OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[Lightknight]

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

The extent of the damage to firefox doesn't matter. They are trying to protest the fact that this man was hired at all. The implication being that firefox should not have hired this man based on the man's belief system and political positions.

If he did lose his job over it, the immediate punitive damages that would be paid out to him in the resultant discrimination lawsuit would set him for life. The point isn't what happens to him, the point is that OKC is trying to protest non-discriminatory hiring practices.

That might be relevant if anyone's life was being ruined, instead of, say, a website asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site.

Is their goal to have people like this not get jobs? They are protesting him having gotten a job.

Also, why does this only apply to bigots? Why don't gay people get to live peacefully and legally?

What are you talking about? This applies to everyone. Everyone should be able to get a job without being discriminated against on the basis of religion/beliefs, gender, political affiliations, orientation or race. Do you think that this guy is somehow exacting violence on gays or trying to make them illegal? I'm sorry, but the ability to marry doesn't make a group legal or illegal. If Civil Unions actually did their job and gave Gays exactly identical rights then the topic would be in name only. In some states they do work properly though.

That isn't relevant. They can believe whatever the hell they like. Once they deny people's rights, there's a problem.

He isn't "denying" people shit. He supported a law that people could vote for or against. Democracy isn't always going to be in your favor. You don't get to wipe people off the planet if they don't side with you.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm going to say it- this feels like the Adria Richards thing. Someone with an opposing view trying in a roundabout way to publicly shame someone for negative effect.

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

Of course the CEO isn't going to lose his job over this, but at any point in the future, if/when he's trying to get involved in a project, a simple google search will reveal controversy, and controversy = liability. So yes, they are attempting to publicly shame over a personal position, which by doing so would definitely affect future business.

Exactly. They are protesting the mere fact that this guy got hired. It is somewhat ironic to see anyone support discriminatory hiring practices on the side of the LGBT community.

 

[wolfyrik]

No there isn't reason for the state to treat differently, different types of love, except reasons of consent and demonstrable harm, which means that there's no reason to deny Same Sex Marriage.

As for love being relevent in front the state, of course it is, because modern marriage is an expression of love rather than a religous or social requirement (outside of it's abuse which occurrs already and wouldn't be affected by SSM). Sure you can decouple love from the litgation and tax side side but there's no reason to deny gay marriage there either because homosexuals can also raise families and do so successfully, though those offspring may be due to previous relationships, adoption or artifical means.

So you are seriously saying that because someone love (romantically) someone else... they are entitled to residence permit and tax breaks? In exactly the same way two or more people commit each other to procreate new members of the society?
The point is, proponents of SS"M" do not claim decoupling from economical benefits - they may be sinister, but certainly they are not stupid.

Hyperbole #1: well then, I suppose I could choose to be creepy and romantically love my son or nephew in order for him to get a share of my pension when I die. Go ahead and call me dangerous now - being both male there is not even the genetic risk associated with offspring of close relatives.

Offspring of previous relationships are not relevant in this context - adoption is relevant, and whoever adopts and raises a kid should indeed have access to the same benefits - but that's another subject. Of course, I maintain that a married couple is the preferable choice.

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

Hyperbole, by the way, is exaggeration, I'm not really sure it applies to your hypothetical situation, which is also fallacious btw. you ignore the fact that incest is illegal, depsite the fact this has been pointed out to you several times. Gay marriage in no equates to incest. Allowing one, does not allow the other. Incest remains illegal because of the significant harm it can cause. Changing the law to allow incest would create tremendous dangers, not least that children could be manipulated, threatened and abused into claiming that such a relationship is mutual. I'm astounded that you apparently can't understand this.

How are offspring through other relationships "not relevent"? They are still chldren, they are still living in the housholod, they are still being taken care of as a family unit. Are you suggesting that straight couples, who haven't had children together, but have children from other relationshuips, shouldn't be allowed to marry? Because that's the validation you're putting on marriage at this point. Furthermore, you admit that adoption, should count, but ignore artifical means, you also call adoption "another subject" but no, it isn't. It's still a family unit, with the same needs as other family units. This entirely invalidates your claim about "tax breaks" on it's own. As for married couples being the "preferable choice", you're right, which is why gay couples should have the right to become married.

You also called proponents of ssm "sinister". An interesting choice of words for someone who claims not to have a problem with LGBT and only against gay marriage for "financial reasons".

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

 

[wolfyrik]

It's a word that is used scientifically to denote a sickness - how more clear can it get?
Also it's not only being used for prejudice against gay people, but also for people, like me, that have the healthy moral value of seeing reproduction as a necessary imperative, and thus frowning of those that for reason of convenience decide not to have them - regardless of their sexual tendencies.

