OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[Therumancer]

To be honest I hope this backfires. To be honest I think it's going too far when people are being harassed (directly or through their customers) for exercising their political rights. You have as much right to be anti-gay as you do pro-gay as long as your not taking violence into the streets, and really that has nothing to do with the quality of something like a web browser.

Honestly I think part of the reason we are seeing things get this touchy is because the country is polarized almost 50-50 on this issue (with single digit percentages waffling back and forth at various times, and both sides claiming to have a clear majority at different times), along with some other big ones. The pro-gay side of things happens to be better organized and pro-active at the moment which has given it an advantage in terms of voter turn outs and such, and things like this help keep it active so it won't fizzle out and lose it's inertia, especially if the other side decides to put more effort in attempting to rally than we've seen so far. Especially with elections coming up, and predictions that the left wing could be in for a truly historic drubbing.

My opinions on the issue aside, harassing your rank and file users isn't cool. I'd think it was equally ridiculous if the anti-gay side did it. That's why I hope it backfires, as users who give a crap about politics or at least want to get away from then when they visit an E-dating site take their business elsewhere.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I really don't see the issue with someone dropping 1,000 dollars into the bigamist bucket, its really lunch money compared to the greater contribution as a whole.

Bigamy is marrying someone while already being married.

But it raises a point: gay marriage in the US is often defended as a civil right (14th amendment, citizens). But here's the thing, if you rule marriage as a right of all citizens, then laws against bigamy and polygamy become unconstitutional.

It's impossible to defend gay marriage yet deny multiple and group marriages under the same equal protection law. This is where a new amendment is needed.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Can you tell me a possibility of belief that is neither supporting or not supporting gay rights? Any given thing can be A or not A, with no outside possibility.

I support gay marriage and anything that is strictly kept between consenting adults.
In that sense I support gay rights right?

Except I get a bit more iffy when it comes to IVF treatments and surrogate mothers carrying babies for gay couples, just like I've always been horrified at peeps getting kids for financial benefits or to qualify for welfare seeing gay couples keen on having a kid for what seems to be purely selfish reason always rubbed me the wrong way. Yet for a lot of gay activists this is a no brainer issue.

So then, where does that leave me in your Black and white world? You make it clear it's an all or nothing deal so if Im not "with" I'm "against" then?

You are with their interests in regards to marriage and against their interests in regards to their desire for an equal right to raise a kid, which is not a selfish decision, but a nearly universal human desire carried due to evolution.

Hell, maybe it is selfish, but I fail to see why them wanting a kid is any more selfish than anyone else wanting a kid.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I find it strange that the people who are okay with prosecuting someone over their personal beliefs are the ones arguing that they're being attacked over their personal beliefs. Are we into thought crime now?

The day the LGBT movement starts dictating what people are allowed to think and believe is the day they far overstep their boundaries.

 

[Superlative]

I find it strange that the people who are okay with prosecuting someone over their personal beliefs are the ones arguing that they're being attacked over their personal beliefs. Are we into thought crime now?

The day the LGBT movement starts dictating what people are allowed to think and believe is the day they far overstep their boundaries.

This is just the good old American 1st Amendment at work... on both sides. People have the right to support whatever causes they want, but others have the right to respond. I don't think that CEO should have been fired based on his private political opinion, but OKCupid has all the right in the world to do what they did as well.

While I vehemently oppose Eich's position and think he was an idiot for expressing such a hardcore conservative view when he works in an incredibly liberal atmosphere I still think its his right to do so. I think the real reason he got fired is because Eich is now toxic to the LGBT community. With him at the helm they will have a hard time recruiting LGBT or allied talent and anyone who Eich fires, demotes, or disciplines could sue and claim discrimination. lawsuits mean either legal fees or out of court settlements, both of which are pricy and wreck your image.

TL;DR: Eich has a right to his opinion but dummy made himself toxic so he had to go.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I find it strange that the people who are okay with prosecuting someone over their personal beliefs are the ones arguing that they're being attacked over their personal beliefs. Are we into thought crime now?

The day the LGBT movement starts dictating what people are allowed to think and believe is the day they far overstep their boundaries.

This is just the good old American 1st Amendment at work... on both sides. People have the right to support whatever causes they want, but others have the right to respond. I don't think that CEO should have been fired based on his private political opinion, but OKCupid has all the right in the world to do what they did as well.

