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

[johnsmithbattle]

Lol. What does that have to do with this story? He apparently felt enough of a backlash to resign...

It has do to with the reason why he was fired, ie for what he donated towards. You obvious have no idea what happened, and just enjoy screaming bigot and racist whenever you can. Continue on you useful idiot/controlled opposition.

 

[Torami]

It's undoubtedly bigoted not to grant them equal rights as fellow citizens.


The sweet tears of minnows.

Who said anything about separate government labeling? I said that the unions should be perfectly equal in the eyes of the state. Consummate. Identical. I don't care what they call it. Those who argue differently stand apart from me.

Per this issue, except on FOX news, the usage of the words "marriage" and "civil union" are typically used to indicate a distinction in the the private and public spheres. The public sphere is the government sphere, and there equality must be absolute. Conversely, in the private sphere- for example, churches- the rational citizens will acknowledge the right of that subculture to govern itself, and its own definitions. I thought this was rather apparent in my above posts.

Do I believe that most religious people are bigoted on this issue- specifically those who desire to maintain this distinction? Yes. Do I believe that this is necessarily true? No, as I said above, and went to the trouble of explaining why (a point that you continue to evade... although in fairness to you that appears to be so because you are a touch green when it comes to this debate). I am not religious. Furthermore, I don't care about labels. I only support what I feel I can rationally support, and that is equality in matters of civil rights.

Frankly, you're dogmatic. It's "your way or the highway". You appear to represent the very type of person who applies pressure to men like this when you have no justifiable reason to attack his position as a businessman for his privately held beliefs. You hurt the gay rights movement with your rigidity. You have no right to dictate if some people want to call one union "marriage" and even have a formally recognized institution unique to that label, so long as that institution exists outside the government sphere.

If you argued that, as I do, then the conservatives would quickly lose this argument, and we would achieve that equality more rapidly. It wouldn't take long for the stubborn and (yes, probably) bigoted chicken littles to see how normal and acceptable those unions are; that the sky isn't falling. The rest would fall in place so easily.

But too many are so stuck on this goddamn "my way or the highway" rather than what cannot be rationally denied by any party.

So continue to let bigots be bigots with no repercussions. I get your point, you have your own highway. We do stand apart.

 

[__Big_D__]

It has do to with the reason why he was fired, ie for what he donated towards. You obvious have no idea what happened, and just enjoy screaming bigot and racist whenever you can. Continue on useful idiot or controlled opposition.

He resigned..

 

[Jukai]

no one here is crying madmick, obviously your passionate about being a homosexual and passionate about your people, I can respect that, but the point is equality and I can agree with you on that one, it's just that people aren't always going to share your views and you need to except and respect that.

First off, it's "accept"
Second off, I really haven't been following your spat with Madmick but I did read this post and it's horrendously full of bullshit.
You do NOT have to accept and respect an opinion. And you sure as fuck don't have to accept and respect an opinion that isn't accepting or respecting an entire group of people.

Mozilla's former CEO does not have to like gays. People also don't have to do business with Mozilla because he doesn't like gays. Both are fine.
What isn't fine is to make laws to prevent the people you don't like from having rights affording to everyone else.

 

[Madmick]

First off, it's "accept"

So continue to let bigots be bigots with no repercussions. I get your point, you have your own highway. We do stand apart.

Yet again, you haven't demonstrated that a separation of "labels" is necessarily bigoted.

But yes, we certainly do stand apart. You have no justification to punish bigots for being bigots unless they harm someone (at which point bigotry isn't the crime, but the cause) or unless they try to impose their bigotry on the public sphere (i.e. force other people to endure their personal value system without rationale). If a "bigot" doesn't commit either offense, and if he acknowledges gays' right to perfect equality in terms of tangible rights- aka civil rights- then what right do you have to impose "repercussions" on him? We can only fairly govern the rights of ourselves and our fellow man, not what is in his heart.

It turns out that you're the bigot. You've skated too long on the edge of the abyss. You have become the demon you grapple.

 

[Torami]

Yet again, you haven't demonstrated that a separation of "labels" is necessarily bigoted.

