OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[AgedGrunt]

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?

Reverse the positions so that it's about support for gay marriage.

Without a doubt, the entire Internet would still be on fire. The man would get his job back, the company would be boycotted if not sued into dust. OKC would also get a boycott and become a public disgrace. He would be held up as a hero.

It's frustrating to support a noble goal and have to disapprove of so many extremist methods, a lot of which don't achieve any results. Seems today everyone believes the ends justify the means. Radical activism is a poor means to an end.

 

[teamcharlie]

Google. And. Microsoft. Are. Worse. Than. Mozilla.

Internet Explorer and Chrome are worse than Firefox.

Firefox does not hate gay people, love gay people, or have literally any stance on gay people. It is a computer program and is exactly as happy to show you gay pornography as to take you to any other website.

The fact that an important guy at Mozilla donated a whole $1000 to a shitty cause six years ago changes none of those previously-mentioned facts. Keep using Firefox. If you're using Chrome or Internet Explorer, consider switching to Firefox because it's a better browser made by a better company, regardless of the CEO's personal politics.

 

[Dragonbums]

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?

Reverse the positions so that it's about support for gay marriage.

Without a doubt, the entire Internet would still be on fire. The man would get his job back, the company would be boycotted if not sued into dust. OKC would also get a boycott and become a public disgrace. He would be held up as a hero.

It's frustrating to support a noble goal and have to disapprove of so many extremist methods, a lot of which don't achieve any results. Seems today everyone believes the ends justify the means. Radical activism is a poor means to an end.

If that is the case, then whether or not I personally like it, it is still well within people's rights to do that. I'm fairly certain this would of happened to many business back when Civil Rights first started.

Reversing the positions doesn't invalidate my point. If people don't like something that a company, or person in charge of a company is doing- regardless of it's moral standpoint, they have every right to not support said entity anymore. That is not radical activism. That's exercising my rights as a goddman consumer.

I'm not egging them, I'm not sending them death threats, I'm not blackmailing them. I am simply choosing not to use the product anymore.

If me choosing not to use the product anymore results in said person stepping down, then don't come and fucking blame me for it. Talk to the company who made the man step down. I simply utilized my rights to not use the product. They utilized their rights to fire him.

If this is what constitutes as "radical activism" then I don't think you guys have ever actually seen radical activism in action.

 

[Tellis Argonis]

Google. And. Microsoft. Are. Worse. Than. Mozilla.

Internet Explorer and Chrome are worse than Firefox.

Firefox does not hate gay people, love gay people, or have literally any stance on gay people. It is a computer program and is exactly as happy to show you gay pornography as to take you to any other website.

The fact that an important guy at Mozilla donated a whole $1000 to a shitty cause six years ago changes none of those previously-mentioned facts. Keep using Firefox. If you're using Chrome or Internet Explorer, consider switching to Firefox because it's a better browser made by a better company, regardless of the CEO's personal politics.

Eh, I use Chrome mainly because there isn't a huge amount of clutter or ADDONS DO YOU NEED ADDONS I THINK YOU NEED ADDONS!!!1! ADDDONS! and the ones that you do end up getting you can just say 'oi I don't want those get those out of here'

'kay'

and yeh got em gone. Really the only plugin you need with Chrome is adblocker. and that plugin from bazaar.tf that gives you notifications on your desktop about trades and stuff.

 

[Dragonbums]

Are you hens done clucking about?

If you really have nothing to contribute to our discussion and just wanted to add a snarky comment then I implore you to please not reply. Your statement was highly dismissive, and rude. Especially considering how we weren't even addressing you.

 

[ninetails593]

So a man who happens to be prominent decided to have an opinion that's different from what we're told to have. He even had the nerve to express that opinion in public.
Therefor we must force him out of his job and slander his name, so as to stop his terrible reign of oppression and hatred.

 

[Chris Moses]

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.

Hi, as a member of the LGBT community I'd like to say that the boycott was unnecessary and Mr. Eich should be able to keep his job, until such time as he proves himself unworthy, if he does at all.

I am sure there are others that think like me.

Would you PLEASE not fuck up our civil rights movement out of petty spite? For one thing you are characterizing the whole by a vocal minority. It doesn't sound like you are invested in marriage equality so why not just stay out of it?