While I vehemently oppose Eich's position and think he was an idiot for expressing such a hardcore conservative view when he works in an incredibly liberal atmosphere I still think its his right to do so. I think the real reason he got fired is because Eich is now toxic to the LGBT community. With him at the helm they will have a hard time recruiting LGBT or allied talent and anyone who Eich fires, demotes, or disciplines could sue and claim discrimination. lawsuits mean either legal fees or out of court settlements, both of which are pricy and wreck your image.

TL;DR: Eich has a right to his opinion but dummy made himself toxic so he had to go.

He made a single donation six years ago. There has been no further anti-gay sentiment or policies enacted at Mozilla. How is that 'making himself toxic'?

Oh no, in 2004 Obama said ?marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." Why aren't they trying to boot him out of office too?

It doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but the LGBT's attitude over this matter has turned my opinion against them. If Amendment 2 is brought up again (Defining marriage as between one man and one woman), I'll probably vote in favor of it this time.

 

[Tellis Argonis]

Well damn, OKCupid, you wanna try and guilt me into supporting something? Well to hell with you, if I'm supporting something, I'm not gonna be mobbed into it by... I wanna say 'enraged flamers' but that'd be offensive. An angry mob of LGBTs, which sounds like a sandwich. Mmmm... LGBT sandwich.

Er, yeh. Well if I want to support something that's my choice, and you can't change my mind. Also If I don't want to support something, that doesn't automatically make me an antagonist to your cause. It's a bit like if Nepal was blamed for the Hatfield/McCoy feud because Nepal was asked their opinion on it, and responded with 'What? Who?'

 

[Frankster]

You are with their interests in regards to marriage and against their interests in regards to their desire for an equal right to raise a kid, which is not a selfish decision, but a nearly universal human desire carried due to evolution.

Hell, maybe it is selfish, but I fail to see why them wanting a kid is any more selfish than anyone else wanting a kid.

Just to clarify my full stance, I got nothing against gay couples raising a kid...IF they adopt.

That's my beef in the whole issue, I find it really creepy that gay couples spend an obscene amount of money going for test tube babies or having babies carried in the womb of someone else who then has to give that baby up, when there are a lot of homeless babies out there.

 

[Dragonbums]

He made a single donation six years ago. There has been no further anti-gay sentiment or policies enacted at Mozilla. How is that 'making himself toxic'?

A donation to a bill that passed and actively prevented the rights of a specific demographic people due to their sexuality. It would of been no better if the man funded a bill back in the 1900's that reinstilled that colored people are not allowed to eat in the same place as white people. Regardless of how long ago he funded that bill.

Oh no, in 2004 Obama said ?marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." Why aren't they trying to boot him out of office too?

No. Because Obama can say that, yet there are no records indicating that he put his money into a bill that actively discriminated and taken away the rights of other people, and nobody has gone after him over it (obviously otherwise he wouldn't be running for two terms)

It doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but the LGBT's attitude over this matter has turned my opinion against them. If Amendment 2 is brought up again (Defining marriage as between one man and one woman), I'll probably vote in favor of it this time.

For a site that's famous slogan is "speak with your wallet" it is completely hypocritical how people are upset that LGBTQ+ members decided to do just that and simply stop using Firefox in light of the CEO's questionable donation schemes. Nobody lynched him, nobody mobbed him, and nobody blackmailed him. OKcupid made a stupid message on their damn website stating that the CEO funded Prop8 which successfully banned gay people from getting married and due to their decent homosexual userbase suggested they use another browser. If you so choose not to OKcupid did absolutely nothing to Firefox users who still used the damn browser.

What exactly is the problem here? Are you guys really that upset that a large group of people actually followed through with the "speak with your wallet" motto?

 

[Kopikatsu]

What exactly is the problem here? Are you guys really that upset that a large group of people actually followed through with the "speak with your wallet" motto?

Because he was bullied out of his job for a controversial opinion held six years ago. Even if he still held that opinion, it would still be a ridiculous reaction to it. What OKCupid did was no less than harassment, and at worst thought policing.

Suppose that OKCupid's message greatly reduced the usage of Firefox. Mozilla gets less money, and so they're forced to downsize. In that case, innocent people would be losing their jobs and possibly their livelihoods because organizations like OKCupid are childish and, honestly, whiny.

If the LGBT community has the power to oust individuals on a whim because of their personal or political beliefs, then I don't think they can be considered underprivileged.

It should be noted: someone against gay marriage doesn't make them a homophobe. Honestly, it's insulting to even remotely suggest that. There are many reasons to not support gay marriage beyond 'hate gay people'.

 

[Vegosiux]

No. Because Obama can say that, yet there are no records indicating that he put his money into a bill that actively discriminated and taken away the rights of other people, and nobody has gone after him over it (obviously otherwise he wouldn't be running for two terms)

He's the president of USA. One of the most powerful people on the entire bloody planet. Why would there need to be money involved, considering the clout he already has without involving it at all?

 

[Dragonbums]

No. Because Obama can say that, yet there are no records indicating that he put his money into a bill that actively discriminated and taken away the rights of other people, and nobody has gone after him over it (obviously otherwise he wouldn't be running for two terms)

He's the president of USA. One of the most powerful people on the entire bloody planet. Why would there need to be money involved, considering the clout he already has without involving it at all?

That is irrelevant to the point I am making. The difference between the Ex CEO of Mozilla and President Obama is that one of the two didn't put their actual money into the funding of a bill that actively oppressed a group of people due to their sexuality.

This is not to mention Obama himself despite his own personal opinions have supported LGBTQ+ rights anyway.

I remember during the 2012 debates they asked Joe Biden and runner up Vice president (forgot his name) on their stance on abortion. Both of them I recall said that they were personally against it- or rather they didn't like the concept. Joe Biden went on to say that his personal opinions should not be the dictating choice between the lives of millions of moms, while the other man clearly had every intent to ban the practice based on personal preference.

There is a difference here.

 

[Dragonbums]

Because he was bullied out of his job for a controversial opinion held six years ago.

He was not bullied out of the position, and it certainly wasn't for holding an opinion. There is a big damn difference from believing gay people shouldn't marry and going out of your way to fund an successful bill that made it legal to deny homosexuals the right to marry. A right granted to all heterosexual couples whether they can procreate or not.

Even if he still held that opinion, it would still be a ridiculous reaction to it. What OKCupid did was no less than harassment, and at worst thought policing.

OKCupid did none of the sort. They exercised their rights in the legal and harmless definition. Mozilla has a top figurehead that funded Prop8. As a reaction OKCupid sent a message suggesting that users use other browsers that are not Firefox. If users chose to move platforms then good for them. If not, then OKCupid did not hinder the experience of current Firefox users on their site. There was nothing ridiculous about it in the slightest.

Suppose that OKCupid's message greatly reduced the usage of Firefox. Mozilla gets less money, and so they're forced to downsize. In that case, innocent people would be losing their jobs and possibly their livelihoods because organizations like OKCupid are childish and, honestly, whiny.

So what? That's how capitalism works. (A term oh so loved on the Escapist when the conversation revolves around lack of representation of minorities in videogames.) If Mozilla was smart, they wouldn't of hired the man as a CEO in the first place knowing that he put funding into Prop8.

If OKCupids message resulted in a loss of customers for Mozilla, then that is that. Too bad so sad. It's not like OKCupid was lying. It's not like they were making up false information about a man in order to harm the company. What he did is in the public records. The man funded Prop8. It's right there. As such, OKCupid is well within their rights to notify it's userbase of the following information seeing as how they have a large LGBTQ+ userbase and implore them to use another browser. The customer is speaking with their wallet. And the customers say that they will not support Mozilla and use another browser.

If the LGBT community has the power to oust individuals on a whim because of their personal or political beliefs, then I don't think they can be considered underprivileged.

So if you lived in the 1920's and saw that there was a negative reaction within the colored community against (for pure example here) the CEO of General Electric in light of the fact that the CEO of said company used money to fund various laws to keep Jim Crow laws in place- knowing the fact that in many places colored people are still segregated to separate facilities, can still be lynched, can't marry interracially, etc.- and the result is that said CEO had to step down- does that mean people of color are no longer underprivileged?

It should be noted: someone against gay marriage doesn't make them a homophobe. Honestly, it's insulting to even remotely suggest that. There are many reasons to not support gay marriage beyond 'hate gay people'.

