Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich forced to resign because he didn't support gay marriage.

[Bamabuzzard]

This man practiced open hostility, not simple intolerance. I consider it a tremendous victory that an anti-equality stance is not only being seen as increasingly unacceptable on a societal level, but also now as liable in the realm of business.

What exactly did he do that was "hostile"? A bit dramatic don't you think?

 

[Jon]

this guy was fired because his public opinions hurt Mozilla's business there is literally no other reason. Turn this into whatever y'all want Freedom of Speech is protection from government, not from consequences.

 

[Jon]

And wouldn't it suck if you lost your job for voicing that opinion.

but you wouldn't

same way you wouldn't lose your job for publicly proclaiming that whites and blacks should be able to inter-marry

You think he would have kept his job if he had said that inter racial marriages are an abomination and donated money to fight against their legality? Can you think of a single company that would keep him as CEO? Would you and the others who have issues with this defend this CEO?

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I fully support your right to believe that homosexuality is unnatural. I don't agree, but I support your right to believe it. When you equate it to bestiality and especially child molestation, you've completely gone off the deep end. I can't even take that seriously.

My point is simple. Homosexuality is not a natural act.

 

[Jon]

My point is simple. Homosexuality is not a natural act.

homosexuality is not an act

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

homosexuality is not an act

You are correct. Having sexual relations with another man is the act that is considered an abomination. My mistake.

 

[Jon]

You are correct. Having sexual relations with another man is the act that is considered an abomination. My mistake.

so because you feel that way you get to deprive them of rights?

 

[cuda.1973]

this guy was fired because his public opinions hurt Mozilla's business there is literally no other reason. Turn this into whatever y'all want Freedom of Speech is protection from government, not from consequences.

How did it hurt them? I haven't deleted Firefox or Thunderbird from my computer. At least not yet. Fire him, and I just might.

Their only redeeming merit is I refuse to use Chrome, Opera is a kludge, and I will never use IE.

Why is it that we have freedom of speech, unless you don't speak the approved think-speak du'jour? Yes, I know..............the First Amendment applies to what the gubbament can do, so spare me the civics lesson.

And don't try to prejudge my feelings on marriage, and gubbament's role in it. So, spare me that lecture. And spare me the lecture on how I am a "homophobe". I grew up in an all-male orphanage, and guess what...................there were gay kids there! 50 years ago! And I was not "phobic" about any of them. I lived with them, slept in the same dorms with them, and............horrors!, showered with them.

The numerous bullies there.................yeah, scared to death of them. And for good reason. (Hint: they really were bullies.)

This is all about a handful radicals trying to bring down the structure of our society. That is why they are intolerant. Despite what they preach the rest of us need to be.

Tolerance has to be a 2-way street. To the radicals, it only flows one way.

So..............all you libs................which one of you is going to be the first to say Mormons can have as many wives as they want? I don't see much of a difference, except Mormons take the procreation part of marriage to an extreme. The opposite one of what gays do. Why should the gubbament have forced them to stop, just so we can get a state that votes repubican admitted to the Union?

Of course, we all know that you won't. "Apples and oranges, blah, blah, blah." "Mormons are morons, and religious bigots, blah, blah, blah." "They vote repubican, blah, blah, blah."

C'mon...........let's hear it. I'll be waiting.

 

[Jon]

How did it hurt them? I haven't deleted Firefox or Thunderbird from my computer. At least not yet. Fire him, and I just might.

Their only redeeming merit is I refuse to use Chrome, Opera is a kludge, and I will never use IE.

Why is it that we have freedom of speech, unless you don't speak the approved think-speak du'jour? Yes, I know..............the First Amendment applies to what the gubbament can do, so spare me the civics lesson.

And don't try to prejudge my feelings on marriage, and gubbament's role in it. So, spare me that lecture. And spare me the lecture on how I am a "homophobe". I grew up in an all-male orphanage, and guess what...................there were gay kids there! 50 years ago! And I was not "phobic" about any of them. I lived with them, slept in the same dorms with them, and............horrors!, showered with them.

The numerous bullies there.................yeah, scared to death of them. And for good reason. (Hint: they really were bullies.)

This is all about a handful radicals trying to bring down the structure of our society. That is why they are intolerant. Despite what they preach the rest of us need to be.

Tolerance has to be a 2-way street. To the radicals, it only flows one way.

So..............all you libs................which one of you is going to be the first to say Mormons can have as many wives as they want? I don't see much of a difference, except Mormons take the procreation part of marriage to an extreme. The opposite one of what gays do. Why should the gubbament have forced them to stop, just so we can get a state that votes repubican admitted to the Union?

