Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Mar 2014 23:45 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

For the Internet community, the principles of free speech and equal rights are foundational. But in recent days, those issues are clashing at Mozilla, the nonprofit foundation and tech company behind the Firefox browser.

At issue is Brendan Eich, a co-founder of Mozilla, inventor of the much used Javascript programming language and the newly appointed CEO of the company. Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign for California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. The donation had come to light in 2012, but fizzled.

Opposing same-sex marriage is no different than opposing interracial marriage. As a Dutchman, it baffles me that an organisation like Mozilla appointed a man with such medieval ideas.

Order by: Score:
Crazy People
by zlynx on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:03 UTC
zlynx
Member since:
2005-07-20

I just don't understand people who want to control other people by attacking their jobs through boycotting and similar things.

These people often make the argument that they don't want their money going to pay someone they don't agree with.

And yet, these same people often won't accept an argument against their favorite government policies which force other people to pay for things those other people don't agree with.

And these same people object when a company boss rejects paying for his or her employee's expenses which are objectionable such as contraception or abortion.

The solution is a strict separation between private and company life, which means the boss pays the money to the employees and they spend it however they want without consequences from him.

So these crazy people like that kind of separation for themselves, but want a different Mozilla CEO because of his private life.

If he is good at the job that should be the only thing that matters.

If it still matters to you then you should be equally happy when your boss fires you because of your political donations.

Why should you be able to have it both ways?

Reply Score: 34

RE: Crazy People
by Treza on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:15 UTC in reply to "Crazy People"
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

AFAIU, in the US, the employer has an huge role for all sorts of social things like healthcare or retirement. An employer could refuse some benefits to categories [s]he does not like.
It makes that the personal opinions of the CEO can have an impact on the way the company grants these benefits.

For me it is a quite unhealthy system : Anyone should be free to have his/her own opinion, but people's rights should be decided democratically.

Or maybe I don't understand anything. Which is quite possible ;-)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Crazy People
by bryanv on Tue 1st Apr 2014 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy People"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Incorrect. Those are 'protected classes' and there are anti-discrimination laws in place which prevent those kinds of abuse.

For a long time, same-sex couples have been treated as a black sheep category. The problem actually revolves around the stupid notion that government be involved in anything more than taxation policy -- which is where religious groups get all hung up.

The government uses the word "marriage" to define a contract between consenting adults to jointly share property, income, and become a single taxable entity.

The religious institutions use the word "marriage" to define a holy union between a man, woman, and God. And these folks get bent all out of shape when the government uses that word to mean something else.

What totally amazes me, is that the only thing that needs to happen is for the government to stop using that word, and pick another. Or, the religious folks could just stop giving the government any say in a 'holy' marriage, be done with the whole mess.

Everyone just needs to calm the freak down and get over themselves.

Reply Score: 14

RE[3]: Crazy People
by jackastor on Tue 1st Apr 2014 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
jackastor Member since:
2009-05-05

Finally, someone else gets it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Crazy People
by gus3 on Tue 1st Apr 2014 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy People"
gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

(Comment removed to correct position in thread.)

Edited 2014-04-01 23:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Crazy People
by cb88 on Tue 1st Apr 2014 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
cb88 Member since:
2009-04-23

I completely a agree and I'm a Baptist... just saying many religious people want the government out of such things. It would bring more freedom in just about each and every instance regardless of the anyone's personal beliefs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Crazy People
by bryanv on Tue 1st Apr 2014 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy People"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

I'm what many would consider a conservative Christian.

Personally I don't consider myself all that 'conservative'.

I don't see why the government should be involved in my marriage to my wife. I don't need a government official to tell me God intended us to be together. In the same vein, I don't see how a couple guys (or gals) deciding they want to have the same legal rights as I do, yet express their affection for another in a manner I find distasteful makes *my* relationship involving *my wife* any less sanctified or meaningful. It doesn't. It's their problem that they don't understand it and will never experience that kind of relationship, not my problem.

It doesn't make any sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Crazy People
by gus3 on Tue 1st Apr 2014 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

And I agree, too, and I'm Greek Orthodox.

(I also have it on good authority that there are a lot more Greek, Russian, and Syrian Orthodox who concur. The Russians and Syrians in particular, because of their experiences with overbearing government micro-management of daily life.)

Edited 2014-04-01 23:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Crazy People
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy People"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You underestimate how well brainwashed most Russians are and the majority would say it's perfectly fine for the government to decide when you can pee standing up or sitting down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Crazy People
by rebus on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
rebus Member since:
2009-10-25

Fully agreed, the whole thing is just a linguistic problem.

Come to think of it, most arguments I hear revolve around these, ie. different definitions of the words... revolving in circles and usually ending with parties tolerantly agreeing to disagree. Lost in translation all the time. Quite ridiculous stuff.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Crazy People
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Incorrect. Those are 'protected classes' and there are anti-discrimination laws in place which prevent those kinds of abuse.


And gays still don't get these protections.
http://www.upworthy.com/29-states-can-fire-you-for-being-gay-is-you...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Crazy People
by thegman on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:33 UTC in reply to "Crazy People"
thegman Member since:
2007-01-30

Why should you not have it both ways?

As far as Eich is concerned, he paid money to attempt to get others to abide by his views. We're not talking about views which may or may not be for the greater good, we're talking about people's private lives.

For example: gun control. There are valid arguments on both sides. On one hand, fewer guns must mean fewer gun crimes. On the other, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens allows people to defend themselves. Both arguments are decent, and the law will profoundly affect the lives of everyone in the country.

Gay marriage, however, will only affect you if you're gay and want to get married. It does not affect anybody else. But yet Eich wanted to prevent people from doing as they wished, even though it did not harm him or anybody else.

Modern democracy is not just about 'majority rules' any more, it's about the concept of inalienable rights. A major one of those rights is to be free from discrimination based on sex, race, sexuality etc. Eich is opposed to people having at least one of those rights, even though it does not affect him or anybody negatively in the slightest. It's purely prejudice.

Just because the law says it's OK for the majority to rule on the private lives of others, does not mean it is OK.

Eich did something that is wrong, plain and simple.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Crazy People
by tomz on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy People"
tomz Member since:
2010-05-06

My point is if marriage is private, the state ought not to have any part. Oklahoma is considering exactly that.

I should not be forced to either recognize or reject a marriage by threat of the SWAT team at my door.

Well Aaron Swartz was a victim of overarching government, but it is ok if the malice is against Christians? Or orthodox Jews?

Depriving people of their livelihood is an act of violence. Why is violence the first thing resorted to? Why when it is a government thug is it not considered an act of violence - except for people we like like Aaron Swartz?

Oh, and benefits? Brothers can't put their sisters on their health insurance. Daughters can't put Mom. Why not freedom to add whomever you want? Not just the government recognized spouse.

He did wrong? Maybe in your opinion. Should I try to threaten you and your job if I disagree?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Crazy People
by kwan_e on Tue 1st Apr 2014 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I should not be forced to either recognize or reject a marriage by threat of the SWAT team at my door.


Another stupid comment. When has anyone been threatened in this with violence?

Well Aaron Swartz was a victim of overarching government, but it is ok if the malice is against Christians? Or orthodox Jews?


How is recognizing gay marriage malicious towards Christians or Jews? What about Christians and Jews who think gay marriage is in line with their religion's message? Why do you think it's okay for your version of Christianity or Judaism to suppress their version of Christianity or Judaism?

Depriving people of their livelihood is an act of violence. Why is violence the first thing resorted to? Why when it is a government thug is it not considered an act of violence - except for people we like like Aaron Swartz?


They want him to step down as CEO. CEO is not the only job there is. However, as a CEO, there should be certain social responsibilities. If you don't want to take on those responsibilities, don't become CEO.

Oh, and benefits? Brothers can't put their sisters on their health insurance. Daughters can't put Mom. Why not freedom to add whomever you want? Not just the government recognized spouse.


I'm not as informed of US insurance practices. Are US insurance companies expressly forbidden by law to allow people to put their relatives on health insurance?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Crazy People
by bhtooefr on Tue 1st Apr 2014 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy People"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

It's not so much that they're banned from it, as they want to do the minimum that they're obligated to do by law and their customer (the employer, not the insured).

Their obligation by law is that they allow the insured's spouse and children/dependents (up to 26 years of age for adult children (even if they're independent) now) to be on the plan.

Some employers extend that to include domestic partners that are unmarried due to legal restrictions. But, beyond that? Nope. The insurer will say no for putting siblings or parents on your insurance, unless you can get your siblings or parents legally declared as your dependents (which would only happen if they're legally unable to take care of themselves).

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Crazy People
by kwan_e on Tue 1st Apr 2014 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy People"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

The insurer will say no for putting siblings or parents on your insurance, unless you can get your siblings or parents legally declared as your dependents (which would only happen if they're legally unable to take care of themselves).


Then I should say the person I replied to should be taking it up with the insurance companies. If it is as you say you can still get them insured if they become your dependant because they are unable to take care of themselves, then I would say that still actually somewhat fair because the biggest reason to insure them is because they can't take care of themselves. In that case, the urgent scenario is covered.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Crazy People
by cdude on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crazy People"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Insurance, taxes, certain rights like deciding whats going to happen with your partner in a hospital if he/she cannot decide by his/her own any longer, visa / residence permit, adoption, legals like contracts and so on and on.

Legal marriage is by far more then religious idioty or love-confirmation for weak partnerships but it has many real consequences.

Edited 2014-04-02 00:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Crazy People
by jared_wilkes on Tue 1st Apr 2014 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You went wrong as soon as you claimed marriage is private. It's not. It's the furthest thing from private.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Crazy People
by CapEnt on Tue 1st Apr 2014 01:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy People"
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

He paid money to attempt to get others to abide by his views, so what?

Do you think that gay rights NGOs lives out of light? They exist because there is people paying them too.

I'm failing to find the wrongdoing here. There is nothing wrong in funding advocate groups that tries by legal means to get his ideas implemented.

There groups for all tastes and flags: environmentalists, pro-nuclear groups, gun owners, gay rigths, woman rights, black rights, pro-universal health care, neo-liberal advocates, communists... just because one group raise a flag that you don't like, does not means that it is illegal or wrong to fund it.

As long as Eich is a good looser and abide by the laws, it's ok to me. He is a technical genius and i'm pretty sure that Mozilla will be fine with him in command.

I don't have any right to force him to accept my view point, this is plain totalitarianism, anti-democratic. But everyone must obey the law, even when do not agree with it.

Modern democracy is not just about majority rules, but it is also not about ignoring the culture of the people that elect the government neither. Even what constitutes a "inalienable right" is subject to cultural bias and changed a great deal over the decades thank to several well-paid and organized advocate groups lobbying for changes on both their home nations (if coded on their constitutions) and on United Nations.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Crazy People
by kwan_e on Tue 1st Apr 2014 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I don't have any right to force him to accept my view point, this is plain totalitarianism, anti-democratic.


I don't see where he's being asked to change his views. They're asking him to step down.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Crazy People
by WorknMan on Tue 1st Apr 2014 02:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy People"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't see where he's being asked to change his views. They're asking him to step down.


Right, so if you oppose gay marriage, you're not allowed to work in this country? Liberals... the beacon of tolerance. BAHAHAHA!!!