No, but actively funding bills against the rights of gay people doesn't exactly paint a pretty picture of you doesn't it?

That's like saying "I don't hate black people" and going out of your way to show support for keeping public places segregated...but it's for other reasons. Not because you hate black people.

 

[Vegosiux]

That is irrelevant to the point I am making. The difference between the Ex CEO of Mozilla and President Obama is that one of the two didn't put their actual money into the funding of a bill that actively oppressed a group of people due to their sexuality.

My point is that it doesn't bloody matter where you put money when you're the president of USA. Your word carries more weight than one thousand dollars. Yes, I'm saying that Obama likely did more harm to the LGBT efforts with that one statement than Eich did with his donation of 1000$.

 

[Dragonbums]

That is irrelevant to the point I am making. The difference between the Ex CEO of Mozilla and President Obama is that one of the two didn't put their actual money into the funding of a bill that actively oppressed a group of people due to their sexuality.

My point is that it doesn't bloody matter where you put money when you're the president of USA. Your word carries more weight than one thousand dollars. Yes, I'm saying that Obama likely did more harm to the LGBT efforts with that one statement than Eich did with his donation of 1000$.

Obama did not. Obama (and many presidents) say a lot of things. However at the end of the day, the man did not actively fund successful bills that actively oppressed a group of people.

Being the President means fuck all in that. Until you can show me public records showing the President Obama actively endorsed and funded bills that were specifically for inhibiting the rights of a group of individuals your opinion carries no validity.

 

[Vegosiux]

Obama did not. Obama (and many presidents) say a lot of things. However at the end of the day, the man did not actively fund successful bills that actively oppressed a group of people.

Being the President means fuck all in that. Until you can show me public records showing the President Obama actively endorsed and funded bills that were specifically for inhibiting the rights of a group of individuals your opinion carries no validity.

Sooo, President Bush shouldn't be to blame for the Patriot Act, seeing as I don't remember him ever putting any money (I mean, your point is the money's all that matters) in it...okay.

 

[Dragonbums]

Obama did not. Obama (and many presidents) say a lot of things. However at the end of the day, the man did not actively fund successful bills that actively oppressed a group of people.

Being the President means fuck all in that. Until you can show me public records showing the President Obama actively endorsed and funded bills that were specifically for inhibiting the rights of a group of individuals your opinion carries no validity.

Sooo, President Bush shouldn't be to blame for the Patriot Act, seeing as I don't remember him ever putting any money (I mean, your point is the money's all that matters) in it...okay.

Bush passed the patriot act. He passed it. Therefore he endorsed it in some way. President Obama to my knowledge has NOT passed any bills under his administration that actively inhibited the rights of specific individuals.

 

[Vegosiux]

Bush passed the patriot act. He passed it. Therefore he endorsed it in some way. President Obama to my knowledge has NOT passed any bills under his administration that actively inhibited the rights of specific individuals.

But he didn't put any money in it.

Also, I don't think the president can just pass any law he wants, that's kind of autocratic.

 

[Dragonbums]

Bush passed the patriot act. He passed it. Therefore he endorsed it in some way. President Obama to my knowledge has NOT passed any bills under his administration that actively inhibited the rights of specific individuals.

But he didn't put any money in it.

Also, I don't think the president can just pass any law he wants, that's kind of autocratic.

You don't need to put money in a bill if all you need is the majority vote of both houses. The Mozilla CEO is not the President. So he shows support through funding bills.


My point still stands that Obama has not signed or funded a bill that actively took away the rights of individual people.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

You are with their interests in regards to marriage and against their interests in regards to their desire for an equal right to raise a kid, which is not a selfish decision, but a nearly universal human desire carried due to evolution.

Hell, maybe it is selfish, but I fail to see why them wanting a kid is any more selfish than anyone else wanting a kid.

Just to clarify my full stance, I got nothing against gay couples raising a kid...IF they adopt.

That's my beef in the whole issue, I find it really creepy that gay couples spend an obscene amount of money going for test tube babies or having babies carried in the womb of someone else who then has to give that baby up, when there are a lot of homeless babies out there.

While adoption is a good option, it is not "creepy" to want to raise your own genetic children. It is a basic human desire.