Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[SamTheNewb]

Crimes are an act of an instant. Beliefs are acts and thoughts that occur continuously. Beliefs don't have a statute of limitation, but they exists until they change.

 

[jehk]

So when you argue about the "rights" being "taken away" from people, you are inevitably forced to ignore the fact that their efforts to obtain their rights are coming at the expense of the rights of others. And from a standpoint of law, your rights end where another's begin (meaning that you cannot argue your "right" to something if it infringes upon the rights of another). From that perspective, what was done to this man was absolutely an infringing of his rights as an individual. Bullying someone out of their career, especially someone as instrumental to Mozilla's creation as this man was, simply because they disagree with you on a single social issue is NOT the right way to wage a war of civil liberties.

Speaking against and boycotting his company does not infringe upon his rights in any way whatsoever. He can still say whatever bigoted things he wants. He can still donate money to any anti-gay group he wants.

Working as the CEO of Mozilla is not a right.

However, if prop 8 was successful people like me would lose rights. In fact, -I- would lose rights if I ever moved to California.

Do you see the difference because this is a massively skeevy.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

I just hope that you would recognize that a culture of hate can flow in all sorts of directions, including from some with positions you agree with.

So actively denying someone their civil rights is the same as pressuring someone to stand down from a high profile job for previous said denial of said rights? I'm not about to label both as "hate."

I pointed out that there was violence, vandalism and threats against supporters of Prop 8. A phenomenon you, to your credit, decried. This is hate, is it not?

The thing is, you persist in trying to tie Eich to a "culture of hate" due to his donation, invoking violence and oppression against LGBT people. What I'm trying to get across to you is the idea that if donating money to a cause, which is by definition ordinary (and constitutionally protected) political activity, can "feed a culture of hate", then so can things like this boycott (which is also ordinary, legal, constitutionally protected political activity.)

I'm not, of course, saying that nothing can ever be boycotted. The question then becomes, "When is such activity justified"? I doubt we will have the same answer to that question, and that's okay. But what I want to know is, where does it stop? A CEO is fair game for a $1000 donation, apparently. How about a restaurant manager for a $100 donation [http://laist.com/2008/12/08/el_coyote_manager_resigns_after_pro.php]?

No, but it does speak a bit to the degree of the offense.

Are you saying Woody Allen's offense wasn't that bad? Because that one has been kept quiet for some time, despite records existing in public.

-snip-

Which you knew wasn't the point. You're basically changing the subject. My point was that not knowing doesn't mean not caring. You haven't rebutted that at all.

Changing the subject? By discussing the nature of the comparison you brought up?

And the degree of the offense absolutely matters. I don't think it makes me or anyone else a hypocrite for looking at child molestation on the one hand, and donating to Prop 8 on the other, and saying, "Neh, not the same thing. Doesn't justify the same level of opprobrium."

-snip-

So denying others their civil rights has nothing to do with a high profile job? A janitor could've seen that shit-storm coming.

Maybe they thought that a company that prides itself on openness shouldn't be in the business of auditing their employees' thoughts?

Including those who deny such openness to others and seeks a job that essentially makes him a primary company representative?

Maybe they worried that canning someone based on an opinion related to religious beliefs would be treading on dangerous legal ground [http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm]?

"The bible said its okay to be prejudiced, therefore its just a religious belief and dare you be prejudiced against me." Like I said, I'm tired of that kind of reverse-victim "logic," but I digress. You're complaining about others exercising their rights to free expression and choice resulting in someone stepping down, and then defending that bigot who actively denied others their civil rights on the grounds of religious freedom. Please tell me you at least see the irony now that I've pointed it out.

This isn't about defending bigots. You asked me what Mozilla's reasoning might have been not for firing him, or whatever it is you felt they should have done. Employment discrimination law is what it is, however you or me or Mozilla may feel about it. Especially when there was, again, zero evidence of any friction caused by Eich in any of the years he worked at Mozilla.

I'm interested though: you seem to believe that it is a corporation's right, and in fact duty, to police the political opinions of its employees, with the apparent justification that something might offend the customer base. OK, fine.

Is there a limiting principle to that belief? Can a restaurant fire a longtime gay server because the restaurant has started serving a large after-church crowd? Can a rural sheriff's department refuse to promote a black deputy to patrol supervisor because they fear the trailer-park population they police would react badly? Can a business owner who faces mounting costs under the new health-care act fire people who voted for Obama [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/obamacare-layoffs-georgia-obama_n_2095162.html]?

 

[O maestre]

Worse, though, there are actually people who believe that it's justified for someone to lose their job over their beliefs.

He did more than just believe it. He actively contributed to taking away rights from other people. That is harmful behavior and not just to people affected by prop 8. Why would an employer ever risk being associated with that?

This demonstrates that a corporation cares about inclusiveness and equal rights and that one person, even the CEO, isn't above that.

A law that was proposed by elected officials, it is not as if he went out of his way to fund some radical extremist fringe group. What about the politicians that that made prop 8 shouldn't they also get their come uppin's?
Hell 52% of the voters for that proposition voted yes. Yes institutionalized discrimination is horrible, but hardly something unique restricted to Eich six years ago.

I understand why the company did this the general populace has a hard time differentiating between a job and a person, but I'd rather have stuck with my decision for CEO. News that hits the internet will pass as soon as the next shiny thing hits the cycle.
I also wonder how people would have reacted had he told that he had changed his mind?
And do we really want our employers to "police" our personal views?

 

[O maestre]

Crimes are an act of an instant. Beliefs are acts and thoughts that occur continuously. Beliefs don't have a statute of limitation, but they exists until they change.

That is a strangely forumalted maxim. Crimes do not only occour in an instance, if I understand what an instance is in your case. What about people who skim of the top from every dollar they put in the till, or organized crime.

It is true that a crime is an action, but how does a belief qualify, I can't do beliefs.
Beliefs fuel our actions, beliefs may fuel crime or violence or kindness, believing something is not an action in and of itself. Hence why have an expression called "to act upon his beliefs"

I don't think anyone wants to live in a place where mere thoughts are censored or punished.

Going out of the metaphor here, if Eich committed a crime then so did the 52% of Californians who voted for prop 8 and the people who drafted it. should 52% of Californians be fired?

 

[jehk]

No, I don't see any difference in it whatsoever.

You're bullying him out of his position because he doesn't believe in your right to marry. That's literally no different than someone else bullying you out of your job because of your sexual orientation. In both cases, someone's beliefs are being used as a basis for their removal, and it's not morally justified in either case.

Being gay harms no one. Restricting access to my spouse, especially while she's in the hospital, is harmful.

It's not okay to tell someone that they aren't allowed to have the job they earned and are completely qualified to have....simply because you don't agree with them.

Secondly who is saying this? He can keep his job. I'm not about to install Mozilla while he holds the position. If that hurts the company's bottom line then that's his failure as a CEO and frankly he not qualified to have the position.

 

[EiMitch]

There were plenty of cases where violence was committed by the employees. Like in cases of police violence.

Are you saying that MLK advocated boycotting the police? Or are you equating violence committed by police with the businesses that discriminated? For someone who wants to nitpick distinctions, this is pretty sloppy.

First, I do not believe punishing a person for the actions of another is reasonable. Branden Eich committed no violence. He should not be punished for the violent actions of other people and neither should his employer.

Which you know wasn't my point. So please get back to that.

Second, I do not buy the argument that peaceful bigotry must inevitably lead to violent bigotry and therefore peaceful bigotry should be met with opposition on par with the opposition against violent bigotry.

"Should" or "shouldn't?" You're definitely getting sloppy. Take a nap before you post again.

Also, you're equating people expressing their dislike of a bigot in charge Mozilla and said people's refusal to use Firefox with "opposition on par with the opposition against violent bigotry." Which seems to be a vague distinction you're making up to suit your argument. The people protesting against Eich weren't committing acts of violence. They were using their basic freedoms to protest, which seems like an appropriate response to non-violent bigotry to me.

You focused so much on how Eich committed no violence that you forgot the protestors were also non-violent. Thats another reason your attempt to shame the protestors with MLK's image is absurd. They used peaceful means to protest and achieved a peaceful victory. MLK would most likely be proud.

Fourth, I do not believe that peoples actions should exist in a vacuum outside their job.

You agree?!

What we have observed in this man's past shows that he would not use this position of power to push his personal beliefs or discriminate in anyway.

Of course you don't. You just forgot to say "but."

In addition, I do not think that his past mistake was large enough to justify the boycott against him considering his excellent past record of non discrimination in the workplace. Had this man had a past history of workplace discrimination I would support the actions taken against him.

Not large enough? By what measure? He actively sought to deny them the right to marry, a very basic right by any measure. And again, you're focusing on his at-work policy just because that suits your argument better, even though you know that wasn't what this was about in the first place.

Btw, you do realize you just referred to his beliefs as a "mistake," don't you?

Maybe you should put less effort into understanding Eich and stop trying so hard to see him as a victim, and put more of that effort into understanding the actual victims of bigotry who felt that Mozilla shouldn't have one such bigot represent their company. Why should his beliefs be protected while theirs are frowned upon? Why should his "expressions of his beliefs" (quote-marked because we established that he went much further than that) be written-off as a "mistake" while their expression of their beliefs are considered "revenge"?

Eich stepped down from a powerful, representative job at a company over his past bigotry after the victims of said bigotry protested. And your wringing your hands for the bigot's sake, talking as if he was the victim. He used the power of the state to oppress people, and you speak as if he is a martyr, despite no part of the government being involved in his stepping down. You're using MLK's image to rationalize taking the bigot's side, and masking that ridiculousness (and sloppily so) with minute trivia. Are you beginning to see what you look like?

 

[NeutralDrow]

He stepped down? I honestly wasn't expecting that...good. Means that people are being outspoken about not putting up with that bullshit any more and fighting marriage equality is finally having negative consequences. I still have to see people driving around with "Yes on Prop 8" bumper stickers where I live, but maybe with the repeal and this news I can stop feeling so fucking embarrassed for my state.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Eich stepped down from a powerful, representative job at a company over his past bigotry after the victims of said bigotry protested. And your wringing your hands for the bigot's sake, talking as if he was the victim. He used the power of the state to oppress people, and you speak as if he is a martyr, despite no part of the government being involved in his stepping down. You're using MLK's image to rationalize taking the bigot's side, and masking that ridiculousness (and sloppily so) with minute trivia. Are you beginning to see what you look like?

I think it's called the "persecuted hegemon" viewpoint. As someone else put it,

a person enjoying the rewards of cultural dominance while simultaneously insisting that they are aggrieved and suffering an injustice at the hands of people who are, in fact, marginalized minorities.

It's really sad to say that we Americans seem particular masters of it. >_>

 

[jehk]

Maybe you should put less effort into understanding Eich and stop trying so hard to see him as a victim, and put more of that effort into understanding the actual victims of bigotry who felt that Mozilla shouldn't have one such bigot represent their company. Why should his beliefs be protected while theirs are frowned upon? Why should his "expressions of his beliefs" (quote-marked because we established that he went much further than that) be written-off as a "mistake" while their expression of their beliefs are considered "revenge"?

Eich stepped down from a powerful, representative job at a company over his past bigotry after the victims of said bigotry protested. And your wringing your hands for the bigot's sake, talking as if he was the victim. He used the power of the state to oppress people, and you speak as if he is a martyr, despite no part of the government being involved in his stepping down. You're using MLK's image to rationalize taking the bigot's side, and masking that ridiculousness (and sloppily so) with minute trivia. Are you beginning to see what you look like?

