So the question for all you Libs is, How does giving $1000.00 to a cause that
you believe in make it discrimination?If people didn't like
Mozilla because of his stance, then let them vote with their feet and don't
use them. IF that causes market share to drop and the company to lose money,
then that would be a reason to remove him. And that is a long term proposition.
I read a lot of comments with the opinion that people are being 'forced to
agree' with a given stance. Nobody is being forced to agree with anybody
else. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Everybody is entitled to
speak/write/sing/draw/yodle or any other expression of that opinion without the
government moving to put a stop to it. (That is the 'free speech'
part of the first amendment.) What you are NOT allowed to do is discriminate
against another person based on those traits listed.
The more I think about this, the more I find the decision of the company to
force his resignation appalling. It is intolerance in the name of
"tolerance," albeit it a selective, economically self-interested
tolerance. More and more America appears to be unfriendly to diversity, ready to
employ all kinds of crafty rhetorical and symbolic violence to ensure cultural
and ideological conformity. Maybe its just media bias. Maybe we've always
been that way. In any case, a desire to exclude (which is ultimately sadism) is
NOT the only possible motivation for opposing the complete legal death of gender
as embodied in the ascendant view of marriage. At least he did not cave in to
....crickets. The liberals on here can't come up with a cogent argument
for removing this CEO so they revert to past practice. Amazing.
Kate Hutch has pointed out a real and dangerous problem in America today. The
fact that liberals don't think they are bullying people when people lose a
job over a political belief. What a liberal calls "inclusive political
beliefs" and a conservative are not the same thing. Conservatives can
disagree with Same-Gender recognition and not feel anything but love for someone
who disagrees.It's one thing to not morally agree with another
activity, behavior, even traits and trends from other individuals. It's
entire something else to not accept the existence of other people./////* I don't believe in recognizing same-gender
marriage/unions. I also don't believe in policing opinions.* Liberals
don't believe in the same family-values I do. But they ARE policing
people.* ERGO... liberals are not inclusive of anyone's political
beliefs but their own.It doesn't take a genius to see
who's bullying who.
Now he has resigned.--- I do give him credit for apparently not lying in
order to stay.--- He went to a Jesuit college that is a little bit like
"BYU for catholic men". One supposes that he either believed that the
catholic bishops were right in creating Prop 8, or that he refuses to contradict
his church.If you do not understand why he had to go:---
Suppose he had been elected mayor of an Arizona town that was heavily mormon,
then was found to have contributed to the campaign to remove the lds tax
exemption.It is ironic that a catholic bishop, Cordileone, sponsored
Prop 8 and persuaded mormons in Utah (his former posting) to help, resulting in
terrible lies and distortions in the TV ads I lived through in 2008, but the
mormons got all the blame.If you were NOT in California in 2008, and
did not endure the atmosphere of tyranny and manipulation put out by the pro 8
ads, you probably cannot imagine the great hurt and polarization that they
caused.People who are not in CA might think about walking in the
shoes of those who were.
@ClarkHippo"Does that include Tea Party protestors or anti-abortion
protestors? Does this include NRA members? "Sure, why not? I
don't have an issue with them protesting (the only issue I have with any
protests on any side is that I support requiring protestors be at least far
enough away so that workers/customers/visitors/etc can access the
building/business being protested, doesn't have to be much, like maybe 20ft
would do). @Tekakaromatagi"Because GoCupid is a commercial
enterprise and have entered into the public domain, they should be fined and
sued for taking the position that they have taken."Under that
argument Chik-fil-A would also be sued for entering the public domain in
donating to anti same-sex marriage causes as a commercial enterprise.
@BadgerbadgerHatred is a strong term. It's more of a preference
for reasoned argument in place of dogmatic pronouncements that are later
rebutted by new and better information. Religion has managed to protect itself
from progress that society at large has undergone. Bigotry also doesn't
apply for those who regard reason over dogma for the simple fact that choosing
one's religion is not an inherent trait or characteristic, and thus any
discrimination toward religion would be similar to that of a person's work
ethic, food preferences, or clothing style, not skin color, sexual orientation,
or physical/mental handicap.
