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

[James Keith]

So when the court says that Blacks do not have and never had any rights which society was bound to respect, how do you get past that and say that they were citizens prior to the 14th amendment?

Because to be a "citizen" you simply needed to be a member of the country before then. There were no laws keeping people out.

 

[James Keith]

Why should my gay friends who were married in a Pentecostal church in southern Missouri in the late ninetes, have to wait for their marriage to be treated equally with other marriages? Even if they were to have a recognize a civil union, why should they have to wait for bigots to die before their marriage is called by the state what it actually is instead of what it is not.

You are confusing the semantics argument with other arguments again.

 

[ncordless]

You are confusing the semantics argument with other arguments again.

No I am not. I am saying their marriage is a marriage. Why should they wait for bigots to die before the state recognizes their marriage for what it is?

 

[ncordless]

Because to be a "citizen" you simply needed to be a member of the country before then. There were no laws keeping people out.

How are you a citizen if the court says you are not, and never have been?

 

[ultramanhyata]

So the govenment passes that law, and I as an employee am free to offend my employers customers in my off time and there is nothing that the employer can do about it?

If I get a job at Wal-Mart, then spend my free time across the street from Wal-Mart deriding its customers for shopping there, Wal-Mart just has to suck it up?

I think the absurd lengths to which you needed to go to construct this "scenario" is an indication of the faultiness of your position.

Here's some real life... If the new server in the restaurant (unbeknownst to the owner before she was hired) attends religious services at the little mosque in town - instead of any of the big churches - and the restaurant's regulars make it clear to the owner that they don't like being waited on by an "ungodly A-rab" should the owner be able to fire the server on the grounds that her activities outside of work are hurting business?

A business does not own its workers. It rents them. And it must be given ZERO control over what those workers do with their lives and bodies when they are off grounds and off the clock.

If this was the understood, unchangeable law of the land, the very idea of a boycott as a means to remove an employee from an enterprise would be abandoned. As it would be entirely futile.

 

[ncordless]

I think the absurd lengths to which you needed to go to construct this "scenario" is an indication of the faultiness of your position.

Here's some real life... If the new server in the restaurant (unbeknownst to the owner before she was hired) attends religious services at the little mosque in town - instead of any of the big churches - and the restaurant's regulars make it clear to the owner that they don't like being waited on by an "ungodly A-rab" should the owner be able to fire the server on the grounds that her activities outside of work are hurting business?

A business does not own its workers. It rents them. And it must be given ZERO control over what those workers do with their lives and bodies when they are off grounds and off the clock.

If this was the understood, unchangeable law of the land, the very idea of a boycott as a means to remove an employee from an enterprise would be abandoned. As it would be entirely futile.

No. If that was was the law of the land, businesses would be unable to escape a boycott, but people are still going to shop somewhere else.

In your scenario, firing someone because of their religious beliefs is currently protected. But that's different than if the Muslim employee spends his off time trying to restrict the rights of christians and as a result christians quit shopping there. Can't fire him for being Muslim. Can fire him because he harms the company with his free speech.

ETA: Think how ridiculous your rule works in reverse. Person gets hired by company, then figures out that the company is run by bigots. Does the person have to stay employed there so as not to discriminate against bigoted beliefs? Of course not. At-will employment, and it works both ways.

 

[ncordless]

I think in a world where donating money to causes is protected as speech, it is especially important that people be allowed to discriminate based on what was said. If a person gives a bunch of money to a cause it is the same as if they said what the cause says themselves.

 

[James Keith]

How are you a citizen...

One obvious way would be a member of some other non-white race who was considered a citizen, which is what I was alluding to.

 

[Endorse Freedom]

Anyone who donates money to something that involves treating others as a sub-human for something that hurts no one should be punished, so good riddance. If you are against gay marriage, then you are a bigot. It's about time we stand up for our fellow humans and fight against those who are against human rights.

 

[Ruprecht]

Why should my gay friends who were married in a Pentecostal church in southern Missouri in the late ninetes, have to wait for their marriage to be treated equally with other marriages? Even if they were to have a recognize a civil union, why should they have to wait for bigots to die before their marriage is called by the state what it actually is instead of what it is not.

Really? Unusual for Pentecostals. Unaffiliated?

 

[ncordless]

Really? Unusual for Pentecostals. Unaffiliated?

Really. Wat's more, one of the two ended up starting his own evangilist/pentecostal church not long after. Last I checked they continued to have a small but devoted church going.

Unaffiliated, of course.

Actually, just check up on them. Looks like they are affiliated with the Fellowship of Reconciling Pentecostals International now.

 

[Ruprecht]

Really. Wat's more, one of the two ended up starting his own evangilist/pentecostal church not long after. Last I checked they continued to have a small but devoted church going.

Unaffiliated, of course.

Actually, just check up on them. Looks like they are affiliated with the Fellowship of Reconciling Pentecostals International now.

Hmm. Never heard of them. Google tells me they are non-trinitarian though, so I guess that's not unusual.

 

[Gametheory]

The real crime is people donating money to scumbags who'll pass laws for them.

 

[ultramanhyata]

No. If that was was the law of the land, businesses would be unable to escape a boycott, but people are still going to shop somewhere else.

What would be the point of trying to pressure a business that is barred by law from doing the thing that you, the consumer, want them to do?

This is why we no longer see mobs of people standing outside schools trying to keep the black kids from going inside.

And why bigots no longer refuse to frequent restaurants that serve people of color. It's not because the bigots no longer exist, but because they know that, even if the owners wanted to, the law forbids all establishments from these sorts of discriminatory practices.

It's clear you want to grant employers almost god-like, controlling rights over the lives of their employees - rather than establishing equal rights between both parties, arbitrated and enforced by law.

Pretty ironic coming from a proponent of marriage equality.

And now, let's test for hypocrisy: Do you support a business's right to refuse services like floral, catering, photography, etc, to homosexuals planning their gay weddings?

It seems to me that where the issue of gay marriage is concerned, you want to have your wedding cake and eat it too.

 

[Calmete]

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

Can you back up your opinion using the actual bill of rights or does your opinion override that too?

 

[ncordless]

What would be the point of trying to pressure a business that is barred by law from doing the thing that you, the consumer, want them to do?

This is why we no longer see mobs of people standing outside schools trying to keep the black kids from going inside.

And why bigots no longer refuse to frequent restaurants that serve people of color. It's not because the bigots no longer exist, but because they know that, even if the owners wanted to, the law forbids all establishments from these sorts of discriminatory practices.

It's clear you want to grant employers almost god-like, controlling rights over the lives of their employees - rather than establishing equal rights between both parties, arbitrated and enforced by law.

Pretty ironic coming from a proponent of marriage equality.

And now, let's test for hypocrisy: Do you support a business's right to refuse services like floral, catering, photography, etc, to homosexuals planning their gay weddings?

It seems to me that where the issue of gay marriage is concerned, you want to have your wedding cake and eat it too.

What a fool you are. I bet I do more to protect workers from employers and to put them on an equal footing by enforcing their rights in a single day than you've done in your entire life.

And even I admit that an employer must have some way to control who it has in its workforce when the employee's interests run counter to its own. We do regulate why a business can fire someone, including protections against firings based on race, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and various other protected classes. But bigot isn't a protected class. You can't fire someone for being black, but you can fire them for shouting "kill whitey" when it ends up making people quit shopping there.

If Mozilla is run by someone who donates money to attempts to deny gay marriages recognition, I will consume services from its competitors. I don't care if Mozilla can't get rid of him or not. It's not just about pressure, it is about refusing to aid him. They pay his gigantic salary, he uses it to fight against marriage equality. I am not going to help them do that.

 

[ncordless]

Can you back up your opinion using the actual bill of rights or does your opinion override that too?

It's not the bill or rights.

14th Amendment, aka the great fix to the deficiencies of the Bill of Rights.

. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To deny some people the institution of marriage while granting it to others is a violation of equal protection of the laws.

 

[Calmete]

What a fool you are. I bet I do more to protect workers from employers and to put them on an equal footing by enforcing their rights in a single day than you've done in your entire life.

And even I admit that an employer must have some way to control who it has in its workforce when the employee's interests run counter to its own. We do regulate why a business can fire someone, including protections against firings based on race, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and various other protected classes. But bigot isn't a protected class. You can't fire someone for being black, but you can fire them for telling people we should kill whitey when it ends up making people quit shopping there.

If Mozilla is run by someone who donates money to attempts to deny gay marriages recognition, I will consume services from its competitors. I don't care if Mozilla can't get rid of him or not. It's not just about pressure, it is about refusing to aid him. They pay his gigantic salary, he uses it to fight against marriage equality. I am not going to help them do that.

If I don't like milk am I a cow bigot?

Let me know. Thx.

 

[Calmete]

It's not the bill or rights.

14th Amendment, aka the great fix to the deficiencies of the Bill of Rights.



To deny some people the institution of marriage while granting it to others is a violation of equal protection of the laws.

So you think I should be able to marry sheep? Or 9 year olds. Don't tread on me you say?

 

[Torami]

So you think I should be able to marry sheep? Or 9 year olds. Don't tread on me you say?

Neither can consent and you know that. Move on with your trolling.