'But opposing gay marriage is discriminatory!' But isn't opposing legalization of marijuana discrimination against pot smokers, including the ones that use it for medicinal purposes? Isn't anti-prostitution laws discrimination against sex workers? This kind of discrimination happens all the time. Hell, I think even New York declared war on soda drinkers by outlawing Big Gulps.

You might say gay marriage will not harm society. But some people like Eich (NOT including me) think it will, and it goes against their deeply held religious beliefs, so of COURSE they're going to oppose it. In their view, marriage has a specific definition, set forth by the Invisible Man, that it shall be between a man and a woman. As batshit crazy as this might sound to you or me, is it really any crazier than thinking that handing out food stamps and universal healthcare to every deadbeat asshole on the planet will solve most of our economic problems? I think not ;)

And while I'm not saying you have to agree with these viewpoints, he's still entitled to them, just as you're entitled to yours. In addition to not liking homos, he may be a flaming racist and an asshole to his wife and kids. But as long as he's not bringing that shit to work with him, what does it matter to you?

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be summarily booted from my job because my boss doesn't like my political or religious beliefs. So even if you've disagreed with everything I've said here, just stop and THINK about that for awhile.

Edited 2014-04-01 02:04 UTC

Reply Score: 13

RE[5]: Crazy People
by mieses on Tue 1st Apr 2014 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy People"
mieses Member since:
2006-02-07

It's possible to like pizza and be against calling it a vegetable. Changing the definitions of words to suit special interest groups like Pizza Hut harms society.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Crazy People
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crazy People"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So... We should revert marriage to it's original form, then?

Marriage has no religion in it, it's a civil contract, between two or more adults that share wealth and have inheritance rights.

That's before the reformation got God into the equation.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Crazy People
by zima on Sun 6th Apr 2014 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Crazy People"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

But what about love?... ;( ;p

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Crazy People
by cdude on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy People"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

"if you oppose gay marriage, you're not allowed to work in this country?"

Sounds similar to that "if you are both same sex you cannot marry in this country" and according to yourself its fine to demand that, support it, as long as its legal what it is. Still that small difference that nobody tries to put the former into law yet like happened with the later.

Dog-food case. Eich is handled the same way he handled others. He has really no reason to complain about that. Karma is a bitch :-)

Edited 2014-04-02 01:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Crazy People
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy People"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Right, so if you oppose gay marriage, you're not allowed to work in this country? Liberals... the beacon of tolerance. BAHAHAHA!!!


The position of people opposing him is quite clear - they don't want the public face of Mozilla to have a dark past.

Granted - I don't even mind him being there, but they are free to express it.

Tolerance is one thing, but tolerance to people that want to limit your rights and freedoms is a totally different issue.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Crazy People
by CapEnt on Tue 1st Apr 2014 03:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy People"
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

I don't see where he's being asked to change his views. They're asking him to step down.


So they are threatening he and his family due his option.

Really, i don't see where he is being "asked" to change his view, actually, he is being violently coerced to lie about his views.

What is next? Perhaps a good and old fashioned "struggle session" in the best Maoist tradition, so he can be politically rehabilitated and earn back his "right" to feed himself and his family again.

Well, since USA still is a free country with plenty of opportunities for skilled labor, he does have the option to lend his brain to Microsoft and help make Internet Explorer a better browser. Or Google perhaps.

And Firefox will suffer thanks to unrelated cheap politics mangling up with his technological development. It's not like he donated to NSA to help spying citizens or attempted to sabotage GNU project. This issue is completely unrelated with Firefox or Mozilla.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Crazy People
by TechGeek on Tue 1st Apr 2014 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy People"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

The people involved don't care about his technical prowess. They are worried about putting a bigot in a position of power where his decisions will have long lasting consequences over many minority people. Is he qualified for the job? Certainly. Is he the right person for the job? I doubt it. Kind of like that Geico commercial with Dracula at the blood drive. Probably not the best idea.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Crazy People
by CapEnt on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crazy People"
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

As long he put the Mozilla above his personal opinions, nothing wrong.

Condemning someone BEFORE he commits a "crime" that really is draconian.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Crazy People
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Crazy People"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Condemning someone BEFORE he commits a "crime" that really is draconian.


Vocally disagreeing with someone is the same right that he used to oppose same-sex marriage.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Crazy People
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy People"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

NSA to help spying citizens

And why would that be a problem, while supporting limiting of rights for same sex couples be any different?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Crazy People
by Vanders on Tue 1st Apr 2014 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

He paid money to attempt to get others to abide by his views, so what?


Because the original argument began:

I just don't understand people who want to control other people by attacking their jobs through boycotting and similar things.

These people often make the argument that they don't want their money going to pay someone they don't agree with.


The two are comparable.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Crazy People
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy People"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm failing to find the wrongdoing here. There is nothing wrong in funding advocate groups that tries by legal means to get his ideas implemented.


Could I then fund an NGO that has a goal of restoring slavery?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Crazy People
by dayalsoap on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 16:14 UTC in reply to "Crazy People"
dayalsoap Member since:
2010-05-19

Governments don't force you to leave. You aren't entitled to use *our* land and resources. If you don't want to use *our* resources, and don't agree to our payment conditions, then leave. Find your own land.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Crazy People
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 13:01 UTC in reply to "Crazy People"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

FYI: Many people on both sides of the argument think the same way.

And in general you are lumping people together. The same people might as well be for people's right to express their discontent like that. But please note that not liking that you are not liked, is not the same as not giving people the right to do that.
CEOs are not just employees, specially in NGOs and (semi-)non-profits. They are faces of those companies and many have morality clauses in their contracts.

Reply Score: 3

No !
by Treza on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:04 UTC
Treza
Member since:
2006-01-11

Ho, no, please, Thom, don't launch such a thread, particularly with such a comment !
It will end badly...

Reply Score: 8

RE: No !
by lucas0 on Tue 1st Apr 2014 01:25 UTC in reply to "No !"
lucas0 Member since:
2012-04-20

Is this a new Operating System? I am confused.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: No !
by DavidCollins on Tue 1st Apr 2014 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE: No !"
DavidCollins Member since:
2010-03-22

As covered previously on this site, Mozilla is launching a mobile OS, therefore things that affect the management of Mozilla and hence the development of the OS is relevant news for this site. That's before you even count in Firefox.

Reply Score: 3

RE: No !
by OfficeSubmarine on Tue 1st Apr 2014 04:34 UTC in reply to "No !"
OfficeSubmarine Member since:
2006-12-14

Badly? There'll be minor argument, meh.

Reply Score: 1

Medieval ideas
by Flatredline on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:11 UTC
Flatredline
Member since:
2014-03-27

Medieval ideas such as Javascript and cofounding Mozilla are the ones that should apply to his job status. His political beliefs (in my opinion) should not come into play at his day-to-day job.

I do not agree with his stance on same-sex marriage, but I believe that he should have the right to hold and express his beliefs.

Reply Score: 27

RE: Medieval ideas
by Delgarde on Tue 1st Apr 2014 01:35 UTC in reply to "Medieval ideas"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I do not agree with his stance on same-sex marriage, but I believe that he should have the right to hold and express his beliefs.


Exactly my attitude. I think his beliefs are wrong, but since I don't see any connection between those views and his position as Mozilla CEO, I can't help but see this fuss as a witchhunt, an excuse to hurt someone for holding contrary beliefs.

People are welcome to disagree with him (as I do), but I think some are taking this far too far, protesting against Mozilla for employing him....

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Medieval ideas
by subterrific on Tue 1st Apr 2014 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Medieval ideas"
subterrific Member since:
2005-07-10

You don't see a connection between his actions to repress a group of people and his position of power over people in that group? Really?

I see a lot of opinions in this thread from people who seem to not understand the gravity of Prop 8 or what it is like to be denied equal treatment under the law.

Worst case what Brendan did is bigotry. Best case it is arrogance and lack of empathy. Either way he can't be trusted.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Medieval ideas
by Morgan on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Medieval ideas"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You don't see a connection between his actions to repress a group of people and his position of power over people in that group? Really?


That's my only real concern with this issue (and it doesn't affect me personally, just observing from afar). I don't agree with his juvenile attitude towards homosexuality and same sex marriage; I think he needs to grow up and realize his isn't the only point of view that matters. And maybe he has; does anyone know if he's supported the anti-gay movement since then?

Anyway, if the guy still believes that gay = second class citizen, then yes, I'd be a little afraid of working for him if I were gay. But I think people should see what kind of CEO he will be before trying to take his job. He may be a raging asshole...but then so are many CEOs, past, present, and future. If he starts letting his prejudices affect the company, then the company itself will take care of it. If not, and he keeps his personal views separate from work, then I don't see an issue.

All that said, I still think anyone who tries to impede basic human rights based on religious or personal views is a dick, and that includes this guy.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Medieval ideas
by RobG on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Medieval ideas"
RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

I suspect if they promoted a member of a racist organisation to CEO they would also be the subject of opprobrium. Quite appropriately. This is no different.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Medieval ideas
by RobG on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:54 UTC in reply to "Medieval ideas"
RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

"I do not agree with his stance on same-sex marriage, but I believe that he should have the right to hold and express his beliefs."

If an employee makes a racist/sexist comment or donation to a racist organisation, they may expect consequences. Why is this any different?

I also believe in the right of his customers and employees to object to his stance on such issues and take whatever actions they feel appropriate - including boycotting and writing articles pointing out this.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Medieval ideas
by dayalsoap on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 16:15 UTC in reply to "Medieval ideas"
dayalsoap Member since:
2010-05-19

No government is persecuting him for his comments, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Medieval ideas
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 16:56 UTC in reply to "Medieval ideas"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Medieval ideas such as Javascript and cofounding Mozilla are the ones that should apply to his job status. His political beliefs (in my opinion) should not come into play at his day-to-day job.


His job is to be the face of a semi-nonprofit. Not a developer. His moral stance is relevant to his position.

Reply Score: 3

Welcome to Witch Hunting v2.0
by sergio on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:13 UTC
sergio
Member since:
2005-07-06

He is Mozilla's CEO not the President of USA.

Who cares about his personal/political/religious opinions?!

This is crazy...

Reply Score: 24

RE: Welcome to Witch Hunting v2.0
by jgagnon on Tue 1st Apr 2014 19:47 UTC in reply to "Welcome to Witch Hunting v2.0"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

He is Mozilla's CEO not the President of USA.

Who cares about his personal/political/religious opinions?!

This is crazy...


The people that care are the ones that are complaining, obviously. He is a leader and as a leader has influence over the company and its policies. Since he was willing to spend significant money to pursue an active belief of his outside the company then would it not be within reason to assume he might do the same at Mozilla? If I were a non-straight person working for Mozilla I might feel a little threatened, too. Or if I had a non-straight friend/relative working there. Et cetera.

And, for the record, if a POTUS does something you don't like you can help them lose their job, too.

Mozilla, the corporation - not the non-profit, is a private company. They can "handle things" in many different ways than a public company could, for better or for worse. As a leader of a private company you represent the company. Obviously, some people do not feel he represents the company very well.

And, as always, the Internet has every right to vent about anything and everything, even without a good reason. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Comment by aligatro
by aligatro on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:30 UTC
aligatro
Member since:
2010-01-28

Some people have their own opinion that differs from mine. *gasp* Lets boycott them immediately.
Also, I think "OkCupid" is shooting themselves in the foot by blocking FF. If osnews.com started blocking my favorite web browser, I would just switch to another news website, not switch to another web browser.

