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

[bshole]

So exactly how small does a minority group have to be before violating its rights is acceptable in your view?:whiste:

Seriously dude, you have been going on about the damn toaster for a more than a year. Do you believe reptition will make your logic more coherent? Perhaps you should take a course in rhetoric because you are failing miserably.

 

[nehalem256]

Also irrelevant. Likening homosexual marriage to human - toaster marriage is irrelevant to this discussion as well as insulting to gay people. If you want to start another thread about that topic, feel free.

How is equal rights for all sexual minorities insulting to gay people?

And it is relevant to the discussion because it further shows the hypocrisy of SSM supporters. You claim marriage is a right to all people. But then have zero problem with denying it to groups you don't care about.

Is it any wonder you have to resort to lynch mobs to silence any dissent against SSM?

 

[nehalem256]

Seriously dude, you have been going on about the damn toaster for a more than a year. Do you believe reptition will make your logic more coherent? Perhaps you should take a course in rhetoric because you are failing miserably.

My logic is identical to the logic used for SSM.

So, judging by the SSM movement apparently repeating "nonsense" enough times is effective. ()🙂

 

[mikeymikec]

How is equal rights for all sexual minorities insulting to gay people?

If you introducing that irrelevant point into the discussion wasn't an attempt to label the idea of gay marriage as absurd by comparing it to something you believe to be absurd, then perhaps my response was incorrect. However, I'm sure that's what your intention was.

And it is relevant to the discussion because it further shows the hypocrisy of SSM supporters. You claim marriage is a right to all people. But then have zero problem with denying it to groups you don't care about.

If you can come up with a legitimate comparison between the sexual inclinations of two consenting adults (the fact that they're adult and have the capacity to consent being a cornerstone to just about every marriage ceremony), to your burning desire to marry a toaster, then please get on with it. Otherwise hypocrisy not found.

Is it any wonder you have to resort to lynch mobs to silence any dissent against SSM?

I've organised (or have taken part in) a lynch mob? Umm, no. What are you talking about?

 

[OutHouse]

But yet prostitution and polygamy are illegal.

and neither should be.

 

[MrPickins]

By the way, this is his MO. He will now abandon that line of argument for a little while because it shows how stupid his logic is but he will return to it either later in this thread or in a new thread like nothing ever happened.

Now he will try and engage you in random other tangents.

Oh, I know. I've had this exact discussion with nehalem.

I was just bored while waiting on something at work, so I thought I'd revisit it. 😛

 

[nehalem256]

If you introducing that irrelevant point into the discussion wasn't an attempt to label the idea of gay marriage as absurd by comparing it to something you believe to be absurd, then perhaps my response was incorrect. However, I'm sure that's what your intention was.

The idea of SSM is absurd. This was essentially the opinion of US Courts in 1972.

So saying that another idea of marriage is absurd seems like a pretty silly argument when your definition of marriage was relatively recently considered to be absurd.

If you can come up with a legitimate comparison between the sexual inclinations of two consenting adults (the fact that they're adult and have the capacity to consent being a cornerstone to just about every marriage ceremony), to your burning desire to marry a toaster, then please get on with it. Otherwise hypocrisy not found.

Well lets see you mean other than the fact they every argument advanced for SSM also fits for human-toaster marriage?

Note: Stating marriage is between 2 people isn't an argument. Its a statement of definition.

I've organised (or have taken part in) a lynch mob? Umm, no. What are you talking about?

The "You" in question was SSM supporters in general. See their lynching of the Mozilla CEO.

 

[fskimospy]

Well lets see you mean other than the fact they every argument advanced for SSM also fits for human-toaster marriage?

Note: Stating marriage is between 2 people isn't an argument. Its a statement of definition.

Haha, MrPickins, see? He went back to pretending it never happened.

Maybe this is some sort of lack of object permanence, goldfish style.

 

[mikeymikec]

The idea of SSM is absurd.

Hence I accused you of insulting gay people by comparing what they want to human - toaster marriage to make what they want look absurd.

So saying that another idea of marriage is absurd seems like a pretty silly argument when your definition of marriage was relatively recently considered to be absurd.

"Some other people said its absurd, therefore it must be so!" - err, no.

Well lets see you mean other than the fact they every argument advanced for SSM also fits for human-toaster marriage?

You're either being obtuse or deliberately evasive. I've already pointed out in the bit you quoted why the two are not comparable. Your argument here is absurd.

The "You" in question was SSM supporters in general. See their lynching of the Mozilla CEO.

So if an SSM supporter robs a bank, I am guilty of the same offence? Or a forum user says something idiotic, all forum users are idiotic?

If not, then please stop saying idiotic things like this.

 

[Fern]

I'm saying if you don't like a law then get it changed. Until you do that don't complain that people are making businesses follow the law. The people you should be angry with are the businesses that are violating the law and are creating liabilities for themselves that force up their prices.

Isn't the whole point of this thread about someone who took your advice and was fired for it?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't the whole point of this thread about someone who took your advice and was fired for it?

Fern

What's your point?

1.) Businesses have to follow the law as it is, but they are free to advocate for changes.

2.) Advocating for changes can have consequences with other private citizens if they don't like what you're advocating for. Freedom of speech/association/etc.

The funny thing is, as I mentioned earlier, this outcome is presumably EXACTLY what conservatives say they want when they argue against public accomodation/civil rights laws. They say that private citizens will shun businesses that act in a discriminatory manner. Now that such a thing actually happened, they are enraged by this outcome as well.

 

[nehalem256]

What's your point?

1.) Businesses have to follow the law as it is, but they are free to advocate for changes.

2.) Advocating for changes can have consequences with other private citizens if they don't like what you're advocating for. Freedom of speech/association/etc.

The funny thing is, as I mentioned earlier, this outcome is presumably EXACTLY what conservatives say they want when they argue against public accomodation/civil rights laws. They say that private citizens will shun businesses that act in a discriminatory manner. Now that such a thing actually happened, they are enraged by this outcome as well.

How exactly did Mozilla act in discriminatory manner?:hmm:

 

[jackstar7]

How exactly did Mozilla act in discriminatory manner?:hmm:

You're SO over 90 degrees, but still under 180.

 

[nehalem256]

You're SO over 90 degrees, but still under 180.

The only person who Mozilla potentially discriminated against would be Brendan Eich.

Of course don't let facts get in the way of your leftist lynch mob.

If hiring a person who opposed SSM in 2008 counts as committing discrimination there are a lot of liberals who should be firing themselves for voting for Barack Obama. :awe:

 

[code65536]

The funny thing is, as I mentioned earlier, this outcome is presumably EXACTLY what conservatives say they want when they argue against public accomodation/civil rights laws. They say that private citizens will shun businesses that act in a discriminatory manner. Now that such a thing actually happened, they are enraged by this outcome as well.

And this is new?

--

Conservatives have long proclaimed themselves to be pro-States'-right, usually when the Federal government is pushing some agenda that they don't like. But when some States started to liberalize drug laws in defiance of the Federal government, conservatives were suddenly supportive of the Federal government.

Or, we can spin this the other way: liberals have long been proponents of Federal power, but when some liberal States wanted to liberalize drug laws, there was suddenly talk about States rights among liberals.

--

Conservatives have long been against activist judges and refusing to "legislate from the bench" became a litmus test for conservative approval of judges. Yet conservatives were fine when the SCOTUS gutted McCain-Feingold and gave us Citizens United.

Liberals have long supported the notion of an activist court that has the balls to overturn legislation and right the wrongs of unjust legislation. Yet they suddenly turned into vocal opponents of judicial activism after Bush-vs-Gore and Citizens United.

--

Conservatives argue that anti-discrimination laws aren't needed because private citizens and the free market will punish those who are discriminatory are now angry that those forces have forced Eich into resigning.

Liberals who love to hold up McCarthyism and the Hollywood blacklists as examples of the dangers of litmus tests are perfectly fine with applying a similar litmus test to Eich.

--

Hey guys! Guess what? Most people argue for their interests. If a certain principle happens to support that interest, they'll adopt it, and if it doesn't, they'll drop it. I doubt that Southern plantation owners were really all that concerned about the finer points of federalism, or that civil rights activists were really that concerned about the proper extents and limits of judicial power. They just adopt whatever happens to support their interest.

It's easy to support a principle when that principle advances your goals and interests. The real test is whether someone will support a principle when that principle is at odds with their goals and interests.

And we now return you to our regularly-scheduled debate.

 

[nehalem256]

Conservatives argue that anti-discrimination laws aren't needed because private citizens and the free market will punish those who are discriminatory are now angry that those forces have forced Eich into resigning.

Except there is absolutely zero evidence of Eich committing a single discriminatory act while work for Mozilla.

This is plain and simple a firing of a guy for having a political position that liberals disagree with.

 

[werepossum]

You both are kinda wrong.

His donation was first revealed in 2012, and most Mozilla veterans learned about it back then. Mitchell Baker probably put it best: it surprised them because they had no inkling that he held these views. He did a good job of not expressing those views professionally, and he has always been supportive of Mozilla's policies regarding equality. So his Prop 8 views didn't directly affect his role at Mozilla, and people at Mozilla were okay with him holding those views because it didn't get in the way.

I was active with the Mozilla project some years ago (as a volunteer code contributor), and I know that there is a wide variety of views there, including some developers who held strongly conservative views and many who held strongly liberal views, and they were open about their views. This stands in stark contrast with Eich, who never revealed what he thought politically. This is likely why most at Mozilla were fine with it--they know from first-hand experience the Eich keeps his private and professional lives separate. The few employees who were calling for his ouster lately were all names that I did not recognize--they were either not involved in engineering and/or were newcomers.

On the other hand, it is also true that now that there is this controversy, Eich can no longer function as CEO. He's become a lightning rod, and as long as he remains in that role, it's going to a distraction. That's the sad reality of it--I don't like that it's come to this, and the Mozilla board didn't like that it's come to this, but the fact is, this controversy has become an all-consuming distraction, and Eich knew this. This is why he voluntarily stepped down, and this is why he rejected the board's plea that he stay on in a different role.

It's tragic, really. And I say this as a liberal who supports gay marriage: The torch and pitchfork mob crowd grossly overstepped. This was an act of retribution against someone who made a mistake, and all that it's done is damage the goodwill that the LGBT movement has earned over the years and give ammunition to conservatives.

Well said. I agree, but I can kind of understand it. If government denied my choice of spouse, I'd be the loudest asshole around.

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.

This misses one basic fact - marriage is NOT about reproduction. This is not medieval times; you may not set aside your wife without cost if she is unable to conceive. If government is going to exercise a veto over the most intimate and important life choice one can make, it had better have a damn good reason. Tradition, while worthy of respect, is not a damn good reason, else nothing could ever change and our society would be doomed to stagnate.

Whatever evils one can imagine from gays living openly in our society are here, and here to stay. Even in reproduction, gays are free to use many of the same methods used by hetero couples with fertility problems. Even full gay marriage is legal in some states and nations. The sky is not falling; the sky is not even getting lower. What we're prohibiting is not gay families or children being raised by gays; the other choice for most of these children is not being raised by straight families, but being raised out of wedlock. Conservatives are working to deny for these children the benefits of marriage that we otherwise preach, and that's inconsistent, mean and just plain wrong. No matter what one's view on homosexual relationships, they will not be ended by prohibiting gay marriage. Accordingly, if we truly value the things we claim to value - marriage, family ties, limited government - we should be completely in support of gay marriage.

And this is new?

--

Conservatives have long proclaimed themselves to be pro-States'-right, usually when the Federal government is pushing some agenda that they don't like. But when some States started to liberalize drug laws in defiance of the Federal government, conservatives were suddenly supportive of the Federal government.

Or, we can spin this the other way: liberals have long been proponents of Federal power, but when some liberal States wanted to liberalize drug laws, there was suddenly talk about States rights among liberals.

--

Conservatives have long been against activist judges and refusing to "legislate from the bench" became a litmus test for conservative approval of judges. Yet conservatives were fine when the SCOTUS gutted McCain-Feingold and gave us Citizens United.

Liberals have long supported the notion of an activist court that has the balls to overturn legislation and right the wrongs of unjust legislation. Yet they suddenly turned into vocal opponents of judicial activism after Bush-vs-Gore and Citizens United.

--

Conservatives argue that anti-discrimination laws aren't needed because private citizens and the free market will punish those who are discriminatory are now angry that those forces have forced Eich into resigning.

Liberals who love to hold up McCarthyism and the Hollywood blacklists as examples of the dangers of litmus tests are perfectly fine with applying a similar litmus test to Eich.

--

Hey guys! Guess what? Most people argue for their interests. If a certain principle happens to support that interest, they'll adopt it, and if it doesn't, they'll drop it. I doubt that Southern plantation owners were really all that concerned about the finer points of federalism, or that civil rights activists were really that concerned about the proper extents and limits of judicial power. They just adopt whatever happens to support their interest.

It's easy to support a principle when that principle advances your goals and interests. The real test is whether someone will support a principle when that principle is at odds with their goals and interests.

And we now return you to our regularly-scheduled debate.

Well said, sir. If a principle advances one's goals and interests, one should always re-examine that principle lest it be one adopted from expediency and self-interest. And ditto for where a principle disproportionately harms others.

 

[nehalem256]

This misses one basic fact - marriage is NOT about reproduction. This is not medieval times; you may not set aside your wife without cost if she is unable to conceive. If government is going to exercise a veto over the most intimate and important life choice one can make, it had better have a damn good reason. Tradition, while worthy of respect, is not a damn good reason, else nothing could ever change and our society would be doomed to stagnate.

As I said earlier the "medieval times" you speak of was 1972.

And how is government exercising any kind of veto over anyones life choices? If 2 gay men choose to live together is the government going to send in stormtroops to break them up? Of course not. If a church chooses to consecrate a gay union will the government revoke tax exempt status from the church? Of coruse not. They simple are not being given special government rights conferred to their relationship.

 

[Zaap]

Except there is absolutely zero evidence of Eich committing a single discriminatory act while work for Mozilla.

This is plain and simple a firing of a guy for having a political position that liberals disagree with.

Exactly. He (and other liberals) understand this point full well. But being dishonest about and trying to spin their desire to conduct witchhunts and blacklists against those they disagree with prevents them from admitting /even acknowledging this point.

The whole subject actually has less to do with the marriage issue (actually just being used here as a smokescreen to hide behind) than it does blacklisting people for political views- WHATEVER political view over WHATEVER issue.

Its another underhanded tactic the left can use to bully people they disagree with then run and hide behind the issue they're using. The real point was never protecting gays from this person that never did anything against gays at Mozilla. It was firing a guy for daring to have an "incorrect" opionion according to the usual totalitarian douchebags. They want everyone to get the message that to disagree with them is to lose their career. The lefts long dreamed of blacklist in full effect.

 

[Paratus]

As I said earlier the "medieval times" you speak of was 1972.

And how is government exercising any kind of veto over anyones life choices? If 2 gay men choose to live together is the government going to send in stormtroops to break them up? Of course not. If a church chooses to consecrate a gay union will the government revoke tax exempt status from the church? Of coruse not. They simple are not being given special government rights conferred to their relationship.

You can't deny them equal rights as discrimination by sex is illegal toaster boy

 

[werepossum]

As I said earlier the "medieval times" you speak of was 1972.

And how is government exercising any kind of veto over anyones life choices? If 2 gay men choose to live together is the government going to send in stormtroops to break them up? Of course not. If a church chooses to consecrate a gay union will the government revoke tax exempt status from the church? Of coruse not. They simple are not being given special government rights conferred to their relationship.

Granted it was quoted as an excuse in 1972, but already that special relationship had been broken. In 1972 one could not demand a divorce absent the usual concerns over alimony and property division from government on grounds of the spouse being barren. Ergo even when quoted as judicial grounds, the argument was obsolete except as an argument of tradition.

 

[MrPickins]

And this is new?

...snip...

And we now return you to our regularly-scheduled debate.

I like you.

 

[blankslate]

Exactly. He (and other liberals) understand this point full well. But being dishonest about and trying to spin their desire to conduct witchhunts and blacklists against those they disagree with prevents them from admitting /even acknowledging this point.

The whole subject actually has less to do with the marriage issue (actually just being used here as a smokescreen to hide behind) than it does blacklisting people for political views- WHATEVER political view over WHATEVER issue.

Conservatives also go after people whom they don't agree with. Movies are criticized/boycotted or supported by groups of both political persuasions based on politics for example. Same for companies. Don't pretend that only Liberals are guilty of blacklisting. That's just as disingenuous as what you're criticizing in your post.

As for Mozilla I probably would have kept on using Firefox (as well as other browsers) for the features/characteristics of the browser that is good for a particular situation, regardless of whether or not he stepped down.

As for his stepping down? Well, maybe it's a bit shady and perhaps illegal but he should've had a trusted acquaintance send a check in for support of Prop 8. Then no one would have seen his name on a donor list and consequently he'd still be working at Mozilla since he was quiet about certain views.

He'll most likely find another executive position at some company it just might not be in a tech company based on the west coast.



....

 

[CitizenKain]

Exactly. He (and other liberals) understand this point full well. But being dishonest about and trying to spin their desire to conduct witchhunts and blacklists against those they disagree with prevents them from admitting /even acknowledging this point.

The whole subject actually has less to do with the marriage issue (actually just being used here as a smokescreen to hide behind) than it does blacklisting people for political views- WHATEVER political view over WHATEVER issue.

Its another underhanded tactic the left can use to bully people they disagree with then run and hide behind the issue they're using. The real point was never protecting gays from this person that never did anything against gays at Mozilla. It was firing a guy for daring to have an "incorrect" opionion according to the usual totalitarian douchebags. They want everyone to get the message that to disagree with them is to lose their career. The lefts long dreamed of blacklist in full effect.

Someone as dishonest as you accusing others of spin is great.

 

[werepossum]

Conservatives also go after people whom they don't agree with. Movies are criticized/boycotted or supported by groups of both political persuasions based on politics for example. Same for companies. Don't pretend that only Liberals are guilty of blacklisting. That's just as disingenuous as what you're criticizing in your post.

As for Mozilla I probably would have kept on using Firefox (as well as other browsers) for the features/characteristics of the browser that is good for a particular situation, regardless of whether or not he stepped down.

As for his stepping down? Well, maybe it's a bit shady and perhaps illegal but he should've had a trusted acquaintance send a check in for support of Prop 8. Then no one would have seen his name on a donor list and consequently he'd still be working at Mozilla since he was quiet about certain views.

He'll most likely find another executive position at some company it just might not be in a tech company based on the west coast.

....

Your suggesting that people wishing to contribute to anti-gay marriage propositions should break the law to hide their identity puts in vivid relief how stark is the difference in behavior between conservatives and progressives, as certainly no one is suggesting that people contributing to pro-gay marriage propositions must adopt similar measures, even though (oddly enough, given that one cannot be directly adversely affected by legalization of gay marriage) there are certainly people just as strident on that side of the issue. Remember, we're not speaking of personal support, but of demanding that someone lose his job.

This is a difficult issue for me. In principle, I absolutely support tolerance of intolerance. Not much point in tolerance if it only includes things with which one agrees, for literally everyone is tolerant of people who believe exactly as do they. On the other hand, I both regard this as an essential freedom and see no real downside to legalizing gay marriage, so I don't have a lot of tolerance on it myself. lol