OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Here's the (final) solution: Get Waterfox. It's practically the same app as firefox but not by Mozilla. You can't lose and don't have to put up with any of this political nonsense either.

 

[Lightknight]

Homophobia is not a medical term. It never has been. Its not used to describe a medical condition. The word is used to describe undue prejudice against a group of people, non-heterosexuals specifically.

You mean you don't scream or hyperventilate uncontrollably every time you come across a guy that likes other dudes? I personally stand on a chair and squeak in terror. [/joke]

 

[Taunta]

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.

Now, if his personal beliefs flooded into the way the company functions? That's quite another thing.

I'm not sure where you're seeing anyone advocate for his removal. Okcupid just politely informed you in case that sort of thing is important to you. People are allowed to continue to use a product regardless of the CEOs personal beliefs, just as people are allowed to choose not to support people who they disagree with. I don't see why this is hard to understand.

Oh, the old "tolerate the intolerant" adage. "Disapproving of someone for something they have no control over" and "disapproving of someone for having an entirely optional opinion and actively supporting legislation that denies a group of people their civil rights" are not equal.

 

[The Material Sheep]

[quote ote of the CEO then I'm curious what you think the intent of the mention was. . Oote="Lightknight" post="7.846193.20863619"]Great, so people shouldbut 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.

Now, if his personal beliefs flooded into the way the company functions? That's quite another thing.

I'm not sure where you're seeing anyone advocate for his removal. Okcupid just politely informed you in case that sort of thing is important to you. People are allowed to continue to use a product regardless of the CEOs personal beliefs, just as people are allowed to choose not to support people who they disagree with. I don't see why this is hard to understand.

Oh, the old "tolerate the intolerant" adage. "Disapproving of someone for something they have no control over" and "disapproving of someone for having an entirely optional opinion and actively supporting legislation that denies a group of people their civil rights" are not equal.[/quote]

If you think there ultimate goal wasnt removal of the CEO I'm curios what you think the actual intentions were.

Either way his personal beliefs are irrelevant to how this man does his job until he decides to bring the company in the direction of his personal politics. You do have to tolerate shitty opinions But you don't have to like them. You are free to disagree with people but they are allowed to have those opinions and realistically they shouldn't be brought up in a professional setting

 

[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.

Now, if his personal beliefs flooded into the way the company functions? That's quite another thing.

I'm not sure where you're seeing anyone advocate for his removal. Okcupid just politely informed you in case that sort of thing is important to you. People are allowed to continue to use a product regardless of the CEOs personal beliefs, just as people are allowed to choose not to support people who they disagree with. I don't see why this is hard to understand.

Oh, the old "tolerate the intolerant" adage. "Disapproving of someone for something they have no control over" and "disapproving of someone for having an entirely optional opinion and actively supporting legislation that denies a group of people their civil rights" are not equal.

That's turning a blind eye to the intention of the action. Company hires a guy with a belief system they don't agree with so they decide to punish the company for not being more discriminatory. Hiding it behind the guise of informing customers doesn't make it any less pro-discrimination. Their goal is to send a message that companies shouldn't hire people if they hold beliefs that this group doesn't hold.

I get that their position upsets you and so it's easy for you to dismiss them as not deserving the same basic human rights we enjoy on our side of the fence. But that is not what our rights stand for.

And look, it's common to automatically associate people who advocate "traditional marriage" with those who disapprove of someone for what they are born as but the two are not inseparable. Some people and cultures simply believe that marriage is axiomatically between a man and woman. That doesn't necessarily imply anything negative regarding alternative arrangements but merely states a definition of a term (of course, some people are absolutely also anti-gay). Again, this is why I think the government has no right assuming control of the term "marriage license". It's not theirs to control. It is the sole property of religious and cultural segments and that includes gay culture and their own willingness to marry each other. But because the government insists on maintaining a mandatory "Marriage" license to gain access to legal financial and familial unions then people are going to associate the two things as one in the same even though marriage has almost always been common law even in America with marriage licenses being to overcome the few laws regarding it (permissible age, marrying a mourning period, etc.) and not to let it happen at all. Additionally, the marriage ceremony itself was a religious or cultural ceremony.

In my discussion with others on the subject, I have found that many people in the traditional marriage camp have no problem with gay couples having all the benefits of marriage. Inheritance, family benefits like visitation rights, etc. They simply don't believe that marriage is a flexible or subjective term. So you've got to ask yourself, what is the goal here? Is it to have a license with the term "marriage" written on it or is it to get all of the basic rights that come along with it? The answer is likely both but I think the fight for the marriage license is more of trying to force society to accept their union. That will not achieve the goal but changing the term will alter the uphill battle in a favorable way and hopefully make sure all groups get the same treatment.

This is why I advocate the complete removal of the term "marriage" from the government license language. They are appropriating a term that means something to people and that is causing a tremendous amount of confusion and conflict. Just changing the term should begin to alleviate some of the pressures and give gay couples access to rights they should have been having all along.

 

[allonbacuth]

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.

Or you have opinions on what browser to use that are separate from the whole debate. Until firefox makes a change with their product, thats what I'm using. If that makes me "part of the problem" then the problem isn't going to be solved any time soon.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

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.

Or you have opinions on what browser to use that are separate from the whole debate. Until firefox makes a change with their product, thats what I'm using. If that makes me "part of the problem" then the problem isn't going to be solved any time soon.

see, now THAT is a reasonable argument. others may have been arguing this point, but nearly as succinctly as you just put it. if there are a list of reasons you use one browser over another, i can see that point, but if they're pretty much interchangeable to you (i still don't know why all the hate for explorer, *prepares flame shield) why not choose one that makes a statement worth making?

 

[Fsyco]

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.

I'm not saying that because they do it we should do it, I'm saying that it's a naturally occurring thing. Because it IS a naturally occurring thing. Your sexual orientation (as well as pretty much everything else, for the most part) is governed by the wiring in your brain and genetics. It's not like people decide to be gay. I thought that was pretty well-established. There's all kinds of other various fetishes and things people like to do that in no way result in procreation, so should those be outlawed too?

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

My great grandparents worked with Mao to oppress people, so do I get a free pass on that one? Oh and I've got ancestors further back who fought for the Confederacy. I'm pretty sure I can live with disappointing some racists and communists.

 

[DrOswald]

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.

Or you have opinions on what browser to use that are separate from the whole debate. Until firefox makes a change with their product, thats what I'm using. If that makes me "part of the problem" then the problem isn't going to be solved any time soon.

see, now THAT is a reasonable argument. others may have been arguing this point, but nearly as succinctly as you just put it. if there are a list of reasons you use one browser over another, i can see that point, but if they're pretty much interchangeable to you (i still don't know why all the hate for explorer, *prepares flame shield) why not choose one that makes a statement worth making?

Well, first of all, there are so many statements worth making. Don't use IE because microsoft are greedy bastards. Don't use Chrome because of the whole NSA thing. Etc. At this point I would be surprised if there is a browser left that isn't in some substantial way connected to a statement worth making.

Second, I still have not seen any evidence of actual hate mongering on Brendan Eich's part. Yes, he gave money to prop 8. That does not make him a hate filled bigot. Proposition 8 was not a ballot that said "Do you hate gays? Y/N". This is a complex issue, and to deny that fact and jump to conclusions deepens the divide and will only lead to more hatred on both sides.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Guys, remember what day it is. Thank you.

 

[The Material Sheep]

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.

Or you have opinions on what browser to use that are separate from the whole debate. Until firefox makes a change with their product, thats what I'm using. If that makes me "part of the problem" then tpseudo blem isn't going to be solved any time soon.

see, now THAT is a reasonable argument. others may have been arguing this point, but nearly as succinctly as you just put it. if there are a list of reasons you use one browser over another, i can see that point, but if they're pretty much interchangeable to you (i still don't know why all the hate for explorer, *prepares flame shield) why not choose one that makes a statement worth making?

Because not every person makes a statement with every small action they take. Some people occasionally like to step away from politics. Some people don't derive their sense of self from the group they happen to be apart of or were born into. Most people are rational enough to see that as log as firefox has done nothing immoral as of yet. Some people don't think that changing your Internet browser due to the personal politics of their CEO who has yet to do anything anti gay with the company, for the sake a psuedo activist political statement is absolutely asinine and that this style of activism is becoming so pedantic it's poisonings the well of good will that's actually pushing lgbt issues forward.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

The problem is that the LGBT "rights" movement is pretty much 100% over and done with in America.

Not even close... and:

And Same-Sex Marriage isn't an issue of rights either, it's just a good idea that should probably happen.

Care to explain how a certain group being specifically denied legal privileges that another freely enjoys and expects without intervention isn't a rights issue?

Get back to me on that.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

The irony of LGBT activists attempting to propagate and enforce their very own black list is razor sharp.

 

[The Material Sheep]

I can't help but feel if this were the exact opposite situation where someone donated a thousand dollars to a glbt rights proposition or bill, and got hired as a CEO six years later, and some well known site claiming rights for straight people demanded boycotting Mozilla for hiring the gay supporting CEO how different a discussion this would be.

I'd be in exactly the same position, the only difference is I'd agree with the CEO's personal politics on the matter.

 

[Kotaro]

It's just a shame that I don't trust any other browsers for security reasons:
Internet Explorer has security holes you could fly an airship through.
Chrome has a horrendous design flaw in how it stores cached login information.