Reply Score: 10

It was.racism that started it
by tomz on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:35 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

What right does the state have to define marriage at all?

So you approve of gay marriages? What about other forms?

The first laws in the USA where marriage licenses or state regulation were the anti-miscegenation laws, to prevent interracial marriage.

Defining marriage at the point of a gun?

But lets burn a - mayve a huge lambda sign on his lawn. Ban him from employment for life. Hey, why not just kill him for his expressed political opinion.

That is your definition of tolerance. Tolerance only for opinions you agree with.

No liberty, no speech, no expression, no matter how fundamental a right, no matter how private, personal, or how far in the past is beyond your own hatred - no statute of limitations.

Is this the world you really want?

Reply Score: 7

RE: It was.racism that started it
by kwan_e on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:45 UTC in reply to "It was.racism that started it"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

What right does the state have to define marriage at all?

So you approve of gay marriages? What about other forms?

The first laws in the USA where marriage licenses or state regulation were the anti-miscegenation laws, to prevent interracial marriage.

Defining marriage at the point of a gun?
.
.
.
No liberty, no speech, no expression, no matter how fundamental a right, no matter how private, personal, or how far in the past is beyond your own hatred - no statute of limitations.

Is this the world you really want?


So speaking out against discrimination discriminates against the discriminators. Oh the poor discriminators.

But lets burn a - mayve a huge lambda sign on his lawn. Ban him from employment for life. Hey, why not just kill him for his expressed political opinion.

That is your definition of tolerance. Tolerance only for opinions you agree with.


This is one of the most stupid things I've read. "Why not just kill him"? How does that even follow from anything?

Reply Score: 3

RE: It was.racism that started it
by dayalsoap on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 16:22 UTC in reply to "It was.racism that started it"
dayalsoap Member since:
2010-05-19

Lots of idiot libertarians here.

Listen government doesn't force you to abide by our laws with a gun, nor does it force you to pay taxes.

You are NOT entitled to live on our collectively own land and use our collectively owned resources. We, the people, have a right tc collectively govern ourselves. Your attempt to use our land and resources and not pay is *theft* of our goods and services. We have the right to use guns to defend ourselves.

IF you don't like the terms and conditions we've established, then leave. Do business elsewhere. Nobody is forcing you to stay.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Tue 1st Apr 2014 00:59 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

Hey now. His views on same-sex unions might not be medieval - there's evidence that the Catholic Church sanctioned same-sex marriage in the Medieval era ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-Sex_Unions_in_Pre-Modern_Europe )

That said, as backwards as his views are, I can't be outraged. In a world-wide organization such as Mozilla, it's important to allow for diversity of ideas, even if unpopular - within the ranks. Now, as long as the his stupididly bigoted views don't influence Mozilla's efforts at an open web (Which is what makes Mozilla so important), I think we should let him slide. Nobody is perfect, and it takes some people longer than others to come around.

Reply Score: 7

OSNews = On Sex News
by vtolkov on Tue 1st Apr 2014 01:38 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

Why do we have such a medieval thing as marriage? Wasn't it just a way to own women? People must be free to be together or be separate. What do we have marriage for?

Reply Score: 4

RE: OSNews = On Sex News
by judgen on Tue 1st Apr 2014 04:02 UTC in reply to "OSNews = On Sex News"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Marriage is/was first an foremost a contract between men and women guaranteeing the women be provided for by the man and in return the woman promised to carry on his genes exclusively.

Reply Score: 2

RE: OSNews = On Sex News
by ricegf on Tue 1st Apr 2014 04:46 UTC in reply to "OSNews = On Sex News"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Why do we have such a medieval thing as marriage? Wasn't it just a way to own women?


No. Please try to remember that you asked the question, and I'm just giving an honest answer from my personal perspective as a practicing Christian.

Many who self-identify as Christian follow Ephesians 5:25-33, which establishes marriage as an analogy of the relationship between Christ and his church, and specifically his willingness (we believe) to die to protect and save his people. It's nearly the opposite of "ownership" - it's sacrificial love.

That's why changing the (government's) definition of marriage tends to upset so many Christians, and why so many people insist that marriage is more than "just a legal contract" - marriage has been wrapped up in theology for thousands of years.

I suspect that if the exact same laws were labeled "civil unions", you'd see a lot less heartburn - though I understand the desire of gay people to receive the same acknowledgement before the law, and the refusal of so many to accept that compromise as even slightly acceptable.

Of course, given the general disregard of marriage in (at least) American society in the age of quick, no-fault divorce, I'm suspicious we'd be better off if the government didn't acknowledge "marriage" at all - just offer civil unions as a shorthand for a set of legalese. My stubborn libertarian streak leaks out sometimes, I guess. But I'm a backslid libertarian, so I could be wrong. *shrugs*

People must be free to be together or be separate. What do we have marriage for?


As someone who has been happily married for 27 years, I would say that I find great satisfaction in the life we have built together. The permanence of our marriage, as we do not accept divorce as a moral option, is a large part of the satisfaction. We're partners for life, no plan B, we burned the ships, and all that jazz.

If you told my wife that I own her, by the way, she'd nearly die laughing. You'd probably make her day.

I don't give a flip who you choose to marry or why, or which marriages the government chooses to accept for tax and inheritance purposes or not, but I do have grave concerns over the efforts of proponents of government recognition of gay marriage to destroy the lives of those who disagree with them. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Or so I heard a man say once while growing up in Mississippi in the 1960s.

So. That's one man's opinion. Feel free to try to have me fired and blacklisted now...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: OSNews = On Sex News
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 09:31 UTC in reply to "RE: OSNews = On Sex News"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Many who self-identify as Christian follow Ephesians 5:25-33, which establishes marriage as an analogy of the relationship between Christ and his church, and specifically his willingness (we believe) to die to protect and save his people. It's nearly the opposite of "ownership" - it's sacrificial love.


1) Why could sacrificial love not apply to people of the same gender? Christ is male, but why is the church female, except to make the analogy work by presupposing marriage as man + woman?
2) Why not oppose atheist marriage for the same reason?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: OSNews = On Sex News
by ricegf on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSNews = On Sex News"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

1) Why could sacrificial love not apply to people of the same gender? Christ is male, but why is the church female, except to make the analogy work by presupposing marriage as man + woman?


Again, I'm speaking theologically from one practicing Christian's perspective, because you ask.

In Matthew 19, Jesus was asked if divorce (as fashionable then as now) was morally permissible for people of faith. In answering, he specifically pointed back to the very beginning - Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 - where (we believe) God created marriage as a permanent bond between one man and one woman.

I suppose it's valid to claim that Jesus was presupposing the definition of marriage as you state, but only because (we believe) he defined it that way from the start.

2) Why not oppose atheist marriage for the same reason?


Theologically, as far as I know, there's no basis to oppose marriage by non-Christians, as biblical morality applies to Christians rather by definition.

Most of the conflict (from my view) hasn't come from trying to prevent gay marriage itself - I believe a young woman married a dolphin in Florida a few years back, and really, who cares? It's her life - as much as trying to avoid having the government legally recognize such marriages. That was what DOMA actually addressed - it never "outlawed gay marriage", as the press endlessly parroted, but rather prohibited the federal government from recognizing or forcing states to recognize those marriages - unconstitutionally, as it turns out. :-)

It's that whole "you're trying to force your morality on us!" thing that Christians and non-Christians periodically hurl at each other, usually because... well, because we both periodically do exactly that. *sigh*

From the Christian side of things, in the same way that atheists fought all the way to the supreme court to force the Boy Scouts of America organization to accept gay leaders, and the supreme court is at this moment deciding whether a privately owned business can be forced by the government to pay for medical procedures that violate their personal and religious convictions, there is concern that churches and private businesses will similarly be forced to host, perform, and recognize gay marriages even if such actions violate their personal and religious beliefs.

You know, kind of like gay marriage advocates are trying to destroy a man who dares to act in his private life in accordance with his personal beliefs.

Again, I don't particularly care who marries who. For example, while on our honeymoon in Paris, my wife and I toured with a gay couple who happened to be part of our traveling group (this was in the 1980s), and we had a lovely time. I've also had several gay friends through the years, and never had any argument with them. How delightful it would be if we could simply be left to believe as we choose, and act on those beliefs according to the dictates of our conscience, without people who disagree attempting to coerce our actions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OSNews = On Sex News"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Again, I don't particularly care who marries who. For example, while on our honeymoon in Paris, my wife and I toured with a gay couple who happened to be part of our traveling group (this was in the 1980s), and we had a lovely time. I've also had several gay friends through the years, and never had any argument with them. How delightful it would be if we could simply be left to believe as we choose, and act on those beliefs according to the dictates of our conscience, without people who disagree attempting to coerce our actions.


Were black people "coercing your actions" when they argued in favour of interracial marriage? If no, then neither are same-sex couples when they fight for not being discriminated against by the state.

In most developed nations, religious marriage has no legal standing. In The Netherlands, for instance, religious couples marry twice - once for the state, once for their religious community. The religious wedding - ceremonial wedding - has no legal standing, no legal meaning. Even non-religious couples sometimes marry twice - the state wedding at city hall in the morning, a big ceremonial wedding at a beautiful location later in the day, where all friends attend.

This is how it should be, because in any modern, developed nation, there is a separation between church and state. The funny thing is that here in The Netherlands, protestant churches were performing same-sex marriages all the way back to the '80s, and right now, many of them have no issue with it at all.

With religious marriage not having any legal standing whatsoever, religious communities are free to deny or grant same-sex marriages all they want - that is none of my concern. However, with more than 90% of the Dutch population being strictly in favour of same-sex marriage, Dutch protestant churches knew which way the wind was blowing - and many of them have adjusted. Those that haven't - go ahead, I don't give a shit. Religious communities denying same-sex marriage is just as relevant to me as the state granting same-sex marriages should be to you.

The first article of the Dutch Constitution is the equality principle, namely, that all Ditch citizens have 100% equal rights. As such, by denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, the government was actually violating its own constitution. Hence, same-sex marriage was an inevitability.

I respect that you think that whatever was written down thousands of years ago is truth to you, but to me, and to a proper, modern government, your book is no more or less truth than The Lord Of The Rings. The bible also prohibits wearing two different fabrics at once, and advocates stoning. Do you follow those rules as well, or do you only pick to follow the rules that suit you?

At the end of the day, a state that gives more rights to group A than to group B based on the colour of their skin, their religion, or their sexual orientation, is barbaric, oppressive, and yes, medieval.

Just as we now agree that people of different colour can marry, and that it is unethical for a government to prohibit as such, it is also unethical of a government to prohibit marriage based on sexual orientation. Within a few decades, we'll look back upon the US as it is now, and treat the hate towards same-sex marriage with as much disdain as we now treat institutional racism in several decades ago.

Edited 2014-04-01 11:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News
by pfortuny on Tue 1st Apr 2014 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News"
pfortuny Member since:
2006-02-05

What you are not taking into account is the simple fact that 'marriage' meant one thing and then, out of the blue, it meant a different thing. And I mean it as a 'social institution', nothing more.

So suddenly claiming that 'gay couples' have a right to marry is just a redefinition of the 'social institution' of marriage and whatever you think and say, this is something which some people think should not be done: not denying gay couples the 'right' to marry because *in their point of view* that has absolutely *no* meaning.

It is to them like saying that 'married couples should have the right to remain single': just nonsense.

A different thing is to try and say 'gay couples should have the same rights as married couples'. But this requires at least some explanation (I am not saying I am against it or pro it, I am just asking for some *honest* explanation).

The fact that for you is simple just means that you do not see marriage as a social institution but just as a mere contract. This is *your opinion* and I guess people are entitled to have a different one.

Imagine someone saying that anyone should be able to judge his brother: an eye for an eye. Why not? Why not, I say? Is it injustice, if it is one eye for one eye? Why should justice be just left to judges?

What about Muslim justice, for example, should they be entitled to it...?

Just calling names is just calling names: it adds nothing, it subtracts everything.

And the name Nazi is very good and fine, but I say, are you entitled to use it just because you hold an opinion which is the one of the majority *today*?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: OSNews = On Sex News
by Vanders on Tue 1st Apr 2014 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

the simple fact that 'marriage' meant one thing and then, out of the blue, it meant a different thing


Oh no, the definition of a word changed.

In the UK gay marriage became legal at midnight on the 29th of March. I checked when I got out of bed, but I couldn't see the four horsemen riding out across a sky of molten sulphur. I called them and checked, and my heterosexual parents were still married. Apparently the world didn't end.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: OSNews = On Sex News
by zima on Sun 6th Apr 2014 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: OSNews = On Sex News"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Though isn't settling on "civil unions" (for example) a more practical solution? (it avoids antagonising religious people, for one; or maybe I think so because of bad luck of living in a place where there's plenty of them...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News
by lucas_maximus on Tue 1st Apr 2014 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Way to go to miss the point about what he was trying to say.

He doesn't have a problem with same sex marriage, he even admits it means different things to different people. He doesn't like that someone's political and personal opinions should have anything to do with their ability or eligibility to do a job when they are obviously not in conflict with what they are doing.

I could understand the complaint if it was someone who was obviously homophobic running a LGBT charity.

Like it or not people have to realise that you are going to have to work with some people you don't like or don't agree with their beliefs, but as long as they are competent and don't bring those beliefs to work there isn't a lot you can do about it.

Also it was a $1000 over half a decade ago, I spent more in one night on the roulette table after taking some class A drugs.

Edited 2014-04-01 17:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News
by mieses on Tue 1st Apr 2014 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News"
mieses Member since:
2006-02-07

You imply that the defense of interracial marriage is based on similar grounds as the defense of gay marriage. If you see marriage as a right, regardless the definition of the word, then do you also support the right of all citizens to marry regardless of age, relationship, and the number of persons entering into a given marriage (provided no "harm" is done to others)?

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News
by ricegf on Tue 1st Apr 2014 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Interracial marriage would seem to be well-supported by Galatians 3:28 and the entire book of Ruth.

I'm unaware of anyone who promotes Sharia-like enforcement of the legal code of ancient Israel, something that Jesus dismissed as unnecessary in Mark 12:17. But it is not "picking and choosing" to follow the interpretation of the sacrificial and moral law in my personal life, exactly as Jesus stated.

You'll also note that I wrote in favor of equal treatment before American law for all people in my country. I stand by that, and also respect those who disagree with me on my personal beliefs. My concern remains those who seek to destroy those with whom they disagree.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OSNews = On Sex News"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Most of the conflict (from my view) hasn't come from trying to prevent gay marriage itself - (...) as much as trying to avoid having the government legally recognize such marriages.

Yeah. But unless it works wildly differently in the US than in Europe, the government is the only institution that is allowed to issue marriages, or, by proxy, the only institution allowed to define what marriages it recognizes (which would amount to the same). So since the only legal definition of marriage is "those that the governement sanctions/recognizes", preventing the government to recognize same-sex marriages prevents those marriages de jure.

That was what DOMA actually addressed - it never "outlawed gay marriage", as the press endlessly parroted, but rather prohibited the federal government from recognizing or forcing states to recognize those marriages - unconstitutionally, as it turns out.

As I wrote above, that amounts to exactly the same. "The DOCA (Defence of Car Act) never "outlawed cars with three wheels", but rather prohibited the federal government from recognizing anything without four wheels as cars." Potato, potahto...

It's that whole "you're trying to force your morality on us!" thing that Christians and non-Christians periodically hurl at each other, usually because... well, because we both periodically do exactly that.

Except, the seculars are more right in this case than the Christians. Preventing the government from recognizing same-sex marriage because Christians don't recognize same-sex marriage forces Christian morality onto everyone, Christian or not, by proxy of the government. On the other hand, recognizing same-sex marriage because non-Christians recognize same-sex marriage doesn't force anything upon Christians*.

*Yes, even Christians now need to treat same-sex married couples as opposite-sex married couples, but to my knowledge only as far as federal laws are concerned.

From the Christian side of things, in the same way that atheists fought all the way to the supreme court to force the Boy Scouts of America organization to accept gay leaders

And they lost. Your point being?

and the supreme court is at this moment deciding whether a privately owned business can be forced by the government to pay for medical procedures that violate their personal and religious convictions

The actual test there is, I think, whether religious freedom may trump laws, and if so to which extent.

there is concern that churches and private businesses will similarly be forced to host, perform, and recognize gay marriages even if such actions violate their personal and religious beliefs.

I understand the concern. But to react by trying to prevent it altogether is imposing your believes on others.

You know, kind of like gay marriage advocates are trying to destroy a man who dares to act in his private life in accordance with his personal beliefs.

What man are we talking about? And what ways they are trying to "destroy" him? It seems you use a lot of typical framing language.

Again, I don't particularly care who marries who. For example, (...)

"I'm not a racist, I even have some black friends" We've all heard things like that. Doesn't mean a damn thing.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News
by ricegf on Tue 1st Apr 2014 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OSNews = On Sex News"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

What man are you talking about?


I was referring to Brendan Eich, the person referenced in Thom's post on which we are all commenting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: OSNews = On Sex News
by cdude on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: OSNews = On Sex News"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

And people who express there opinion that he disqualifies as CEO for Mozilla are now destroying him and is family. Aha!

Edited 2014-04-02 01:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: OSNews = On Sex News
by jal_ on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: OSNews = On Sex News"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

And people who express there opinion that he disqualifies as CEO for Mozilla are now destroying him and is family. Aha!


Indeed, typical hyperbolic language framing. Isn't the first time we'll see that, won't be the last either.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: OSNews = On Sex News
by JAlexoid on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: OSNews = On Sex News"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

marriage has been wrapped up in theology for thousands of years

Only about 500 for Christianity, with exceptions of Royal "marriages" that are effectively a coronation of the spouse.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: OSNews = On Sex News
by ricegf on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OSNews = On Sex News"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

No, even a cursory reading of the New Testament shows a strong theological emphasis on marriage as representing God's relationship to his church (I point to a few examples above, or try Revelation if you're for some deep reading ;-), and we have complete copies in Greek from the 4th century. But of course Christianity is also not the only religion.

Reply Score: 1

RE: OSNews = On Sex News
by Lorin on Tue 1st Apr 2014 05:19 UTC in reply to "OSNews = On Sex News"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

Make marriage a contract thing, say renewable every 5 years

Reply Score: 5

Comment by mutantsushi
by mutantsushi on Tue 1st Apr 2014 01:44 UTC
mutantsushi
Member since:
2006-08-18

I would probably disagree with this Eich guy's politics here, but I just don't think this is an appropriate thing to do. It has nothing to do with how he is running Mozilla, and in fact nothing to do with present reality: it is about his PAST support for a political initiative which failed and has no plausible future path for success.

Honestly, such a position was supported by VAST sectors of the American public not that long ago, so are they ALL supposed to now be "lustrated" from any position of power? If such a policy is enforced, then what do you think that sector of people will do? Political repression like that can only motivate people to turn to things like terrorism. All the people who fought for gay rights and gay marriage when that wasn't the law of the land and wasn't the mass popular opinion benefitted from not losing their jobs over political dissent.

To be punishing civil political dissent just as one specific category of "other-ness" is granted broader rights would be the ultimate irony. To be clear, America has never seemed as comfortable protecting political dissent as it is protecting race, gender, religion, and now sexual orientation... despite that political dissent cuts to the heart of the idea of freedom and plurality under democracy, about the independence of the individual, not simply some divvying up of the state between racial/religious/sexual groups who then protect their 'members'.

In the long fight for gay rights, most pro-gay rights people easily enough admitted the issue of gay marriage was not important so much in it's own right, but symbolically re: broader equality. Ironically, that issue is still muddled, with the process by which gay marriage has come about in the US not deriving from any clear judicial principle, but as much from legal technicalities. The US still does not have constitutional gender equality, which seems the rational pre-requisite for sexual orientation equality.

It's shocking that there can be significant support for removing this guy from his job for having in the past taken a now unpopular political position... meanwhile loads of tech CEOs cooperated with the US government illegal surveillance programs. While loads of US CEOs directly faciitate ethnic cleansing Israeli policy, or a host of other repressive regimes.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by mutantsushi
by subterrific on Tue 1st Apr 2014 06:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by mutantsushi"
subterrific Member since:
2005-07-10

I haven't seen any Mozilla employee ask for him to be fired, only that he stay CTO where he isn't in the position of publicly representing the company and wielding power over health and other benefits of gay employees.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by mutantsushi
by Lennie on Tue 1st Apr 2014 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mutantsushi"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Yep, you win a price: best comment on this article.

I think this is probably how the employees at Mozilla feel about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by mutantsushi
by mutantsushi on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mutantsushi"
mutantsushi Member since:
2006-08-18

Saying "you think this" without actual objective evidence of threats in this regime is not really substantial enough reason to fire somebody. As I commented elsewhere, if there is actual intimidation or persecution of gay employees, that's 100% grounds for firing. But just an inference that he would do so because he supported political measures counter to gay marriage is not reasonable. If that were true, everybody who supported measures to legalize marijuana (which failed) would then be liable to be fired on the premise they would sponsor illegal drug use.

Being in California, it is against the law to deny benefits to gay couples, married or not. Previous to gay marriage there was already laws covering 'civil partnerships' incuding rights to spousal benefits (which incidentally, is rather a horrid bandid over the state of US social rights, where it matters who you love/who you sleep with in terms of medical care you get: somebody who is single or who loves poor people has less coverage. Expanding partnership benefits to gay people doesn't change that, and doesn't help gay couples where neither partner has a fat corporate job).

I have seen no evidence that this guy has in any way impede the application of that law, and if he has, it is a simple manner of the law to find redress for that. A CEO is simply not going to intervene in the minute issue of spousal benefits, that is Human Resources' issue, so hysterics over this are just that: hysterics.

Reply Score: 2

Sewage
by Bobthearch on Tue 1st Apr 2014 02:24 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Political sewage has seeped into OSNews. Disgusting. Hopefully we can air the place out, bleach the floors, and fix the clogged drain fast.

Reply Score: 10

Stick to your guns
by mlein on Tue 1st Apr 2014 02:32 UTC
mlein
Member since:
2014-04-01

I have no problem with him donating to a cause that 1. he believes in and 2. doesn't actually hurt anyone. But I do have a problem with him doing a PR about face just because he has found out that his choice wasn't popular. Make your choice and then either stick to it or if you genuinely change your view, which is possible, then change your view but don't just be wishy-washy because of PR. I do believe that gay marriage is wrong but i'm not about to blow $1,000 fighting it as it's just not that big of a deal to me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Stick to your guns
by m_abs on Tue 1st Apr 2014 15:17 UTC in reply to "Stick to your guns"
m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

I have no problem with him donating to a cause that 1. he believes in and 2. doesn't actually hurt anyone.

Donating money to have rights taken away from other people is hurting them.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Stick to your guns
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Stick to your guns"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Donating money to have rights taken away from other people is hurting them.


Exactly what right is it taking away? The right to call yourself married? Is it really that important that it is called "marriage" instead of "civil union" if the exact same rights are granted?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Stick to your guns
by m_abs on Tue 1st Apr 2014 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stick to your guns"
m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

"Exactly what right is it taking away? "
The right to get married and to be treated as an equal member of society.

"Is it really that important that it is called "marriage" instead of "civil union" if the exact same rights are granted?"
To problems with that.
1. If it was just a matter of the word "marriage", why are people so opposed to same-sex marriage?
2. The same rights and benefits aren't granted: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Denmark, my country, have allowed civil unions since 1989 and we didn't grant them the same rights and benefits as married couples. Luckily we fixed that in 2012 where we finally allowed same-sex marriages.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Stick to your guns
by Soulbender on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stick to your guns"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The same rights and benefits aren't granted


Well, I did say *IF* the same rights are granted.
So, presuming that the same rights ARE granted why would you still need to call it marriage? I mean, it's just a word for some old, outdated notion that religious folks has a hard-on for so why is it so important that it is called marriage?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 03:10 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

As a Dutchman, it baffles me that an organisation like Mozilla appointed a man with such medieval ideas.


As a dutchman, maybe you shouldn't make too wide claims with regards to racist issues.

Edited 2014-04-01 03:19 UTC

Reply Score: 12

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 09:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

As a dutchman, maybe you shouldn't make too wide claims with regards to racist issues.


Care to explain? As it seems you imply that the Dutch are racists?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Soulbender"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

As it seems you imply that the Dutch are racists?


It could be argued that they are and there certainly are those that do.

"Truth is, we’re a racist little country, whether we like it or not."
- Youp van 't Hek

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

"Truth is, we’re a racist little country, whether we like it or not." - Youp van 't Hek


Well, I wouldn't trust Youp. Truth is, the Netherlands don't fare much better or worse than the average Western European country.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, I wouldn't trust Youp.


Well, should we really trust anyone from a country that still wears blackface? ;)

Truth is, the Netherlands don't fare much better or worse than the average Western European country.


Be that as it may, saying "As a dutchman" like that somehow gives you some moral high ground or superiority is rather disingenuous and incorrect.

Edited 2014-04-01 11:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Soulbender
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Well, should we really trust anyone from a country that still wears blackface?

Ouch, well countered.

Be that as it may, saying "As a dutchman" like that somehow gives you some moral high ground or superiority is rather disingenuous and incorrect.

I totally agree. There are plenty of bigots around here. With an 80% approval rate, there's still a good two million adults opposing.

Reply Score: 2

freedom has a price
by TechGeek on Tue 1st Apr 2014 03:21 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Eich has the freedom to support who ever he wants politically. But having a freedom does not guarantee you are free from consequences. He chose to publicly promote a ban on gay marriage. As a consequence, the world knows he is a bigot. That information is now haunting his career. Tough crap. The employees have every right to ask for a new CEO. After all, Mozilla is a non profit organization with a board of directors. I am sure there are rules for electing a new CEO. There is certainly nothing wrong with telling someone they suck and should just leave. But I get the real feeling that had Eich offered a real apology for his previous actions, this would have been a non issue. Its the fact that he hasn't, meaning I guess he still feels the same way, that is pissing everyone off.

Reply Score: 2

RE: freedom has a price
by HappyGod on Tue 1st Apr 2014 03:32 UTC in reply to "freedom has a price"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

They do not have every right to hazzard a persons job because he holds a view. Even if they strongly disagree with that view.

Punishing a person's livelyhood because they have expressed an opinion on a subject is a severe limitation on free speech. I would go as far as to say that it isn't free speech at all.

If I know I will lose my job if I say something, then I do not have free speech.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: freedom has a price
by TechGeek on Tue 1st Apr 2014 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: freedom has a price"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I most certainly do have every right to ask for a person to be fired. Its called freedom of speech. And that persons boss has every right to ignore me.

Some jobs actually do have morality clauses in them because of their power over other people. Just because we live in a free country doesn't mean you are free from repercussions to your actions.

Reply Score: 4

RE: freedom has a price
by mutantsushi on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 02:21 UTC in reply to "freedom has a price"
mutantsushi Member since:
2006-08-18

I get the real feeling that had Eich offered a real apology for his previous actions, this would have been a non issue. Its the fact that he hasn't, meaning I guess he still feels the same way, that is pissing everyone off.
I agree, that in other words the issue is not his current actions, but his current non-actions, i.e. not apologizing or whatever to appease his political opponents. They are not happy with him just shutting up and being silent on the issue, they insist on direct display of conformance and subjection, with no allowance for "thought crime". One problem with that is any objective measure is simply enough bypasses by anybody willing to lie. If there is a problem with his current actions in the active sense, those can be dealt with. Most objective concerns seems to be issues that would be covered by the actual law anyways, that he would be breaking by persecuting any gay employees.

Reply Score: 3

Calendar
by Bobthearch on Tue 1st Apr 2014 03:45 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Dear god, I hope this colostomy bag rupture of politics into OSN is an April Fool's joke.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by judgen
by judgen on Tue 1st Apr 2014 03:58 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

I am for religious freedom. I will not FORCE muslims to eat pork, jews to eat shrimp christians to sin. Simple as that, if their religion proclaims that gay marriage is not permitted then perhaps the person that want a religious gay marriage should search for another religion.
I am for gay marriage for civil reasons, but it should not be forced into religious communities by lawmakers. Instead of a priest someone could get a sea captain, a mayor or a government clerk to officiate the union.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by judgen
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 06:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yeah, I must say I feel kinda the same. I'm all for gay couples to be married in the civil sense and have all the same rights, standings and benefits as heterosexual couples do. That should indeed be their right and they should not be discriminated against.
Now, religion is a different issue. Forcing this into the religions that are against it (certain Christians & Buddhists, Islam etc) for whatever reason is bound to make them even more against it. I'm not saying we should allow them to be assholes about it in public and persecute those of different orientation but forcing them to perform rituals within the realms of their faith that is blatantly against it probably isn't a good idea.

Edited 2014-04-01 06:31 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by judgen
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by judgen"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Big, big straw man. Noone is forcing any religion to do anything against its will. It's the classic Christian response, but bogus nonetheless. It's about the goverment's recognition of marriage. And unless you live in a theocracy, that's a separate thing altogether.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by judgen
by dsmogor on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by judgen"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

It isn't really obvious that's was exactly the case of donation. At least from the article title.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by judgen
by unclefester on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by judgen"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Big, big straw man. Noone is forcing any religion to do anything against its will.


A Lutheran pastor in Sweden was convicted of hate crimes because he gave a sermon against gay marriage.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by judgen
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by judgen"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

A Lutheran pastor in Sweden was convicted of hate crimes because he gave a sermon against gay marriage.

Yes. And he was (rightly, imho) acquited by the Swedish Supreme Court. Also, the issue of whether one can spread vile messages in church has little to do with the issue of whether a church can be forced to do anything against it teachings.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by judgen
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by judgen"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's the classic Christian response, but bogus nonetheless.


I'm not Christian and it's not only Christians who are against it.

Noone is forcing any religion to do anything against its will.


Well, that is good to hear. I guess the church (of whichever faith) can refuse to wed gay couples then?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by judgen
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by judgen"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

I'm not Christian

I didn't say you were.

and it's not only Christians who are against it.

Obviously. There are many non-Christian bigots, and even atheist ones. But I thought that you were not against marriage equality?

Well, that is good to hear. I guess the church (of whichever faith) can refuse to wed gay couples then?

Absolutely. Since church weddings have, in most countries, and probably in all countries allowing same-sex marriage, no legal value.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by judgen
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by judgen"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But I thought that you were not against marriage equality?


I am not. I'm just making arguments and trying to see both sides of the story.

Absolutely.


Awesome. Then I really don't see what the big deal is. Maybe it's not communicated as well as it should be and people of faith are thinking they'll be forced to wed gay couples. As someone else said, maybe they should just have called it "civil union" or something. "Marriage" is a somewhat loaded word.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by judgen
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by judgen"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Awesome. Then I really don't see what the big deal is.

Neither do I. But hey, I consider myself pretty progressive...

Maybe it's not communicated as well as it should be and people of faith are thinking they'll be forced to wed gay couples.

Being gay is an abomination in the eye of God. (So is working an Sabbath and eating shrimp, but Christians like to cherry pick.)

As someone else said, maybe they should just have called it "civil union" or something. "Marriage" is a somewhat loaded word.

Yes. Many countries already have civil unions that recognize the same rights for same-sex couples, for exactly that reason. But it still means inequality. Simply put, the state, not the church, defines what it calls and recognizes as marriage, loaded or not.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by judgen
by Vanders on Tue 1st Apr 2014 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by judgen"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes. Many countries already have civil unions that recognize the same rights for same-sex couples, for exactly that reason. But it still means inequality. Simply put, the state, not the church, defines what it calls and recognizes as marriage, loaded or not.

The UK legalized gay marriage but simply allowed religious organisations to opt out of performing ceremonies for gay couples. Seems like a perfectly valid compromise to me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by judgen
by zima on Mon 7th Apr 2014 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by judgen"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

As someone else said, maybe they should just have called it "civil union" or something. "Marriage" is a somewhat loaded word.

Would definitely be more practical in many places... (avoids antagonising the more religious populations...)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by OfficeSubmarine
by OfficeSubmarine on Tue 1st Apr 2014 04:38 UTC
OfficeSubmarine
Member since:
2006-12-14

Dude's ancient, and American. Most Americans could get all kinds of racist rants about mixed marriages by talking to their grandparents as well.

That's just the nature of things. It's unfortunate, but you just have to wait for old bigots to die off. Hope that older generations aren't bigots, but don't expect it or judge too harshly for their inability to grow behind what they were raised within.

Reply Score: 4

We need a healthy Mozilla & Firefox
by benali72 on Tue 1st Apr 2014 04:43 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

With the rise of Google Chrome and continued strength of Microsoft's IE, it's more important than ever that we have a vibrant open-source competitor in Firefox... a product not designed for profit and corporate spying. If this hurts Firefox it will be a tragedy of the first magnitude.

Reply Score: 2

Inventor of javascript?
by gehersh on Tue 1st Apr 2014 05:01 UTC
gehersh
Member since:
2006-01-03

Shall we start boycotting Javascript (and every software that uses it) as well?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Inventor of javascript?
by RobG on Tue 1st Apr 2014 12:04 UTC in reply to "Inventor of javascript? "
RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

I wish, but for technical reasons.