Of course, we all know that you won't. "Apples and oranges, blah, blah, blah." "Mormons are morons, and religious bigots, blah, blah, blah." "They vote repubican, blah, blah, blah."

C'mon...........let's hear it. I'll be waiting.

Because you didn't consider stopping using them their business wasn't hurt? You know how all of this started? OkCupid, a site that averages 10 Million unique users a month recommended that their users switch browsers. If you are not familiar with OKC's demographic I promise you it is exactly the kind of users Mozilla aims for and losing them hurts a lot more than losing you. Most people I know that hold your views tend to be Internet Explorer and only hold a vague idea that there are other options anyway. (seriously check the demographics, older people tend to believe as you do and IE's Demo's range older)

I would never consider myself liberal as their economic theories are demonstrably wrong but I'll answer it anyway. I am totally pro-polygamy. I have zero rights or frankly desires to tell 2 or 3 or 7 consenting adults what kind of mutually beneficial or detrimental relationships they should be allowed to enter into willingly. I am 100% pro freedom. As long as every enters into it willingly and is above the age of consent it is no ones business but their own.

Finally the whole, approved think-speak du'jour angle is just so played out. It's really over, the moral majority was never real or if it was it has died off. The scales have tipped and gay marriage will be fully legalised in this country inside of 20 years whether you agree with it or not. Du-jour? Yes it is, right now at this time most people are totally cool with gays and letting them be free, this is a good thing. You are going to dismiss it because it finally happened? That's your right. Your kids and theirs will look back at you the way we look at our grandparents that believed the races shouldn't mix, with sadness and a little pity.

 

[CharminTide]

If Prop 8 were an unconstitutional denial of rights, why did the state allow it to be on the ballot?

You'd have to ask California that one. But of course, the issue of constitutionality has already been answered in federal court.

Color me shocked.

You'd have a better chance of getting an intelligent response if you made an actual point.

What exactly did he do that was "hostile"? A bit dramatic don't you think?

No I don't. And I'd wager you wouldn't either, were our positions reversed.

 

[CharminTide]

Honey Maid released a commercial several weeks ago featuring a household with two gay parents, and the backlash from the right was strong. But evidently, it was not as strong as the support they received from the rest of the country.

 

[Nolan]

The article didn't reveal that much, really. He made a donation, which was probably meant to be private, it was his right.

I don't think the guy should have been forced out on that alone.

But I'm NOT against gays getting married and living a life that's happy for them and harms no one else. That's what I strive for - happiness, success, and doing "my own thing" without hurting others.

Some people will always be against gays, gay marriage, gay rights, whatever you want to call it. They are slowly becoming the minority in my opinion, which is a good thing. That said, becoming the minority will only make them more defensive and self-righteous from their sense of being alienated.

 

[Catfish]

My point is simple. Homosexuality is not a natural act.

I that was your point, maybe you could have just made that statement. While I disagree, I have no problem with that part. When you equate homosexuality to raping children, you've gone off the deep end.

 

[CajunCrimson]

What many of you miss -- is that it's okay to not support Gay Marriage -- it really is.

You just have to be a non-white, non-Christian to be able to pull it off successfully.....

 

[Tide1986]

Some people will always be against gays, gay marriage, gay rights, whatever you want to call it. They are slowly becoming the minority in my opinion, which is a good thing. That said, becoming the minority will only make them more defensive and self-righteous from their sense of being alienated.

You'll be able to tell when a majority of expectant parents dream of their new child growing up to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[Tide1986]

I that was your point, maybe you could have just made that statement. While I disagree, I have no problem with that part.

I think a rudimentary understanding of reproduction and its role in nature explains Displaced's statement.

 

[chanson78]

Marriage has always been a privilege conferred by society. Communities have a vested interest in any marriage particularly as it relates to reproduction.

I thought that the argument was that since marriage came from God, he got to set the limits on who could do it.

 

[Jon]

I think a rudimentary understanding of reproduction and its role in nature explains Displaced's statement.

you seem really stuck on the whole "Marriage is about reproduction" idea.

Know any couples without kids? Whether it's lack of desire or lack of ability to reproduce, does that make their marriages somehow less valid?

One of my Mom's friends is getting married soon, she is in her 70's and he is too. Both widowed and well past their fertility window, since marriage in your view is clearly only about reproduction, should these two not be allowed to be married either?

 

[bamahippie]

Apples and oranges.

But your what-if-he-doesn't-like-my-Toyota analogy was soooo awesome!

Now where is that dang sarcasm font?

 

[Tide1986]

I thought that the argument was that since marriage came from God, he got to set the limits on who could do it.

That has never been my "argument" on this matter.