I'd try to sway your opinion of LGBT people but I don't know if I could ever trust someone so fickle and easily swayed by vocal minorities...

 

[Brotha Desmond]

While I don't agree with his politics, I don't think he should have lost his job. At the same time people can't cover all of their actions by simply stating that it's free speech. While you may have free speech you don't have uncontested speech. When you put your money toward something it's in the public arena, so your actions will be scrutinized.

 

[dystopiaINC]

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.

Hi, as a member of the LGBT community I'd like to say that the boycott was unnecessary and Mr. Eich should be able to keep his job, until such time as he proves himself unworthy, if he does at all.

I am sure there are others that think like me.

Would you PLEASE not fuck up our civil rights movement out of petty spite? For one thing you are characterizing the whole by a vocal minority. It doesn't sound like you are invested in marriage equality so why not just stay out of it?

I'd try to sway your opinion of LGBT people but I don't know if I could ever trust someone so fickle and easily swayed by vocal minorities...

This has nothing to do with you, or LGBT really. But can I find SOMEBODY who will admit that vocal minorities are the fucking problem and own up to that? every community can't just own up this shit. The vocal minority of any community may not represent that community as a whole, so tell that vocal minority to shut the hell up and that their over the top crap is the problem. Can we please own own up and admit that yes we have this vocal minority that does not represent US and it on US to speak out about the true majority. I'm so sick of these kind of debates where people dismiss the problem as "Oh that's just the vocal minority! Not all Gamers/LGBT/Feminists/Muslims/Christians/Atheists/Democrats/Republicans/whatever are like that, so this isn't a problem because most people aren't like this" what ever community we belong to are represented by the people who speak out the loudest in that community and it's our responsibility to make sure that we own up to this. Yes these assholes are part of our groups but they don't speak for us. if we don't make that clear this stuff will keep happening and it frustrates me to no end.

 

[Frankster]

snip

Except at best it's one of the parents who pass on their genes, if at all depending on the case, so that argument kinda falls flat.

 

[CloudAtlas]

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.)

I'm afraid the irony will generally be lost to those who it would benefit the most to notice it.

Good to know though voting with your wallet is at the same time the only thing that helps in one case (as in buying games with certain content), totally inconsequential and not hurting anyone, or at least no big deal(as in spending money to support discrimination), and evil bullying (as in no using Firefox) at the same time.

And about the poor innocent people who might have lost their jobs due to a boycott: Every product you do not buy from one company you buy from another. One man's lost job is another one's new one. This is really one of the stupidest arguments.

 

[wolfyrik]

But it includes inside its name a very real medical condition - and the very obvious and transparent goal of using a medical term in it, is to subtly slant and offend someone as sick in the head.

Opposing same-sex "marriage" is not a phobia - it is a healthy, rational reaction at the evidence that's been provided, and any sane liberal can agree with it.

Exactly what evidence has been provided? So far you've just given a bunch of fallacious excuses about money and why you should be able to marry your son. You haven't actually explained how incest is the same as homosexuality or is even relevent to the discussion. You've given no evidence at all, which is understandable because there is no evidence.

So now you "chose to be romantically involved"? So you're saying romantic love is a choice, rather than an emotional response? You still haven't answered the question of familial love being different than romantic love. Are they the same?

I can choose whether or not to follow on my emotion; I am a rational being, I evaluate my choice at the light of reason being aware of why my body sends me signals the way it does.
I did answer, and I said that they are different - but not different enough that either of them deserves special protection from a State.

you ignore the fact that incest is illegal,

Legalistic argument. It's illegal for practical reason, that don't apply if both people committing it are of the same sex.

Again you make the same falalcious argument omitting legal reasons such as abuse, coersion and consent. It is not simply a matter of potential offspring. Incest cannot be allowed because of the inherent dangers of abuse. As for romantic love and familial love being different, what does your response even mean? Not different enough to "deserve special protection"? Are you saying that you love your sexual partner in almost the same way you love your children? And you don't see a problem with that?

You say that you can choose whether to act on emotions. So what? What does that have to do with romantic involvement. You can choose whether or not to act, but you don't choose whether or not you have the feelings in the fist place. This wasn't even what I was askign you. You claimed that you can choose to be romantically involved with your son, I chllanged you on that. You still haven't answered that challenge. Pointing out that you can choose to ignore emotional responses is totally different.

And what does any of that even have to do with gay marriage? You still haven't explained. Incest law prevents you from marrying your son, it is there to protect children and siblings from abuse and cannot be undone. Same sex marriage allows gay partners to marry, these are two completely different things.

Are you suggesting that straight couples, who haven't had children together, but have children from other relationshuips, shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Depends on what marriage is about. Of course they can live together and love each other, but if you had read my other posts you would see that my emphasis lies in the what they get from the government for being togethers vs what the government get from their union. So yes, the answer is, "depends".

So I can look forward to seeing you protest against heterosexual marriages which don't involve children in the near future, yes? You'll be able to direct me to your website or campaign against childless marriages, right?

I'm guessing no. Be honest, eh? The fact is that this is just another flimsy excuse that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

As for residency permits, why shouldn't people who love each other have the right to be together?

Because that, depending on how this permission is granted, may or may not lead to explotation of immigration. Son, we live in a world that has walls...

Calling me 'son', as if you are either older or somehow an authority over me, that's hilarious. As for your claim, it's nothing more than slippery slope fallacy. Allowing people to get visas for marriage already exists, it is not the end of the world, the end of borders or a floodgate. The same rules would apply as they do now, because present rules don't require potential for children. Again you haven't provided evidence, just paranoia and bad excuses.

You either support equality or do not support it. Anyone who does not support equality being granted to an institutionally repressed minority is an accesory to their societal suppression. So yes, you are either with them or against them.

Except that opposing homosexual marriage has nothing to do with denying them equality of oppressing them - thus the allegation that he violated Mozilla's mission statement is pathetic. On the other hand, it's Mozilla that choose to be irrationally un-inclusive.

Yes, yes it does have to do with oppression and denial of equality. If homosexuals are denied rights given to heterosexuals, that is denial of rights. The fact is that there is no good reason to deny homesexuals access to marriage. And yes, funding a campain to actively deny rights to innocent people DOES fly in the face of Mozilla's ethics, their "mission statement". I don't necessarily agree with this man needing to resign over it, but he clearly did act to suppress rights of a minority for no good reason.
As for "un-inclusive" we're not talking about a man leaving because of his personal opinion, this is a fallacious claim at best, we're talking about a man leaving because he funded a campaign to suppress rights. There's a massive difference.

By the way, living in London as you do I'm sure you've noticed that the first gay marriages have already occurred. Despite the fact that you don't like it, homosexuals in England have equality in marriage. Let's see if any of your claims come to pass, eh? It's been a week now, and so far, nothing.

 

[wolfyrik]

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?

Reverse the positions so that it's about support for gay marriage.

Without a doubt, the entire Internet would still be on fire. The man would get his job back, the company would be boycotted if not sued into dust. OKC would also get a boycott and become a public disgrace. He would be held up as a hero.

It's frustrating to support a noble goal and have to disapprove of so many extremist methods, a lot of which don't achieve any results. Seems today everyone believes the ends justify the means. Radical activism is a poor means to an end.

Yeaj boycotting a product and "voting with wallet" is just so radical!
It's like those vicious lefties, Ghandi and Martin Luther King. imagine the horriffic things they did, like public rallies and peaceful protest!! The horror! The unmitigated terror! Bloody hypocrites, trying to get equal rights for everyone, suppressing your hard-earned right to discriminate against people who are different!

Just how evil can these minorities be, right?!

[/sarcasm]

Paying to support a campain to deny innocent people rights for no good reason vs standing up for those people's rights.

These are not equivelent things.

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm afraid the irony will generally be lost to those who it would benefit the most to notice it.

Good to know though voting with your wallet is at the same time the only thing that helps in one case (as in buying games with certain content), totally inconsequential and not hurting anyone, or at least no big deal(as in spending money to support discrimination), and evil bullying (as in no using Firefox) at the same time.

And about the poor innocent people who might have lost their jobs due to a boycott: Every product you do not buy from one company you buy from another. One man's lost job is another one's new one. This is really one of the stupidest arguments.

That seems to happen a lot more often than not here on the Escapist it seems.

It simply amazes me that half the people here who are outraged at people...not using Firefox in light of this information aren't even aware themselves that they were for the latter action when it comes to representation in videogames. Some of them even go out of their way to defend the sort of capitalism they are calling "radical activism" on their part.

I've long since gotten used to the hypocrisy. Maybe I should book mark this thread so it can be used as a rebuttal in the future.

 

[Something Amyss]

"every serial killer recorded serial killer ate bread at some point in their lives, ban bread!!"

You know what else they consumed? Water. Clearly, water makes serial killers.

Uh oh, I use firefox so now I'm anti gay. I'm starting to find the supporters of LGBT thing just as pigheaded and prejudiced as the people against it.

Who exactly said you were anti-gay for using Firefox? It doesn't sound like they're the intolerant ones here.

Meh, Chrome's CEO could be a secret nazi for all we know.

What difference does that make?

 

[AWAR]

What difference does that make?

It doesn't, that's why I brought it up.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Legalistic argument. It's illegal for practical reason, that don't apply if both people committing it are of the same sex.

Again you make the same falalcious argument omitting legal reasons such as abuse, coersion and consent. It is not simply a matter of potential offspring. Incest cannot be allowed because of the inherent dangers of abuse. As for romantic love and familial love being different, what does your response even mean? Not different enough to "deserve special protection"? Are you saying that you love your sexual partner in almost the same way you love your children? And you don't see a problem with that?

I don't get it - of course there are many types of love, are you saying that a specific form of love should be the requirement for marriage? If so, for which reason?
If there is no requirement for marriage and marriage grants rights, there is no point to exclude relatives from it if they are of the same sex.

So I can look forward to seeing you protest against heterosexual marriages which don't involve children in the near future, yes? You'll be able to direct me to your website or campaign against childless marriages, right?

I'm guessing no. Be honest, eh? The fact is that this is just another flimsy excuse that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I know it sounds radical, but my answer is that those economic benefits should only be provided with a sound, rational reason and not just "because they are in love".

I frankly cannot think of a better reason for which an Egalitarian State should give preferential treatment to some citizens, other than having children; someone in the other thread said "because they create social bonds", but it seems a rather unbalanced view to me.
Marriage rights at least in Europe are a substantial upgrade, there has to be a return from them if you want to be fair and equal.

Calling me 'son', as if you are either older or somehow an authority over me, that's hilarious.

It's a quote from A few Good Men [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/].

As for your claim, it's nothing more than slippery slope fallacy. Allowing people to get visas for marriage already exists, it is not the end of the world, the end of borders or a floodgate. The same rules would apply as they do now, because present rules don't require potential for children. Again you haven't provided evidence, just paranoia and bad excuses.

The reason married couples enjoyed their right was because living together is a requirement to have a family. Granting this to people simply for "being in love" would pretty much result in everyone who want it having it.
Gee, I seriously hope you'll never have a position of responsibility in any Interior Ministry...

If homosexuals are denied rights given to heterosexuals, that is denial of rights.

This is such a simplistic way to put things, I'm really at loss for words.

No it's not - the point is that marriage grants preferential treatment. If someone claims that the reason of this preferential treatment should be having children (or trying to) and not just being in love, this is perfectly reasonable, rational and sensible and does not discriminate LGBT people simply because they couldn't get similar rights by being in love - they also can make children like everyone.

Hence, Brendan Eich's position is not "anti" gay or in favor of "discrimination", and does not collides in any way with Mozilla's principle of inclusiveness - regardless of what the pink fascists may say.

By the way, living in London as you do I'm sure you've noticed that the first gay marriages have already occurred. Despite the fact that you don't like it, homosexuals in England have equality in marriage. Let's see if any of your claims come to pass, eh? It's been a week now, and so far, nothing.

Your definition of "equality" is arbitrary and fallacious. If so many people are unable to think outside the box like you, it's no wonder such an irrational law has come to pass.

 

[AgedGrunt]

If people don't like something that a company, or person in charge of a company is doing- regardless of it's moral standpoint, they have every right to not support said entity anymore. That is not radical activism. That's exercising my rights as a goddman consumer. -- If me choosing not to use the product anymore results in said person stepping down, then don't come and fucking blame me for it. Talk to the company who made the man step down.

No one said anything about violating rights; this is a moral/ethical issue. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

You're behind consumer rights in spite of facts. And while a boycott is technically a personal choice, this propaganda was undeniably going to be about more than that. Anyone could have predicted the explosiveness due to the sensitivity of the issue. What OKC did was cheap, undeserved and was going to do irreparable damage, and for one private political donation to cause this, that's bull crap.

And don't put this on the company like they were in the driver's seat. Action was taken to preserve Mozilla's name/integrity. His resignation was an act of sacrifice out of the necessity of damage control.

Paying to support a campain to deny innocent people rights for no good reason vs standing up for those people's rights.

Marriage isn't a US right, it's a civil issue being hammered out.

Speaking of which, how many of you are even involved with your government to make change happen? For example, you can donate money to political groups that represent you, your ideas and work to change laws.

That's exactly what Mozilla guy did, but he paid a price for it, probably from a lot of people so uninvolved they may not even take the time to vote in primaries and elections. The bottom line is, despite what idealists would have us believe, the issue of gay marriage isn't settled, so what we need are more people to get involved. That's where this becomes a problem because now a clear message has been sent that, if you don't support the right ideas you can become a target.

This from a nation so ruffled by invasions of privacy. They seem to love it when it's their turn to pounce and expose dissenters to their brand of mob justice.

 

[wolfyrik]

I don't get it - of course there are many types of love, are you saying that a specific form of love should be the requirement for marriage? If so, for which reason?
If there is no requirement for marriage and marriage grants rights, there is no point to exclude relatives from it if they are of the same sex.

Except for the points you keep avoiding; incest, control, abuse. Why are you so determined to ignore other factors, especially ones which are so vital?

I know it sounds radical, but my answer is that those economic benefits should only be provided with a sound, rational reason and not just "because they are in love".

I frankly cannot think of a better reason for which an Egalitarian State should give preferential treatment to some citizens, other than having children; someone in the other thread said "because they create social bonds", but it seems a rather unbalanced view to me.
Marriage rights at least in Europe are a substantial upgrade, there has to be a return from them if you want to be fair and equal.

So in other words I was right, you're not going to be campaining any time soon to take rights away from heterosexual marriages which don't involve raising children. ie, you're just making bad excuses in order to justify descrimination against homosexuals.

As for your claim, it's nothing more than slippery slope fallacy. Allowing people to get visas for marriage already exists, it is not the end of the world, the end of borders or a floodgate. The same rules would apply as they do now, because present rules don't require potential for children. Again you haven't provided evidence, just paranoia and bad excuses.

The reason married couples enjoyed their right was because living together is a requirement to have a family. Granting this to people simply for "being in love" would pretty much result in everyone who want it having it.
Gee, I seriously hope you'll never have a position of responsibility in any Interior Ministry...

Which isn't true and has been pointed out several times already. People can have children outside of marriage and they do. Homosexuals can raise children and they do. You keep repeating the same bogus argument. Homosexuals can and do adopt children, they can and do have children through artifical means and they can and do raise children from previous relationships.

If homosexuals are denied rights given to heterosexuals, that is denial of rights.

This is such a simplistic way to put things, I'm really at loss for words.

No it's not - the point is that marriage grants preferential treatment. If someone claims that the reason of this preferential treatment should be having children (or trying to) and not just being in love, this is perfectly reasonable, rational and sensible and does not discriminate LGBT people simply because they couldn't get similar rights by being in love - they also can make children like everyone.

Hence, Brendan Eich's position is not "anti" gay or in favor of "discrimination", and does not collides in any way with Mozilla's principle of inclusiveness - regardless of what the pink fascists may say.

Ah so because LGBT want equal rights they are now "pink fascists"? Good to know. I take it you don't like women, black people or Indians, either then? These are all groups who have fought for equality after all, by your reasoning, that makes them fascits, no? And yes it is "anti-gay". Gays CAN raise families, as has already been pointed out to you, many times across many posts. Adoption, Artificial insemmination etc, previous relationships. They can and do raise families. This is the purpose homosexuality serves in nature. Denying the same rights that other people enjoy IS denial of rights. It IS descrimination.

By the way, living in London as you do I'm sure you've noticed that the first gay marriages have already occurred. Despite the fact that you don't like it, homosexuals in England have equality in marriage. Let's see if any of your claims come to pass, eh? It's been a week now, and so far, nothing.

Your definition of "equality" is arbitrary and fallacious. If so many people are unable to think outside the box like you, it's no wonder such an irrational law has come to pass.

Fallacious? In what way is it fallacious? You haven't given a good reason for denying rights to homosexuals, that has not been countered as false. Equality means having access to the same rights, responsibilities and status, without descrimination. What definition of 'equality' are you using?

As for irrational? Please explain how it's "irrational" to grant equal rights to innocent people? It's irrational to deny rights without good reason and so far neither you nor any other person who's spoken out against gay marriage, has presented any reason or evidence that holds up to any scrutiny. At all.

 

[wolfyrik]

If people don't like something that a company, or person in charge of a company is doing- regardless of it's moral standpoint, they have every right to not support said entity anymore. That is not radical activism. That's exercising my rights as a goddman consumer. -- If me choosing not to use the product anymore results in said person stepping down, then don't come and fucking blame me for it. Talk to the company who made the man step down.

No one said anything about violating rights; this is a moral/ethical issue. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

You haven't provided any reason why allowing gay marriage should be immoral. Fear of gods and other woo, is not evidence, nor are fallacious arguments based on slippery slopes. Until you can prove that gods do exist, prove that they do find homosexuality immoral and prove that those gods have good reason to do so, there's literally no good reason in denying same sex marriage through religous gorunds. And since there's no evidence to support other claims made so far against denying rights to homosexuals, no demonstration whatsoever of harm on any level, the only reasonable response is that this form of discrimination is itself immoral.

You're behind consumer rights in spite of facts. And while a boycott is technically a personal choice, this propaganda was undeniably going to be about more than that. Anyone could have predicted the explosiveness due to the sensitivity of the issue. What OKC did was cheap, undeserved and was going to do irreparable damage, and for one private political donation to cause this, that's bull crap.

Which is OKCupids fault, not the LGBT community, frankly, if you don't like it, boycott OKCupid.

And don't put this on the company like they were in the driver's seat. Action was taken to preserve Mozilla's name/integrity. His resignation was an act of sacrifice out of the necessity of damage control.

Which was their choice. They could have stood up for Eich, they could have given a statement that his views will not affect the company. Hell, he could have given a statement to that effect. They took the easy route. Frankly, if you don't like it, boycott mozilla. Make a stand of your own.

Marriage isn't a US right, it's a civil issue being hammered out.

Which is relevent how? Civil rights still apply and this proves my point even further. Civil laws by definition are seperate from criminal, military and RELIGIOUS rules. They are secular laws governing rights and responsibilites of members of a community. This case is about someone paying to support a campaign to deny CIVIL rights to a group based on poor reasoning which is either;
religious and therefor irrelevent to a civil case
Fallacious and therefor irrelevent
Based on fear and ignorance and therfor irrelevent
descriminatory due to a combination of the above factors.

This IS a case of one man paying to support a campain to deny innocent people rights for no good reason vs standing up for those people's rights.

Speaking of which, how many of you are even involved with your government to make change happen? For example, you can donate money to political groups that represent you, your ideas and work to change laws.

Who are you asking here? Seriously I've not idea who "you" in your question refers to and in what capacity.

That's exactly what Mozilla guy did, but he paid a price for it, probably from a lot of people so uninvolved they may not even take the time to vote in primaries and elections. The bottom line is, despite what idealists would have us believe, the issue of gay marriage isn't settled, so what we need are more people to get involved. That's where this becomes a problem because now a clear message has been sent that, if you don't support the right ideas you can become a target.

This from a nation so ruffled by invasions of privacy. They seem to love it when it's their turn to pounce and expose dissenters to their brand of mob justice.

That's false equation again. He didn't just pay to support a political movement, he paid to support a political movement to deny a minority people access to rights, which are ejoyed by others, for no good reason. Activists typically change laws for the purpose of making them fair, not to increase descrimination against innocent people who happen to be a minority.

As for "right ideas" you're arguing for people's right to discriminate against other people because they aren't born the same as them. People like Eich are sending the message "if you aren't the same as us, you don't deserve the rights we have".
You're not arguing for the right to have different ideas, you're arguing for the right of people to descriminate against other people. These are two massively different things. People like eich are still allowed to be homophobic, just so long as they do it behind closed doors and don't hurt anyone. Denying innocent people access to rights IS hurting people and he paid to further that goal. If he hadn't he would have just been a jerk in a his own time and this wouldn't have happened.

Eich only has himself to blame. Don't get me wrong, I think OKCupid are asshats who did this for profit, but Eich is an asshat who did it for the sake of supporting descrimination.