Reply Score: 2

too much fuss
by l3v1 on Tue 1st Apr 2014 05:30 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

baffles me that an organisation like Mozilla appointed a man with such medieval ideas


Honestly, if the man were a politician in power, capable of influencing important matters, I'd be concerned. However, I think that his FOSS/Mozilla/JS past is more relevant towards his position than his views about same sex marriage.

While I see how this issue might be a gift for same sex marriage activists, since it always comes handy when a known person can serve as a bone to chew on, I still would need major convincing how this all could - if ever - have an effect on his FOSS past and his current position.

Anyway, it's another 'nice' topic to write irrelevant news stories about, so I'm not surprised this gaining momentum.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mutantsushi
by mutantsushi on Tue 1st Apr 2014 06:29 UTC
mutantsushi
Member since:
2006-08-18

What happens if these people get away with this witch hunt?
Obviously, some people will be fired.
But mostly it will just mean that people will LIE about their true beliefs.
How does that help an organization like Mozilla if their employees now need to constantly lie about their core beliefs?
How does that help internal cohesion for there to be more (well-founded) doubt that co-workers are fully truthful?

And if the lack of gay marriage is so fundamentally oppossedto Mozilla's mission, how did they ever get by when that was not the law? Why didn't they move to a jurisidiction where it was legal, like Spain? Are they going to lustrate all employees who backed Obama, who after all did not back gay marriage (until it became politically advantageous to do so)?

I think there's PLENTY of reasons to legalize gay marriage, both on (unarticulated/unactualized) gender equality grounds, and on religious freedom grounds (for the churches that allow it), as well as just solidarity of society at large. Conservative Christians don't "own" marriage, nor did Christianity create marriage to begin with, so pandering to such sentiments is absurd. Doesn't mean political witchhunts are now the order of the day.

And really, what does this accomplish? Nothing. Gay marriage won. This is just triumphalist self-righteous moral posturing. Why don't these people actually do something useful? Like end world hunger. Or actually get gender equality in the US constitution. If they want to stand up for absolute equality, they can equalize the salaries of all Mozilla employees to start.

Reply Score: 1

FFS
by p13. on Tue 1st Apr 2014 06:33 UTC
p13.
Member since:
2005-07-10

It doesn't matter one bit. The guy invented javascript. He's qualified for the job.
His views on gay marriage do not matter. At all.
If you want to be outraged, do so in your own time.
This is no different than the puppetry that goes on in US politics with the sex scandals. Someone wants his job, so they'll dig up the dirt.

Keep politics away from OSS, please.

Edited 2014-04-01 06:46 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: FFS
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 1st Apr 2014 07:11 UTC in reply to "FFS"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This isn't politics. This is civil rights. What if he supported a campaign to ban interracial marriage? What if he supported a campaign to have Jewish people wear yellow stars? What if he supported a campaign to have segregated government buildings?

He supports apartheid, and he is gives a position of considerable power. *Of course* people inside Mozilla are worried. Would you be just as callous if black employees asked ab openly racist CEO to step down?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: FFS
by p13. on Tue 1st Apr 2014 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE: FFS"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

First things first ...
He is not doing any of the things you mentioned.

Now that we have that out of the way ...
He is a CEO of a FOSS company. He cannot and will not dictate world politics. If he gets out of line within mozilla, he will be ejected.

Most politicians i know are psychopaths. That seems to be perfectly acceptable however. Just don't ever have sex, say anything even remotely racist, or don't ever come near the gay marriage issue and you'll be fine, right?

Listen, i support gay marriage. I think all men and women are equal, no matter their origin, preferences, disposition, skin color, etc.
This INCLUDES people with a differing opinion. As long as they don't go out of their way to hurt others, or myself, i'm fine with that.

That is the basic idea behind democracy, isn't it?

It's funny how we're all rooting for democracy, but the second someone feels they're right, and others are wrong, the same rules don't apply anymore.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: FFS
by bubbayank on Tue 1st Apr 2014 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE: FFS"
bubbayank Member since:
2005-07-15

Holy crap. I haven't been to this site in ages, but I come here, read this story, and see it's been overrun with wacky US tea party/Randian nutjobs.

Good show fellas! CEO is hired who gave money to suppress basic civil rights of others, and *your* panties are in a wad about his "freedom" to deserve a job he doesn't deserve. You must have a better argument than that. Probably not though, as the modern quasi-libertarian views in vogue with low-EQ tech drones is at it's base nonsensical selfishness that assumes a crazy utopia that does not and will never exist.

And Thom, maybe get off the Dutch high horse. As a visitor to your fine country around the Christmas holidays a few years back, I saw WAY too many people in blackface. And the arguments I heard for ol' "Black Pete" sounded not unlike some of the people defending Eich in this thread.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: FFS
by p13. on Tue 1st Apr 2014 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FFS"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

Who says he doesn't deserve the job? You?

Reply Score: 1

RE: FFS
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 09:43 UTC in reply to "FFS"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

It doesn't matter one bit. The guy invented javascript. He's qualified for the job.


I would say that in general, a great technician is not a great CEO (or, the skills that make a great technician overlap only very partially with the skills that make a great CEO). So regardless of his stance on same-sex marriage, I'm not sure he's qualified.

His views on gay marriage do not matter. At all.


Yes it does. For one thing, whether FOSS or not, CEOs typically have quite some political power. Perhaps not Mozilla CEOs, but I can't judge that. Secondly, as CEO he's everyone's überboss. Would you like to work for a company that you know its CEO is a bigot?

This is no different than the puppetry that goes on in US politics with the sex scandals.


Yes it is. I'd say there's very little overlap. Sex scandals are dug up to inflict damage to opponents. This is dug up because as a CEO, he's responsible for an entire company's staff. This includes staff that's gay and married.

Keep politics away from OSS, please.


This is not about politics. This is about human decency. Also, tell RMS that (for reasons unrelated to this, of course).

Reply Score: 4

Are you serious?
by jgfenix on Tue 1st Apr 2014 07:16 UTC
jgfenix
Member since:
2006-05-25

So he has medieval ideas? Who decides that?
Is he using his position in Mozilla to promote his ideas Mozilla? Is he promoting a witch hunt against homosexuals?
There is much hypocrisy of certain champions of tolerance who attack and discredit those who does not think like them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Are you serious?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 1st Apr 2014 07:18 UTC in reply to "Are you serious?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So we should accept Nazis and KKK-members as our bosses? Even if we are Jewish or black?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Are you serious?
by p13. on Tue 1st Apr 2014 08:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Are you serious?"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

This issue is so minor that you have to revert to exaggerating in every thread.

"What if he eats babies with a spoon while watching illegal pornography on a stolen TV set?"

Is he wrong about gay marriage? IMHO, yes.
Does that mean he has anything to do with the KKK or nazi-ism? Hahaha, no ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Are you serious?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 1st Apr 2014 08:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Are you serious?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There is no difference between denying rights based on colour and denying rights based on sexual orientation.

So, answer my question. If he was openly racists against black people, or was openly antisemitic, would you also tell black or Jewish employees to shut up?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Are you serious?
by p13. on Tue 1st Apr 2014 08:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Are you serious?"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

He voted on a proposition of poor taste and questionable ethics. So did many others.

I'll bite and go down the hyperbolic highway with you...

The USA is involved in many illegal wars and occupations. These are causing great grief and suffering. Much worse than any gay marriage ban.

Of course, as i'm sure you know, MANY people voted for this. Should we fire all of them?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Are you serious?
by judgen on Tue 1st Apr 2014 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Are you serious?"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

There is a slight difference between race and sexual orientation though. You can choose not to act on your sexuality, but it is generally considered harder to change your skin colour by force of will.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Are you serious?
by Kalessin on Tue 1st Apr 2014 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Are you serious?"
Kalessin Member since:
2007-01-18

There is a slight difference between race and sexual orientation though. You can choose not to act on your sexuality, but it is generally considered harder to change your skin color by force of will.


That and race is not a moral issue. You can agree or disagree with the idea that committing homosexual acts is immoral, but when folks are anti-gay marriage, it is almost always the case that they are arguing against it on moral grounds. Race, on the other hand, is simply a matter of skin color and place of origin. You can't really argue that it's a sin for someone to come from a particular place or have a particular color of skin. They didn't do anything to make that happen, whereas even if you have homosexual tendencies, you still have the choice as to whether you're going to act on them.

Now, that doesn't mean that you should be treating homosexuals horribly if you think that what they're doing is morally wrong - e.g. not giving someone a job because they're homosexual isn't okay. But it also doesn't mean that the government has to recognize gay marriage. That would essentially be condoning their behavior.

Whether that happens or not is up to the people to vote on. If the political system is working correctly, and the majority of the people think that gay marriage should be allowed, then it will be. And if the majority are against it, then it won't be. In this case, Mozilla's CEO believes that gay marriage is not okay and tried to help promote that view, which is his right, just like it's the right of others to donate their money to promote the opposite view.

Regardless, because legalizing gay marriage is an argument about morality, it's fundamentally different from arguing about race. It's perfectly okay and moral to be non-white. Whether it's okay and moral to commit homosexual acts is a completely different issue and clearly something that many people do not agree on.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Are you serious?
by jgfenix on Tue 1st Apr 2014 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Are you serious?"
jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

There is a point that nobody has mentioned. There are also at stake are the rights of adoption.
Some people believe that the best for the development of a child is a traditional family. For example, there are many psychological studies that say children seek a male role model in his father and a female role model in her mother. I'm not saying it's the case, but the reality is not black or white.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Are you serious?
by jgfenix on Tue 1st Apr 2014 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Are you serious?"
jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

Should we accept someone who is against global warming, the theory of evolution? Someone having a certain opinion about abortion?
Where is the line and who decides it? It must be nice to own the absolute truth.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Are you serious?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 1st Apr 2014 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Are you serious?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you think being against abortion is the same thing as racism, antisemitism or bigotry vs. homosexuals...

I'm out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Are you serious?
by mutantsushi on Tue 1st Apr 2014 09:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Are you serious?"
mutantsushi Member since:
2006-08-18

Well, you're kind of the one who introduced the apartheid analogy, you know, which actually entailed forcing people to live in desolate reservations, enforcing their poverty by preventing them from having equal jobs or education, controlling their language use and access to political office, making their testimony in court worth less than whites, not to mention torture and murder for any political opposition to the above.

To my knowledge, nobody is claiming that they themselves or anybody at Mozilla will be personally abused by this guy for being gay, the issue is an abstract dislike of his politics. If specific employees are personally threatened or negatively harmed by his prejudices, then I have no problem saying there is grounds for his removal.

In that absence of that, I think this guy would have solid grounds to sue the shit out of Mozilla for firing him for his personal actions in the past that don't directly impact the ongoing business of Mozilla, particularly that relevant to his role as CEO (which he wasn't in when he previously supported the anti-gay marriage project). And wouldn't it be uncomfortable if he then just took that money and donated it to a bunch of anti-gay causes, maybe ones working in other countries where they can act freely without worry of courts overturning them?

Edited 2014-04-01 09:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Are you serious?
by NicePics13 on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Are you serious?"
NicePics13 Member since:
2009-06-08

To my knowledge, nobody is claiming that they themselves or anybody at Mozilla will be personally abused by this guy for being gay

BREAKING NEWS Mozilla CEO personally abuses gay employees

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Are you serious?
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Are you serious?"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

If you think being against abortion is the same thing as racism, antisemitism or bigotry vs. homosexuals


It is. It's misogyny. The right of abortion is simply the right for a woman to have bodily atonomy. Anyone opposing that is a misogynist. And misogynism is right there in your list.

