherently bigoted about supporting the stance that the unions that unite a man and woman are different than those that unite a man/man or woman/woman or whatever/whatever. That can be argued on the grounds that the latter unions are undeniably already distinct in nature. Thus, so long as one acknowledges that gays should be guaranteed perfect equality in the eyes of the state, then I'm not sure how you can compellingly allege "bigotry" based on the position (although I would understand if you still suspected that intent/personal belief).

The union comes down to the same point, two people who love each other and want to be together exclusively. There is no reason to not recognize it as the same.