Well said. I wish I were a better writer.

Skeleon from the R&P forums has a very nice post relating to the subject. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.846235-Poll-People-have-a-right-to-be-a-bigot#20864603]

I rather appreciate the following part.

I'd just like to further reinforce that distinction (legal repercussions/governmental consequences versus societal/private consequences for your actions) and let people know that being free to do or say bigoted things is not a shield from the consequences of those actions.

If people hate you for your bigotry, then you have no "right to be loved regardless", no "right to get business and money from people", no "right to have people not speak out against you", i. e. people using their free speech in response to your free speech, and so on.

Too often have we seen it on these forums that people act like tolerant people necessarily need to be nice and quiet about the intolerant, when that would be completely counterproductive. It's also rather hypocritical: "Let me use my free speech but don't use your free speech regarding what I just said!"

 

[Flatfrog]

I was publicly against Prop 8, and unlike the rest of my family, I'm a strong believer in gay rights. This is still completely wrong, and anyone involved in forcing this man out of his position is wrong for having done so. It also makes it a hell of a lot harder for me to have this argument with my family members when the LGBT community does such indefensible things as this to destroy the career of a man who helped make Mozilla what it is today.

Look, no one 'forced this man out of his position'. This amounted to a simple market decision:

"I don't think gay people should get married"
"Fair enough, I don't want to support your product, then"

The only thing that makes this an unusual event is that this happened on a large enough scale to impact on Mozilla's profits, because the number of people who think holding discriminatory views is sufficiently important to affect their browser choice has become large enough to make a significant impact.

And I still stand by my original point (I've had a chance to sleep on it and I've gone over it in my head quite a few times), that there is a major difference between boycotting a product because someone is gay and boycotting a product because you disagree with someone's political or ethical position. And the fact that people in large numbers are standing against a discriminatory position is progress in my book.

 

[Strazdas]

Well, once again escapist manages to surprise me. Well done. love this site.

As far as this stepdown. For one i dont think he should have done it (to be honest i think OKcupid is the one to be boycotted now for witchunting, which is why im going to delete my account there). On the other hand, i got nothing but respect for a person willing to step down even when hes right just to benefit the company he founded.

Why can't they choose targets that actually deserve it? Tell people to boykott arabian oil or don't spend their vacations in Turkey, these countries discriminate and persecute homosexuals actively and even legally. But wait, that could be considered racist because...no WASP's you can blame, so let's target an honest business man who did nothing bad.

because then they would actually have to make an effort, and manybe even inconvienience thenselves. that is obviuosly not acceptable. you can only be socialy just as long as its as easy as not using a browser for one day. any actual inconvinience and most of those people will be speaking aginast LGBT themselves. Thats the thing with sheep audience, they listen to everyone, not just you.

I'm still constantly amazed when people try to be public figures AND be vocal about their controversial opinions. When has that ever worked out for someone?

Except he never was vocal about it. he never even spoke agianst LGBT from a public position. All he did was make a personal donation of 1k dollars to a proposition that didnt agree with LGBT.

But I'm impressed it actually made Mozilla scared to lose costumers.

mozilla was scared to loose costumers ever since Chrome got traction.

Except this guy wasn't just someone whose ideas "didn't fall in line with LGBT beliefs". He was someone who actively condemned them and donated to a cause that directly affects their rights.

a 1k private donation to a bill LGBT disagrees with. Such active condemnation here.

That is such bull, you are hiding what this really is by talking about "traditional marriage". It is about human rights. A CEO who today said, "I'm ok with Black people, I just don't think they should be allowed to marry whites so I've donated a tonne of money to ensure that doesn't happen".