When the Cathy family, owners of Chik-Fil-A, were found to be funding anti-gay
organizations, nobody was surprised. The family is known to be very Christian
and known to support other right-wing political and social causes. There was a
call for a boycott, but nobody demanded the family remove itself from leading
the company. The difference here is that Mozilla has a reputation
for being very Gay welcoming and affirming as a workplace. So finding out the
new CEO has monetarily supported something that is profoundly anti-gay-rights is
a shock and disappointment. Moving him to the highest leadership position seems
to run contrary to the stated goals of the company in terms of supporting
equality and being a diverse and welcoming place to work. Should he
be fired? I don't know. But I am certainly curious to see how this is
handled and what he (and others at Mozilla) have to say about the seeming
conflict of company values and the personal beliefs and actions of the new
Just because your religion is the SOURCE of your bigotry does not justify it.
And just because we oppose bigotry in all its forms does not mean we are
anti-religion (although I am for a myriad of reasons).
It's laughable how the Politically Correct community throws around words
like "bigot," "hatemonger," or "homophobe" much the same
way that right wing Protestants throw around the word "cult." They
seldom, if ever, define their terms; it is just assumed as a matter of faith
that anyone who disagrees with them somehow "must be" a hatemonger. I
am forced to conclude, therefore, that "bigotry" or "homophobia"
simply consist of any opinion that happens to be different from that of liberals
- much the same way that a "cult" is any religion that fundamentalist
Protestants don't happen to like.
"Most racists don't acknowledge their racism."So what
your saying is that most anti-religious bigots don't acknowledge their hate
for religious people and organizations.Yup! I agree completely.
JoeBlow: Indeed, I said that the gay rights movement can do this. No one is
questioning that. What I said is that by boycotting, and trying to get Eich
fired it puts the lie to the oft repeated claim that "Gay rights won't
hurt you." That's clearly wrong: Gay activists are trying
to hurt someone and basically are stating that either you agree with them or
face the consequences. Okay, but if there are "consequences" for not
agreeing with the gays, then clearly the happy fluffy "it's all good,
love and happiness, man!" is a lie. Why fight against gay rights? Because
they are now on record that they will try to terminate your employment, get you
fired, boycott your business or force it out of business via the state if you
don't agree with them. Again, they have that right--but now
that the gay movement is demanding that you choose between God or them and they
will punish you for choosing God--it's not at all "bigoted" to be
ClarkHippo said: @Happy Valley Hereticsaid: "In other words, if a
certain Chruch (property) is vandalized or a certain individual loses their
livelihood or another person's child is threatened at school, these people
only have themselves to blame.You've been using that excuse for
years on the gay community, do I think it's right? Nope, don't now,
didn't then.I said "Gay Marriage" doesn't threaten
your religious marriage, vandalism, or assault are not part of "Gay
Liberal believe in tolerance and accepting of all people and all diversity. Love
and peace. Unless if you have a view that conflicts with their view. Then the
mean and hateful labels come out, your intelligence is questioned, and you are
no longer allowed to have a different point of view.And that is how
" They want EVERYONE on their side, actively, or they will try to destroy
you."Vanceone. Are you suggesting that those on the right do
not picket or boycott things and companies that hold positions with which they
disagree?Vote with your wallet and try to persuade others to do the
same. That is the free market system at work. Both sides do it and
the other side always complains. Will you be vocally opposed if a
group in Orem picketed PacSun over the recent flap?
Traditionalists, food for thought: Most racists don't acknowledge their
racism. Most abusers don't recognize their abusive behavior. Rather than
debate the accusation of bigotry, why not do some self-analysis. What is bigotry? Is the term dependant on recognition from both parties of the
bigot equation? A concerted effort is being put into both maintaining bigoted
views and trying to shed the justified criticism of those views. Tolerance does
not encompass intolerance, hence the perceived dichotomy of groups dedicated to
open expression reviling against the "traditional marriage" position.
It's not a challenging concept to accept other humans for their
decisions while considering those decisions abhorrent or sinful. The issue lies
with applying our laws in such a way that prevents equal access. This whole
debate has become stale and uninteresting and the longer it continues, the more
honest and open-minded people will be forced to choose a side of the argument
and quite frankly, it does not bode well for the bigot side.
