Published: Friday, April 4 2014 3:35 p.m. MDT
So, "some liberals are uneasy", eh?It would be nice if the
author had cited some.Conor Friedersdorf? Not a liberal. Andrew
Sullivan? Not a liberal.The article says that Rakesh Sharma
self-identifies as a liberal, but looking at his articles at Forbes, I
didn't see any articles that touched on social issues: the vast majority of
his writing seems to be on patent issues.For an article that
purported to discuss what liberals think, it seemed to spend most of the time
discussing conservative thought instead.
It is distressing that this CEO has been turfed. We are all entitled to opinions
even if they're offensive to others. Freedom has to work for all of us.
It's VERY simple:You cannot be the boss if you have been
publicly revealed to espouse a cause that hurts some of your employees, and you
do not, after 5 years, say you were wrong.ALL he had to do was say
in 2014 that Prop 8 was wrong and hurtful.He stuck to his beliefs,
which is admirable, but he can't be CEO.It is easy to sit in
Utah and write about the situation -- but ignoring that about 70% of
Californians now think that Prop 8 was wrong and was wrongly pushed by some
churches is pretty darn ridiculous.
They should be uneasy. I applaud Andrew Sullivan, a known gay activist for
recognizing the negative ramifications of firing an individual for their
political views/contributions. I especially liked his comparison of how folks
would respond if someone were fired for donating money AGAINST Prop 8.
I can see why some liberals would be uneasy with this. What I don't
understand is the liberals that are completely comfortable with it!===The reason I see to be uneasy with it is... how do you expect
people to be tolerant of YOUR political beliefs... When you yourself fire people
for not agreeing with you!The second reason is... our human tendency
to keep score and get even. Somebody is already justifying it happened to Van
Jones.It becomes a, "They send one of ours to the Hospital... we
send one of theirs to the morgue"... type of mentality when people keep
score like this and use it to justify their actions.===The reason liberals SHOULD be uneasy about this is... what if people did it to
YOU? And used this incident as their justification.===I
think we all realize what happened was not good example of tolerance. Even the
people who did it have said they did it wrong. You don't need to keep
trying to defend it now.What we need to do is say this isn't
the way we work in America... and move on.
"So, "some liberals are uneasy", eh?It would be nice if
the author had cited some."I guess what the title of the article
should be is "Why liberals should be uneasy about Brandan Eich's
resignation if they really cared about peoples' constitutional rights".
But that's not politically correct.
“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech,” Okay, one out of two ain't so bad.
@Bob K"You cannot be the boss if you have been publicly revealed
to espouse a cause that hurts some of your employees, and you do not, after 5
years, say you were wrong.ALL he had to do was say in 2014 that Prop
8 was wrong and hurtful."Just because YOU say he was wrong, does
not make him wrong. This attitude is akin to the captors of an American POW who
tell him publicly criticize the U.S. and we won't beat you to a pulp.You are just like the radicals who forced his resignation. "Conform
to my belief or we will hurt you."
Re: Bob K - "It is easy to sit in Utah and write about the situation -- but
ignoring that about 70% of Californians now think that Prop 8 was
wrong"...Does it really matter IF 70% of California thinks
prop-8 was wrong? That's really not the point.Are you saying
that IF 70% of the population disagree with your politics... it's OK to
fire you for your views?And what if it's just 51% of the people
in the State? Still OK to fire because you donated to the wrong side?Because that may be what's making some Liberals uneasy. There ARE some
States where 51% of the people disagree with them... does that mean it's OK
to fire them??=== The point here is not whether Prop-8
was right or wrong. The point is... is it OK to fire CEOs for having donated a
little money to the campaign?===And if it is OK... is it
OK to fire liberals for donating money to Al Gore's campaign (IF 51% of the
people in that State didn't like Al Gore)??===It's one of those, if it's OK for you.. is it OK for me... kinda
idablu:Mozilla employees were taking leaves of absence to protest
Eich's being named CEO.OK Cupid, a prominent web site, were
advising customers to switch browsers, pretty much like the bus boycotts in the
South in the 60s.Mozilla stood to suffer on the bottom line, which
is the ultimate business metric. If the CEO is not accountable, who
Well, some see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue, and they would be in
good company. Rep John Lewis, who walked side-by-side with MLK has been
speaking against opposition to same-sex marriage since the implementation of
DOMA in the 90's. Christian Evangelicals called for a boycott
of WorldVision, a humanitarian group because they were willing to hire same-sex
married employees. In response to the outcry and boycott, WorldVision changed
their policy. A business is going to look at its customer base and
target audience and decide whether the person or issue is going to be a
liability or not. Apparently Mozilla (and WorldVision) thought the costs
outweighed the benefits of retaining Eich in the CEO position. So
where do we go from here? One man's "cause" for justice is viewed
by another man as nonsense. Frankly,I think the role of those
who call themselves religious and Christian should set a higher example for all
of peacekeeping, looking for common ground, looking for good everywhere,
extending kindness, charity and respect for all--especially those different from
themselves rather than drawing battle lines. Lead the way.