HUman rights are created by humans, for humans. We have agreed that this should be a right. And this is a right only because people agreeing are in majority. its not some superior intelligence setting the rules. Its humans. and humans are fallable. It was a human right to have slaves not long ago. We changed that. And im not sainyg that gays should not be allowed to be married. im saying that proclaiming "its human right" is not an argument.
Also "tonne" of money? he gave 1000 dollars. thats less than your monthly minimum wage. thats less than it costs to get a single newspaper advertisement. that hardly had any impact at all. It was much more an expression of opinion than a donation.
Oh and your false equivalences dont make much of an argument either.

Good. He should face the consequences of being a terrible human being.

except that people who got him fired are far more terrible human beings.

It isn't meaningless to show that funding anti-LGBT laws will be frowned upon and even economically punished.

its as meaningless as dethroning washington because he owned slaves.
Altrough in a way you are right, its not meaningless thati t set precedent that LGBT can organize effective witchhunts.

He actively supported oppression.

[citation needed]

 

[EiMitch]

I pointed out that there was violence, vandalism and threats against supporters of Prop 8. A phenomenon you, to your credit, decried. This is hate, is it not?

Have any such threats been directed at Eich? To my knowledge, they haven't. This is just you changing the subject.

Gee, I didn't see that coming. /sarc

The thing is, you persist in trying to tie Eich to a "culture of hate" due to his donation, invoking violence and oppression against LGBT people. What I'm trying to get across to you is the idea that if donating money to a cause, which is by definition ordinary (and constitutionally protected) political activity, can "feed a culture of hate", then so can things like this boycott (which is also ordinary, legal, constitutionally protected political activity.)

So its not hate if its not expressed by violence? Its a distinction you're drawing solely to suit your argument.

I'm not, of course, saying that nothing can ever be boycotted. The question then becomes, "When is such activity justified"? I doubt we will have the same answer to that question, and that's okay.

Then why raise such a fuss when it happens?

But what I want to know is, where does it stop? A CEO is fair game for a $1000 donation, apparently. How about a restaurant manager for a $100 donation [http://laist.com/2008/12/08/el_coyote_manager_resigns_after_pro.php]?

LOL! Was that example supposed to sway me? Because I'm actually fine with that. An LGBT-friendly business being managed by someone who financially supported the oppression of LGBT rights? Of course there should be consequences. After complaining about how Eich's prop 8 support shouldn't be relevant to his job of running and representing Mozilla, you're now trying to imply that a clearly more relevant example was somehow going too far. You're definitely grasping at straws.

And the degree of the offense absolutely matters. I don't think it makes me or anyone else a hypocrite for looking at child molestation on the one hand, and donating to Prop 8 on the other, and saying, "Neh, not the same thing. Doesn't justify the same level of opprobrium."

LOL! You quote the part where I unambiguously reinforced my intended point, and rather than answer that, you focus on me accusing you of changing the subject. And you think that somehow proves me wrong. Such delicious irony.

This isn't about defending bigots. You asked me what Mozilla's reasoning might have been not for firing him, or whatever it is you felt they should have done. Employment discrimination law is what it is, however you or me or Mozilla may feel about it.

He actively denied people their civil rights, and you defended it as just a matter of religious beliefs. People have been denied jobs and promotions over less than that and still not had any basis in employment discrimination law to file suit. Moving on.

I'm interested though: you seem to believe that it is a corporation's right, and in fact duty, to police the political opinions of its employees, with the apparent justification that something might offend the customer base. OK, fine.

Again, this was about his past actions. But do go on.

Is there a limiting principle to that belief? Can a restaurant fire a longtime gay server because the restaurant has started serving a large after-church crowd? Can a rural sheriff's department refuse to promote a black deputy to patrol supervisor because they fear the trailer-park population they police would react badly? Can a business owner who faces mounting costs under the new health-care act fire people who voted for Obama [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/obamacare-layoffs-georgia-obama_n_2095162.html]?

You're equating someone who was guilty of discrimination with victims of discrimination. A textbook example of the reverse-victim trope I was complaining about in the first place.

You got so wrapped up in minute details that you forgot the bigger picture and wound-up making my case for me. LGBTs were right to protest Eich's position at Mozilla. And since you're claiming Mozilla couldn't legally do anything about it on their own, that would mean a public protest was necessary.

This is what happens when you compartmentalize your ideas. I suggest you sleep on it before you reply.

 

[EiMitch]

Well, once again escapist manages to surprise me. Well done. love this site.

As far as this stepdown. For one i dont think he should have done it (to be honest i think OKcupid is the one to be boycotted now for witchunting, which is why im going to delete my account there).

Doesn't that make you just as guilty of "witchhunting"?

Why can't they choose targets that actually deserve it? Tell people to boykott arabian oil or don't spend their vacations in Turkey, these countries discriminate and persecute homosexuals actively and even legally. But wait, that could be considered racist because...no WASP's you can blame, so let's target an honest business man who did nothing bad.

Because there was nothing bad about prop 8. /sarc

Seriously, the whole "bigger fish to fry" argument is lame. There are always bigger fish to fry. That doesn't mean the smaller battles don't matter.

because then they would actually have to make an effort, and manybe even inconvienience thenselves.

Are you willing to go to one of those countries to risk your freedom, life, and limb? I didn't think so.

that is obviuosly not acceptable. you can only be socialy just as long as its as easy as not using a browser for one day.

Then why are you labeling it as a witch hunt? Hyperbole much?

any actual inconvinience and most of those people will be speaking aginast LGBT themselves. Thats the thing with sheep audience, they listen to everyone, not just you.

You do realize that laziness is a far cry from actually switching sides, right?

Except he never was vocal about it. he never even spoke agianst LGBT from a public position. All he did was make a personal donation of 1k dollars to a proposition that didnt agree with LGBT.

By "didnt agree with LGBT" you mean "deny them a basic right such as marriage," don't you? Of course he wasn't vocal about it. He excepted the police to do the talking for him. And that makes it a-okay. /sarc

a 1k private donation to a bill LGBT disagrees with. Such active condemnation here.

If a bill denied one of your civil liberties, you'd "disagree" with it too. By talking about it as if its no big deal, you only succeed in confessing your privilege and complacency.

HUman rights are created by humans, for humans. We have agreed that this should be a right. And this is a right only because people agreeing are in majority. its not some superior intelligence setting the rules. Its humans. and humans are fallable. It was a human right to have slaves not long ago. We changed that. And im not sainyg that gays should not be allowed to be married. im saying that proclaiming "its human right" is not an argument.

Easy to say when its not your rights at stake. You're merely rationalizing a double-standard.

Also "tonne" of money? he gave 1000 dollars. thats less than your monthly minimum wage. thats less than it costs to get a single newspaper advertisement. that hardly had any impact at all. It was much more an expression of opinion than a donation.

And you were just saying he wasn't vocal about it at all. Make up your mind.

Oh and your false equivalences dont make much of an argument either.

Right! There is no reason to equate denying equal rights to one group with denying equal rights to another group. Its totally different. /so frigging sarc

except that people who got him fired are far more terrible human beings.

So protesting by not using Firefox is worse than passing a law that denies someone their rights? Oh, thats right. "Rights" are a human invention, therefore we can pretend they're no big deal when we're talking about someone else.

its as meaningless as dethroning washington because he owned slaves.

He never had a throne. He was elected by a racist populace in a racist period of history. But if the "dethroning" did happen, and over slavery to boot, it sure as hell wouldn't have been meaningless.

Altrough in a way you are right, its not meaningless thati t set precedent that LGBT can organize effective witchhunts.

Again, people protesting by not using Firefox is a "witchhunt," but discriminating against LGBTs is no big deal. The next time someone talks about bigots, please consider that they might, maybe, possibly, conceivably, could be talking about you.

This must be the least thought-out post I've replied to in this thread so far. Even worse than that "it was six years ago" crap.

 

[Strazdas]

EDIT: Was just reminded of this amazing monologue Jon Waters did on free speech. It might be only tangentially related, but I still thought it was appropriate.

His speech.... i agree with him, but it reminded me just how many of things he speaks of is actually banned in my country ( such as flag burning. heck, we cant even carry flags on our cars because its "disgraceful"). Freedom of speech is very much under attack now and that needs to be fought for, even if that includes bigoted and racist speech.

What do you think happened here?

a witchhunt.

In any case, it's not like he built Mozilla/FireFox from the ground-up

He is a founder of Mozilla. he invented Javascript. He was a CTO for 8 years. He built Firefox as we know it.

I understand what you're saying, but nevertheless I still can't help feeling this is a step forward. We've reached the stage where being (publicly) homophobic makes your job untenable. Considering how recently it would have been that being (publicly) homosexual would have the same effect, I think that's progress.

Its progress in a same way as turning all slavers into slave was progress. the masters have changed but its still slavery. if you are not acting any better than homophobes, your not actually better now are you.

I find it slightly distressing...

Its distressing that you think his personal opinion is a law.
and if he was a KKK member i would still be defending him. you know why? because i believe every person has a right to freedom of speech, even if that speech is disagreed with by wast majority. Be that a gay asking for his right to marriadge or a KKK member promoting white sueriority. Its funny how the same people who only managed to get traction because of their right to free speech are not hating the same concept that brought them. talking about biting the hand that feeds...

Damn, Eich sure folded fast. It was just yesterday that he stated he wouldn't step down [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit].

The Guardian. April 1st. Could it be that the Joke from Guardian was that they did real news for a day?

No, I disagree. Tolerance and intolerance are not two extremes, and intolerance *of* intolerance is not the same as intolerance of diversity.

You can't 'compromise' between inequality and equality. Equality is equality. A belief in equality means that someone who supports inequality is wrong. That's the liberal paradox - it's the same problem as the cultural diversity dilemma: if a different culture supports a practice we find barbaric such as FGM, who are we to oppose them? Aren't their views just as valid as ours? Well - no. Because ours come from a position of equality and theirs come from a position of inequality.

Even writing this makes me uncomfortable. It feels weird to say dogmatic things. But the logic of the position is pretty inescapable.

Intolerance is intolerance, even if it is intolerance of intolerance.

That is correct. however its not a situation here. What we have is one inequiety being changed for another inequiety, while pretending to be equity. its called hypocrisy. Beliving somone is wrong is one thing, witchunting anyone that you personalyl think is wrong is another thing. You have every right to do the first, none to do the second.
See, from the perspective of the other, its the equity position that is wrong. and by that logic they are completely fine for going after you for preching equiety, because you are wrong.
that does not work.
if you want to be tolerant, be tolerant to everyone, not just people you like, and if you dont want to do that, dont pretend to be tolerant.

 

[Karathos]

Pretty sure these big concepts that are especially valued in the US, like 'Free Speech' and 'Equal Rights' give you permission to oppose something if you want to. Opposing gay marriage is a dick move, sure, but guess what? You can't claim a borderline monopoly on 'free speech', 'rights', 'freedom' and all those other soapbox Presidential speech terms and then hound a guy for having the opposite opinion. If I'm not mistaken, FREE SPEECH includes the RIGHT to be of an opinion that might offend someone else. I believe it's an EQUAL RIGHT that everyone has, in fact.

It's sickening that a man can get hounded out of a job with something like this. If anything, this is damaging to the credibility to the LGBT agenda. It just makes the movement, if you will, look like petty children lashing out. As a neutral party in the entire debate, I have to say this has made me instinctively look at the LGBT side more negatively. Sad really.

I hope the man lands on his feet. Being forced out of a job in this economy is tough.