@Willem"Support by our church and this CEO delayed 10000s of
Californians the choice of getting married but in the end equality won and
homophobia lost once again."In the vast majority cases
"homophobia" used to condemn people who have religious cultural
objections to homosexual behavior rather than to bigotry or prejudice. The term
has become an epithet. It is the height of cultural chauvinism to conclude that
someone is wroing with someone because of their religion.In recent
posts, many people here were falling all over themselves condemning bakeries or
wedding photographers who won't cater to a gay wedding saying that it was
discrimination. The logic is that a gay marriage is a result or a
characteristic of being gay. Well, contributing to political actions to
maintain traditional marriage is a characteristic of certain religions and
cultures.By that logic therefore, the disagreement against the CEO
is not because he supported Prop 8, but because of his religion. That is
religious discrimination. Because GoCupid is a commercial enterprise and have
entered into the public domain, they should be fined and sued for taking the
position that they have taken.
I will continue to use Firefox and refuse to shop at JC Penney. I
will continue to state that homosexuality hurts society because it violates the
laws of nature and the laws of God. Those are my beliefs and I have
the right to share them along side those who disagree with me.Previously, on other similar articles, I have shared my views but the DNews
"filter police" continually refuse to allow my comments to be published.
Why is that?
It's actually a good thing, this story. It clears the fog that the gay
supporters are trying to blow. They have every right to boycott,
campaign, etc. But, this story shows the true colors, and the true desires of
the gay activists: To force everyone to agree with them. Put
bluntly, either you wholeheartedly support gay activism, and the ideas that gay
activity is moral, acceptable, and preferred--or you are going to pay. They
won't let you stay on the sidelines: as Eich shows, either you are for or
against them, and if you are against them then you must fight to keep YOUR
rights--because the activists will try to make you lose your job, and any other
"state supported" activity. So you are either for
unadulterated, full throated support for whatever they want... or you have to be
against it and fight back, just to keep what you have. and the gay
activists want it that way. They want EVERYONE on their side, actively, or they
will try to destroy you. So make a choice! Choose homosexuality, or choose to
fight it. Because they will make you choose.
@VanceoneNot only that, if the left can successfully silence those
who oppose same-sex marriage, why would they stop there?@SchneeYou said - "Protests and boycotts are part of freedom of
speech."Does that include Tea Party protestors or anti-abortion
protestors? Does this include NRA members? @Happy Valley HereticYou said - "and none of this "harm" come from gay marriage,
it comes from bigotry being recognized instead of admired."In
other words, if a certain church is vandalized or a certain individual loses
their livelihood or another person's child is threatened at school, these
people only have themselves to blame.
Internet Explorer by Microsoft: Big, evil corporation, plus they hate Apple.Chrome by Google: Big, evil corporation, plus they hate Apple.Firefox by
Mozilla: Awesome, free, not as big and evil, but the CEO hates gay marriage.Now that's a real quandary. How's a liberal supposed to surf
the internet with a good conscience any more?
He can give money to and support anything he wishes. The fact that anyone even
cares about this issue shows the blatant inability of the homosexual movement to
like or say anything nice about those who might disagree with them.
Odd how for so long the gays were bullied, called names, even killed.Now
some gay folks are pushing back and suddenly the bully is being persecuted
treated wrongly, and I'm suppose to feel pity for them.Choices
have actions, you've been telling the gay community that for years, now
it's a 2 edge sword.and none of this "harm" come from
gay marriage, it comes from bigotry being recognized instead of admired.
@Clarkhippo"Looks like the left is desperate to remind people that
freedom of speech is not only a privileged given to those whom they, and they
alone, regard as worthy of it."Protests and boycotts are part of
freedom of speech.@Dr. Thom"So if he donated $1,000 to
groups opposed to Prop 8 he would be a hero?"That million moms
group or whatever it was that tried to boycott JC Penney after they hired Ellen
DeGeneres as a spokesperson would probably boycott instead.
