OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[Chris Moses]

Why cant people boycott things for whatever reason they want?

Meanwhile, you boycott or don't boycott things for whatever reason you want.

Am I missing something here?

If you get upset that someone is calling for a boycott then DEMAND that people don't boycott something, aren't you doing the same thing, i.e., ordering people to do something they'd rather not do?

 

[thom_cat_]

Edit: For the record, why is it again that the GLBT community ever had a right to the word marriage again? Considering it was defined as between a man and a woman. I'm not saying I didn't vote for it's approval in my state, in fact I did vote for it.

But why is it again that they were entitled to have the right of that specific word, as opposed to the rights of the associated word on a document?

Last I checked I'm still not entitled to use the N word around anyone freely without feeling, quite literally threatened. Though people of specific color seem to have plenty of freedom over that word.

So what made this "word" as opposed to the right associated with that word, the right to be had by them as well?

All bearing in mind I voted for them to have that right anyway.

You do know that scripture also defines terms on slave ownership - how to beat your "property", it defines how to treat your wife and how to deal with women who are raped, it's fucking horrible, and any "definition" you might feel like you have gathered from it that hasn't been firmly thrust into the light for being full of inequality, or hatred -or whatever else- NEEDS to be fixed.
Just because something might define something else to exclude others doesn't mean that that something is to be regarded as truth. Is marriage about a man and a woman? NO. Marriage is about joining two people. Whether they're a man or a woman or anything in between then they are entitled to it. There are reasons that equal rights movements exist and it's in part to abolish any bullshit "definition" idiots have clung to because they feel it their right to "protect" something that others have a stake in too.

Personally I'm not one for marriage, but it's obviously not solely to do with a man and a woman, that's not marriage, that's bigotry.

 

[Chris Moses]

Thanks for proving you're no less evil then anyone else.

Edit: For the record, why is it again that the GLBT community ever had a right to the word marriage again? Considering it was defined as between a man and a woman. I'm not saying I didn't vote for it's approval in my state, in fact I did vote for it.

But why is it again that they were entitled to have the right of that specific word, as opposed to the rights of the associated word on a document?

Last I checked I'm still not entitled to use the N word around anyone freely without feeling, quite literally threatened. Though people of specific color seem to have plenty of freedom over that word.

So what made this "word" as opposed to the right associated with that word, the right to be had by them as well?

All bearing in mind I voted for them to have that right anyway.

Firstly, for the LGBT community to be equal all we have to be is no better or no worse than everyone else. If we were trying to prove that we were better then we would not be striving for equality.

Secondly, when LGBT people started trying to get married in the 1970's is when you saw the scramble to (re)define marriage as between a man and a woman. Initially NO CHANGE was needed in the law(s) to allow gays to marry. This was clearly unacceptable to conservatives and religious fundamentalists so the LAWS WERE CHANGED to prevent them. Now we are fighting to change them back and we are the ones being accused of trying to change things.

It is my belief that the strength and sanctity of marriage lies between the 2 people wishing to exist in a state of marriage. And, that can mean a lot or a little depending on those 2 people (Britney Spears' 48 hour "joke" marriage vs. my grandparents marriage of 60+ years). If the government didn't recognize anyone's marriage that would be one thing, but for it to recognize the marriage of some consenting human adults and not others is clearly discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Thirdly, I appreciate your... conflicted support.

 

[Chris Moses]

And I am telling you that OKcupid is not offering dissenting viewpoints but on a campaign to literally destroy this one persons life. Much as it would suck to not be able for people who are part of the GLBT community to be able to call themselves married, I have my doubts the inability to call themselves married would have any more impact on how happy or not their lives would be or not.

Why do I think this? Got a news flash, people can still have their lives destroyed by friends, family members, and communities, for interracial marriages and marrying into a family with a different religion from yourself.

So no amount of time will pass that there are not GLBT couples who will be able to legally call themselves married, will not risk having their lives be essentially destroyed.

Now what Okcupid is doing to this man, is making him a liability. They are also sending out a warning, and a potentially disastrous thing for the cause of the GLBT community getting support. Is that we will go out of our way to destroy other peoples lives, who disagree with us politically, by turning them into a liability to any place they ever try and go.

This particular individual, who works for Firefox, can Sue OKcupid for attempting to ruin his life, and he can prove the negative impact it has the potential to have on him by making him unhirable for unrelated circumstances to the job he is performing.

Things like this, will make the GLBT community seem toxic to far too many, and get people to stop supporting them period.

You know akin to this new wave feminist movement that is getting people to back away from supporting their causes.

This is toxic for the cause of equality. If you have to destroy a life, not to protect your life, but to try and gain perceived rights, you are not a person who will get far.

This CEO did not destroy lives with his political view, he just jumped into a political shouting match over the definition of a word that people have used to say they are married to buildings.

OKCupid on the other hand is actually trying to destroy this persons life.

If you can't see why this is wrong for the cause of the GLBT movement, then you need to highly re evaluate your views.

Let me first of all say that I think OKCupid and the boycott is a bit of an overreaction. On the other hand, as a consumer rights activist and a believer of at least a semi-free market, I support the right to boycott and call for boycotts for ANY reason. If Brendan Eich wants to sue OKCupid and is awarded damages, good for him. If not, oh well. It is really none of my concern. I don't use Firefox or OKCupid.

It remains to be seen if OKCupid ruins this person's life or if Brendan Eich will implement any anti-gay policies in his company. I believe that boycotting and calling for a boycott is an issue of free speech and I support any variation of that if it falls under what is considered "protected free speech" by the First Amendment. Even when Southern Baptists wanted to boycott Disney for promoting the "gay agenda". I thought it was stupid, and ultimately was a failed boycott but I support their right to boycott and call for the boycott.

 

[thom_cat_]

Edit: For the record, why is it again that the GLBT community ever had a right to the word marriage again? Considering it was defined as between a man and a woman. I'm not saying I didn't vote for it's approval in my state, in fact I did vote for it.

But why is it again that they were entitled to have the right of that specific word, as opposed to the rights of the associated word on a document?

Last I checked I'm still not entitled to use the N word around anyone freely without feeling, quite literally threatened. Though people of specific color seem to have plenty of freedom over that word.

So what made this "word" as opposed to the right associated with that word, the right to be had by them as well?

All bearing in mind I voted for them to have that right anyway.

You do know that scripture also defines terms on slave ownership - how to beat your "property", it defines how to treat your wife and how to deal with women who are raped, it's fucking horrible, and any "definition" you might feel like you have gathered from it that hasn't been firmly thrust into the light for being full of inequality, or hatred -or whatever else- NEEDS to be fixed.
Just because something might define something else to exclude others doesn't mean that that something is to be regarded as truth. Is marriage about a man and a woman? NO. Marriage is about joining two people. Whether they're a man or a woman or anything in between then they are entitled to it. There are reasons that equal rights movements exist and it's in part to abolish any bullshit "definition" idiots have clung to because they feel it their right to "protect" something that others have a stake in too.

Personally I'm not one for marriage, but it's obviously not solely to do with a man and a woman, that's not marriage, that's bigotry.

Again thank you for sub sequentially missing my point entirely.

Why are you entitled to take someone else's word that has a specific meaning for them, and make it your own?

Also, I agree with you, the definition of marriage should be along the lines of two individuals who consent in a joint union.

But I have to ask once again, what makes you entitled to the use of a word, for which you do not fit within it's definition.

Pretty sure I'd find difficulty telling people I'm Black, and getting people agreeing to me being black. Why shouldn't I be entitled to it? Why Can't we just change what it means to be a black man, as someone who identifies themselves as being a part of the black minority community?

What exactly makes me entitled to it. And why is it, that being legally allowed to define yourself as a word, not the legal rights that are generally associated with that word are even necessary.

Why should I be legally allowed to define myself as a space alien? Or a building? Oh better, let me legally define myself as a non profit organization, then I can be exempt from taxes.

While I agree with your definition, I question, and I rather legitimately question, why being able to legally define people who are in GLBT relationships as being in a marriage, is a right that all Americans are entitled to being called when they are in a relationship with another individual.

But then that's all thrown out the window when people go get married to buildings, so what the hell do I know.

Here, since people have gotten married to buildings though. Maybe I should be able to call myself married, while I am single, for the purpose of tax benefits.

Again, I don't disagree with people in the GLBT community being allowed to be called married.

I question whether or not having the ability to define yourself LEGALLY by a specific word, as an innate right to all Americans. Because, and again this is true last I checked, I can not personally just legally define myself as anything I personally want.

Why is being able to define yourself, by a specific word, with potentially specific meaning, a legal right that every American is entitled to? Bear in mind, this was about GLBT community being able to call themselves "Legally" married.

Why can't I for example, define myself as say, Legally... Native American? As in an Actual Native American, not a regular American? I don't fit any of the requirements, or definitions, but why shouldn't the definitions to be able to legally call myself that be changed for me?

The advantages are quit clear. As a Native American I get next to free Medical Health care. I am exempt from several types of taxes, and am able to participate in specific things I would be otherwise unable to attend, where all "true" Native Americans enjoy both those benefits, and the benefits I currently have the ability to enjoy?

So I am going to ask you again, what right is it that the GLBT community had to want to be able to legally define themselves by a word that did not currently fit those definitions, if I can not legally define myself as say a Native American? I was born and raised here in the US, I feel as Native to America as can be, but why do these other Native Americans have rights I personally do not get to enjoy?

Now I'm not questioning whether or not it makes sense, I am asking what right is it they had to have it? If I do not enjoy being able to take on the definition of "Native American" for myself.

I totally addressed everything you said. I did not miss the point.
Native American, Black, whatever words you are trying to use to make your point are not exclusive words, they are in themselves defined by their existence. You are a race/ethnicity, whether it be black or white or whatever.
You are married, or you are not. Then there is the "you can't."
There is no exclusiveness with racial definitions, you are one or the other, or another.
Marriage in (some) of its current forms is exclusive.
Basically your point is a straw man, being Native American and gaining the 'benefits' of that status is (something I know nothing of, being Australian) surely about the past injustices done to them. If that hadn't happened there would be no difference, just as there is none for everyone else.
As I said, the religious actually have no claim to the word marriage, and the definitions that are currently in use in most places of the world are exclusive and anti-equality. Which is why they should be changed. Not because the LGBT community is laying claim to a word.
Your married to buildings claim is both a straw man and a slippery slope argument with fucking obvious flaws, so I'm not going to address that beyond this sentence.

Captcha:

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

That was not what I was referring to. I live in Ireland and recently an LGBT advocate who is semi famous in some circles for being a comedian publicly called 3 different people homophobic and made other comments about them. That was based on his opinion nothing more and he was celebrated for it. I think thats wrong and even if those people are homophobes (we can't know their opinions) thats still slander.

Ah, ok, I misunderstood.

OKCupid on the other hand is actually trying to destroy this persons life.

No, they have asked if people will use another browser to access their site. Nobody's life has been destroyed by less people using a certain browser to access a certain site.

If he didn't want to alienate people who don't like homophobia, he could have tried not being publicly homophobic.

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

It would be different because the 'straight rights' issue is easily settled.

Do straight people have the rights?

Yes.

Is giving gay people the rights taking rights away from straight people?

No.

Okay, straight rights issue is now resolved!

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

As much as I support gay rights, change my browser cause the company that made it's CEO is a tosser isn't going to help the cause. As far as I am concerned, this is as effective as making a facebook group and asking for likes. It doesn't change anything, and it won't make bigoted politicians change their minds.

 

[jklinders]

Egad.

I'm for LGBT rights as much as the next person, but if I stopped using everything that had a CEO that did things I disagreed with I would probably have to move to a log cabin in the woods and live off the land for the rest of my days. Microsoft is anti-consumer, Google is anti-privacy and last I used it, Opera's user interface annoyed me for reasons I cannot remember.

So maybe I will pick my battles without random internet people telling what products I should use based on odious politics and business practices nearly all of them have at least some of.

 

[Andrew_C]

Eich is the guy that came up with the abomination known as JavaScript, yet I don't see OKCupid or anyone else suggesting we boycott that.

I don't agree with his beliefs, but at least he isn't making them company policy like certain other homophobic CEO's or founding hate groups like a certain well loved science fiction author.

OKCupid are within their rights to make their feelings on the matter known, though.

But as jklinders points out, no-one has put up splash pages requesting you to stop using browsers from Google, Microsoft and Apple because of their co-operation with the NSA (which leaves you with Firefox or Seamonkey, as Opera is a rebranded Chrome these days). Apparently one set of scumbags is more acceptable.

 

[Sateru]

I'm really not interested in switching browsers, because it's extremely inconvenient, and the opinion of one of their CEOs really shouldn't adversely affect others like this. Everyone has an opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if he wants to waste his money trying to fight the gay agenda or whatever he wants to call it, he has the right to do so. I'm gay, and you don't see me screaming to the heavens that he should be damned for his actions. It shouldn't matter, because we live in a country that speaks freely about how everyone has the right to speak their own mind about subjects. Opinions exist, especially ones that differ from our own. Conflicting interests will be there, but boycotting them isn't the way to go. If one wanted to change his opinion, they would do so in a dignified manner that would be appropriate to the given situation. I dunno... I see the point in why OkCupid would want to voice their concerns, they're free to do that. I just feel like attacking a whole company for the actions of one of their CEOs is a little overboard. What he does is all on him, not his company plus him. Everything he tried to do action wise has all ended in failure anyways so I really don't see why we should really be all up in arms about his choices anyways.

 

[waj9876]

I am a member of the LGBT community. Whether that makes my opinion on the matter somehow more relevant than others that are not, I don't really know. So take what I say with as much trepidation as you would anyone else.

I can't help but think this is an obvious attempt by OKCupid to increase the number of people using their site. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't...but I really can't help but see it that way. So I'm gonna continue using Firefox.

I am not going to state my opinion on the CEO, as no matter what I say, it will only help fuel this flame war.

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

Yeah... I think not. Regardless of the man's politics, I think this is small potatoes compared to Google's data mining and their collusion with the NSA. And while Google is profiting off users' information and advertising... I'm not even sure how Mozilla keeps itself afloat. I'd much rather lend my trust and support to open source developers over corporate giants like Google.

Oh, and obviously Internet Explorer is terrible. Opera's okay, but it has some performance issues.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Yes, the thing I JUST SAID happens in non-LGBT cases. Again, it seems people only want to take issue here because it's someone who did something anti-gay.

Pressuring people out of employment because they hold controversial opinions sounds pretty fucking despicable, at least to me anyway.

That's a shift from "it won't do anything," though. But hey, if that's the tack you want to take, go for it. That doesn't change the fact that I pointed out your premise that it accomplishes nothing is wrong. And you seem to admit that now, in changing your argument to "that's horrible."

I wonder if it was horrible when it was done to give blacks freedom, or rights.

But seriously, why is it so disgusting when people don't want to fund someone fiscally? And why don't I see your name calling it disgusting when it's brought up when it happens to LGBT or LGBT-friendly people?

But hey if we are going to attempt to ostracize people we disagree with I guess I should boycott any company that employs a Tory supporter, I mean what their idelogy has done to the poorest in my country is far worse than what someone simply saying they disagree with my right to marriage does to me.

He financially contributed to blocking the right of gays to marry. If you're going to try and trivialise him, at least be honest. But you know what? If you want to do that, go for it. I mean, you did read my whole post, right?

perhaps I should just take the adult option and you know realise that the majority of people in the world are going to hold at least one opinion that you find reprehensible and you're simply going to have to accept that.

I would hope the adult option would involve honesty, myself. You again leave out the part where this guy was actively funding an attempt against homosexuals, not merely holding a different opinion.

Don't chastise people for not taking the adult option when you're belittling people on a dishonest premise.

And honestly, it's great that you're British, but we're talking about events in a country where we have politicians still standing up for the right to attack or bully gays. You may get to play apolitical on the matter, but it's from a position of relative safety.

Which is more disgusting: social reform through fiscal means, or enforcing the right to bully and attack gays as "free speech?"

Points is there's a very good reason why web pages don't or shouldn't do this sort of thing.

I didn't know you had a right to not be annoyed. By that argument, shouldn't I be protected from you and SourMilk posting? We're quickly getting into the concept of the right to not be offended, which is both non-existent and kind of ironic.

If you don't like it, don't frequent websites that do it. In fact, you'll be doing the exact thing they're advocating.

How would you feel if you got sacked from work tomorrow for making this comment?

You mean for pointing out a fact? I'd be kind of annoyed.

However comma....

I've mentioned on here that I've lost work prior because of my association and friendship with an editor with a decidedly pro-Palestinian stance. Now, I phrase it that was not because I don't support Palestine (or rather, not because I don't condemn the brutal and disgusting actions of Israel), but because I have lost work because of an assumed stance.

Do I like it? Well, no. I never like losing work for any reason, let alone something outside my control.

Do I support the right to do it? Well, yes. Every bit as much as I support the WBC's right to be hateful little turds. But I went over that previously. My stance would theoretically counter my own self-interests, so none of my response to you should be surprising. Are you trying to bring emotion into it? Because if I measure behaviour by "things I don't like," I'd be trying to do a lot more than simply not fiscally back this one guy. But then, I'm not the morality police, which was already my stance. They have the right to feel how they want about gays and react in kind. And everyone else has that same right.

Will it impact other jobs? Well, I'll just hop into my time machine, since that's the only real way to measure the job loss.

I just wish the journalists who get death threats or called to be fired got the same level of support homophobes who give money to opposi8ng civil liberties got. Gaming might be a better place.

But at the same time, this pressure people are taking me on for mentioning is the same kind of pressure it was acceptable to use during abolition and civil rights, by both ends of the spectrum. It's weird that it's suddenly become such a bugbear.

I mean, would you rather the possibility that blacks were still property?

I doubt it, but I sort of feel I have to ask at this point.

At this point, this whole thing is just turning it all around. The hypocrisy inherent to that is simply disgusting.

Except you don't really make a case for the hypocrisy. You treat it as axiomatic, as though it's self-evident.

Again, I ask, does it freak you out that we did this to gain rights for black people? Who, exactly, gained the "upper hand" there?

Could we, for once, try and not hate each other instead of calling for heads to roll just because someone disagrees with you?

Do I have to point out once again that not wanting to support a guy, or even seeking social reform does not equal hate? I already addressed this false premise last time.

But let me flip this around on you. You're preaching a "live and let live" attitude towards a guy who has demonstrated that his attitude is mutually exclusive with that attitude. You can't make an honest call for middle ground when the very premise at issue is that one party is explicitly against it.

Hell, I'd love to live and let live. There's nothing about that that requires I (or anyone else) like anyone, though. I mean, I don't hate whatshisname. Maybe others do, but I can only speak and be accountable for me. I don't hate WBC, either. I even offered my sympathies for Fred Phelps when he was on his death bed. I don't think anyone deserves the punishment he's supposedly lined up for. I'm still not going to go give him or his estate money.

Why does it have to be both? Why is not wanting to support someone, or wanting to take a stand, automatically hate? Does this mean that this CEO actively hates gays? Do you apply the standard both ways? I mean, he fiscally supported a measure to prevent us from having equal treatment, so by taking a stand is it "hate?" And if so, how can there be any equatable peace when he already is hating and when he already acted?

That sounds dangerously like a double standard, my friend. Coexistence for one side, freedom for the other.

My stance, on the other hand, is freedom for both sides. Yes somehow, you call that hypocritical.

And if you want to accuse me of "being part of the problem" just because I do so, be prepared for me to actively oppose you instead. Good riddance!

Please don't put words in my mouth, and especially don't and then claim "good riddance!"

You're already actively opposing me. And not, as you would claim, because I think inaction is "part of the problem."

 

[Lightknight]

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.

They're telling people not to use the product of a company because they hired a man with political/religious/social affiliations/positions that OKcupid doesn't agree with. It doesn't matter how they specify it or how trivial the response is. How would you feel about a Muslim dating site that asked users not use software made by a company that hires Jews or Christians?

Then there's also the flipping of the scenario altogether. What about a dating site that asked someone not to use IE or Chrome when doing whatever because they hired a homosexual?

This is an obvious double standard. For a company to not hire someone based on their political or religious affiliations is not only incredibly discriminatory and unethical but also illegal for very sound reasons. The action is to protest this man getting a job. What do they want him to do? Shrivel up and die penniless in a gutter?

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".

I don't think anyone is talking about OKcupid's right to say anything. What is being questioned is the ethics behind this kind of request. To request the disuse of a product merely because someone wasn't discriminated against in a way they feel they should have been. You boycott companies because the company does things you don't like. You don't boycott a company because it obeys the law and hires people without discriminating against them based on their religious or political beliefs. I mean, does OKcupid want firefox to fire this man and give him millions of dollars in the followup lawsuit?

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.

This is exactly what is happening. You may find the scope of it to be trivial but the point of OKcupid is to make people aware of the situation and to discourage its use if even on their site. It'd be like some anti-Semite asking you not to bring beef to the house party if it's from that store down the street because they hired a Jewish man as a butcher. Sure, that request is for a very specific event but the spirit behind it is the same.

Look, I'd be even more at arms if the tables were reversed if the complaint was that a person who is pro-gay marriage got hired. There are several issues that we need to rise above our personal positions and act to defend basic human rights like free speech and freedom of religion and belief that play important roles in the existence of these laws against discrimination. I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death your right to say it. That is the kind of mentality we can't afford to lose.

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.

