People don't care since they are interested in the product and not the guy's views. Seriously LGBT community is becoming more obnoxious keep this up and many people who support you will simply stop giving a damn.
OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Umm, sooo? Dudes, it's just a browser. Telling people not to use it because of one guy's views is like telling people not to wear underwear because its initial creator was racist. It's just petty and unnecessary, especially since it's just a browser.
But why should i care if 1 person out of - how many work at mozilla? - many people has an immoral opinion?
Do i have to boycott EVERY company where at least 1 person has anti-whatever views?
So basically i'm screwed and can't shop ANYwhere because it could be that i'd support someone who holds such views.
Sorry, that line of thinking is just not applicable in real life. And whatever this guy does in his personal life has nothing to do with Mozilla as a company.
Do i have to boycott EVERY company where at least 1 person has anti-whatever views?
So basically i'm screwed and can't shop ANYwhere because it could be that i'd support someone who holds such views.
Sorry, that line of thinking is just not applicable in real life. And whatever this guy does in his personal life has nothing to do with Mozilla as a company.
What a load of bull.
OkCupid is the intolerant one here, pushing the false mantra of "equality" and accusing someone of "DENY love and instead enforce MISERY, SHAME and frustration are our ENEMIES..." simply for being reasonable about marriage. Assholes.
Opposing the irrational nonsense of same-sex "marriage" is not against yours, or anyone else's, human rights: get over it.
But that of course doesn't stop ACTUAL intolerant bigots from accusing those that disagree with them of a MENTAL ILLNESS for standing their ground in support of sanity.
Bah!
OkCupid is the intolerant one here, pushing the false mantra of "equality" and accusing someone of "DENY love and instead enforce MISERY, SHAME and frustration are our ENEMIES..." simply for being reasonable about marriage. Assholes.
Opposing the irrational nonsense of same-sex "marriage" is not against yours, or anyone else's, human rights: get over it.
But that of course doesn't stop ACTUAL intolerant bigots from accusing those that disagree with them of a MENTAL ILLNESS for standing their ground in support of sanity.
Bah!
[citations desperately needed]Kliever said:
And by "citations" I mean "credible news sites".
HEY! I SAID CREDIBLE!
NO, someone is NOT despicable because he holds views different from yours - and pushing to retain marriage as something which is inherently related to procreation does NOT hurt innocent people.joshuaayt said:
This specific opinion of yours is indefensible, not otherwise - Mozilla's CEO should be proud of his support for Prop8.
Hell no! I'm sticking with Firefox until I die. It's stuff like this that make people not take boycotting seriously.
james.sponge said:
BigTuk said:
Wait, so because a single company with a vested issue has suggested soemthing you disagree with, the LGBT community are at fault?DoctorM said:
Is OKDating owned by everysingle person who is LGBT? You're putting the blame in entirely the wrong place, most likely because of your own prejudice.
Yeah, I don't give a fuck about LGBT. In so saying, I state that I am of an indifferent opinion until shit like this gets thrown out. I DO NOT care about them one way or another.. but its the fact that they think they NEED me to care that pisses me off.
OT: Who cares what one guy thinks? He's allowed to stand on whatever side of the fence he wants and is neither good nor evil for his views, regardless of whatever liberal self-righteousness any of his opponents may have. And as a guy already said: the CEO's opinion doesn't turn your computer into a homosexual hate machine.
OT: Who cares what one guy thinks? He's allowed to stand on whatever side of the fence he wants and is neither good nor evil for his views, regardless of whatever liberal self-righteousness any of his opponents may have. And as a guy already said: the CEO's opinion doesn't turn your computer into a homosexual hate machine.
Did the COMPANY issue anti-gay actions or speeches? No.
Did the CEO use his position to spread his anti-gay views? No.
Are the company supporting the CEO's actions? No.
Are this specific group of LGBT members blaming the COMPANY for the actions of an INDIVIDUAL? Yes.
Is this going to get someone fired because neither side wants to have a reasonable debate? Probably.
Should someone be fired for personal beliefs? Hell no!
Is this going to strengthen anti-gay views by making the entire group look like petty professional complainers? Quite likely.
Is this all just a publicity stunt for another company that probably doesn't care about anything but the bottom line and is clearly going to gain from the stunt? Definitely.
Did the CEO use his position to spread his anti-gay views? No.
Are the company supporting the CEO's actions? No.
Are this specific group of LGBT members blaming the COMPANY for the actions of an INDIVIDUAL? Yes.
Is this going to get someone fired because neither side wants to have a reasonable debate? Probably.
Should someone be fired for personal beliefs? Hell no!
Is this going to strengthen anti-gay views by making the entire group look like petty professional complainers? Quite likely.
Is this all just a publicity stunt for another company that probably doesn't care about anything but the bottom line and is clearly going to gain from the stunt? Definitely.
Believe it or not things like this is what usually people will remember, sure the site decided to act on behalf of a certain group of people and they do not represent but bystanders do not care about that. It would sensible and rational for LGBT community - and not the whole community a spokesperson perhaps? - to simply remind them not to dabble in activism in such intrusive way because it does not help anyone.wolfyrik said:
I have mostly liberal views and I think everyone should be able to live as they see fit. I have to wonder though why it's so important for homosexuals to marry. Historically, marriage is this religious-cultural thing in which man and woman make a bond for life. As far as I know both the religious and the cultural background reject homosexuality, so why would you want to be a part of that ritual, as a homosexual? Isn't this like an atheist demanding to be allowed to enter a church to meditate?
I suppose there are also real material benefits involved in being married, such as lower tax rate and whatnot. This is why people should be allowed to engage in a marriage-like partnership and receive the same benefits. Just don't call it marriage and keep religion out of it, and maybe this way both sides can be happy.
I suppose there are also real material benefits involved in being married, such as lower tax rate and whatnot. This is why people should be allowed to engage in a marriage-like partnership and receive the same benefits. Just don't call it marriage and keep religion out of it, and maybe this way both sides can be happy.
Close enough, but you are right - the real heart of the questions is devising a truly egalitarian way for rights such as tax breaks.Tiamat666 said:
Certainly, just because someone love someone and that person returns the feeling, he/she shouldn't be entitled to any taxpayers' dough. Because if that was the case, then yeah, I would totally marry my son just to relieve him of any heritage shenanigans.
Otherwise, you would grant additional rights to two citizens simply (I guess) out of their mutual affection, but you are denying the same rights to more than two people in the same situation. Or to blood relatives.
I've said that before, but if two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry. No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love.
I've often advocated separation of work and personal life, and this issue is no different. He can think whatever he wants, none of his views have affected my browser experience. But at the same time, if a site wants to protest that, fair enough, it's their prerogative and good on them for trying to do something. I just think people should be allowed to support whatever causes they like without that being a barrier to their career.
just because some people don't support the LGBT group with every little thing that upsets them doesn't mean you don't care.Queen Michael said:
it's things like this that make me feel like if you don't support one side then you must support the other.
Anyone else spotting the hypocrisy here with the Hobby Craft issue? Hobby Craft are in court wrongfully stating that companies can have religious views, those of the owners, and are trying to stop their employees from obtaining things like birth control via healthcare or pension rights for same-sex partners.
Now they correctly say this is wrong, and yet with the same breath say that a company (Mozilla) DOES have the same religious view as it's CEO. Am I missing something here?
Now they correctly say this is wrong, and yet with the same breath say that a company (Mozilla) DOES have the same religious view as it's CEO. Am I missing something here?
So the entirity of the LGBT community have a responsibility to police any and all websites that may affect them, just to make sure that YOU don't blame them as a whole for the actions of a third party?james.sponge said:
And you think that the entire LGBT community should have a spokesperson?
Does the entire Heterosexual community have a spokesperson? Who is this person? I'd like to meet them, afterall if they represent me, I want to make sure that they're suitable.
I'm astounded and baffled at the possible reasoning you must have used to come to the conclusion that a single person could represent every gay man, woman, bisexual and transgender person that lives, today.
You took it on yourself to misunderstand or mistate what was happening here. You took it on yourself to blame every LBGT person on the planet for this proposed boycott, you and the others I quoted would have done that regardless of the frankly ludicrous idea that a "spokesperson" say something about it.
Do women have to have a spokesperson to make sure they're not discriminated against when Anita Sarkeesian makes another asinine video?
No, the LGBT community doesn't owe you or anyone else an explanation for why YOU decided to lay blame at the wrong feet. That's entirely your fault and they absolutely do not need to elect a spokesperson to speak out against things you disagree with, just so you don't have a go at them instead of the real protagonist. Maybe you should try judging a situation with reason, instead of just having a go at who you immediately WANT to blame.