But yes, we certainly do stand apart. You have no justification to punish bigots for being bigots unless they harm someone (at which point bigotry isn't the crime, but the cause) or unless they try to impose their bigotry on the public sphere (i.e. force other people to endure their personal value system without rationale). If a "bigot" doesn't commit either offense, and if he acknowledges gays' right to perfect equality in terms of tangible rights- aka civil rights- then what right do you have to impose "repercussions" on him? We can only fairly govern the rights of ourselves and our fellow man, not what is in his heart.

It turns out that you're the bigot. You've skated too long on the edge of the abyss. You have become the demon you grapple.

You seem to have gone off topic as the person in question did donate money against talked about equality. But continue these long tirades of yours by all means.

 

[ABACA]

You seem to have gone off topic as the person in question did donate money against talked about equality. But continue these long tirades of yours by all means.

You don't understand. Money is speech.

 

[Torami]

You don't understand. Money is speech.

Must devise get rich quick scheme. Can I borrow a hundred? Promise I'll pay back.

 

[Madmick]

You seem to have gone off topic as the person in question did donate money against talked about equality. But continue these long tirades of yours by all means.

Then you need to read it again. This is an entirely separate issue. His political beliefs have nothing to do with his business. He has the right to pursue furthering his "bigoted" political beliefs in the public sphere as a citizen independent of his function as a businessman in the private sphere. He didn't intermingle his personal beliefs as a private citizen with his business's operations as a private corporation. Should he not have the right to vote, either, if he disagrees with you? The arena in which it is appropriate and justifiable to combat his "bigotry" is in the sphere where the issue is being contested: the public sphere. So throw down your own $1000 on a pro-gay marriage agenda. Would you like to experience so much public outcry from anti-gay protesters by your private response that you are forced into his position where it is in the best interest of all the people to whom you are responsible as an employer that you must abdicate your job?

This is harassment, and it's intolerable.

 

[ABACA]

Must devise get rich quick scheme. Can I borrow a hundred? Promise I'll pay back.

IDK about that, but what we need to do is use our money to purchase shares of Mozilla (is it public?) so then we can demand a CEO who isn't a bigot and it won't be harassment, it will be speech.

 

[Madmick]

IDK about that, but what we need to do is use our money to purchase shares of Mozilla (is it public?) so then we can demand a CEO who isn't a bigot and it won't be harassment, it will be speech.

Nope.

 

[Poatan Power]

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

No it doesn't.

If it were up to me, I would call ALL relationships civil unions and remove the term 'marriage' from government regulation altogether so religious folk can do with it what they will.

As it were, I don't dislike gay people. I also don't necessarily care if they get married, although if it were up to me, I'd support the civil union thing over the marriage thing.

I certainly dislike these militant homosexuals that use the term "homophobe" to anyone that disagrees with them and their agenda. Even if I did dislike homosexual people, that isn't a "phobia."

It doesn't shock me that this guy stepped down. He's probably under constant threat of death from these psychos.

 

[llperez22]

he's a bigot in the bay area which is maybe the biggest pro rights area of the country. His company forced him out because of the bad press. He is allowed his freedom of speech and thought, but as a bigot, you are also subject to people's reactions. Nothing wrong here.

 

[Torami]

he's a bigot in the bay area which is maybe the biggest pro rights area of the country. His company forced him out because of the bad press. He is allowed his freedom of speech and thought, but as a bigot, you are also subject to people's reactions. Nothing wrong here.

Don't think it would have blown up so much had Mozilla not touted itself as a very gay friendly business. At the same time though, you would think they would know his views beforehand.

 

[Madmick]

he's a bigot in the bay area which is maybe the biggest pro rights area of the country. His company forced him out because of the bad press. He is allowed his freedom of speech and thought, but as a bigot, you are also subject to people's reactions. Nothing wrong here.

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.

 

[LionExMachina]

If he left on his own free will then whats the problem?

 

[Torami]

If he left on his own free will then whats the problem?

Free Speech.

 

[James Keith]

It's persecution of a group by denying them the same rights as regular people.

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.

 

[llperez22]

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.

people have opinions. If the head of a company supports discrimnation, then the people who disagree with him have the right to boycott his companies services. 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.

 

[nixkid]

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

Yes, why is the left so intolerant of bigotry and those advocating for inequality?