 

[Ninmecu]

Dude made a 10k donation(which let's be honest, is a drop in the bucket for a political campaign) 6 years ago(Give or take, I might be recollecting poorly.) and we're holding his belief against him, when he has since not spoken out in a public manner against LGBT community, and some of you expect he should have publicly apologized for having held a discriminating belief during a time where it was considered normal(No less wrong, don't get me wrong.)? If he had made said donation less than a year ago, fine, take him to the cleaners for being a general dick, but come on, seriously?

What is the time limit?

I'd argue there is no hard and fast rule, just half a decade ago it was still considered fairly normal to bash gays. It doesn't hold water, imo, to hold an opinion he held privately that was/is bigoted years ago against him in a professional setting when he hasn't publicly made statements regarding that belief, nor has he (again, publicly or at the publics knowledge) followed up on or actively fought for said belief. It's unfair to hold something like that against him if he hasn't shown recent signs of believing that and at that, it shouldn't affect his ability to maintain a CEO position, this is business, not politics. Though-I realize the two are inseparably and deeply entrenched in one another.

Yes, use mob tactics on a guy who made a private donation to something 6 years ago. Way to lead the fucking witch hunt there. So much for ''Tolerance''

"It was six years ago, so it doesn't count anymore." I'm already getting tired of hearing that argument. Its arbitrary and stupid, which I can prove with two basic follow-up questions:

"Whats the statute of limitations for someone who actively suppressed others civil rights before we must forgive and forget?" And...

"Why exactly should those interim six years matter?"

The only answer I've seen to the later question was "that proves nobody cared," to which I answered, "no, that proves people didn't notice." I've yet to read any answer to the former question.

So, unless you're prepared to go into much more detail about it, please lets all stfu about how it was six years ago. Its a ridiculously thin talking point that proves diddly.

You know what? I'll bite. In six years the average societal trend regarding homosexuality being evil or detracting from our society as a whole, has dramatically shifted in favor of homosexual beings being accepted as a normal thing and a large part of our collective make up. In six years we've gone from bigot statements being widespread on the basis of "Muh freedomz" to a man who worked hard stepping down as CEO for a bigoted statement he made when it was still normal to make, you guessed it, a bigoted statement. It's like holding something completely irrelevant to your business life against you because, again, "Muh Freezomz". It's a horrible world standard that we've seemingly come to not only expect, but openly embrace. Where if you were not as forward thinking as we are today any period of time in the past, you're a fucking useless worthless asshole. God help your soul. Because as we all know, no belief can ever be changed or altered, no one can ever be proven wrong and accept that defeat or have a change of heart. I'll let Tommy Lee Jones finish it off.

[youtube]jT6h2CUWLzQ[/youtube]

People change-but that doesn't matter, the man has a right to his beliefs, no matter how bigoted we might feel they are, they're his, he's just as protected by free speech as any other, it's not like he's on record of going to gay clubs and bashing them for their sexuality. There are far worse scenarios out there and nothing good has come of this situation, just a man who held a belief and lost what he probably desired for many years because Social Justice for the Win.

 

[TheRealCJ]

It really saddens me to see how many people believe that gays are somehow destroying the world by fighting against discrimination. News flash: gays aren't even close to universally equal yet. They have to use strong arm tactics because otherwise they are ignored, or worse, dismissed.

I wonder if you guys consider the people (like Eiun) who spent thousands of dollars trying to pass a law based on hate a "mob". Probably not, judging by the comments. I consider them worse than the gays, because a) they are the privileged majority, and b) while the gay "mob" may have gotten one millionaire fired for being a bigot, the other side are fighting for the right to consider a whole section of the population less human than they are.

oh, and keep this in mind: they tried to get a man fired for being a bigot; gamers have been trying to get a man fired because they didn't like the ending to Mass Effect 3. Think about that before you cry about the "gay agenda"