Published: Sunday, April 6 2014 11:19 p.m. MDT
I can not figure out why "some liberals" would fall for this twisted
logic. This man did more then just say "I don't support gay
marriage" through his donations he actively worked to oppress others and
take away their civil liberties. No matter how you twist that it does not change
the fact that he was an active oppressor not a passive victim.
The BSA never kicked any homosexual scout leaders.
The war on CommunismThe war on povertyThe war on drugsThe war
on terrorismNow the newest war, the war on thought.Go
I'm liberal. Uneasy does not describe my feelings. Appalled is probably
closer.This is McCarthyism all over."Citing an
“organizational culture” that “reflects diversity and
inclusiveness,” Baker publicly lamented that the company's actions
were upseting to some."Mozilla fired someone because he voted
for Proposition 8. A lot of people did. Are they going to be fired too? Are
they going to feel that Mozilla welcomes their contributions? They should have
cited their diversity policy when people complained about Eich.
I'm left wing. I did not support Church's position on prop. 8 in
California (I stayed neutral). However, as the article suggests, I feel
uncomfortable about Eich's resignation. I don't get it.
Sad, very sad, to see another victim of the new McCarthyism that says over and
over again in the media and on this forum; "You can have all the freedom of
thought, religion, and speech you want …. as long as you agree with us or
keep it to yourself….and if you don't ….we will take you
down." Frightening state of affairs.
This is pure bullying. Nothing less. That's what the LBGT movement has
become. And..."Here" is right. Christ, his teachings and
his commandments, will prevail. The only question is which side will each of us
choose. As for me and my house, we will choose the Lord.
Don't I remember, a few years ago, BYU professors getting dismissed for
exercising their rights to free speech? Did the DNews editorialize
for freedom of speech in that instance?
@ Hutterite"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."Yes, Eich is entitled to his opinion
and he is entitled to financially support a campaign that sought to deprive
people of their equal rights. Does this make him a good candidate for a company
woose mission statement and reputation emphasize equality and inclusion? When
did diversity come to mean tolerance of odious beliefs?Because this
is the thing: This belief isn't merely offensive. It leads to actual,
daily harm. Gay kids get bullied and kicked out of their homes because of
beliefs like Mr. Eich's. Gay people get insulted, humiliated, and
assaulted because of beliefs like Mr. Eich's. And what does he have to
justify the belief? Nothing that is holding up in a court of law.I
am glad that there are consequences for acting on beliefs that cause harm for no
good reason. The fact that the belief likely stems from religious doctrine
should not protect it. It should only make it look more shameful.
Those who think anyone who opposes gay marriage is an intolerant bigot will
continue to use this type of completely intolerant tactic to destroy the
opposition to their agenda. The problem is some of them are ruthless and
don't care what anyone thinks about how they get things done as long as it
gets done. Conservatives on the other hand, in responding to their tactics seem
to act like gentlemen who play nice, like they don't want to hurt anyone.
Hence they are getting the crap beat out of them. The truth is, at this point,
gay activist need to experience some of their own medicine. They need to be
persecuted out of their jobs or communities for using hateful, intolerant
measures against people who just acted within their 1st amendment rights. They
have to be forcibly brought to understand, not through any form of violence by
the way, that every time they use such tactics on others they will experience
them themselves, rapidly. I do believe it is possible that they could then
decide to change tactics. As is, they face no significant consequences for
actions that are totally intolerant and un-american.
Liberals only support the "diverse" opinions that they agree with.
@Stormwalker, Boy Scouts of America is a youth organization founded around a
particular ideological orientation. Whether or not you agree with their world
view, you must accept that from the BSA's perspective, it makes sense not
to allow leaders whose lifestyles are significantly at odds with the ideology
around which their organization is built. The BSA situation is not analogous to
the Mozilla one, where a software company CEO was pressured to resign due to his
views (made public only through a political donation six years ago) on a topic
that had nothing to do with their business.Show me a CEO ousted for
quietly making a political donation in favor of gay marriage, and I'll join
you in being indignant.
It is interesting how people continue to excuse bad behavior justifying it
because of an unrelated issue. EG. the argument for supporting a bad
behavior based on the logic that this behavior is no worse than that behavior.
Bad behavior is bad behavior. The also seem to confuse issues when making
comparisons between them. Dismissing or barring someone from a
private of religious organization because the individual does not share the
values and beliefs of that church or private organization is very different from
persecuting an individual because of his or her beliefs. Mozilla
fired a man because he supported a cause (unrelated to the company) that some
individuals in our society have label as wrong minded. They took his job to
appease a powerful minor groups opinion who are bend on punishing people with
different opinions from their own. This type of behavior is wrong and should be
stopped.This is very different from institutions that sanctions or
dismiss an individual who does not share the values and purposes of the
organization especially when they publicly attempt to undermine the organization
This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, though the DesNews seems intent on
framing it this way. A CEO publicly espouses a widely unpopular view
that alienates and offends the company's employees, partners and a wide
swath of it's customers. The board of directors determines that this is
detrimental to the company, makes him incapable of effectively leading the
company forward, and the CEO has to step down.This is both free
speech and the market at work people.
Where's all the conservative talk of a business has a right to do anything
it wants? The DN has been rife with it for weeks regarding Christian businesses
refusing to serve gays, and hobby lobby being able to refuse to comply with the
law.I ridicule, but the question is serious. anotherview said; "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." That's simply all that happened here.
Companies do this all the time. Most major companies have ethics standards that
include not engaging in activity that embarrasses the company or puts it in a
bad light. The question becomes does the behavior offend the
premise of the corporation (a bank that openly solicits the business of the gay
community), or does it simply offend the personal standards of owners and or
personnel (hobby lobby) and violates the law as well. The issue
goes beyond ideologies and so should the discussion.Personally I
don't think they should have fired him. I don't see he violated their
Once again, we see the liberal definition of free speech. We are free to agree
with liberal ideas and everything else gets protested or whined about. These
are people uneasy with their philosophy.
There are still many sweet women named Gay. Please consider treating their name
more kindly than as a sexual orientation reference.
How long before the suppression of all religiously based views are made legal?
Opps, that already happened when Judge Walker struck down Prop 8 in Calf.
reasoning that the people who voted for it did so based upon "religious
bias". Not sure how he could read 7 million minds but he claims he did.
I'm not optimistic about either freedom of speech in America or religious
freedom. This is a far more important issue than marriage equality. Advocates on
both sides of the issue had better wake up and see what is happening here.
Mainstreaming and promoting homosexuality through legal enforcement of the
lifestyle choice, taxes, etc. hurts all of us. But still, I don't think
it's right to fire people who agree with it.
The fallacy in the gay activist movement is the assumption that support of Prop
8 equates to gay bashing and depriving a segment of civil liberties. That just
isn't true. Support of Prop 8 was about preserving the definition of
marriage as between a man and a woman. Nothing more nothing less. I have gay
relatives whom I love and accept, and would not deny them any of the rights that
a "marriage" would provide, but it doesn't change my opinion on
what defines a marriage. 2 totally different issues.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments