Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich forced to resign because he didn't support gay marriage.
- Thread starter CrimsonNagus
- Start date
Please
what you are saying is, I am against gay marriage and it is backed by my religion so therefor I am not a bigot.
This was said to support slavery in the 1800's. This isn't hyperbole go read some history
And it was said to support anti-miscegenation laws that ended up being struck down in Loving v. Virginia. In fact here is the quote from the trial Judge that convicted the Lovings "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Sounds no different that the "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument that many around here make.
The gays rights people are definitely tying themselves to the Civil Rights movement but not as a sly way to win they are doing it because their rights are being violated. And their intolerance? You are actively promoting denying them the basic right to live their life with who they wish and it's intolerant of them? So your religion is against it, you try to enforce your religious views on free people via the Government and them calling you a bigot over it makes them intolerant? Wow
Okay, yes as I believe that a private business has every right to hire and fire as they see fit. So I'd be fine with it but I would laugh my butt off while the company that did it was eviscerated in the public opinion sphere for doing so.
Three key points:
1.) This was the latest issue involving this individual, but obviously not the only - three board members departed over his appointment:
http://www.zdnet.com/au/mozilla-board-members-resign-over-ceo-pick-report-7000027863/
2.) It's a cowards way out to compare child molestation and bestiality to homosexuality. The first two involve beings unable to provide consent; the third is between two consenting adults. If you don't understand the difference, then honestly the problem isn't with gay people but a horribly limited understanding of the real world.
3.) The man was the CEO of a major company. CEOs are public figures - as important to a company's image as a mascot or ad campaign. The correct term is not that he was fired for his political views; he was fired because he made views public that contrasted with the company's image. The CEO is not like any other job at a company - you become the face of it. This isn't like firing some mid-manager for donating $50 to a political group. If, as the CEO, you don't convey the image that the company is attempting to cultivate then THAT is your sin. It would be the exact same as a CEO of Chik-Fil-A being asked to resign for donating money to defeat Prop 8. If that's not the image Chik-Fil-A wants to convey, they are well within their rights to ask. You, as the consumer, are free to NOT use Mozilla for doing this, or not eat at Chik-Fil-A.
Quit simplifying issues and making stupid connections between non-relevant issues.
1.) This was the latest issue involving this individual, but obviously not the only - three board members departed over his appointment:
http://www.zdnet.com/au/mozilla-board-members-resign-over-ceo-pick-report-7000027863/
2.) It's a cowards way out to compare child molestation and bestiality to homosexuality. The first two involve beings unable to provide consent; the third is between two consenting adults. If you don't understand the difference, then honestly the problem isn't with gay people but a horribly limited understanding of the real world.
3.) The man was the CEO of a major company. CEOs are public figures - as important to a company's image as a mascot or ad campaign. The correct term is not that he was fired for his political views; he was fired because he made views public that contrasted with the company's image. The CEO is not like any other job at a company - you become the face of it. This isn't like firing some mid-manager for donating $50 to a political group. If, as the CEO, you don't convey the image that the company is attempting to cultivate then THAT is your sin. It would be the exact same as a CEO of Chik-Fil-A being asked to resign for donating money to defeat Prop 8. If that's not the image Chik-Fil-A wants to convey, they are well within their rights to ask. You, as the consumer, are free to NOT use Mozilla for doing this, or not eat at Chik-Fil-A.
Quit simplifying issues and making stupid connections between non-relevant issues.
My full original post:
I'm confused. I noticed you only included the part of my original post that's in bold above in your response. So, I assume your response is to that part. If that's the case, then I'm not sure what your response means. What exactly would a "rudimentary understanding of reproduction and its role in nature" help explain about the part of my comment you quoted?
So color me shocked that hunting equipment and fried chicken joints play well enough to that demographic that they can thrive supporting bigoted ideas. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt bass pro shops either.
But as I'm sure you know, Chik-fil-A would not fire an employee for donating money to the defeat of a Proposition, even Prop 8. This is the company that gave out free food to protesters as I recall.
I assumed that "While I disagree" meant that you disagreed with his statement. Hence, my response.
being gay is as much as choice as being Black or being Asian. Or do you look at all genders and "decide" which you are sexually attracted to? For me, I never made a choice at all, I got older and dug girls. I guess it was different for you?
The point of my post wasn't that I was disagreeing with DBF's belief that homosexuality was unatural. I made that clear, or at least thought I did, when I said, "Wile I disagree, I have no problem with that part." My whole point was that equating homosexuality with raping children is ridiculous.
