OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[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.

 

[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: