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

[nehalem256]

Good to see you think " at will" employment is bullshit too.

With this and your desire to give taxpayer funded free voter IDs to single minority mothers to vote democrat, you really are coming around! :thumbsup:

I bolded the important word for you.

No, what we are saying is the people shouldn't be fired for their own personal beliefs, which is different from how they run their business.

Just because you SHOULDN'T do something doesn't mean you aren't allowed. Legally you CAN fire someone for showing up one minute late, but you probably SHOULDN'T.

Apparently either you don't understand basic English. Or liberals are incapable of controlling themselves from doing stupid things without having the government prevent them from doing so. ^_^

 

[row]

.....If you can't understand that giving same sex couples the right to marry is an essential equality we must grant, you probably can't understand a lot of things (simple and complex).

if you can't understand that there are very basic and irreversible differences between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship, biology being at the forefront, you probably can't understand a lot of things (simple or otherwise).

gays attempting to coop the term "marriage" is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest attempt to force acceptance of their behavior and gain credibility for their relationships in the eyes of society. the purpose of marriage is not for society to honor strong feelings people have for one another, it's sole and exclusive property is to provide children the best environment for developing into law-abiding, socialized, productive citizens. since gays are incapable of procreation, hijacking the language is about the only recourse they possess.

matt walsh:

"Marriage has, had, and always will have, by definition, a certain character and purpose; a character and purpose centered around, above all things, the family. Marriage is the foundation through which a thriving and lasting civilization sees to the propagation of itself. Human beings can only reproduce by means of ‘heterosexuality,’ and this reality sets the ‘heterosexual’ union apart. Marriage is meant to be the context in which this reproduction occurs.

Marriage is many things, but it is also this. And ‘this’ can never be removed from it, no matter the direction of the political winds, or the motion of the shifting sands of public opinion.

Marriage and the family are dimensions of the same whole. They cannot be detached from one another. They, as a whole, as an institution, can only be weakened — not erased or redefined. And so the campaign to protect and strengthen the institution was and is designed to do just that. It was never about ‘legislating love’ or imposing intolerance or ‘discriminating against gay people,’ or any other silly bumper sticker platitude.

You want to be free to love? You are. You always have been.

Heterosexuals don’t claim to monopolize love; only reproduction. Me, I love in many ways and in many directions. I love my wife, yes, and I also love my parents, and my country, and football, and hamburgers. These are all different kinds and degrees of love, yet still love.

But, alas, only one of these loves can (or should) result in the creation of a biological family. Thus, this love carries with it a certain distinction and a certain responsibility.

Bigotry? There is nothing bigoted about it. This is mere science. You see, bigotry only enters into the conversation when you try to destroy a man’s life just for participating in the conversation.

You are the agents of bigotry, my friends. You. You are what you say we are."

his whole blog http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/04...-of-your-mozilla-victory-you-will-still-lose/

for most conservatives the battle has nothing to do with equal rights. leftists are welcome to write all the laws they want granting equal "whatever" under the law. we (conservatives) will support them, you just can't use the term marriage in doing so.

 

[brycejones]

snip giant wall of text.

Nope, but nice try.

 

[michal1980]

Nope, but nice try.

you don't like the text because you'd rather ignore reality then accept it.

 

[michal1980]

As opposed to conservative bigots defending homophobic bigots?

I think I prefer my side of the fence on this argument.

you and a vocal minority of divergent human biology redefine morality and then expect the majority with a natural human response to confirm to your POV? And then you call them bigots?

The LGBT has done a great job to desensitize society to their cause, and in one breath they ask for both tolerance for themselves, and intolerance for others. truly amazing.

 

[mikeymikec]

if you can't understand that there are very basic and irreversible differences between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship, biology being at the forefront, you probably can't understand a lot of things (simple or otherwise).

gays attempting to coop the term "marriage" is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest attempt to force acceptance of their behavior and gain credibility for their relationships in the eyes of society.

Sigh.

What difference does it make to your life if gay people are allowed to marry.

None.

Then why are you wasting your time complaining about it?

Alternatively:

What do heterosexual people get married? Because they love each other and want to publicly commit to that relationship.

Gay people want to do the same thing.

How does this affect you? It doesn't.

Then why are you wasting your time complaining about it?

Alternatively:

Terms for just about everything have evolved over time. Read up about how marriage has been used over humanity's documented history; what was considered OK and what has changed, then try to claim that your definition of marriage is the one that cannot ever be allowed to change.

---

The only potential problem I could see with gay people wanting to get married would be if they tried to force a particular religion to perform the ceremony. I would be against that, but TBH only a nut-job would consider trying to get a bunch of hate-mongers to not hate them.

I bet that none of the anti-gay-marriage people here do anything to otherwise "maintain the institution of marriage" and generally have a live-and-let-live attitude. Try it here as well; it really won't hurt.

 

[brycejones]

you and a vocal minority of divergent human biology redefine morality and then expect the majority with a natural human response to confirm to your POV? And then you call them bigots?

The LGBT has done a great job to desensitize society to their cause, and in one breath they ask for both tolerance for themselves, and intolerance for others. truly amazing.

Ah....you again go the completely lame "you're a bigot for pointing out my bigotry" comment.

Keep trolling son, keep trolling.....

 

[nehalem256]

Sigh.

What difference does it make to your life if gay people are allowed to marry.

None.

Then why are you wasting your time complaining about it?

Well they might sue me for not photographing their wedding, or baking a gay wedding cake, or providing floral services to a SSM.

Or decide to get me fired for having not supported SSM in the past 😉

Alternatively:

What do heterosexual people get married? Because they love each other and want to publicly commit to that relationship.

Gay people want to do the same thing.

How does this affect you? It doesn't.

Then why are you wasting your time complaining about it?

Alternatively: Why does society choose to grant marriage to heterosexual couples.

You appear to be approaching things backwards. At its most basic level marriage is societal recognition of "special" relationships. Marriage does not exist for everyone and society just decided to exclude gay couples.

Marriage inherently exists for no one, and only choose to create it for straight couples, because gay couples aren't "special".

Alternatively:

Terms for just about everything have evolved over time. Read up about how marriage has been used over humanity's documented history; what was considered OK and what has changed, then try to claim that your definition of marriage is the one that cannot ever be allowed to change.

Alternatively how does someone marrying a toaster affect you?:hmm:

The only potential problem I could see with gay people wanting to get married would be if they tried to force a particular religion to perform the ceremony. I would be against that, but TBH only a nut-job would consider trying to get a bunch of hate-mongers to not hate them.

I bet that none of the anti-gay-marriage people here do anything to otherwise "maintain the institution of marriage" and generally have a live-and-let-live attitude. Try it here as well; it really won't hurt.

You think they won't do that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Whelp, I've uninstalled all Mozilla products after sending them a message as to why. Whether I like the CEO is immaterial. Materially harming another because of their opinion peacefully expressed is something I can't support, and I'd say the same if it was a janitor who was for gay marriage. Everyone ought to do as they see fit in this matter, however I won't be organizing a mass demonstrate to shut down the company. YMMV

 

[alzan]

<snip wall o' bigotry>

Is it your stance that heterosexual couples who cannot or have no intention of raising a family be allowed to have marriage licenses issued to them?

 

[nehalem256]

Is it your stance that heterosexual couples who cannot or have no intention of raising a family be allowed to have marriage licenses issued to them?

Perhaps some kind of invasive medical examination and lie detector test before we allow a couple to get married?:hmm:

 

[mikeymikec]

Well they might sue me for not photographing their wedding, or baking a gay wedding cake, or providing floral services to a SSM.

Or decide to get me fired for having not supported SSM in the past 😉

Keep putting up a smoke screen, why don't you.

Alternatively: Why does society choose to grant marriage to heterosexual couples.

You appear to be approaching things backwards. At its most basic level marriage is societal recognition of "special" relationships. Marriage does not exist for everyone and society just decided to exclude gay couples.

Marriage inherently exists for no one, and only choose to create it for straight couples, because gay couples aren't "special".

Translation: It's completely arbitrary.

No substance has been found in your argument.

Alternatively how does someone marrying a toaster affect you?:hmm:

It seems to me that you're having trouble telling the difference between a human and an inanimate object. When you've learnt the difference, come back to this discussion.

You think they won't do that?

"They"? As in "all homos are the same"? Does "all heterosexuals are the same" seem like a stupid thing to say? Any further questions?

 

[nehalem256]

Keep putting up a smoke screen, why don't you.

Smokescreen? How is pointing out 4 public examples of people being negatively affected by same-sex marriage a smokescreen.

Translation: It's completely arbitrary.

No substance has been found in your argument.

Where did I say it was arbitrary? You think granting special recognition to relationships that are necessary for the perpetuation of humanity is arbitrary?

Wow. You liberals really seem to have issues understanding basic English words.

It seems to me that you're having trouble telling the difference between a human and an inanimate object. When you've learnt the difference, come back to this discussion.

I think the most appropriate response to this is a quote from someone I think you greatly admire:

Terms for just about everything have evolved over time. Read up about how marriage has been used over humanity's documented history; what was considered OK and what has changed, then try to claim that your definition of marriage is the one that cannot ever be allowed to change.

Words to think about anyway ()🙂

"They"? As in "all homos are the same"? Does "all heterosexuals are the same" seem like a stupid thing to say? Any further questions?

All it takes is one homosexual couple to sue.

 

[mikeymikec]

Smokescreen? How is pointing out 4 public examples of people being negatively affected by same-sex marriage a smokescreen.

Because it is not inherently linked with the topic of same-sex marriage.

Bakers/florists/photographers are not forced to make wedding cakes for heterosexual couples. The fact that such things may have happened for hetero or homosexual couples is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Where did I say it was arbitrary? You think granting special recognition to relationships that are necessary for the perpetuation of humanity is arbitrary?

Your argument did not say "this is why x". It just says "the reality is x". Lacking the why, you're not putting up a contrary argument.

I think the most appropriate response to this is a quote from someone I think you greatly admire:

Words to think about anyway ()🙂

What's your point here?

All it takes is one homosexual couple to sue.

For you to think "they're all the same"? If one forum user is an idiot, they all are?

 

[alzan]

Perhaps some kind of invasive medical examination and lie detector test before we allow a couple to get married?:hmm:

Can't/won't answer a direct question?

 

[nehalem256]

Because it is not inherently linked with the topic of same-sex marriage.

Bakers/florists/photographers are not forced to make wedding cakes for heterosexual couples. The fact that such things may have happened for hetero or homosexual couples is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

But they are forced to service SSM. As is evidenced by the number of law suits against them on the subject.

But I guess you are technically right about it not being inherently linked. It is only linked because LGBT couples are intolerant of people who disapprove of their relationships being called married and feel the need to sue them into submission.

Your argument did not say "this is why x". It just says "the reality is x". Lacking the why, you're not putting up a contrary argument.

I believe row already covered why it is that heterosexual relationships have been deemed special by society.

What's your point here?

If marriage can be whatever anyone says it is then saying "toaster-marriage isn't marriage" is a pretty shitty argument.

Are you having difficulty understanding the mikeymikec's argument?^_^

 

[nehalem256]

Can't/won't answer a direct question?

Because you question has no practical relevance. As I pointed out.

 

[Texashiker]

Sigh.

What difference does it make to your life if gay people are allowed to marry.

Besides the glbt community acting like a rabid wolverine, gay marriage does not directly affect me.

You know something, neither did Crimea. But that did not stop obama from freaking out and putting sanctions on Russia.

The government needs to set an example of the people. If it does not directly affect us, keep your nose out of it.

What does affect me, is the glbt community suing small businesses. Which makes prices and insurance rates go up. The glbt community is using this gay rights issue to reap a massive payday. Which in the end is going to cost consumers.

 

[nehalem256]

Besides the glbt community acting like a rabid wolverine, gay marriage does not directly affect me.

You know something, neither did Crimea. But that did not stop obama from freaking out and putting sanctions on Russia.

The government needs to set an example of the people. If it does not directly affect us, keep your nose out of it.

What does affect me, is the glbt community suing small businesses. Which makes prices and insurance rates go up. The glbt community is using this gay rights issue to reap a massive payday. Which in the end is going to cost consumers.

As a better example. How did southerners owning black slaves affect northern white abolitionists? :hmm:

So by his argument:

White abolitionists were in the wrong and white segregationists were in the right 😀

 

[Texashiker]

As a better example. How did southerners owning black slaves affect northern white abolitionists? :hmm:

Yep, pretty much.

If my great-great-great grandfather had not died during the battle of Vicksburg, my great-great-great grandmother probably would have stayed in Mississippi. He did not die in the actual battle. He was wounded and died a week later from infection.

By losing the slaves and her husband, my grandmother could no longer afford to keep the farm. So she sold everything and moved to Texas in the late 1880s.

Having slaves did not affect abolitionists one bit. They should have minded their own business.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, pretty much.

If my great-great-great grandfather had not died during the battle of Vicksburg, my great-great-great grandmother probably would have stayed in Mississippi. He did not die in the actual battle. He was wounded and died a week later from infection.

By losing the slaves and her husband, my grandmother could no longer afford to keep the farm. So she sold everything and moved to Texas in the late 1880s.

Having slaves did not affect abolitionists one bit. They should have minded their own business.

You are so hilariously inconsistent between threads that it's really tough to figure out if you're insane, an idiot, or just trolling.

In other threads you condemn people who are pro-choice by saying they would have been on the side of slavery. Now you say that those who were fighting against slavery should have minded their own business.

 

[fskimospy]

What does affect me, is the glbt community suing small businesses. Which makes prices and insurance rates go up. The glbt community is using this gay rights issue to reap a massive payday. Which in the end is going to cost consumers.

If you don't like the public accomodations laws in your state, lobby to have them changed. Until then, your argument is that lgbt people should accept businesses breaking the law. It is very telling that you place the blame not on those individuals violating the law but instead on those who have the temerity to do something about it.

 

[alzan]

Besides the glbt community acting like a rabid wolverine, gay marriage does not directly affect me.

You know something, neither did Crimea. But that did not stop obama from freaking out and putting sanctions on Russia.

The government needs to set an example of the people. If it does not directly affect us, keep your nose out of it.

What does affect me, is the glbt community suing small businesses. Which makes prices and insurance rates go up. The glbt community is using this gay rights issue to reap a massive payday. Which in the end is going to cost consumers.

Then the owners/proprietors of public accommodation businesses should stop breaking the law. Lawbreakers should be held accountable.

Because you question has no practical relevance. As I pointed out.

I asked the original question because row was quoting a blog in which the writer claimed that marriage is about raising a family and propagating the species. In that context my question was relevant.

Do try to keep up.

the gay life both immoral.

Gay life is immoral? By whose or what standard?

 

[nehalem256]

You are so hilariously inconsistent between threads that it's really tough to figure out if you're insane, an idiot, or just trolling.

In other threads you condemn people who are pro-choice by saying they would have been on the side of slavery. Now you say that those who were fighting against slavery should have minded their own business.

Pointing out how stupid liberal logic is does not mean you accept liberal logic.

In fact its basically the opposite.

By liberal logic white abolitionists were in the wrong as slavery did not affect them and they should have minded their own business.

 

[nehalem256]

If you don't like the public accomodations laws in your state, lobby to have them changed. Until then, your argument is that lgbt people should accept businesses breaking the law. It is very telling that you place the blame not on those individuals violating the law but instead on those who have the temerity to do something about it.

If you want to claim the same-sex marriage won't affect people perhaps you should stop suing small business owners that don't accept it.