What I hear from SOME in the GLBT community these days is their clamoring for
"equality." The premises of their arguments are not convincing to me.
I'm still not convinced that basing civil rights on an unhealthy behavior
is appropriate. Yes, we disagree. Of that there is no doubt. Yet
I believe the First Amendment allows for such disagreements. That amendment
allows us to disagree with even the most fundamental assumptions of the
constitution, morality, philosophy, religion, society, government, and the law,
does it not? It certainly allows for me to disagree with you and vice versa.
But, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Of course
equality is just as important as free speech, but the balance seems to be
swinging so far in favor of "equality" that free speech is becoming
forgotten and of seemingly little importance. It is NOT of little importance.
A society without freedom of speech and ideas is dangerous to all. More to follow.
I see it coming closer and closer that our beliefs regarding gay rights are
becoming a litmus test on which our own civil rights depend. If we don't
fall in line with pro-gay beliefs, we become fair game for retribution and
oppression by some. But, there is hope. As we work together with
respect and charity, we can largely solve most of the problems that seem so
intractable. To be fair, I know there are some in the GLBT
community who are reasonable. I've met some of them. But those who are
fanatical about people agreeing with them (or else) give me great concern for
the future of our - and everyone else's - civil rights. It seems that
every virtuous thing is on the chopping block.
Though I disagree with the GLBT lifestyle, I’m not talking about (nor
encouraging) hate, anger, and gay-bashing. We are all children of our Heavenly
Father. He may not like what we do, but He loves us with a love that cannot be
described. We cannot hate his other children and still be disciples of Christ.
But it’s hard to remain civil in today’s noxious environment,
I’ll give you that.I think we need to have the courage to do
our duty in standing up for virtue. I don't think we should roll over and
play dead in this day and age when there is so much at stake. Yet,
I think mutual respect is what is expected of true Christians. If that respect
is not given by both sides, then the side that is not the offending one must
suffer injustice with patience and charity if he wants to be a follower of
Jesus. The golden rule was never more needed than it is now.
The more I think about it the more I realize the doctrine of Christ will
prevail. It may not "win" all the battles, but it will win the war. It
already has. We just decide who's side we'll be on. He
went about doing good. He espoused peace and charity. He was quick to uplift
and slow to condemn. Although He does not condone sin, he loves all. He is not
pleased to see us fight, one with another. He wishes all of us to repent and
come unto Him, no matter what our brand of sin is.
I think the best argument I've heard regarding this is : what if Mr Eich
hadn't donated any money but had simply voted in favor of prop 8 and had
the same thing happen to him? How would you all feel about that? What if our
allegedly private votes were laid bare for the world to see and then we suffered
consequences for them? How about that? It's funny to me that the left wing
thinks Joseph McCarthy was scary- I'm terrified by the power the gay rights
crowd apparently has- scary times indeed
Unfortunately many people in the GLBT community, and those who promote it like
Mozilla, don't see the hypocrisy of persecuting people with different
opinions because they dare to disagree. As for me I simply stopped
using the fire fox browser to express my displeasure with their behavior. If you
feel as I do I encourage you to do the same.
I trust that those who are upset about Mozilla's actions in ousting Mr.
Eich are equally upset at the Biy Scouts of America for kicking Gay and Lesbian
scout leaders to the curb. Anything less would seem to be hypocrisy.
The problem is Mozilla was caught in a rough position where suddenly they were
going to lose a chunk of support regardless of which route they went. Sorta like
the Susan G. Koman foundation controversy over Planned Parenthood a year or two
Stormwalker - You are comparing apples to oranges. Even if the same premises
were at play, what are you advocating? An eye for an eye? It's actually
pretty scary that a rather small minority group is able to solicit this kind of
retribution against someone for expressing their convictions, and backing up
those convictions with funds, for traditional marriage. So by your logic, those
who donated funds against Prop 8 are also fair game for similar retribution?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments