Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Flatfrog]

He has a right to speech and you have a right to disagree with his speech. you also have a right not to support companies if you do not want to, as misguided the reasons here would be as you want. You however demand anyones resignation for his personal beliefs that he does not bring to his work. And when you do, same right allows me to call you out on your hipocracy and bigotry. Your speech is not free of consequences as well.

I never demanded any such thing. I don't use Firefox anyway and this issue never had any impact on me. I'm not even from the US, and I'm happy to say that gay marriage is now legal in this country, yay us.

He didn't resign because people demanded it. He resigned because lots of people's individual disgust at his political views had an impact on his company's business.

If I discovered my local cafe was run by a neo-Nazi, I wouldn't 'demand' he close his business, I just wouldn't eat there. And I'd probably mention it to my friends and they probably wouldn't eat there either. And if lots of people did the same thing, he'd probably go out of business. Tough shit for him.

Whether in this case the guy's relatively mild form of bigotry was sufficient to justify the level of boycott it received is a separate question. On balance I think it's a shame it had to go quite so far.

 

[A-D.]

The level of sheer ignorance and hatred in this thread is just astounding. Normally i consider the Escapist community as a whole to be rational, sane people. I've read until page 4, each single post fueling the idea that you are everything i hate about what is commonly termed "Social Justice Warrior". A small handful say that it is a disgrace that a man had to have his lifelihood destroyed, yet other rush to defend such actions? Because Free Speech? Let me tell you something, Free Speech is universal, i can say whatever i want to say, likewise you can do the same, obviously we wont agree on everything, however that is NO REASON or EXCUSE to infringe upon my right to free speech because YOU dont like what i say.

Thats not how Free Speech works. I can say sexist, homophobic, racist shit all day and the ONLY option you have is to ignore what im saying as long as i am NOT advocating people who i target should be killed by the greater population or making a direct threat to do so myself. Let me put it into perspective for a second, you call voters who voted for Prop 8, for supported it financially or morally, as evil people? 52% of the state of california is now evil people according to you, thats the 52% that voted.

So whats Prop 8? Its a law that simply intended to have marriage, as in MARRIAGE WITHIN A CHURCH, be only for man and woman, you know cause the church doesnt like gays and never has, probably never will either. Civil Unions are a thing, if you wanna talk about the law there. If the problem is that Marriage affords rights that Civil Unions dont, then fix that first. Does that mean the law is good? No, its neutral, it never said "gays are bad" or whatever, its propponents might have, but again, that is their right to free speech and how they exercise this. You do not get to tell us who can and cannot speak based upon what you find personally offensive.

Because if thats the criteria, i demand that Feminists, Atheism Plus People, Freethoughtbloggers and the entirety of Tumblr SHUTS THE FUCK UP FOREVER. Because these people by and large are an insult to sanity, critical thinking, rationality and in general the human brain. And these same people have managed to cost a man his job because they didnt agree with his views. Bravo, pat yourself on the back you self-righteous, bigotted fucks. You are just as oppressive as you claim the other side to be. The pot doesnt get to call the kettle black.

 

[Verlander]

Calling someone out on being discriminatory is not discrimination, just like how legislating against white power movements isn't racism.

except, he wasnt being discriminatory.

Helping fund something that gives some people fewer rights than others, based off an arbitrary fact of their being? That's textbook discrimination.

 

[kuolonen]

If you attack person for an act that was 1000 dollar donation to a legal political movement 6 years ago, even though the person has not actively done anything for that movement since, then you are crusading for revenge. By now I have no doubt been marked as your enemy for life.

If you still happen to see any of this post through that red mist that has covered you eyes by now, let it be known that I actually don't actively fight/vote/donate against the LGBT, so please do not set my house on fire. But stuff like this sure has convinced me that they don't need/deserve any help either. And should be preferably kept outside knife's reach, in case they suddenly decide I am responsible for all of their hardships on account of beings same species as their oppressors.

 

[TheRealCJ]

How about the 1000 dollars donated in support of getting Prop 8, a discriminatory law voided (deemed unconstitutional, I might add) passed in California. That's what we call taking a side. I'm not honestly sure if I can make it any clearer to you.

and the difference? Gamers were enraged that their game didn't end how they wanted it to. Gays were enraged because the man supported a legislation that would Consider them, in the eyes of the law, less of a person than straight people. let me repeat that. The man significantly supported through a financial donation, a law that would take away basic rights from people based on their sexual orientation.

let me say it one more time. Prop 8 would have removed gay's hard earned right to marry. It would have considered them a lower-class of person because they are gay. Eich supported this law

was their reaction to this heavy handed, perhaps. Disproportional? Debatable, considering all they did was boycott the company. But gamers have used the exact same tactics before, and for a much, much less worthy cause.

how about that? how about all other people that donated, or better yet, 52% of California voters that voted for Prop 8? How about a democratically elected politician that drafted the law? Why is Eich the one responsible and not others for it? And why do you think its a right thing to do to hunt people that supported it down?

Repeating something does not make it true. First of all, he did not make a significant contribution. 1000 dollars is not a significant contribution. Secondly, whats the fixation with "less human" here? How does not being allowed to do something by law makes you less of a human? The answer is, it doesnt. Just like not being able to carry a gun does not make you less of a person than those that can.

If you want to talk equality, thats fine, but thats not the angle your attacking it from. And if you really want equality, then i will do equally same thing as you did to Eich. hunt you down and get you fired based on your personal beliefs. Well, i wont actually do it, but that would be the equal thing to do. But i know better than organizing witchunts. You seen to support them though. With false claims to boot.

Also as i ahve already stated, these "Gamers" were equally wrong for doing it.
What your arguing is "this man killed somone so its ok if i kill somone too". No, one person doing a bad thing does not make bad things acceptable.

Okay, so apparently repeating myself didn't work anyway. If the law was to repeal marriage in general, then yes, it's just a law that allow people not to do something anymore. But it was a law that applied ONLY to a small amount of the population, do you understand? It was a law that specifically targeted a single group of people. That's not right. That's what we call bigotry and discrimination.

And by the way, nobody forced him to resign. After he was elected CEO, many people voiced their displeasure with the decision (Several Mozilla board members resigned in protest, in fact). Nobody threatened him, or Mozilla. All they did was vote with their wallet, and speak out against him. For a company, that is the worst kind of PR imagainable That's what people don't seem to get. This wasn't some kind of witch hunt. They weren't appealing to the government to apply sanctions to Mozilla, or threatening physical violence on him, or, from what I understand, even sending him any kind of death threats. Nobody "hunted him down". They simply joined a widescale protest against his being hired. Protests can (and are) routinely ignored. It was Mozilla that fired him (or, according to him, he chose to resign himself). Their bottom line was being threatened by people choosing to boycott their product. This wasn't some kind of terrible thing where he was dragged into the boardroom and told "Either love gays or you're fired."

Face facts: This was a controversy, not some kind of gay agenda witch hunt. Eich was made CEO, it caused a controversy. He and Mozilla backed down from the controversy, end of story. If it had ended there, then whatever. But instead we have a whole gaggle of people coming out of the woodwork saying "Oh my god, the gays have gone too far, this is clearly discrimination against people who don't like gays (It isn't, because if your being told off for being bigoted, that's not discrimination, no matter HOW hard you try to make it so), the gays have gotten so strong that they can now hire and fire people in companies at will!" (Which is absurd. He was fired, or rather voluntarily resigned, for bringing the company into direpute. Gay marriage was the subject, not the cause). If he had brought the company into disrepute for say, implementing a string of terrible features, the same thing would have happened. Only instead of gay people protesting his opinion and no longer using the product, it would be people protesting the new features and no longer using the product. And we wouldn't be having this discussion, even if it had the same outcome.

Ultimately, this is about freedom. He freely chose to take a public stance against gay marriage, the gay community (amongst others) freely chose to call him out on it and boycott FireFox. Mozilla freely chose to go in another direction as a result of negative impact against the company. Freedom of speech also entails freely accepting the consequences of said speech.

As for all the voters who voted yes to Prop 8 I say: So? It took DECADES for anti-segregations laws to pass via the popular vote. Are we saying that the proponents of segregation were right because they had the majority on their side? Of course not.

Again, did they perhaps choose an unworthy target? Maybe. But history has shown us time and time again, that if you let things go, forgive and forget, then it usually comes back stronger to bite you later (especially if you're in a minority group).

Nothing illegal happened here. There was no 'witch hunt'. And anybody claiming to be standing up for his right to free speech has no idea what it means beyond "He should be able to do and say what he wants, without repercussions, because I agree with him."

 

[TheRealCJ]

If you attack person for an act that was 1000 dollar donation to a legal political movement 6 years ago, even though the person has not actively done anything for that movement since, then you are crusading for revenge. By now I have no doubt been marked as your enemy for life.

If you still happen to see any of this post through that red mist that has covered you eyes by now, let it be known that I actually don't actively fight/vote/donate against the LGBT, so please do not set my house on fire. But stuff like this sure has convinced me that they don't need/deserve any help either. And should be preferably kept outside knife's reach, in case they suddenly decide I am responsible for all of their hardships on account of beings same species as their oppressors.

Oh yeah, the gays are ATTACKING you, they're ATTACKING FireFox. They've called in bomb threats and declared Gay Jihad against Mozilla. If you gave a gay man a knife and put him in a room with Eich, there's NO WAY that that gay man, enraged by the man standing before him, won't simply stab him right there and then.

Because all gays want is the complete and total subjugation of non-gays, right? That's what all the literature tells me. Oh wait, that's the right-wing christian literature that explains what would happen if we gave gay people the same rights that straight people have. My bad.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Quadruple post of RAGE

There isn't an explicit rule against it but it is bad forum etiquette to spam a thread with four consecutive comments essentially saying the dammed same thing. Clam down and don't spam the forums. This is why people get tired of all this social justice warrior shit, it's just a crowd of very noisy people who are convinced they have the only correct opinion making repeated and lengthy posts essentially instilling the same idea over and over and over again. I can tell you're overwhelmed by your own sense of duty to social justice but you're doing the exact thing people hate; getting very worked up and vocal on an issue that doesn't mean 1/2 a shit.

You might as well have said "I'm right, you're wrong" 72 times. It would have taken up less space.

You're right. I'm sorry. Do you care to present a counter-argument, or just cite forum etiquette in order to "win"?

 

[Deathmageddon]

That's our fanatically progressive culture for you. Diversity is forced and diversity of opinion is not allowed. I'm surprised Eich wasn't arrested.

 

[kuolonen]

If you attack person for an act that was 1000 dollar donation to a legal political movement 6 years ago, even though the person has not actively done anything for that movement since, then you are crusading for revenge. By now I have no doubt been marked as your enemy for life.

If you still happen to see any of this post through that red mist that has covered you eyes by now, let it be known that I actually don't actively fight/vote/donate against the LGBT, so please do not set my house on fire. But stuff like this sure has convinced me that they don't need/deserve any help either. And should be preferably kept outside knife's reach, in case they suddenly decide I am responsible for all of their hardships on account of beings same species as their oppressors.

Oh yeah, the gays are ATTACKING you, they're ATTACKING FireFox. They've called in bomb threats and declared Gay Jihad against Mozilla. If you gave a gay man a knife and put him in a room with Eich, there's NO WAY that that gay man, enraged by the man standing before him, won't simply stab him right there and then.

Because all gays want is the complete and total subjugation of non-gays, right? That's what all the literature tells me. Oh wait, that's the right-wing christian literature that explains what would happen if we gave gay people the same rights that straight people have. My bad.

So what is the verb you use when you use monetary means to force a person from a position in a company due to his actions 6 years ago? Honestly, maybe you know better, since English is not my first language. Is it physically debating your point? I am still not hearing any justification for it, other than, "he did it 6 years ago". If you feel that is justification enough, then so be it, we have nothing left to debate on that matter.

What is your reason for giving this answer even? To prove that pro-gay people are not aggressive like rabid dogs? Because, if that is your purpose, you are failing miserably.

Your whole text is based on the assumption I believe gay rights is something to be avoided. I do not think so. What I do think is that I want to avoid people like you. And you are making it ever more easier to justify this way of thinking. If you raise a banner, you present that banner. How do feel you are presenting yourself right now? Do you think my image of pro-gay/LGBT/whichever movement has turned better after you response? Hint: It has not.

 

[chikusho]

Gays are not destroying the world. Nor are they fighting agianst discrimination in this case. They are just throwing a hissy fit for something that happened 6 years ago and had no impact on their lives.

So, being personally hurt by a friend, colleague and employer who supported the denial of your civil rights is "having no impact on their lives"?

that is the ONLY action he has ever done that we know which would mean he would not support gay marriage. he hires gays in his company. he does not do any kind of discrimination.
Do you have any proof that he took sides? or are you just making things up again.

Well, he defended that donation in 2012, so there's that.
Also, donating against civil rights is taking a side against civil rights.

You however demand anyones resignation for his personal beliefs that he does not bring to his work. And when you do, same right allows me to call you out on your hipocracy and bigotry. Your speech is not free of consequences as well.

Good thing no one demanded his resignation then I guess.

Nor are anyones right being infringed in calling out LGBT as hypocrites in the situation. Because their speech is not free from consequences either.

Sure, you can call them hypocrites all you like. Just let your lips flap and fingers rattle. Of course, you'd be wrong, but have at it.

 

[TheRealCJ]

If you attack person for an act that was 1000 dollar donation to a legal political movement 6 years ago, even though the person has not actively done anything for that movement since, then you are crusading for revenge. By now I have no doubt been marked as your enemy for life.

If you still happen to see any of this post through that red mist that has covered you eyes by now, let it be known that I actually don't actively fight/vote/donate against the LGBT, so please do not set my house on fire. But stuff like this sure has convinced me that they don't need/deserve any help either. And should be preferably kept outside knife's reach, in case they suddenly decide I am responsible for all of their hardships on account of beings same species as their oppressors.

Oh yeah, the gays are ATTACKING you, they're ATTACKING FireFox. They've called in bomb threats and declared Gay Jihad against Mozilla. If you gave a gay man a knife and put him in a room with Eich, there's NO WAY that that gay man, enraged by the man standing before him, won't simply stab him right there and then.

Because all gays want is the complete and total subjugation of non-gays, right? That's what all the literature tells me. Oh wait, that's the right-wing christian literature that explains what would happen if we gave gay people the same rights that straight people have. My bad.

So what is the verb you use when you use monetary means to force a person from a position in a company due to his actions 6 years ago? Honestly, maybe you know better, since English is not my first language. Is it physically debating your point? I am still not hearing any justification for it, other than, "he did it 6 years ago". If you feel that is justification enough, then so be it, we have nothing left to debate on that matter.

What is your reason for giving this answer even? To prove that pro-gay people are not aggressive like rabid dogs? Because, if that is your purpose, you are failing miserably.

Your whole text is based on the assumption I believe gay rights is something to be avoided. I do not think so. What I do think is that I want to avoid people like you. And you are making it ever more easier to justify this way of thinking. If you raise a banner, you present that banner. How do feel you are presenting yourself right now? Do you think my image of pro-gay/LGBT/whichever movement has turned better after you response? Hint: It has not.

You know what, you're right, and I apologise.

I have just spent too much time dealing with genuine bigots who actually believe that this is just another step towards some kind of pro-gay dystopia where people aren't allowed to have opinions. Believe me when I say there are a lot of them.

To answer you question, that word is "boycott", or in colloquial terms "voting with your wallet": The idea is that if you disagree with a company or person's products, ideals, or political stances, you choose not to buy their products, or give them your business. If the majority agree with you, that person or company will lose money and either be forced to bow to popular opinion, or go out of business. It is a form of protest. I suppose you could call it forcing, but it's not. Forcing them would be if these protesters were directly paying their salaries, and suddenly refused to pay it unless they got the outcome they wanted. A boycott may or may not work, it's not forcing them to decide anything.

This is what happened in this instance. People voted with their wallets and chose to no longer use a company's product. The company decided that this was too much of a financial risk, and removed the thing that was causing offense (in this case, their choice of CEO)

Maybe Eich has changed his stance, maybe not: He chose to support Prop 8. This is affecting him later in life, as many things do.

Again, I apologise for misinterpreting your remarks and getting angry. I'm happy to continue to have a civil debate if you want.

TL;DR? You're a bigot

*Sigh* I'm sick of this. I'm sick of the SJW mentality of "You can't disagree with me because that makes you a bigot". Insulting people directly is against the forum rules by the way. You're really conviced me you are right by spamming the forums and insulting me, well done you've changed a 'biggot' mind. Gold star.

Feel free to disagree with me all you want. You can say and do whatever you want. You can also be free to face the consequences of those actions. Act bigoted? You get called a bigot. Set fire to a building? You get prosecuted for arson.