I believe that people that have the possibility of raising children, but choose not to, should feel guilty. So should I go around calling people "biophobic"?

Compeltely irrelevent, people can procreate without marriage, gay people can still care for children, increasing that child's survival and chance to procreate. which is exactly the purpose that homosexuality serves in nature.

What's more, allowing gay marriage would not affect the ability of straight people to marry OR procrete. In other words, allowing gay marraige would only serve to increase human survival by ensuring that more offspring have better care, and can survive to become parents themselves. In addition to the straight couples and their offspring. Entirely contrary to your claim that it would inhibit survival.


So the "monetary" argument is false, the "reproduction" argument is patently false.

 

[Loonyyy]

I'm going to say it- this feels like the Adria Richards thing. Someone with an opposing view trying in a roundabout way to publicly shame someone for negative effect.

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

Of course the CEO isn't going to lose his job over this, but at any point in the future, if/when he's trying to get involved in a project, a simple google search will reveal controversy, and controversy = liability. So yes, they are attempting to publicly shame over a personal position, which by doing so would definitely affect future business.

Exactly. They are protesting the mere fact that this guy got hired. It is somewhat ironic to see anyone support discriminatory hiring practices on the side of the LGBT community.

I know this happens a lot on the internet, but I really think you're working with a severely warped definition of irony.

And I'm going to leave it at that, because I've seen your posts here, and I don't think we'd have a productive discussion.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm going to say it- this feels like the Adria Richards thing. Someone with an opposing view trying in a roundabout way to publicly shame someone for negative effect.

They're currently trying to prevent this man from being hireable based on his personal beliefs.

No. They are asking if people would use someone else's browser to access their site. This is not going to cost him even his current, high profile job. It would not make him unhireable.

Of course the CEO isn't going to lose his job over this, but at any point in the future, if/when he's trying to get involved in a project, a simple google search will reveal controversy, and controversy = liability. So yes, they are attempting to publicly shame over a personal position, which by doing so would definitely affect future business.

Exactly. They are protesting the mere fact that this guy got hired. It is somewhat ironic to see anyone support discriminatory hiring practices on the side of the LGBT community.

I know this happens a lot on the internet, but I really think you're working with a severely warped definition of irony.

And I'm going to leave it at that, because I've seen your posts here, and I don't think we'd have a productive discussion.

Their actions are ironic. A group fighting to not be discriminated against is advocating for discrimination. How is this not ironic? Situational irony, check. Desired result = fight for equality/anti-discrimination. Actual Result = fighting for discrimination.

FYI, the internet is not the only place grammatical mistakes happen all the time. Irony is misused everywhere you go in countless scenarios. The unfortunate truth is that even society's mistakes will cause linguistic drift in sometimes infuriating ways. The easiest point of reference is the recent move to include emphasis as a definition of literal instead of exactness.

 

[Lightknight]

Compeltely irrelevent, people can procreate without marriage, gay people can still care for children, increasing that child's survival and chance to procreate. which is exactly the purpose that homosexuality serves in nature.

What's more, allowing gay marriage would not affect the ability of straight people to marry OR procrete. In other words, allowing gay marraige would only serve to increase human survival by ensuring that more offspring have better care, and can survive to become parents themselves. In addition to the straight couples and their offspring. Entirely contrary to your claim that it would inhibit survival.


So the "monetary" argument is false, the "reproduction" argument is patently false.

Increase? Not necessarily. Not any more than allowing gay couples to adopt would. But do no harm? Certainly.

The population argument of Marriage is really quite a red herring. I wouldn't advocate for an infertile couple to not be able to Marry. The eventual logic of this red herring should demand fertility tests before marriage too.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

...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.

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

 

[The Material Sheep]

...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.

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

Unfortunately such black and white views and belief systems have led to a lot of terrible situations through out history. So if you want to assert such dogma, and that's what that statement you just said was, ideological dogma, you aren't going to win many hearts and minds. So unless you want to start pointing a gun at people and telling them either your with us or against us, that method only serves to piss people off and push them away from your movement.

So unless we're out here advocating for fascism, which I wouldn't put past a lot of internet activism, let's cut out the with us or against us argument, because it's just a way further divide people into groups your allowed to hate. As if the LGBT community didn't deal with the absolute worst of what they kind of behavior causes.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

...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.

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

Unfortunately such black and white views and belief systems have led to a lot of terrible situations through out history. So if you want to assert such dogma, and that's what that statement you just said was, ideological dogma, you aren't going to win many hearts and minds. So unless you want to start pointing a gun at people and telling them either your with us or against us, that method only serves to piss people off and push them away from your movement.

So unless we're out here advocating for fascism, which I wouldn't put past a lot of internet activism, let's cut out the with us or against us argument, because it's just a way further divide people into groups your allowed to hate. As if the LGBT community didn't deal with the absolute worst of what they kind of behavior causes.

Can you tell me a possibility of belief that is neither supporting or not supporting gay rights? Any given thing can be A or not A, with no outside possibility.

Now, someone's belief being not A (not supporting gay rights) doesn't mean that it is the opposite, opposing gay rights. However, when a minority is in a state of suppression by the law anything but support of extension of rights to that group is tacit agreement to the legal norm. It is admitting that, while maybe not necessarily praiseworthy, the norm is fine and doesn't need be changed. The extension of rights stems only from the belief that they should be extended, but the stagnation of rights can be brought about by either opposition to their extension or by apathy regarding it. Therefore, a person who is either opposed to gay rights or is totally apathetic towards it will both hinder that aim. They are "against them" from a point of political reality.

Also it should be noted that OkCupid isn't attacking generally people who don't support gay rights, they are attacking somebody who has actively opposed them.

 

[kaizen2468]

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

 

[Whispering Cynic]

If someone wants me to stop using my browser they'd better provide a good and rational reason. I don't consider condemning products of an entire company based on opinions of a single person (even a CEO) justifiable.

 

[Lightknight]

...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.

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

Eh, no. I'd say there's a significant difference between someone who is against equality, someone who doesn't state either way (for whatever reason, including not caring), and someone who is for equality.

There's even a wide spectrum in between where people are more in favor of certain areas of equality than others and such. Active support vs verbal support. Someone who doesn't give a shit but would still speak up if the occasion arose. Such a black and white view of the scenario is incredibly flawed.

 

[Lightknight]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I'm going to say it- this feels like the Adria Richards thing. Someone with an opposing view trying in a roundabout way to publicly shame someone for negative effect.

At the high-profile levels, that's basically all the gay rights activists do: name, shame and defame. It's petty and repulsive means to advance civil rights.

And since no one can question certain infallible classes of people, we end up with this:

So yes, you are either with them or against them.

It's sad to look back into history, when people were still willing to fight for their rights rather than assume them through federal laws and people in black robes. I'm not gay and I feel embarrassed for all the homosexuals who have to put up with these sociopaths and idealists who don't care how much damage they do to society, the ends justifying any means.

 

[Easton Dark]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

Lesson is: Don't be a dick to people if you want to be in a public office.

You'd think that'd be common sense.

 

[Vegosiux]

However, when a minority is in a state of suppression by the law anything but support of extension of rights to that group is tacit agreement to the legal norm. It is admitting that, while maybe not necessarily praiseworthy, the norm is fine and doesn't need be changed.

The fact that you are writing this on some kind of an electronic device determines that you're giving your tacit support to worker and environment exploitation.

 

[Lightknight]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

Lesson is: Don't be a dick to people if you want to be in a public office.

You'd think that'd be common sense.

By public office do you mean employed in a company?

Public office generally means an elected or government position. Not a company.

Additionally, while I don't agree with him over 60% of Americans did at the time of his contribution. It's bullshit to say that so many people should be unhireable just because they can't tell the difference between the government's marriage license and their own personal religious/cultural expression of it. Wrong? Sure. Unhireable? Bullshit.

The notion that you can lose your job over supporting a political cause financially in America is hilariously backwards. This has been a public shaming supporting the discrimination of people based on belief and political affiliation. I certainly don't agree with the man but this sets a terrible precedence.

 

[The Material Sheep]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

Lesson is: Don't be a dick to people if you want to be in a public office.

You'd think that'd be common sense.

he's not in public office. It's a private company, with little to nothing to do with the LGBT movement and with no seeming intentions of doing so as a company.

 

[Easton Dark]

he's not in public office. It's a private company, with little to nothing to do with the LGBT movement and with no seeming intentions of doing so as a company.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133481-Mozilla-CEO-Brendan-Eich-Steps-Down?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Eich stepped down from his position in response to this.

Lesson is: Don't be a dick to people if you want to be in a public office.

You'd think that'd be common sense.

By public office do you mean employed in a company?

Public office generally means an elected or government position. Not a company.

Public as in visible to the public. Like the PR guy, or mods on a forum.

CEO of an apparently very popular internet browser seems pretty visible.

I'm not sharing my opinion on whether it's right that this happened. Just that being the un-PC face of a company based around the internet seems doomed to fail.