OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[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

 

[Lono Shrugged]

At least OKcupid got some free publicity and is shown to be a dating site tolerant of homosexuals. There is nothing like an unproportional response to an issue to get a boost of free marketing and goodwill from a tech savvy and social media concious demographic. Nowhere here does it say that a LGBT rights group is involved. This is a private corporation leveraging a non issue to make themselves look good. I doubt gay people are happy with being used in this way to push a cynical corporate agenda. I know plenty of homosexuals who would not care about the ceo of firefox having a (pretty moderate from the sounds of it) anti gay stance, and judging by the response of a lot of people here. I have never seen or heard of Firefox implementing any anti gay agenda and if it did, I doubt it would get far. Few think its a big enough issue to stop using the service. And if you are offended, that's cool. Free market, you can buy any product you want.

I am more pissed at the transparancy of OK Cupid. they can fuck right off with this cheap marketing stunt. Nothing like homosexual rights to fire up discussion and ignite the flame wars. (9 pages and counting)

How many of you went to okcupid to see the message? How many will choose them over other sites in the future based off of this "positive" story?

 

[Whytewulf]

So it is kind of funny though, how people want this guy removed. OKCupid may not have stated it outright, but the other two links from a developer and an employee said they wanted him to resign. He seems to be saying the right things and if all they are using is a donation made 6 years ago, it's flimsy. And a marketing ploy. If anything, it made me not want to ever go to OKCupid. It's not like this guy was hired outside the company, he was the CTO and if I understand it, helped make the company what it is today. Switch browsers if it makes you feel better, but if this isn't a mountain out of a molehill, I don't know what is.

I also get annoyed when people pull in "facts" to prove their agenda. I know it's a gaming website and not an English paper, so citations are not needed. But everything turns into HATE, when you are against something. Whether it's Mozilla, Chick-fil-a, Hobby Lobby. Vote with your dollar, feel free to share news when its relevant. But don't exaggerate it, it should carry it's own weight with the truth.

Lastly, why do people really want to get married anyway.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

Lastly, why do people really want to get married anyway.

I do have to agree with this one.

I've always found it kind of hollow that someone needs a sheet of paper to show exactly how much they love someone. Especially when they rush into a marriage just because "that's what you do".

Eh, I'd rather just have a girlfriend that I live with. It's the same damn thing.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Okcupid is punishing a company for the mere act of hiring a person with differing personal views.

No, they are not. They are asking people if they will use another browser to access their site.

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.

The same basic right that people should use their browser to access okcupid? They weren't even threatening that. You can still use firefox on okcupid. They just asked that you not.

Nobody has a right not to have people say "please not use this browser to access our site".

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.

Which is not remotely what is happening.

If nothing else, the license's name should be changed to make it less controversial.

Going a bit off-topic, that is only less controversial because it doesn't upset people who don't want gay people to have the same rights as them. Separate but equal is not a good thing.

The LGBT crowd are very fond of their shaming even in my country, I think they should tread carefully, because they are bordering on behaving like those they purport to hate. You can't force your beliefs down others throats and I think OKcupid made an extremely unprofessional move here.

Supporting legislation to deny people their rights is not remotely the same as asking people to use another browser when accessing their site because of it.

 

[Roxas1359]

I do have to agree with this one.

I've always found it kind of hollow that someone needs a sheet of paper to show exactly how much they love someone. Especially when they rush into a marriage just because "that's what you do".

Eh, I'd rather just have a girlfriend that I live with. It's the same damn thing.

There are actual tax benefits, insurance benefits, homeowner benefits, job benefits, etc for being legally declared as married or in a Civil Union actually. Civil Unions don't always get those same benefits, heck sometimes they don't even get them at all, and it varies from state to state and whether that state recognizes Civil Unions or not.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

I do have to agree with this one.

I've always found it kind of hollow that someone needs a sheet of paper to show exactly how much they love someone. Especially when they rush into a marriage just because "that's what you do".

Eh, I'd rather just have a girlfriend that I live with. It's the same damn thing.

There are actual tax benefits, insurance benefits, homeowner benefits, job benefits, etc for being legally declared as married or in a Civil Union actually. Civil Unions don't always get those same benefits, heck sometimes they don't even get them at all, and it varies from state to state and whether that state recognizes Civil Unions or not.

Hmm, well that sucks. But regardless, I see that as an issue building off of marriage. Why not just give those ^ to people in relationships, even if they are not married?

 

[Roxas1359]

Hmm, well that sucks. But regardless, I see that as an issue building off of marriage. Why not just give those ^ to people in relationships, even if they are not married?

There are quite a few states that won't recognize Civil Unions at all. Some do now, but for the longest time they didn't for various reasons, mostly because that's what homosexual couples have to file for in some states because they can't use the word married. There are states that won't recognize it because of the fact that homosexual couples are in Civil Unions. Really I just wanted to chime in with the fact that there are tax breaks and other things you get for actually being declared married.

As for why they don't just give them to people in relationships, it's because relationships, in this case boyfriends/girlfriends, don't always last and are so fickle it would be confusing as how to file. Plus there would be people filing that they are in relationships when they might not be so as to get a tax break. Thing is, you get a marriage license and a Civil Union license from the state, so it's on record that you are with someone. Meanwhile with relationships, best thing people could go by would be the equivalent of a Facebook status. XD

 

[mrdude2010]

Firefox is now the number one browser of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.

 

[mrdude2010]

...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.

I personally don't particularly care about the CEO's personal beliefs, he doesn't represent the entire company. He shouldn't be forced to resigned for being behind the times or anything like that.

Moving on from this particular topic and speaking more generally, it's about basic rights. Not supporting basic rights for a group of people is a perfectly good reason for someone to not like you or be against you. It's not "if you don't like Coke like I do then you suck," it's "if you're content to stand by and watch me be oppressed, then fuck you."

 

[emeraldrafael]

This is mostly a non issue for me because I can't be asked to change now and I just don't really see the point (since this guy isn't acting in Firefox's name when he does whatever bigoted stuff he does), but I don't realy see where OKCupid gets off saying to switch browsers just because of one man. Thsi guy's not the owner, he doesnt have majority say in what the business does (at least i hope not or firefox really needs to examine their boardroom chain of command) and he doesn't speak for them. I'm all for equality but lets actually do something meaningful that won't hurt thousands of others just for the action of one man.