Well, good for Brendan Eich for exercising his free speech rights and good for
Mozilla for hiring and, so far, supporting him in doing so.The
hateful, spiteful and completely hypocritical nature of those who wish to
suppress the same freedoms of thought and expression that they simultaneously
trumpet for themselves induces revulsion in me.Mr. Eich has done
**nothing** that deserves criticism and in continuing to fight for his 1st
Amendment rights is helping not only himself but every other citizen.I say again, good on him.
Just remember: liberals swore up and down that gay marriage wouldn't harm
anyone. That the rest of us had nothing to fear. That all that would happen is
some people would finally get to be happy. That no one else's life would
be negatively impacted.Now? If you hold views contrary to their
belief, they will attack, boycott, and do their level best to get you fired,
drag your name through the mud, and in general try to exert their will against
you.So much for "Gay marriage cannot possibly harm anyone!"
Now, it's "Convert or we will punish you to the best of our
abilities." Note--this is their right, but boy, they cannot claim that same
sex marriage is harmless. Now, you conform or risk your job. Also
note that the gays are trying to establish the position that a devout Mormon,
Catholic, or other Christian is not eligible for any job that involves contact
with other people. This sure as heck is harmful to the rest of us.
Support by our church and this CEO delayed 10000s of Californians the choice of
getting married but in the end equality won and homophobia lost once again.
Thinking different is one thing. Actions, however, have consequences. In this
case we are talking public actions taken in support of a position that is at
odds with the official policies of the company. Recast those actions
for a minute. Suppose, during the last election, a company in Utah known for
hiring Mormons had a CEO who made cash contributions to one of the well-known
anti-Mormon groups to help attack Romney's religion. Not a political
contribution to Obama, but a donation to fund disinformation. How
would you feel buying that company's services? Working for that company?
Would you believe that LDS employees would really be treated with fairness?
Would you encourage people to use another company, or would you support the CEO
because "religious freedom"?This is about choices. I'm
not required to use Firefox, and this story inspired me to make a choice and try
some alternate browsers. Meanwhile, the Mozilla board will hopefully consider
how well the CEO represents their company as a workplace that claims to be
diverse and affirming.
So if he donated $1,000 to groups opposed to Prop 8 he would be a hero? Hey here
is a thought, people donate to causes they believe in and if they support or
oppose something and its legal to do so, what business is it of anyone else. If
you don't like their political giving, just vote with your dollars and buy
a competing product. I am not a big fan of liberals in the media or Hollywood,
so I don't buy their books, products, songs or watch their movies.Many people do, I don't. Its a semi-free country people!
Mozilla has the right to support the causes that they wish.People
have a right to agree, disagree, boycott or picket.That is the American
way. It is not inclusive or exclusive. And it works both ways.What's the big deal?
Why this is only coming to light now? Weren't all $1000+ contributors
already targeted? Are we soon going to read stories about people who
donated money to political causes 20 or 30 years ago? Looks like the
left is desperate to remind people that freedom of speech is not only a
privileged given to those whom they, and they alone, regard as worthy of it.
SwartzyArlington, TX"I guess they are all inclusive as long as
you are part of them. If you think different you are not included. It seems to
go that way for many liberal groups. Have a mind of your own,m and you are an
outcast."Let's see it from the employees' and
customers' points of view:This catholic man, graduate of a Jesuit
college, went along with his church's authorship of Prop 8 (and a
bishop's calling in the mormons to help) and refuses to say it was wrong, 5
years later. He is working in a field, and in a metropolitan area, in which
opposition to marriage equality is considered old fashioned bigotry.Would YOU be happy to do business with, or buy from, someone who contributed
to the campaign to remove the lds church's tax exemption, or someone who
gave money to a cause that stated that mormons should not have equal rights?By saying he is "sorry if it hurt people", he fails to realize
that Gay people hear it as "I had to stab you, sorry if you bled"He is in a liberal part of CA, not in Texas
It goes to show that CEO's and corporations are amoral, even if they
personally have morals and standards.
Seems to go that way for LIBERAL groups, Swartzy? That comment belongs in the
I guess they are all inclusive as long as you are part of them. If you think
different you are not included. It seems to go that way for many liberal
groups. Have a mind of your own,m and you are an outcast. so much for
inclusivity I might have to use Opera for a while just to protest