Reply Score: 6

v RE[5]: Are you serious?
by roracle on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Are you serious?"
RE[6]: Are you serious?
by jal_ on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Are you serious?"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

I'm sorry, abortion...regarding this, if the child growing inside a woman is female, doesn't that female fetus have the right to say what happens to her body? NO because jerks keep saying women can kill their babies. Baby killers are evil. Evil evil.

Yeah, let's not have emotions running the show, right? Fact is, a foetus is not a baby. It's a blob of cells that may, one day, be capable of sustaining itself, and you may call that a baby. But whether you like it or not, that foetus is, technically, a parasite leaching from its mother's body, as it has no means of surviving on its own, at all. Infanticide is a whole different ballgame, and not directly linked to abortion.

There is REASON to get abortion, but since the majority of abortions are NOT for those good reasons,

So you are to judge what is a good reason for doing something or not? The only good reason for getting an abortion is whether or not the woman carrying the foetus wants to continue carrying it, or not.

then supporting loosy goosey abortions is supporting the killing of children.

No, again, a foetus is not a child. You can call it a child all you want, but that would be framing the issue. If you build a house, and someone destroys the foundation before the walls are up, you can't claim they destroyed your house.

Sorry you think it's woman hating to be against abortion,

It is. It's putting a foetus' rights over a woman's rights. It's making women into incubators.

but I actually would like to see the streets filled with children having fun,

You think children are having fun, when their mother or parents don't want it? Child abuse is far higher for unwanted pregnancies than wanted ones. Not to mention that "the inability to sustain a child" is probably not a "good reason" for you to have an abortion. So then you'd have a neglected starving child. Care to bet how happy they are?

not these "poor me I got prego" jerks who go get aborted because a night of fun is more important than their own child.

Right, misogyny at its worst. Any women that has an abortion is having one because they had a night of fun and got pregnant. I bet you think as well that every girl raped had it coming.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Are you serious?
by NicePics13 on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Are you serious?"
NicePics13 Member since:
2009-06-08

the majority of abortions are NOT for those good reasons

BREAKING NEWS Mozilla CEO eats babies to improve JavaScript performance

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Are you serious?
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Are you serious?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

BREAKING NEWS Mozilla CEO eats babies to improve JavaScript performance


That would totally be worth it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Are you serious?
by judgen on Tue 1st Apr 2014 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Are you serious?"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Against abortion in general is one thing, but would you argue for abortion as a means of contraception? Most will not, but if you do not after that blanket statement, then you are for racism and bigotry *sometimes*?
Some just see unborn life having the same value as born life, and as they would not support the death penalty or any offensive war killing people, they would like to stop all killing. You equate that with bigotry? Most social issues is not black and white but shades in between and many can't be solved with government intervention but rather needs cultural shift.

Reply Score: 2

Thought Crime!!!
by Vinegar Joe on Tue 1st Apr 2014 08:32 UTC
Vinegar Joe
Member since:
2006-08-16

Send him to Room 101!

Reply Score: 2

What?
by roracle on Tue 1st Apr 2014 09:50 UTC
roracle
Member since:
2009-05-14

I think every person has the right to believe however they want. "Medieval" ideas are only that because YOU call them that. Your "contemporary" ideals will be sick and evil given enough time, too. (Imagine a future where most of humans are gone and homosexuality is looked as ignorant by everyone because they need to populate the earth).

Be a little more tolerant of someone else's ideals. I know it seems "intolerant" to not be on the gay's side, but the true intolerance is harping on traditionalists just because they are who they are.

Gay people can't change themselves, yet the gays always want everyone to change to accept them.

I'm gay, and I could care less about anyone's opinions about marriage, and I could care even less about anyone's laws regarding marriage, too.

Let people believe and support what they want to believe and support, and if you don't like it, then you're probably a communist. (a TRUE freedom fighter would protect the right of a person to believe anything even if it's against their own beliefs.)

Also, to those of you promoting democracy, you must be the majority in your country, because democracy is "rule by the majority". In the USA, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. That means the majority cannot have final say at all, so don't think your ideas of how the USA works is proper if you do not live here, as every nation on Earth has succumb to tyranny and communism while the USA stood alone, and now thanks to idiots who don't understand the world, we're heading that way, too. In Texas, we made all marraige non-recognizable. Here's the idiot response: straights still get married and gays still act victimized. Nothing changed except the law. Law is nothing, belief is everything.

ALSO I AM GAY AND I'M SICK OF THE FOLLOWING:

Just because people don't agree with you or me, doesn't make them a bigot. It makes them different. I don't eat excrement, so are you going to attack me for not being more tolerant of at least trying the obviously edible feces? No, because it's disgusting but a small minority may like it...does that mean you should sit around without saying something, watching people eat their waste? And should YOU eat your waste just to show how tolerant you are?

Edited 2014-04-01 10:02 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: What?
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:00 UTC in reply to "What?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

as every nation on Earth has succumb to tyranny and communism while the USA stood alone


Well, I was with you until this point where you just went full retard. Every country on earth has succumbed to tyranny and communism? The US stood alone?
Uh.....that's hilariously delusional and stupid.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: What?
by roracle on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
RE[3]: What?
by M.Onty on Tue 1st Apr 2014 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What?"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Who knew you had to be super rich to be, to pluck two from the hat at random, Irish or Canadian?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What?
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

are super tiny and have zero impact on the rest of the world and you have to be super rich to live there


...you've never been outside the U.S, have you? It's rather obvious. Really, this is entirely new level of nationalistic delusion.

unlike the USA where we accept people who are willing to do the right thing.


Yeah, I heard you really like the guys south of the border to join your fine and upstanding nation. Welcoming them with open arms, one could almost say.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: What?
by roracle on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:11 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
RE[3]: What?
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2014 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's not that I don't agree with you, it's that you are plain and obviously so very, very wrong.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Tractor
by Tractor on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:07 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

We had an equivalent issue at national level not so long ago.

The gay community wanted to have same-sex marriage.

The truly ironic thing is that they already had it. But the problem was, it wasn't called "marriage", it had another name (basically all the same civil rights than marriage, but with another name).

But it wasn't enough for them.
So they lobbied intensively to get to their point.
When I said "they", I should be more precise. "They" doesn't include all gays; only the most vocal and powerful ones, rich, living in the center of the Capital, influential members of the power circles.

And they got to their objective, but not without spending several months explaining to all their controlled media that anyone having a different opinion as theirs was just an insane, devilish, nazi, well choose your type of low-level this-shit-has-no-right-to-speak-nor-to-breathe description. This was so nauseous that at one point, I was wondering if this was not the real objective.

Because, now that same-sex marriage is allowed, you know what ? statistics show that gay people don't marry. And that's not a surprise : remember "same sex marriage but with another name" was already allowed, and you know what ? they did not use it either.

All this gives me the feeling that we have here little else than communautarists, experiencing their power, just for fun, and taking pleasure at destroying carefully selected defenseless opponents.

If someone wants to create a brown shit and call it a "chocolate", he will get sued and lose on the ground that what he invented cannot be classified as chocolate. And that's legitimate, because what he does is "steal" the word "chocolate" from legitimate chocolate makers, which built the word and its meaning through decades of labor. If unchecked, such theft will transform the meaning of the word "chocolate" which will then be associated to "brown shit". Of course, all chocolate makers do worry about it, and they don't want to be associated with "brown shit", it will have a profound effect on their bottom line.

"Marriage" is a word that exists for centuries, and described a social relation quite well defined, with its corpus of assumptions.
One such assumption is that "marriage", by definition, apply to man-woman relationship, and is intended to describe the start of a family.
People who adhere to this ancestral idea of "marriage" do care that it remains the same.


But, well, who cares about them anyway ?
Nowadays, only commercial interests are of extreme importance.
But social ones ? pfffff...

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by Tractor
by charlieg on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 12:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tractor"
charlieg Member since:
2005-07-25

You are too stupid to understand that it is a civil rights issue. "They" should have the same rights as "you".

However you have framed "them" in your mind as a totally different species given how you refer to "them" with disdain throughout your rather ignorant post.

AFAIC you should be allowed to marry the person you love and want to spend your life with. If you can't, you are being discriminated against.

"Marriage" is a word that exists for centuries, and described a social relation quite well defined, with its corpus of assumptions.
One such assumption is that "marriage", by definition, apply to man-woman relationship, and is intended to describe the start of a family.

By your antiquated thinking interracial marriage should be illegal. Or do you forget that the date of repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in most states of America was only as recent as 1967?

But, well, who cares about them anyway ?

Not you.

Nowadays, only commercial interests are of extreme importance.
But social ones ? pfffff...

Yes, because a man marrying a man will interfere with your life... right? I mean, hell, I guess you will have to marry one yourself.

Ignorant as hell.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Tractor
by zima on Sun 6th Apr 2014 20:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tractor"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And it's just a coincidence that you chose "brown shit" as an example...

(but FYI, we had "chocolate-like product" in the former Eastern Bloc :p )

Reply Score: 2

Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

People need time for large changes like this to sink into the cultural psyche.

Even Holland (who were first) passed it only in 2001. That about one generation who have grown up with this as the "norm" who invariably cant understand why it wasnt/isnt always like this.

If you don't mind me saying, I think you fall into this category Thom.
In the UK (a fairly liberal country) we had our first same sex marriage this week.

When Brendan Eich man was born (in 1961), and for most of his life, homosexual conduct was a criminal offence.

This debate is still brand new (or yet to happen in many countries). It will take time for people to accept. I am confident they will. But allow people time.

Reply Score: 7

M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23


This debate is still brand new (or yet to happen in many countries). It will take time for people to accept. I am confident they will. But allow people time.

But how will we generate knee-jerk outrage and retweets and self-congratulatory righteousness if we do that?

After all, one of life's greatest pleasures is pouring scorn on people who just don't get something that you only just got.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by spudley99
by spudley99 on Tue 1st Apr 2014 10:16 UTC
spudley99
Member since:
2009-03-25

The rights which are enjoyed by the people making this complaint are pretty new. It really isn't that long ago that their activies were illegal and frowned upon.

The changes that have occurred that have given them their rights are a result of society making the decision that dissenting view points are valid and should be heard.

The argument that they're putting across now is that dissenting view points are abhorent and should be boycotted. It's kinda sad that they're missing completely the irony of that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by spudley99
by charlieg on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 12:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by spudley99"
charlieg Member since:
2005-07-25

You, sir, are full of shit. Nobody is denying you your right to be a bigot. Go ahead, spout hatred and denial.

Meanwhile the decent people of society will say, hey, those people who are in love? You may marry. We won't discriminate against you any more.

Reply Score: 3

gay hypocrisy
by unclefester on Tue 1st Apr 2014 11:03 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

The Gay community spent decades ridiculing marriage. They didn't want to be part of the status quo. Then they had a change of mind and decided that they wanted to be happily married like the heterosexuals they had previously despised.

Reply Score: 2

RE: gay hypocrisy
by mutantsushi on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 02:35 UTC in reply to "gay hypocrisy"
mutantsushi Member since:
2006-08-18

but moral hysteria and self-righteous imposition onto others is a god-given right.

Reply Score: 1

by M.Onty on Tue 1st Apr 2014 14:52 UTC
M.Onty
Member since:
2009-10-23

As a Dutchman, it baffles me that an organisation like Mozilla appointed a man with such medieval ideas.

As an Englishman, I'm baffled by the crass segue into nationalism.

Reply Score: 3

v The Gay Fascist thought police
by emarkp on Tue 1st Apr 2014 15:07 UTC
Please rename the website
by olafg on Tue 1st Apr 2014 15:11 UTC
olafg
Member since:
2010-05-27

Is this OS news?

Javascript is a pain. I guess this means that there is no hope of getting a modern language like Dart into Firefox after this. That is the real news… I suspect the Dart VM will be integrated in Chrome by Christmas. Dart VM, PNACL and this could be utterly destructive to Mozilla. Firefox is doomed if it keeps clinging to javascript "purity", it will be heading the way of Opera when they are outperformed or become incompatible. Safari/IE will stay because of the OS installs and become Chrome upgrade paths... This is the way we are heading now.

Reply Score: 3

Fight for your beliefs...
by vtpoet on Tue 1st Apr 2014 15:35 UTC
vtpoet
Member since:
2013-12-31

So, Brendan Eich spends $1,ooo dollars to promote a law that directly (and negatively) impacts the personal lives of others? -- people who have absolutely nothing to do with him? So why shouldn't his own personal life be affected? Everybody posturing about the fact that his personal life should be kept separate from his professional life are affording him a decency he himself didn't feel the need to offer others. His $1,000 dollars helped contribute to a law that devastatingly impacted the personal and professional lives of thousands. What goes around, comes around. If Eich doesn't like it, then let him change his tune.

Reply Score: 6

uniformity of nonconformity
by zeos386sx on Tue 1st Apr 2014 15:46 UTC
zeos386sx
Member since:
2005-07-18

Has the man shown any hint of using his place at mozilla to push his beliefs on other people? Will the people trying to force their beliefs on other people boycott websites and browsers that use java script? Is no one else bothered by the way that we tell people to be individuals and then shout them down when their individuality represents something we disagree with?

Reply Score: 2

RE: uniformity of nonconformity
by M.Onty on Tue 1st Apr 2014 16:11 UTC in reply to "uniformity of nonconformity"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

Brian: "You are all individuals!"
Crowd, as one: "Yes, we are all individuals!"

Reply Score: 3

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not!

Reply Score: 2

RE: uniformity of nonconformity
by vtpoet on Tue 1st Apr 2014 16:40 UTC in reply to "uniformity of nonconformity"
vtpoet Member since:
2013-12-31

//Has the man shown any hint of using his place at mozilla to push his beliefs on other people? //

Did the marriages of any of those thousands of gays and lesbians affect Eich? No. Why do you give Eich's personal life a "get out of jail free card" when Eich spent $1000 to push his beliefs on the personal lives of others?

Why the double standard?

Reply Score: 3

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Tue 1st Apr 2014 18:05 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

How someone spends their own money and what they believe in personally has anything to do with a how a company that runs a software project is totally beyond me.

Also what has Dutch got to do with being Ethical? That comment was almost as bad as some of the shit we hear over here in England about how we won WW2 and took over half of the world ... it is nationalistic nonsense.

Edited 2014-04-01 18:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Vanders on Tue 1st Apr 2014 21:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I completely agree with you.

At the same time I completely agree with other peoples right to disagree with his views publicly and even boycott Mozilla if it matters that much to them.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by vtpoet on Tue 1st Apr 2014 21:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
vtpoet Member since:
2013-12-31

//How someone spends their own money and what they believe in personally has anything to do with a how a company that runs a software project is totally beyond me. //

So, it's okay that Eich spends a $1000 dollars on a law that will affect the personal lives of thousands (and whose personal decisions have *no* impact on him), but it's not okay for others to question Eich's personal life? Eich's personal life is off-limits? -- but not the personal lives of gays and lesbians? How you can't see the hypocrisy in this argument is totally beyond *me*.

All that Eich has said, to date, is that (in effect) he will obey non-discrimination laws. He's said nothing to distance himself from his personal beliefs or the goals of Prop 8. So, if he can stick his nose in the personal lives of gays & lesbians, I don't see why they shouldn't do the same.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because you are convicting him of thought crime. He can think whatever he likes as long as he obeys the law.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by dayalsoap on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
dayalsoap Member since:
2010-05-19

Nobody is sending the government after him. We're using our free-market leverage to oust him, not arrest him.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I am 100% behind gay marriage however I don't think someone should be hounded at their job because something they did or said in the past (it was 6 years ago now, that is 10% of his life ago) which was quite legal.

His opinions on gay marriage has nothing to with mozilla or its goals.

The problem with Mozilla is that are going down the road of the FSF i.e. towards irrelevance.

Edited 2014-04-02 17:13 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by dayalsoap on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
dayalsoap Member since:
2010-05-19

It isn't just an opinion, though. He actually gives money to groups that lobby to make it *illegal* for gays to marry.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I don't think that is right, but he didn't break the law.

Reply Score: 2

v Anyone Remember the Children?
by bytor on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 00:57 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

The lack of a discussion about the purpose of marriage being to provide a safe and secure environment for children leads me to believe no one here has children or everyone here is quite a bit selfish. Sorry.


Great April Fool's joke, you almost had me. For a second there, I actually believed you were making a "think of the children" argument, without any irony, in 2014.

Reply Score: 4

What a bullshit article
by Vietman on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 04:02 UTC
Vietman
Member since:
2007-02-06

:(

Edited 2014-04-02 04:09 UTC

Reply Score: 0

Relevant...
by Vietman on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 04:07 UTC
Vietman
Member since:
2007-02-06

But understand this, that in the last days
There will come times of difficulty
For people will be lovers of self
Lovers of money, proud, arrogant
Abusive, disobedient to their parents
Ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable
Slanderous, without self-control, brutal
Not loving good, treacherous, reckless
Swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God
Having the appearance of godliness
But denying its power

Woe to he who calls evil good and good evil

[Verse: Bizzle]
It's funny how the media portrays things
They really pushing hard for this gay thing
And it's so wicked how they manipulate things
Can't even disagree without them making it a hate thing
I say you wrong, and you holla "hate" instantly
But you say we the ones who don't tolerate differences
There's a whole lot of things I could say really
But, see your hypocrisy is something I could paint vividly

Saying, it's the way you was born, and I'm sure that
You lust just like I do just in a different form
But I'm married so if I give into mine, I'm a cheater
If you give into yours, you just fight to make it legal
You rather fight God, then fight sin
The Bible is alright, until it calls what you like sin
And I feel so disrespected that you were so desperate
You would compare your sexual habits to my skin

(What?!?)

Calling it the new black
Tell me where they do that
They hung us like tree ornaments, where were you at?
They burned us for entertainment, you go through that?
Mom's raped in front of they kids, while they shoot dad
Ever been murdered just for trying to learn how to read bro? (Nope.)

A show of hands?

I didn't think so

So, quit comparing the two. It ain't the same fight
You can play straight. We can never play white
Using black people as pawns for yo' agenda
And these sell out rappers will do whatever you tell em'

Skirts on stages, campaigning for that black vote
Afraid to be blackballed, so they play that role
You were never oppressed, the devil was a liar
The only thing oppressed was yo sexual desire
Keeping yo' desires oppressed is so lame to you
But when you get married, that's what you expect yo' mate to do

It angers you, if I compare you to a pedophile
Cuz' he sick, right?

And you're better how?

(Man, I ain't choose this.)

You think he chose that?

(But, I was born this.)

Well, prove he wasn't born that

But, you were never a girl

He was once nine

So at one time in his life, it was just fine
What makes your loss right?
I'm not buying it
So, put him in that same trash can you threw that bible in
See how that cycle is?
Nobody wants to repent of they evil
So, we all try justifying it
And you say it's about rights, but you lying tho
Domestic partnerships gave you rights a long time ago
God created marriage, when he did, he defined it tho'
So why is it you want we He created, but deny Him tho?
It's not wicked enough, switching the definition?
You want it done by a Christian in a church he worships in?

And that rainbow you using as a gay pride symbol (you stole that)
It represents a covenant with God if you didn't know
Check Genesis 9:13 for the info
Homie, the war is spiritual, you don't know what you in fo'
I ain't sayin' yo' sin is worse, but it is sin tho
The Lord took the punishment for it all on Him tho (Praise God)
We just gotta repent tho
The problem is if you don't call it sin, then
You walk as if there's nothing to repent for

Let's recap:
We all wicked and desire sin
But imagine a world where no one kept there desires in
If something was called right cuz' simply we desired it
When yo' right goes against my right, who's right would win

As for being born that way
I should never see ya'll
Ever see use a word like "retard"
To describe someone who was born a little differently than we are

I guess down syndrome really isn't a thing ya'll
What do we call yo' syndrome?
Oh, that term is offensive now when it hits home?
So, what gives you the right to call the way he was born a defect?

I call yours a defect, you feel it's disrespect
You don't believe in God?
Hey, the universe says if we all gay
We either die off or have to do it God's way
And God loves you no matter what you struggle with
At least struggle tho, don't just give up and quit
Forget how you were born
We were all born in sin
But Christ died for your sin
You can be born again (Praise God for forgiveness)
We were all born in sin
But Christ died so we can be born again
Hallelujah!

[Outro: Bizzle]
And I never want to act like
All gay people are the same because that's ignorant
But at the same time
What I won't allow you to do
Is paint this beautiful picture
Like we don't have people from the LGBT community out here

Running up in churches, disrupting services
Kissing on the pulpit
Out here attacking old ladies
Throwing crosses down and stomping em'
Violently assaulting people
So don't take my most aggressive lines that you know are to that group

And try to apply it to the friendliest
Lovingest gay person because that's not the case
And to that struggling Christian right now
Struggling with homosexuality
Fight the good fight soldier
No matter what anybody says
We all have different desires
We all are drawn toward different sin
And my desire might not be your desire
But I have a desire that's just as strong for another sin

And I have to fight it day in and day out
And sometimes I win and sometimes I lose
Sometimes I stand and sometimes I fall
But fight the good fight
God is worth it
God bless you
No hate about it
I love you

From:

http://rapgenius.com/Bizzle-same-love-a-response-lyrics

Video here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8Ns5Msfg28

Reply Score: 0

Once again the liberals fight free speech
by adinas on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 09:53 UTC
adinas
Member since:
2005-08-17

You can have any opinion you like as long as it is what we (the liberal left) agree with.

Reply Score: 1

charlieg Member since:
2005-07-25

You, sir, are full of shit. Nobody is denying you your right to an opinion, no matter how bigoted it is.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 17:26 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

On one hand you have a guy who actively supports the illegalization of gay marriage. On the other hand you have a guy who doesn't see any difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage.

I honestly can't say which is worse, both are deserving of a thumbs down.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by bamdad
by bamdad on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 01:16 UTC
bamdad
Member since:
2014-04-03

wtf do his views on marriage have to with his role at mozilla..? not that i agree with him, but he should be judged as a ceo based on how good a job does as ceo.

Reply Score: 1