Again, well done on being so clever and simply not arguing. I'm open to having my opinion changed, if you want to try to sway me, I will listen. "You broke the rules, and hurt my feelings" isn't an argument. Nor is being condescending. I'm sorry I called you a bigot, I was wrong. I have dealt with many people who refuse to listen to reason, such as in this instance continuing to insist that this is some kind of war by gay people against non-gays.

 

[Vareoth]

Bah, absolutely pathetic. His personal opinion, which he has every right to hold, did in no way impact the company. It was in no way useful to have him removed other than to satisfy the need for revenge. His stepping down will inevitably create more antagonism towards the LGBT movement.

This isn't the last we've heard about this.

On the other hand, the free market was the reason he was forced to leave. I just happen to disagree with the masses on this one.

 

[ayvee]

Man you gotta love it when people seem to be under the impression that opposing civil equality and supporting civil equality are equivalently extremist positions.

"Oh no, a man lost his job JUST because he supported outlawing interracial marriage. When will the SJW-ing end!"

"Oh no, a man lost his job JUST because he funded lobbying for segregation. When will the SJW-ing end!"

"Oh no, a man lost his job JUST because he just because he donated to organizations for denying women the to vote. When will the SJW-ing end!"

 

[Georgie_Leech]

On the one hand, part of me is a little leery on how quickly how much pressure was brought to bear for something that occurred 6 years ago. On the other, Brenden Eich could have also said some variation of "My position on the matter has changed and I will not support legislation like Proposition 8 in the future," or made a similar donation to campaigns against such discriminatory laws, or otherwise reached out to the people boycotting Mozilla, which to my knowledge he didn't. He had the opportunity to apologise, but instead said the company didn't practise anti-LGBT policies. Which is all well and good, but my understanding was that this was about supporting someone who financially supported discriminatory legislation, rather than being directed at Mozilla in general. So, I don't really have much of a problem with individuals who decided they didn't want to continue using a free product that supports a man who contributed to a cause seeking to deny them fair and equal treatment under the law, when there are other free alternatives that, well, don't

 

[Strazdas]

snip

Of course repeating yourself wont work. i adressed that in my previuos post.
It was a proposition of a law. what its contents were does not matter here. you should have no right to destroy a person over his support of a law, even if you yourself dont like the content. EVER. no matter the content of the law. Without this, you have nodemocracy, but instead a coutnry run by fear of few loud individuals with power.

Whether somebody forced him to resign or not is a secret known only to board members and PR department, but it is quite clear that the actions of OKCupid users was the cause of his resignation. And while they did have a right to do so, i also have a right to call them out on it. because it was not a beneficial thing to society, quite the opposite.
Funny you should say that, because "Either love gays or you're fired." was exactly the slogan plenty of people fighting Stygian him took.

Once again, he was not bigoted. yet you seem to willingly infore facts.

"Freedom of speech also entails freely accepting the consequences of said speech."
and yet you fail to accept the consequences of the free speech users boycotting firefox is getting. that is - public outlash over hypocracy.

Also a nice way of missing my point. the point was that 52% of california supported the law, yet you single out one single person and go after him, solely because hes famous so it will get into newspapers.

So, being personally hurt by a friend, colleague and employer who supported the denial of your civil rights is "having no impact on their lives"?

you have been personally hurt by Eich? Did he hit you? did you call the police?
He supported a law, which is his legal right as US citizen, which was later supported by 52% of California voters. why are you singling him out? What exactly has he done to you?

Well, he defended that donation in 2012, so there's that.
Also, donating against civil rights is taking a side against civil rights.

Did he? I havent heard about that. care to share the link?

But the thing about civil rights is that we create and remove them all the time. For example we recently removed a right to smoke in public buildings. I supported that law. am i against civil rights now?

Good thing no one demanded his resignation then I guess.

oh yes, "ill stop using your browser because i dont like your CEOs personal beliefs and want him gone" is certainly not demanding resignation.

Sure, you can call them hypocrites all you like. Just let your lips flap and fingers rattle. Of course, you'd be wrong, but have at it.

Im glad i got your permission. I would ask for more, but this forum has strict rules.

 

[kuolonen]

You know what, you're right, and I apologise.

I have just spent too much time dealing with genuine bigots who actually believe that this is just another step towards some kind of pro-gay dystopia where people aren't allowed to have opinions. Believe me when I say there are a lot of them.

To answer you question, that word is "boycott", or in colloquial terms "voting with your wallet": The idea is that if you disagree with a company or person's products, ideals, or political stances, you choose not to buy their products, or give them your business. If the majority agree with you, that person or company will lose money and either be forced to bow to popular opinion, or go out of business. It is a form of protest. I suppose you could call it forcing, but it's not. Forcing them would be if these protesters were directly paying their salaries, and suddenly refused to pay it unless they got the outcome they wanted. A boycott may or may not work, it's not forcing them to decide anything.

This is what happened in this instance. People voted with their wallets and chose to no longer use a company's product. The company decided that this was too much of a financial risk, and removed the thing that was causing offense (in this case, their choice of CEO)

Maybe Eich has changed his stance, maybe not: He chose to support Prop 8. This is affecting him later in life, as many things do.

Again, I apologise for misinterpreting your remarks and getting angry. I'm happy to continue to have a civil debate if you want.

Fair enough, I suppose defensive bites become the immediate reaction after a while.

I still feel boycott involves too many people, on both sides, in situation where the offender is no longer active offender, and the offense is 6 years ago. I suppose you can derive justification from fact that he is (debatable, but I am not invested enough to this matter to go through necessary research to matter to make a strong argument) unrepentant, but even then it still feels too much.

Apology accepted. I was kind of bracing for a second snarkblast, so thank you for giving a little sun for my shriveled hope for humanity.

 

[A-D.]

Oh, I'm sorry. Did we infringe upon his right to free speech because we chose to exercise ours? It's not a one-way street, boyo.

He CAN say all the bigoted, nasty, racist or homophobic or mysoginistic things he wants. And we CAN choose to simply ignore him. But guess what, we can also say anything WE want, like, say, that we don't like that he was made CEO of a company. And guess what, we can also choose to, perhaps, stop using a product his company produces, making it less profitable and making the company re-think their choice to elect him.

We didn't hold a fucking gun to his head. We didn't enact a law saying that if he says that he has to be fired. We voted with our wallets, and it worked. For once it actually worked. But who am I kidding, you don't care. All you see is the big bad liberals using their rights to make something happen that YOU don't like. It doesn't matter that those rights are exactly the same as yours. Because you don't agree with what they are saying, you want them to just shut the fuck up. Isn't that right? Last time I looked, the liberals aren't passing laws saying that straight people can't get married, or that gay people have the legal right to discriminate against Christians.

You sir, are a bigot. Don't hide behind psudeo-free-speech to cry foul when people call you on it.

Manual quoting for the win. No you didnt, but you didnt leave it at free speech. You essentially held a gun to his head, either he resigns, or the company suffers, a company full of people who may or may not agree with the one person who just happens to be at the top currently, the same guy who has been at that company for 9 Years and made a silly donation 6 years ago.

What was that about OKCupid again? Please stop using Firefox because the CEO, one guy out of MANY PEOPLE who supported Prop-8 is the CEO there. Thats basicly DOXing, or is there a list somewhere where i can look up publicly who voted for Prop8 or gave donations towards the same cause? No, its one guy being singled out because he happens to be the CEO at a company that makes a popular browser. He exercised his rights to support what he feels he wants to support. Sure People can also not support him, but its not about him, its about Mozilla, he is the CEO, so what? He is one guy at the company, one guy out of how many? Yet its perfectly fine to DESTROY the reputation of an entire company, even ruin it financially because the one dude working there thinks that Gays can have civil unions and not church marriages?

You are hiding behind some pseudo-nonsense that is actually hard to grasp because..i dont wanna be rude, but that shit isnt even remotely logical. But yeah i want those people i named to shut up, i dont wanna hear about "Women need more rights without obligations"-Feminists, or "Kill all men"-Feminists. I dont want to hear about stupid vacuous tumblr keyboard warriors. I dont want to hear from people who turn EVERYTHING into a "Us versus Them" thing and if you so much as disagree with them on a single thing, they try to ruin your life forever. Look up what Scientology did with "Suppressive Persons", this applies to quite alot of Feminists, especially those on freethoughtblogs and atheism plus.

But sure, it makes me a bigot when i object to one party discriminating against another. It doesnt matter whether your cause is good or not, if you use the same bullshit tactics then you arent good, you arent better. You are just as vile, evil and reprehensible as the ones you claim to oppose.

Also, for future reference, false equivalency fallacy right there.