 

[Whytewulf]

Apparently it is, considering the fact that people aren't boycotting because of company policy but rather someone's personal beliefs.

Not just "someone", but the CEO, the head of the corporation, the representative of the company. When a person like that speaks they speak for the organization as a whole.

It's Chic-Fil-A all over again.

Very bad example, its quite funny that you picked it. See, where this is one guy donating a modest sum, as far as we can tell, one time, and to an effort to ban same-sex marriage, Chick-fil-a is a business whose policy, at the time, was to discriminate against LGBT employees where it was legal, as well as having a history of making annual donations to many groups, most modestly anti-gay and generally just trying to prevent LGBT protections in employment and housing, as well as anti-gay, but also groups like the Family Research Council. If you're not familiar with the Family Research Council, they want to make homosexuality a federal felony, and who also spent thousands of dollars trying to stop a bill in the US legislature from passing - a bill that would condemn Uganda for making homosexuality punishable by death. So in short, Chick-fil-a spent money that can be directly traced to an effort to stop the US government from going and telling another country "Hey, you really shouldn't carry out a genocide against gay people".

tl;dr You related this to a case that is by far harder to defend.

It's like that whole fiasco with Chic-Fi-La.

Yeah I didn't see anything in your post to particularly respond to until I saw you mention Chick-fil-a. If you haven't already, read my response to the previous person in this post. It should explain why you really should not compare this to the Chick-fil-a thing.

Your point being? we are discussing whether people should or should not find the personal views of a CEO relevant to the company as a whole and so to simply state that some people do find it relevant isn't an argument as to why I should.

a) Demonstrably, it does matter, whether you think it should or not, because people do act accordingly. Thats just a pragmatic approach, and pragmaticism is what benefits a business. If a business does something counter-productive out of ideal, a competitor will benefit.

b) I think it does matter, personally. They're a representative of the quality of their product and their business. Not only that, some personal actions can be representative of their trustworthiness. Would you want the next CEO of a business you have heavily invested in to have been convicted of, say, insider trading? For that matter, just about any serious crime that would remove the potential CEO from their post.

Please provide some citations where it was Chick-fil-a's "policy to discriminate against LGBT employees"? This whole thing started because of donations to other organizations who donated a small portion to organizations against gay marriage. And Dan Cathy's personal views. It's my understanding that they changed how they donated, but then again, I don't know for sure, it just doesn't hold a lot of sway.

As another note, even though Chick-fil-A promised to stop donating to these types of organizations, it still is actually donating to these organizations (having only removed 1% of that funding), they've just stopped talking about it and have defaulted their public stance to "assumed neutral" by not saying anything at all.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/29/memo-to-media-chick-fil-a-hasnt-ended-its-anti/192434

Kind of off-topic, but people really don't know what the Winshape foundation does. And Chick-fil-a doesn't have anti-gay employment policies. Lastly the article you quote has data from 2010 and 2011, not really current.

I dont think this is the same as Chick Fil A, Mars Atlas. They were actively using the company's money to support this stuff, but there has been no such hint that Firefox is doing anything like that.

I'm well aware of that. Its just that this wasn't the time in this thread alone that somebody went "this is just like when people were upset that I ate at Chick-fil-a" with the implication that Chick-fil-a never did anything seriously, outrageously immoral, and I want to correct the fact that, surprise, they have. They gave money to a company that used to directly to a group that wants homosexuality to be a felony punishable by death, the Family Research Council. They've stopped giving funds directly to this group, but they have, however, increased funding to other anti-gay groups. One of these groups, the National Christian Foundation, which donates annually over a million dollars to the Family Research Council, receives donations from Chick-fil-a. Thats means the funds are fungible, and every dollar that Chick-fil-a sends to the National Christian Foundation can still be traced back to the Family Research Council.
Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/14/1722631/chick-fil-a-foundation-anti-lgbt-spending-nearly-doubled/

I'm not going to judge anybody negatively for using Firefox. Chick-fil-a lied about them having stopped funding anti-gay groups, and if somebody hasn't gotten that memo, or to where that money went, its understandable that they'd be ignorant of it. When the facts are presented to their face, however, and they still say they're fine with eating at Chick-fil-a, fine, but I get to say, and fairly, that knowingly value a decent chicken sandwich over gay people being allowed to exist.

Same article using 2010/2011 data? Also, though I think there is anti-LGBT efforts in some of those organizations, it's a little over-zealous of the article writer to say $3M was spent on anti-LGBT. I suspect some may have been for the homes for abused children and other efforts.

And I don't think it's really hurt them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/chick-fil-a-beats-kfc-top-chicken-chain-article-1.1741947