• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

After Supporting Prop 8, New CEO Brendan Eich Comes Under Fire From Mozilla Employees

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hayabusa Rider said:
Real freedom? Again no. We're not talking about disagreement, but harming another. Harming in a very real material way. I find the idea that I can force you and your family on the street because you don't agree with my every whim the worst possible definition imaginable. That you aren't destroyed does not mean there aren't consequences, but the consequences should not be tossing you on the street. That's an absolute abomination.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with that statement.

The glbt community needs to learn to respect differing opinions.

There is no need to cost someone their job, income, home, vehicle,,, just because they do not agree with a lifestyle.
 
jackstar7 said:
You ARE allowed. You don't need my permission.

How is any of this news to people? You've been part of society that has been doing this the whole time... of always...
Click to expand...


Which goes to show you aren't really different from those who would persecute those who are gay. It's been a part of society the whole time. Punishing those who don't fall in line.

No, you really aren't any different.

If you don't get it, I should be able to disagree loudly. I should have the choice to not associate with you. I should say I strongly disagree. That I should harm you? Why stop at destroying lives, why not go the traditional route and harm you by all the other creative means humanity has been doing the whole time... always.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Real freedom? Again no. We're not talking about disagreement, but harming another. Harming in a very real material way. I find the idea that I can force you and your family on the street because you don't agree with my every whim the worst possible definition imaginable. That you aren't destroyed does not mean there aren't consequences, but the consequences should not be tossing you on the street. That's an absolute abomination.
Click to expand...

I find the idea that I should be forced to not only associate with but materially compensate people who act in ways that I find offensive or harmful to me in the name of THEIR freedom to be a tyrannical imposition on MY freedom. If I'm gay and someone is an anti-gay bigot who is actively contributing to passing legislation that takes away my civil rights I am under no obligation to bankroll their activities through continued employment.

You want the freedom and not the responsibility. That's not real freedom, that's entitlement.
 
Texashiker said:
Wasting tax payers money with the court system does not affect anyone?

When a business refuses to serve a gay couple, and that couples sues, or the state sues that business owner, the tax payers money is being wasted. The judge, bailiff and court reporter probably has better things to do, such as hearing a murder case, rape case, child support case,,, something more important that a couple not getting their cake.
Click to expand...

The business owner was breaking the law. I thought you wanted lawbreakers to be brought to justice?

jackstar7 said:
You get one square foot of real estate where you can be and believe whatever you want. As soon as you move outside of it, expect a reaction.
Click to expand...

Sig-worthy
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
Really?

The courts do not have anything better to do than harass small business owners?
Click to expand...

A lawsuit that has been legally filed to be brought before the court is exactly what the court is there to do.

If the small business owner does not wish to be hauled into court than he should follow the laws of his state that pertain to his public accommodation business.
 
eskimospy said:
I find the idea that I should be forced to not only associate with but materially compensate people who act in ways that I find offensive or harmful to me in the name of THEIR freedom to be a tyrannical imposition on MY freedom. If I'm gay and someone is an anti-gay bigot who is actively contributing to passing legislation that takes away my civil rights I am under no obligation to bankroll their activities through continued employment.

You want the freedom and not the responsibility. That's not real freedom, that's entitlement.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but what if you are anti-gay and you found out an employee of yours was gay?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Real freedom? Again no. We're not talking about disagreement, but harming another. Harming in a very real material way. I find the idea that I can force you and your family on the street because you don't agree with my every whim the worst possible definition imaginable. That you aren't destroyed does not mean there aren't consequences, but the consequences should not be tossing you on the street. That's an absolute abomination.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of a sign they found at the entrance to Auschwitz which said "Arbeit macht frei" or "Work makes (you) free". The human mind never fails to rationalize the "consequences" inflicted onto others who they perceive to be unacceptably different.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
That reminds me of a sign they found at the entrance to Auschwitz which said "Arbeit macht frei" or "Work makes (you) free". The human mind never fails to rationalize the "consequences" inflicted onto others who they perceive to be unacceptably different.
Click to expand...

Thanks for invoking Godwin's law on this.

That is an example of the government punishing you for your speech. This is explicitly about the ability of private individuals to behave how they want.
 
eskimospy said:
Already covered! Actions are a choice. Characteristics are not.
Click to expand...

So then I assume based on this statement that you now agree that public accommodation laws should not cover discrimination against same-sex marriages. As marriage is an action not a protected characteristic. :colbert:
 
alzan said:
If the small business owner does not wish to be hauled into court than he should follow the laws of his state that pertain to his public accommodation business.
Click to expand...

In other words, accept this perverted lifestyle or be punished.


eskimospy said:
Already covered! Actions are a choice. Characteristics are not.
Click to expand...

And? What is your point?

Someone makes a choice to live a gay lifestyle they should be held accountable for their actions.
 
eskimospy said:
Thanks for invoking Godwin's law on this.

That is an example of the government punishing you for your speech. This is explicitly about the ability of private individuals to behave how they want.
Click to expand...
I was using it as an extreme example of our ability as human beings to rationalize punishing others who don't "conform" in some way....be it anyone...perhaps Eich or perhaps those who disagree with him. I'm not using this to attack anyone in particular, just an observation about the nature of human beings in general.
 
Last edited:
nehalem256 said:
So then I assume based on this statement that you now agree that public accommodation laws should not cover discrimination against same-sex marriages. As marriage is an action not a protected characteristic. :colbert:
Click to expand...

No. The courts (and I) have already covered that in previous threads. Go look at them if you need to educate yourself.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I was using it as an extreme example of our ability as human beings to rationalize punishing others who don't "conform" in some way....be it anyone...perhaps Eich or perhaps those who disagree with him. I'm not using this to attack anyone in particular, just an observation about the nature of human beings in general.
Click to expand...

It comes down to whether or not you think that an individual's right to speak and act how they wish is greater than an individual's right not to be forced to pay them money and employ them.
 
Texashiker said:
In other words, accept this perverted lifestyle or be punished.
Click to expand...

That's not quite how it's phrased in the law, but I can see how that wording would be simpler for you to understand, as your cognitive faculties seem ill-equipped to discuss legal conventions. I believe the actual phrasing in the law is "poo pushers."

Texashiker said:
Someone makes a choice to live a gay lifestyle they should be held accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...

Just as someone with the indecency to be born with two X chromosomes should be held accountable for their actions, or someone with an above-average melanin content in their skin should be held accountable for their actions, especially with an action as controversial as attempting to purchase confections from a bakery. Have they no shame?
 
eskimospy said:
No. The courts (and I) have already covered that in previous threads. Go look at them if you need to educate yourself.
Click to expand...

So you are a hypocrite then. Gotcha. There is only a difference between characteristics and actions when it is convenient to support your liberal agenda.

eskimospy said:
If I'm gay and someone is an anti-gay bigot who is actively contributing to passing legislation that takes away my civil rights I am under no obligation to bankroll their activities through continued employment.
Click to expand...

You do realize we are talking about a political contribution from 6 years ago right? You certainly seem to have an interesting definition of "actively contributing".
 
nehalem256 said:
So you are a hypocrite then. Gotcha. There is only a difference between characteristics and actions when it is convenient to support your liberal agenda.

You do realize we are talking about a political contribution from 6 years ago right? You certainly seem to have an interesting definition of "actively contributing".
Click to expand...

Please reference my previous post.
 
Texashiker said:
Someone makes a choice to live a gay lifestyle they should be held accountable for their actions.
Click to expand...
You keep making this fallacy. Since when is sexuality a choice? You have never directly answered this question in any thread. (Hint: The correct answer is "It's not a choice.") I guess we should just take your wife away and replace her with someone more acceptable. Arranged marriages are good, right?

Texashiker said:
There is no need to cost someone their job, income, home, vehicle,,, just because they do not agree with a lifestyle.
Click to expand...
And what do you think has been happening for years? How many gays have been fired or discriminated against because of their "lifestyle"? I know several people who have faced unfair working environments because of their sexual orientation. Your statement goes both ways. You get tax benefits for being in a civil union - that affects your income.

Texashiker said:
We would not want a bi-sexual marring a woman and a man now would we?
Click to expand...
I was wondering how long it would take before polygamy came up. You can't seem to stay on topic at all, can you? Strawmen everywhere!

Atomic Playboy said:
Just as someone with the indecency to be born with two X chromosomes should be held accountable for their actions, or someone with an above-average melanin content in their skin should be held accountable for their actions, especially with an action as controversial as attempting to purchase confections from a bakery. Have they no shame?
Click to expand...
I wish I could upvote this a thousand times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top