OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[EvilRoy]

If the reason you say "I don't want anything to do with this" is that the CEO did something that hurt you, then it is revenge.

Why? Why can't someone not want anything to do with him or people that would hire him?

You are allowed to do it, but it doesn't change the definition of what you are doing. In essence you have decided that the actions of one private individual many years ago is enough to damn him for life, and all those who associate with him. I might be willing to accept that your revenge on one man is justified, but your collateral damage is far from ethical.

 

[Lightknight]

Great, so people shouldn't be hired based on their personal beliefs. Glad to know that that tolerance is a one way street. Not that I give two shits east who marries who. I just consider it an epic double standard to demand that people who hold a different belief, even controversial ones, should be un-hire-able and shrivel up and die.

You will note that okcupid is not demanding that anyone be unhireable, or die. They did not demand people not to use Firefox. They asked users to use something else on their site. And that is all.

Because Eich's opposes rights for LGBT people.

Now, if it is fine to oppose rights for LGBT people, but not, as a consequence, ask users of okcupid to use a different browser, then it seems tolerance is indeed a one way street, just not in the way you were pretending it was.

Okcupid is punishing a company for the mere act of hiring a person with differing personal views. This is not ok. The same thing used to happen when people hired gay people. I'm sorry but two wrongs don't make a right. It is not OK to punish companies for having legally sound hiring principles. You don't refuse to hire someone based on personal legal beliefs the same way you don't refuse to hire someone for being gay or a minority or a member of a political party.

Do you advocate hiring practices that discriminate based on belief? Political, religious or otherwise? It's awfully convenient to advocate for practices that discriminate against anything contrary to what you stand for or believe in but damn if that's not a double standard. Sometimes you do get a company whose vision is against a certain person, and then you're rightfully responding to a company's belief. But just the action of hiring someone or not hiring someone based on beliefs is downright wrong.

FYI, I'm against government marriage licenses in general, straight or gay. They (licenses) were made mandatory in place of common law marriages around the time of the Civil War in the US to prevent minorities from marrying whites. I find the very notion of mandatory marriage licenses horribly outside of the Government's jurisdiction and the remnant of a tool the government used to oppress people it thought shouldn't be married when marriage should be a natural right. Marriage licenses first appeared as a way to permit betrothed to marry when it would otherwise be illegal. Age difference, period of mourning from a previous spouse not being over, members of different religions. The government should only be in charge of the financial union and have no say over the term marriage and anything it means to our society as a religious and cultural term. The barest of laws should be maintained to protect individuals from being unjustly coerced into the union (like a 15 year old marrying a 40 year old). As for the current financial (taxes, inheritance) and familial (visitation rights) benefits given by the government. I personally think that anyone should be able to enter that type of union with anyone else. Even people they are merely friends with. Just like corporations are able to do already as pseudo-citizens.

Right now, the government is making laws on a term called "marriage" and this is confusing large groups of people into thinking that the government is legislating the religious and cultural practice of marriage. If nothing else, the license's name should be changed to make it less controversial. I get that in the mid-1800's that legislators thought they were doing the Christian God's work but there's no longer a religious moral compass (or at least, it's publicly detached). As such, they should maintain the separation of church and state by stopping to issue a license largely seen to be legislating areas of the "church (of various faiths)" and culture.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

yeah, kinda. if you're not fighting for justice, or at least taking the smallest measure possible by using a different browser, then you are a part of the problem. what if there was laws in place that specifically targeted you and prevented you from marrying who you wanted, for whatever reason they saw fit to enforce. the world is larger than you, and you need to think beyond just what effects you, because one day it might. it's kinda the whole idea behind that "first they came for the..." poem from world war 2.

Didnt take long for the "part of the problem" sanctimony to start, we certainly get our fill of "with us or against" crusaders for justice on here. Thanks for letting us know what we should do, I was confused!

well, yeah, but the post i quoted was obviously baiting that kind of response. plus, your wanna-be-witty sarcastic response is devoid of value. hope that comes back to bite you in the ass. besides, i'm not even one of what the colbert story is calling "SJW" but right is right, and when one person dismissively says they shouldn't care, i wanted to point out that they should. especially when they're baiting such a response.

 

[Vareoth]

As long as his personal beliefs don't have a negative impact on the policy of the company itself, I believe it might be a bit of an overreaction to boycott the entire company. He is but one man amongst many others working at Mozilla. However, everyone is allowed to make this decision for his or herself without any explanation given. And I am not arrogant enough to pass judgement on those people.

I was going to comment further on statements made by others on this topic but I decided against it because it would take way to long. Specifically statements about why homosexual people would even need marriage as a right, and the link between marriage and religion. Just know that as a gay man an an intelligent humanistic being I can decide for myself what equalities I need, thank you very much. And marriage is only a religious thing since about 1000 years.

I'm going to run away now. Please do try to remain pleasant to one another, would you kindly?

 

[ckam]

Well, until I see Mozilla push homophobic ads in my face or whatever, I'll just stick with not caring. People's personal irrelevant feelings shouldn't be brought into a business, and I'm assuming they'll stick by that.

 

[DrOswald]

And marriage is only a religious thing since about 1000 years.

Even if marriage as an important part of religion is only 1000 years old, that is a very long time. Plenty of time for marriage to become inextricably intertwined with religion. It is impossible to remove the marriage aspect of many religions without invalidating large portions of the core doctrine of those religions.

Now, that said, I support same sex marriage. But I find the whole "marriage was originally religious!" "No it wasn't!" back and forth to be entirely unproductive. Whatever the case may have been in the past marriage is both a religious and state institution at this point. We have to deal with that fact, and seeing who can shout "First!" the loudest solves nothing.

 

[Lightknight]

Do you advocate hiring practices that discriminate based on belief?

If they're the public face of my company, 24/7, 365, then yes, I probably would, especially if they seem unwilling to leave their political opinions in only the realm of the voting booth and their own home.

Why would a public facing company be excluded from basic discrimination laws? 60 years ago this would be a discussion on boycotting a company for hiring a black man because his looks don't conform to the norm or a Muslim because their religion isn't part of the norm. This is still intolerance in action.

Worth noting, what Eich did isn't just belief - its an action. He made a public donation under his name, a political action. Not something you want the head of your apolitical organization to be known for if you're a stockholder or a board member.

So then it's ok if you believe but not ok if you put your money where your mouth is? Or it's not ok to support certain political positions? Even if you don't come to terms with what I'm saying, I hope you see how incredibly sketchy this mentality is for a society built on freedoms that specifically protect these kinds of things from organizations that would seek to silence these people. This is a real "First they came for..." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...] scenario here. What's more is that the political parties against these things have tied the laws directly to faiths. Horribly misleading and easy to catch religious minded individuals who ignorantly think that the government has the ability to tie the hands of their ministers or some such nonsense. But that goes back to the misappropriation of terms which you agree is an issue below. Right or wrong, Eich likely believes he's protecting a religious institution and doesn't see what he's doing as oppressing anyone and I believe that this is a misconception that the government perpetuates because that IS what the original license was intended to do.

Right now, the government is making laws on a term called "marriage" and this is confusing large groups of people into thinking that the government is legislating the religious and cultural practice of marriage. If nothing else, the license's name should be changed to make it less controversial.

I would actually be completely okay with this, assuming that its applied to all types of relationships equally, and provides particularly legal benefits that exist under marriage laws, ie the ability to see your spouse when they're in the emergency room as well as automatic deferment of child guardianship

Right, if the term is changed then no one would obtain a marriage license. Everyone would obtain whatever replaced it. But yes, that is why I specified financial and familial rights as part of this other thing in the paragraph immediately above the one you quoted of me.

If the biological parent dies, the children might be ripped away from their non-biological parent - something straight couples don't have to deal with because they're protected under the law for this sort of thing.

Varies from state to state. Some states are specifically courting homosexual adoptions. But yeah, it's odd that this sort of thing isn't stamped down. From what I've heard though, this is very rare now and success of preventing the child from returning home is almost null. Almost being unacceptable, of course. But if this is a bigger (more pervasive, I mean) problem than I'm aware of it should certainly be cracked down on even harder.

Currently denied to even most gay couples under civil union laws, let alone those who can't even get a civil union.

This one has always infuriated me. I personally think the hospitals overstep their place in denying it. I'd like to see some individual lawsuits succeed here in intimidating hospitals from discrimination.

 

[Vareoth]

And marriage is only a religious thing since about 1000 years.

Even if marriage as an important part of religion is only 1000 years old, that is a very long time. Plenty of time for marriage to become inextricably intertwined with religion. It is impossible to remove the marriage aspect of many religions without invalidating large portions of the core doctrine of those religions.

Now, that said, I support same sex marriage. But I find the whole "marriage was originally religious!" "No it wasn't!" back and forth to be entirely unproductive. Whatever the case may have been in the past marriage is both a religious and state institution at this point. We have to deal with that fact, and seeing who can shout "First!" the loudest solves nothing.

I understand. My point was mostly to state that the inclusion of marriage into religion is a human afterthought, instead of some "god given fact". It is (or should be) completely inconsequential to this discussion however.

And a thousand years seem so small when you look at the big picture. But that is besides the point.

 

[DrOswald]

Right or wrong, Eich likely believes he's protecting a religious institution and doesn't see what he's doing as oppressing anyone and I believe that this is a misconception that the government perpetuates because that IS what the original license was intended to do.

I live in a highly conservative area of the country and I know many people who have political views opposed to same sex marriage. I would like to point out that the primary concern is not legal oppression but social oppression. And I have to admit they have a point. Once a group has enough influence they can stamp out a group that they think is opposed to them. The LGBT community doesn't need to force legal persecution if they can just call for the head of any random dissenter and get it. The idea is simple: "If we don't fight for our beliefs now the LGBT will use the social power they gain to destroy anyone they think is against them. It is us or them."

And now the LGBT community is calling for the head of a dissenter who's only crime was a modest donation to an opposing political stance 6 years ago.

Once again, I am for same sex marriage. But at this point it is hard to say these conservative fears are anything but justified.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Overpopulation, extreme risk to the mother and/or child, Lack of resources to properly care for such children, children that are currently without parents, hello, any of that ring a bell?

I can't help but wonder why people always bring the subject of overpopulation, even when I pre-emptively used the term "responsibly". Yes, overpopulation is an issue - that doesn't mean that having children is less resource-intensive or less necessary, just that we should not make as many as in the past.

As a side note, the West is demographically in decline. For those of us who care about preserving our culture and civilization, we shouldn't make less just because other parts of the world procreate irresponsibly and are willing to migrate - and I speak as an immigrant myself.

Can you describe a long, well-documented history of heterosexual people being put in mental instutitions, physically and chemically castrated, being frequent victims of hate crimes among people because they against same-sex marriage?

Answer: No, because it doesn't exist.

Agreed, but I don't see how this makes using a word inappropriately appropriate.

Considering the fact that your belief that people who can have childre should isn't very rational or considerate for the well-being of others, you shouldn't. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Well if people can make up new meaning for words, I guess I can also play to make them up!

 

[chronobreak]

It's pretty lame people would attack him for his sincerely held convictions, but just as people can boycott Firefox, others can lead new customers to it. I just showed my Dad how to use it and put it on his computer today. Anyone that thinks taking potshots at the guy is going to get what you want should rethink their plans, because there are a whole lot of people who love to mobilize in cases like this to stand up for what they believe.

 

[The Material Sheep]

If the reason you say "I don't want anything to do with this" is that the CEO did something that hurt you, then it is revenge.

Why? Why can't someone not want anything to do with him or people that would hire him?

Because it's petty and his "bigotry" likely isn't so much hate as a misguided ignorance of the opposition. Even if he is just a fundamentalist douche if he doesn't bring it into his job respect his professionalism. Out side of politics his personal beliefs are irrelevant if he doesn't bring the into the decisions he's making.

Until I see him enacting company policy towards an anti lgbt side of things I won't care about fire Fox hiring him.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

That's a really unhealthy attitude. The human population is rapidly expanding to the point where we may no longer be able to sustain ourselves. So the idea that everyone should all reproduce alot is silly at best and harmful to the environment in the long run at worst. And besides, children are obnoxious and disgusting. We need less of them.

Hi Fsyco,

please see my reply above about the issue of sustainability (a worry that I share with you).

I get the impression that anyone who holds a really child-centric worldview has had their mind warped by parenthood. Just because you made an extremely poor choice you have to live with for at least 18 years (less if you get lucky), everyone else should make that same choice and deal with it. You stepped in a giant cow turd, and now are demanding everyone else step in the cow turd as a moral obligation to society.

Yes, perhaps my mind changed after becoming a father; and indeed as a videogamer and programmer this takes a huge toll on my own time, but while taxing parenthood is ultimately necessary - not just for the personal benefits I may or may not have when old, but also for a sense of duty toward my parents, toward my ancestors, toward all my society.
Our grandparents who fought totalitarism didn't give their blood in order for us to waste our life in nihilism.

To bring it closer on topic, homosexuality is perfectly natural and observed in plenty of other animals. Maybe the rise in gay couples and such is a natural response to our increasing overpopulation problem, like the declining fertility rate?

This is another "standard" argument that come up in those debates; the obvious retort is that there are many different behaviors observed in animals, including cannibalism of one's own young; moral of the story is, just because animals do something that doesn't make it automatically worthy of imitation.

 

[Vegosiux]

Our grandparents who fought totalitarism didn't give their blood in order for us to waste our life in nihilism.

I think they, from a certain point of view, did. They fought so that the future generations can live in a free world, living their lives as they see fit - if some choose to live by nihilism, so be it.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

I think they, from a certain point of view, did. They fought so that the future generations can live in a free world, living their lives as they see fit - if some choose to live by nihilism, so be it.

In a way, you are right.
But living a life where their own emotional/sexual satisfaction is more important than contributing to renovate society? I wouldn't think so.

 

[JazzJack2]

I think they, from a certain point of view, did. They fought so that the future generations can live in a free world, living their lives as they see fit - if some choose to live by nihilism, so be it.

In a way, you are right.
But living a life where their own emotional/sexual satisfaction is more important than contributing to renovate society? I wouldn't think so.

A truly functioning society is one that places individual autonomy at the forefront, these utopian ideals that involve sacrificing your own autonomy to renovate society are inherently self-contradictory ideals, giving up your own autonomy will only degrade society not renovate it.

 

[The Material Sheep]

I think they, from a certain point of view,sovereign gn [/i]. They fought so that the future generations can live in a free world, living their lives as they see fit - if some choose to live by nihilism, so be it.

In a way, you are right.
But living a life where their own emotional/sexual satisfaction is more important than contributing to renovate society? I wouldn't think so.

Well that's the funny thing about freedom isn't it. I also doubt those who came before us would be so inwardly focused as to deny a man' or woman's individual sovereignty for the sake of "civic duty" to reproduce. The idea that the citizen is a resource of the state to be used as seen fit is a product of the same ideology that our grand parents fought against. Individuals deserve the right to form contracts with whomever they've wish and the state's only roll in that is to act as an impartial moderator, not a task master to foster us in a direction deemed fit by an increasingly smaller percentage of the populace.