How does separate but equal apply to anything I've said whatsoever? I mean that NO marriage licenses should be issued. Not to couples that are straight, gay or otherwise. The government should not have any control over a religious and cultural institution. As stated, they instituted mandatory marriage licenses towards the end of the 1800's to prevent interracial marriages (particularly white with minority) and are continuing to use it to control who can get married to this day. It is not their prerogative to control that term and yet they do.

What I am saying is that marriage, a religious and/or cultural lifetime commitment between two consenting adults is a fundamental human right and should not be controlled by the government. The fact that this originally racist law is still being used to control this human institution is an overstepping of the government that should not be allowed to continue.

There is no separate but equal here. Separate but equal is what currently exists. Marriage and Civil unions. What I'm advocating is that no marriage license be filed at all. That all couples would file for the equivalent of a Civil union (different name perhaps?) and that marriage as a traditional and cultural commitment would be handled by the individuals separately from government.

I get that the gut reaction is to argue against the guy saying that a traditional marriage proponent should be hireable and have equal rights to other citizens but if you pay attention to my statement you'll see that this move absolutely progresses the rights of the LGBTQ community while pacifying the social outcry against the government redefining a term they feel has a specific and historically affirmed definition that is intertwined with their respective heritages. Right or wrong, that's how they feel and their complaint about the misappropriation of the term by the government is negatively affecting gay rights. So play it smart and side-step the problem. Have it both ways and take the government's ability to affirm or deny a lifelong commitment out of their hands.

Guys, remember what day it is. Thank you.

The article was posted on March 31st. If it is an April Fool's joke then they did it wrong.

 

[monkey_man]

the whole discussion and approach changes when we're dealing with corporations. as consumers, we only matter to them if we effect their bottom line. in order to discourage future propagation of intolerant views.

Alright then tell me this, if we (as consumers) boycott Firefox based on the opinions of one man within the company, what good will it do?

The most is could do is have the CEO removed which is simply pointless and will do nothing to help gay rights.

It will be a big step in helping gay rights develop further actually. If the world takes a stand against every bigoted bastard in charge, and gets them fired for being bigots, then yes. It shows that these moronic claims they make will not be tolerated. Donating that much money to pass a bill to take away rights from OTHER people about something that doesn't affect you, makes you a colossal dick, and I hope a law gets passed to shut these people the fuck up.

Gay rights isn't just a big "win" that makes everything ok, It's going to have to be smaller victories merging together to get to said win. Steps like these are babysteps, but certainly not worthless. As a normal person, the entire fight is utterly moronic to me anyway. Gay people should get to do whatever the fuck "normal" people get to do, seeing as they actually are normal people. And this CEO takes a stand against that. Which is stupid. He's stupid.

Remember that prop 8 wasn't anti gay, it was anti-gay marraige.
He Could actually accept gay relationships as natural for all we know, and just believe in the 'biblical sanctity of marraige'.
I know people who have no problem with gays, they just don't want gay marriage to be called 'gay marriage' as they see marriage as a holy institution. They have no problem with gays getting all the rights of any married couples they just want it to separate to their christian institution of marraige.

people shouldn't be so judgmental based on one action. Maybe someone should try and get in contact with him and ask his opinion before crucifying him?

Why should gay marriage have to be different from "sanctioned marriage" You do know the bible is full of contradictions, where marriage is often defined between a man and his many women, or forcing female slaves to be married to other slaves(basically forcing them to get raped)? The moral guidance of the bible isn't that pure and holy in that aspect anyway.

Besides, if you give it a different name, it makes a clear stand against equality. Same goes for Black and Whites seats in the 50's.

Surely black people could drink, but not from THAT fountain! That's for WHITE people!.

Now look at this: Surely gay people can marry, but not by NORMAL marriage. That's for NORMAL people.
Do you see the problem?
Sanctity of marriage is a bust anyway, as countless people get divorced and remarried,or drunkenly married in vegas, both perfectly normal. But god forbid 2 men or 2 women or 2 whatever they wanna be called's who have loved each other for years get married. God would certainly be upset. He's 'perfect' I'm sure he can deal.

 

[The Material Sheep]

the whole discussion and approach changes when we're dealing with corporations. as consumers, we only matter to them if we effect their bottom line. in order to discourage future propagation of intolerant views.

Alright then tell me this, if we (as consumers) boycott Firefox based on the opinions of one man within the company, what good will it do?

The most is could do is have the CEO removed which is simply pointless and will do nothing to help gay rights.

It will be a big step in helping gay rights develop further actually. If the world takes a stand against every bigoted bastard in charge, and gets them fired for being bigots, then yes. It shows that these moronic claims they make will not be tolerated. Donating that much money to pass a bill to take away rights from OTHER people about something that doesn't affect you, makes you a colossal dick, and I hope a law gets passed to shut these people the fuck up.

Gay rights isn't just a big "win" that makes everything ok, It's going to have to be smaller victories merging together to get to said win. Steps like these are babysteps, but certainly not worthless. As a normal person, the entire fight is utterly moronic to me anyway. Gay people should get to do whatever the fuck "normal" people get to do, seeing as they actually are normal people. And this CEO takes a stand against that. Which is stupid. He's stupid.

Yes, it's wrong when they legislate to take rights away from people, so lets make a law to take rights away from them. A really mature and sensible way to deal with different belief systems. You don't agree with them, or they counter what you believe is a human right? Well screw those guys, they should be black listed and put in jail if they ever voice said opinions. Screw freedom speech, screw individual sovereignty, hell screw the political process, just so long as said political process doesn't favor me, and as soon as it does I want it back!


EDIT: I feel this is a pertinent clip with quite a bit to say in this context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

 

[monkey_man]

Spoiler: long bit of tekst, spoilered for brevity

the whole discussion and approach changes when we're dealing with corporations. as consumers, we only matter to them if we effect their bottom line. in order to discourage future propagation of intolerant views.

Alright then tell me this, if we (as consumers) boycott Firefox based on the opinions of one man within the company, what good will it do?

The most is could do is have the CEO removed which is simply pointless and will do nothing to help gay rights.

It will be a big step in helping gay rights develop further actually. If the world takes a stand against every bigoted bastard in charge, and gets them fired for being bigots, then yes. It shows that these moronic claims they make will not be tolerated. Donating that much money to pass a bill to take away rights from OTHER people about something that doesn't affect you, makes you a colossal dick, and I hope a law gets passed to shut these people the fuck up.

Gay rights isn't just a big "win" that makes everything ok, It's going to have to be smaller victories merging together to get to said win. Steps like these are babysteps, but certainly not worthless. As a normal person, the entire fight is utterly moronic to me anyway. Gay people should get to do whatever the fuck "normal" people get to do, seeing as they actually are normal people. And this CEO takes a stand against that. Which is stupid. He's stupid.

Yes, it's wrong when they legislate to take rights away from people, so lets make a law to take rights away from them. A really mature and sensible way to deal with different belief systems. You don't agree with them, or they counter what you believe is a human right? Well screw those guys, they should be black listed and put in jail if they ever voice said opinions. Screw freedom speech, screw individual sovereignty, hell screw the political process, just so long as said political process doesn't favor me, and as soon as it does I want it back!

See there's a problem here. Belief is only belief if it's not hurting others. You can be religious, I dont care. I think you're wrong but that's that. This man is masking bigotry and hatred as religious freedom. The bible doesn't define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, at least not throughout. It's inconsistent that way.

He is actively trying to hurt others. Freedom of speech stops being freedom if you cause genuine pain. Like the Westboro Baptist Church. Those people picket funerals and disrupt times of grief and pain. They should actually be put in jail, and in my country they would have been (disrupting the social order). This isn't about agreeing with or against, This is trying to make sure my fellow men, women [and other] get to be happy. I'm not gay myself, personally it doesn't affect me. I want them to be happy because it's right. Denying people the right to marry, based on nothing but personal reasons is wrong.

This man paid a thousand dollars to try and deny people a right. If that goes without resistance, we're gonna get the separation of race back soon enough. Because race is just something you're born with. Just like sexual preference and Gender (Even though you arguably could change them).Having to be put in a different box just because people feel iffy about them, shouldn't happen. It happens. Changing Gay marriage to a different standard invalidates it. It invalidates their love. The law would say they aren't good enough to get married, based on their jiggly bits. Would you like to hear you can't marry the person you love because your jiggly bits are invalid?

*EDIT*

Also with your last edit you didn't make a solid point or anything. It just says laws are meant to protect you. That isn't what I'm saying. Of course laws are meant to protect you, but look at Russia for example. Gay people are getting beat up and killed, because the law allows it. Does that mean the laws made by man are always right? Of course not. The laws are tools we can use to make sure everyone is safe and free of harm, and laws against a specific group of people kinda don't follow that.

Gay people are getting the short end of the marriage stick because a bigoted group of humans think it's within their bigoted rights to do so. And that is wrong. You know what happens when the law to allow gay marriage passes? Gays get married. That's it. No brimstone, no Wrath of God. Look at the Netherlands, we're doing quite a lot of things god doesn't agree with, and yet we're doing fine. Gays can marry here, why not in America, the land of the free?

 

[The Material Sheep]

Spoiler: long bit of tekst, spoilered for brevity

the whole discussion and approach changes when we're dealing with corporations. as consumers, we only matter to them if we effect their bottom line. in order to discourage future propagation of intolerant views.

Alright then tell me this, if we (as consumers) boycott Firefox based on the opinions of one man within the company, what good will it do?

The most is could do is have the CEO removed which is simply pointless and will do nothing to help gay rights.

It will be a big step in helping gay rights develop further actually. If the world takes a stand against every bigoted bastard in charge, and gets them fired for being bigots, then yes. It shows that these moronic claims they make will not be tolerated. Donating that much money to pass a bill to take away rights from OTHER people about something that doesn't affect you, makes you a colossal dick, and I hope a law gets passed to shut these people the fuck up.

Gay rights isn't just a big "win" that makes everything ok, It's going to have to be smaller victories merging together to get to said win. Steps like these are babysteps, but certainly not worthless. As a normal person, the entire fight is utterly moronic to me anyway. Gay people should get to do whatever the fuck "normal" people get to do, seeing as they actually are normal people. And this CEO takes a stand against that. Which is stupid. He's stupid.

Yes, it's wrong when they legislate to take rights away from people, so lets make a law to take rights away from them. A really mature and sensible way to deal with different belief systems. You don't agree with them, or they counter what you believe is a human right? Well screw those guys, they should be black listed and put in jail if they ever voice said opinions. Screw freedom speech, screw individual sovereignty, hell screw the political process, just so long as said political process doesn't favor me, and as soon as it does I want it back!

See there's a problem here. Belief is only belief if it's not hurting others. You can be religious, I dont care. I think you're wrong but that's that. This man is masking bigotry and hatred as religious freedom. The bible doesn't define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, at least not throughout. It's inconsistent that way.

He is actively trying to hurt others. Freedom of speech stops being freedom if you cause genuine pain. Like the Westboro Baptist Church. Those people picket funerals and disrupt times of grief and pain. They should actually be put in jail, and in my country they would have been (disrupting the social order). This isn't about agreeing with or against, This is trying to make sure my fellow men, women [and other] get to be happy. I'm not gay myself, personally it doesn't affect me. I want them to be happy because it's right. Denying people the right to marry, based on nothing but personal reasons is wrong.

This man paid a thousand dollars to try and deny people a right. If that goes without resistance, we're gonna get the separation of race back soon enough. Because race is just something you're born with. Just like sexual preference and Gender (Even though you arguably could change them).Having to be put in a different box just because people feel iffy about them, shouldn't happen. It happens. Changing Gay marriage to a different standard invalidates it. It invalidates their love. The law would say they aren't good enough to get married, based on their jiggly bits. Would you like to hear you can't marry the person you love because your jiggly bits are invalid?

*EDIT*

Also with your last edit you didn't make a solid point or anything. It just says laws are meant to protect you. That isn't what I'm saying. Of course laws are meant to protect you, but look at Russia for example. Gay people are getting beat up and killed, because the law allows it. Does that mean the laws made by man are always right? Of course not. The laws are tools we can use to make sure everyone is safe and free of harm, and laws against a specific group of people kinda don't follow that.

Gay people are getting the short end of the marriage stick because a bigoted group of humans think it's within their bigoted rights to do so. And that is wrong. You know what happens when the law to allow gay marriage passes? Gays get married. That's it. No brimstone, no Wrath of God. Look at the Netherlands, we're doing quite a lot of things god doesn't agree with, and yet we're doing fine. Gays can marry here, why not in America, the land of the free?

Well I think you missed the point in your rage sir. If you'd rather address a straw man's point and not mine feel free but I don't think I'll be arguing on said straw man's behalf

 

[Atmos Duality]

So...
Support a website I don't use for a movement I have no stake in (or against) by eliminating a mote of convenience and security in my current set up..

OR...not.

Well. I may switch back to Chrome once I get done setting it up similarly to Firefox, since they announced they were going to start spamming me through my browser directly in the future anyway.