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

[IDL]

I love that basically this post is "yeah, the illuminati are behind pushing for gay marriage", with the caveat that you don't like the label illuminati.

Well done.

Like I said, it will never make sense out of context. There is little point in discussing it for that reason.

 

[JaPo]

I think that having sex with a man is not an attractive idea to me, does that mean im scared of man-ass?, what, should I be fearful of a giant floating hairy arse that may track me down and mount my head and I might suffocate?. I really don't se the fear part at all, I just don't think that two men or 2 women should be able to get married, and so what?

Lol. This is what I mean by extremely limited thinker. I always wonder why homophobic people always need to justify their distaste in these graphic terms. It says a good deal about your thought process that you need to describe homosexuality in terms of 'hairy asses'. Do you reduce heterosexual relationships to their often less than savoury carnal dimensions? At least TCK and ultrahymeneater know you're supposed to veil your bigoted opinion in babble that makes it appear legitimate and rational. You haven't even bothered or are incapable of doing so.

 

[threelions]

But not really though...because I have told you that I do not fear gay people. It doesn't manifest in anything. to be honest its the methods used to gain acceptance of the lifestyle that bothers me the most, it just mostly entails mud slinging from people like you. you have been fair with me in the past and even said that you didn't think I was a racist, which im grateful for, but you seem to be pushing the whole "homophobic bigot" thing a bit too hard in my direction.

I treat people the way they treat me and I wouldn't treat a gay person any differently if they needed my help, I just don't see that I shouldn't be repulsed by some of the things they do, I mean, I don't have to like that stuff do I?, I don't actually see that someone's personal sexual preferences are any of my business to be honest, I don't want to know, I don't give a shit.

Coming after me, smearing, or even looking down at me for not being as "enlightened" as you in that regard doesn't make me a bigot, it doesn't make me a Nazi and to be honest the whole schtick is getting a little bit tired now. am I a bigot because I think that 2 obese women tooling each other up is disgusting?, think about that for a second, because that is largely in the context the whole "homophobemania" angle has come from.

I don't believe that 2 men or 2 women should be allowed to get married, I don't give a shit if some dude likes to put things inside himself, it really is none of my business, I don't give a shit about some of these so called "hero's" that come out in public or whatever, I really don't want to know but these people want to MAKE it my business.

If they, or you want to try and push people with that leftist way of thinking then once in a while you will come across people who can see the whole charade for what it is, a load of bullshit, having a difference of opinion is one thing, but labelling people as hateful and such is played out

Some of the best people I have ever known don't support gay marriage, am I supposed to believe that these people who I know are good people are hateful people because they don't like the homosexual lifestyle?. sorry, not having it

Your insane lol. "I have nothing against Gay people and would treat them the same as anyone else!" "Well apart from them getting married, they can go fuck themselves on that one the dirty bum lovers!" That's about as hypocritical as you can get.

No ones asking you to like gay porn or be turned on by two guys going at it but not letting people get married because you find it "Icky" isn't a good or adult argument.

If we open the door to this, then anyone who give private individual money in support of a gun control law may be hounded for the same reason; anyone who votes to restrict drugs; anyone who votes to "deny the right" of another citizen for any reason.

Furthermore, if one argues this isn't unethical on the grounds that his campaign contribution constitutes free speech as an individual, then I don't see how one can argue for campaign finance reform. Speech is consummately protected. If that is perfectly analogous to speech, then the Kock brothers should be able to buy elections above ground...no need of Super PACs or fancy accounting.

Yet again, this is unethical and it destabilizes the system.

It's none of those things. Again freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. This man was an employee his views went against the companies & customers views and caused the company damage. Anyone at any level expressing any opinions that damage a company will be fired. The company also has freedom to decide who they want to employ.

 

[m52nickerson]

+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.

Problem is his views and what he did with his money was going to cost Mozilla money.

 

[TheComebackKid]

If this was purely a business decision on Mozilla's part than I don't think we can really blame them for responding to public pressure. But the public is setting a very dangerous precedent here by trying to punish companies because of some of the private views held by employees completely independent of company operations.

It basically gives people a tool to pressure and bully others into accepting their point of view. You support gun rights? Well I'm going to boycott the company you work for. You personally support abortion? Well I'm not going to try and get you fired.

I know many of you support gay marriage so you're cheering this on but stop and think for a moment about the unintended consequences. And think for a moment about what if everyone took their politics to this degree and try to shut down or hurt business whose employees hold differing but private views. I support gay marriage too but I don't support the lynch mob.

 

[m52nickerson]

If this was purely a business decision on Mozilla's part than I don't think we can really blame them for responding to public pressure. But the public is setting a very dangerous precedent here by trying to punish companies because of some of the private views held by employees completely independent of company operations.

It basically gives people a tool to pressure and bully others into accepting their point of view. You support gun rights? Well I'm going to boycott the company you work for. You personally support abortion? Well I'm not going to try and get you fired.

I know many of you support gay marriage so you're cheering this on but stop and think for a moment about the unintended consequences. And think for a moment about what if everyone took their politics to this degree and try to shut down or hurt business whose employees hold differing but private views. I support gay marriage too but I don't support the lynch mob.

Welcome to free speech and capitalism.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Welcome to free speech and capitalism.

I understand that this is what free speech and capitalism can produce but my point is that it doesn't have to produce it and we as a society are in control of that. The public is deciding to respond with outrage and demands for resignation but they can easily decide not to respond that way. I'm suggesting that its dangerous for the public to respond in this manner and perhaps they should think twice about it.

 

[m52nickerson]

I understand that this is what free speech and capitalism can produce but my point is that it doesn't have to produce it and we as a society are in control of that. The public is deciding to respond with outrage and demands for resignation but they can easily decide not to respond that way. I'm suggesting that its dangerous for the public to respond in this manner and perhaps they should think twice about it.

I don't think it is dangerious at all. Public pressure like this is only going to work you have a large majority of the public in agreement. Right now the mojority of people think that it is wrong to not allow same sex couples to marry. That trend is going to continue.

Now we did not see this type of thing work when it came to Phil Roberson and A&E. While people did not agree with what he said not as many were so outraged by it to hurt A&E when they put him back on the show. In fact it may have hurt them more to have kept him off of it.

 

[glennrod]

Lol. This is what I mean by extremely limited thinker. I always wonder why homophobic people always need to justify their distaste in these graphic terms. It says a good deal about your thought process that you need to describe homosexuality in terms of 'hairy asses'. Do you reduce heterosexual relationships to their often less than savoury carnal dimensions? At least TCK and ultrahymeneater know you're supposed to veil your bigoted opinion in babble that makes it appear legitimate and rational. You haven't even bothered or are incapable of doing so.

Oh I get it, im a limited thinker because I find gay mens practices unsavoury, riiiight :icon_neut, and a joke I made about a giant hairy bum floating around was just that, a joke. get off your own dick, you have no moral authority here just because you support gay marriage

Your insane lol. "I have nothing against Gay people and would treat them the same as anyone else!" "Well apart from them getting married, they can go fuck themselves on that one the dirty bum lovers!" That's about as hypocritical as you can get.

No ones asking you to like gay porn or be turned on by two guys going at it but not letting people get married because you find it "Icky" isn't a good or adult argument.

And nor is that my primary argument against gay marriage, I have stated many times that I like the tradition of a man marrying a woman and I don't want to see it changed. enough of this shit already. now im done with this thread, because I cant be bothered to respond to every single gay crusader with the same answers.

 

[TheBox]

And nor is that my primary argument against gay marriage, I have stated many times that I like the tradition of a man marrying a woman and I don't want to see it changed.

Wait, is THAT your primary argument? Personal preference?

 

[m52nickerson]

I have stated many times that I like the tradition of a man marrying a woman and I don't want to see it changed.

Well you are going to see it change so you better get use to it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've found myself to often be arguing positions that then don't seem to hold up to argument. That usually results in me having to modify or change my position. That's not about having to be on the right side but rather trying to make sure that my positions hold up to scrutiny.

You should always want to be on the right side, and changing your mind when you realize that you're not is a big part of that. That's just a bizarre attack. "Oh that so-and-so, always has to believe things that he thinks are true! Insufferable prick!"

 

[glennrod]

Wait, is THAT your primary argument? Personal preference?

Let me make this very clear, as somewhat as a final statement:

I like the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman, I think by allowing homosexuals to get married it takes away from what marriage is about, a man and a woman making their vows before god, that's right, god, the same god that you just want to stick two fingers up to. I have no problem with civil unions that offer all of the same benefits legally as a traditional marriage, but you guys do because you want to be the same as other people, and I can understand that, you are not the same, embrace your differences.

And I just love the way that you approach me like im some kind of a rarity, there are millions of other people who share my views, and they are not bad people. the way you value a person based on your own view of sexual culture is fucking sickening, it would really stand out in other examples. Go calling people names for not liking the same food as you, go and call people names who don't like fat chicks and see how long it is until you get a deserved punch in the head

The way I have constantly been blasted by the left for holding these views makes you look bad, not me, I have been called everything on here, a racist (wasn't that you?), a sexist, a homophobe, quite frankly its getting old. If this carries on then I will just do the same back to you, use your same brainless tactics against you

 

[glennrod]

Well you are going to see it change so you better get use to it.

Oh well, i'll live, I don't have to recognize it though

 

[m52nickerson]

Oh well, i'll live, I don't have to recognize it though

You're right you don't...and the same sex couples that get married will not care because you're not recognizing their marriage will not affect them.

Just as their marriage will not affect you.

What I don't get it that if you think a marrage is special because it is the vows between a man and a women before God how is it that having some other definition of a word is going to change those vows.

 

[glennrod]

You're right you don't...and the same sex couples that get married will not care because you're not recognizing their marriage will not affect them.

Just as their marriage will not affect you.

All you are achieving by this is basically inviting yourself to a party that you were never meant to be invited to, well done

 

[TheBox]

I like the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman, I think by allowing homosexuals to get married it takes away from what marriage is about, a man and a woman making their vows before god, that's right, god, the same god that you just want to stick two fingers up to.

Marriage is a legal institution that, for YOU, also has religious connotations. Why is it reasonable for your religious beliefs to control other people's legal rights?

I have no problem with civil unions that offer all of the same benefits legally as a traditional marriage, but you guys do because you want to be the same as other people, and I can understand that, you are not the same, embrace your differences.

If it's going to be the exact same thing, then the only reason to give it a different name is to mark it as inferior.

And I just love the way that you approach me like im some kind of a rarity, there are millions of other people who share my views, and they are not bad people.

They may not be bad people (some definitely are), but they have taken a bad position.

the way you value a person based on your own view of sexual culture is fucking sickening, it would really stand out in other examples.

You've got it backwards, glenn. It is YOU who is valuing people and relationships based on sexual culture. I don't care if a couple who wants to get married is straight or gay or doesn't have sex at all. You do.

Go calling people names for not liking the same food as you, go and call people names who don't like fat chicks and see how long it is until you get a deserved punch in the head

Huh? No one is being called names for their personal sexual preference. They're being called names when they want a group of people to be treated unfairly.

If I called a racist a racist, would I deserve a punch in the head?

[fyi, I did not call you a racist]

 

[TheBox]

All you are achieving by this is basically inviting yourself to a party that you were never meant to be invited to, well done

Marriage isn't a party that you can simply claim exclusive access to. It's a legal institution - a contract between two people and the state.

Your argument is like someone in the early 20th century telling women's suffrage supporters that they're trying to get women into a party they weren't invited to.

The point is that marriage, like voting, isn't something that people should be able to block other people's access from unless there's a damn good reason for it.

 

[m52nickerson]

All you are achieving by this is basically inviting yourself to a party that you were never meant to be invited to, well done

You say you would be fine with civil union that are in every way (legally) the same as traditional marriages. Let

 

[glennrod]

Marriage isn't a party that you can simply claim exclusive access to. It's a legal institution - a contract between two people and the state.

Your argument is like someone in the early 20th century telling women's suffrage supporters that they're trying to get women into a party they weren't invited to.

The point is that marriage, like voting, isn't something that people should be able to block other people's access from unless there's a damn good reason for it.

So what are the reasons for not allowing polygamy?