Ninmecu said:
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.
I think your chomp is misplaced; I don't think that's where the LGBT movement is at today. I'm under impression that they're still largely in the 'battle' phase. Sure, gay marriage is getting passed in an increasing amount of states, but considering the increasingly known abuse for those stereotyped or found as LGBT, those who stand organized for the movement aren't going to put up with the abuse, not from anyone, even if that's a CEO of an unrelated company who 'happened to' support screwing their way of life, or at least the choice to take a path in that direction. Though I've noticed that there's some segregation on the validity of this move.
I also don't buy the whole 'It was acceptable X years ago!' notion. YES, I hold people of the past accountable on terms of current cultural values, because our current cultural values aren't fucking rocket science to reach. Some enlightenment already readily available might have told the bastard parents who abandoned their children in the name of religion that that's a regrettable move. Hell, we STILL have problems in the present, so there's that too. But the people of the past and their ways are of the past; I have peace with them there, but NOT anywhere near the present.
Oh, I'm also under the impression that Eich could have just supported under the cap if he truly wanted a private position on the matter (though admittedly, perhaps the cap was not present/known of at the time of donation). But he didn't; he gave his $1k 'drop in the bucket', and that made his donation public. Didn't seem to bother Eich, however. Six years elapsed regardless, he had no statement either way on the matter stepping into the position. A matter that effects lives in and out of the business world. Either he renounced it, or he kept it, but apparently he didn't deem it important enough to address, even as a face of a large corporation. It's a personal belief, but Eich was in, well, a 'personal' position, as the percieved head of a business that effects many lives. There IS a connection.
On a somewhat separate note, I think we mix up what our 'Freezomz' (wat?) are. For one, 'Freedom of speech', and largely all of the protections to our rights from the Constitution are from a government perspective. It's the government that the Constitution protects your freedom of speech from,
not necessarily other citizens. Surely, laws are in place that hinder or prevent, say, a person murdering you for your speech (and these laws go quite a bit farther than that to protect citizen livelihood),
but largely, citizen vs. citizen, we end up having the right to demean or ruin each others' livelihoods (or at least something claimed to be livelihood).
Consider the capitalist nature of the country as well. Largely, this rule applies to the business world in this country as well. In the realm of 'freedom', business can do amazing, enlightening things, but they can also do terrible, depressing things too; ALL of this range fall as just (some limitations for the exploitive corners, of course) to this country's laws. So yea, when you (purportedly) slight a large amount of people and the law of the land doesn't step in, justice doesn't necessarily prevail (well, case of government is also potentially excluded too), but people's response nonetheless will. Business
might most likely will get involved too.
Great post.
