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

[Jon]

You know, during that period of time when he opposed gay marriage. Around the same time Brendan Eich was contributing to Prop 8. Too bad we weren't so forward thinking then. He might have had to resign.

I'm no fan of Obama, and I often argued with my gay friends at the time that supported him that he was no friend of theirs. It's an odd issue as he was clearly pro-gay prior to the run for President and the media seemed to be trying to protect him at the time by not pushing it. I thought it slimy and back handed of him at the time though I never did consider it bigoted at the time as I knew (and you did too) that he would ultimately support gay marriage once it was politically ok for him to do it. So I guess I would say he lacked the will to stand by his convictions and was fine with appeasing the bigots until he got re-elected. Is that bigotry in and of itself? Not to me. Does it show him as a liar and just another politician? Yes it did and it helped me convince several gay people I know to vote Libertarian with me

 

[Bamaro]

I'm sure that this will alienate both sides but when it comes to marriage vs. civil unions, if you get really upset over this, you need to take a :chillpill: . Whats really in a name? It has nothing to do with morals, it has nothing to do with religious beliefs, it has nothing to do with natural or unnatural acts. As far as I am concerned you can call it what you want. As long as civil unions are legally equivalent to a marriage it just a matter of semantics, call it whatever you want. Its a lot of arguing that accomplishes little. :rant:
:cheers2:

 

[skrayper77]

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.

You disregarded the bulk of my post.

I did not say "an employee", I said the CEO. Those are, believe it or not, important distinctions. To remove the distinction is to misrepresent the facts.

Just as I'm sure if someone on Mozilla's help desk had donated to Prop 8 they'd still be working there as well.

 

[CharminTide]

You disregarded the bulk of my post.

I did not say "an employee", I said the CEO. Those are, believe it or not, important distinctions. To remove the distinction is to misrepresent the facts.

Just as I'm sure if someone on Mozilla's help desk had donated to Prop 8 they'd still be working there as well.

Exactly. It's not like his Prop 8 contribution went unnoticed in 2008. But he wasn't the face of a company that actively promotes equality, so his job was safe then.

Had he come out last week and at least apologized for any unintended harm to the LGBT community from his donation, he probably could have kept his position. But he refused, and his view was contradictory to the oft-championed views of his company. That dissonance was hurting Mozilla, and he chose to resolve that by resigning. It's not that complicated.

 

[Tide1986]

You disregarded the bulk of my post.

Yeah, you and Catfish are beginning to sound like my Tidefans wives.

 

[Tide1986]

Exactly. It's not like his Prop 8 contribution went unnoticed in 2008. But he wasn't the face of a company that actively promotes equality, so his job was safe then.

Had he come out last week and at least apologized for any unintended harm to the LGBT community from his donation, he probably could have kept his position. But he refused, and his view was contradictory to the oft-championed views of his company. That dissonance was hurting Mozilla, and he chose to resolve that by resigning. It's not that complicated.

This is a message from Eich to Mozilla employees two days after he was appointed CEO:

Inclusiveness at Mozilla

Mozilla is a movement composed of different people around the world, working productively together on a common mission. This is important to our ability to work and grow around the world.

 

[jthomas666]

I'm sure that this will alienate both sides but when it comes to marriage vs. civil unions, if you get really upset over this, you need to take a :chillpill: . Whats really in a name? It has nothing to do with morals, it has nothing to do with religious beliefs, it has nothing to do with natural or unnatural acts. As far as I am concerned you can call it what you want. As long as civil unions are legally equivalent to a marriage it just a matter of semantics, call it whatever you want. Its a lot of arguing that accomplishes little. :rant:
:cheers2:

See, here's what you do. Go ahead and make sure that civil unions are legally equivalent to marriage, and in 10 years, the problem will take care of itself. Gay couples won't go, oh yes, we're civilly united (OK, some will just to be difficult); most will just say that they're married. The words will eventually become interchangeable, just like Auburn and cowflop.

 

[skrayper77]

Generally speaking, it is not bigoted to disagree with another's life choices.

You make the presumption that one chooses to be gay. I would counter that this is a pretty arrogant assumption made to justify one's beliefs so that they do not feel bigoted to have them.

Considering that science has found that it is most likely hereditary at the epigenetic level, I would conclude that you are incorrect in your presumption that being gay is simply a matter of choice.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

You make the presumption that one chooses to be gay. I would counter that this is a pretty arrogant assumption made to justify one's beliefs so that they do not feel bigoted to have them.

Considering that science has found that it is most likely hereditary at the epigenetic level, I would conclude that you are incorrect in your presumption that being gay is simply a matter of choice.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

Which takes us back to Bamapokerplayer's premise about genetics and IQ.

 

[Tide1986]

You make the presumption that one chooses to be gay. I would counter that this is a pretty arrogant assumption made to justify one's beliefs so that they do not feel bigoted to have them.

Considering that science has found that it is most likely hereditary at the epigenetic level, I would conclude that you are incorrect in your presumption that being gay is simply a matter of choice.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

Without acceding to your opinion on genetics, I will note that not all things genetic are desirable.

 

[skrayper77]

Without acceding to your opinion on genetics, I will note that not all things genetic are desirable.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Desirability is subjective.

 

[mittman]

You make the presumption that one chooses to be gay. I would counter that this is a pretty arrogant assumption made to justify one's beliefs so that they do not feel bigoted to have them.

Considering that science has found that it is most likely hereditary at the epigenetic level, I would conclude that you are incorrect in your presumption that being gay is simply a matter of choice.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

Granted, having a genetic predispositions and acting on urges are two different things. IMO that has always been an misunderstood argument (and often phrased badly on purpose by both sides).

I do believe it is not how we are created and yes therefore unnatural (at least from the viewpoint that Paul puts forward in Romans), but do not disagree that some people are more likely due to their genetic makeup than I am. I have things that I am more prone to doing due to my genetic makeup that God does not intend for me to do too, and do not see this as any different. Problem is people get really bent out of shape when you point this out whether you do it humbly or not.

That said, and to hopefully not hijack the thread ...

As for this particular case believe it or not I don't see a problem with what Mozilla did, and agree that this being the CEO puts it in a different corporate image category. If I was a company owner I would want to reserve the right to determine how my image is cast. Chick-Fil-A has already been mentioned. They have their image too and I believe successfully fought to be able to maintain it. While I do understand the belief that there is a double standard in place, I would hope those that feel the way I do would point out the double standard, but not go so far as to say what they did should not be allowed.

 

[skrayper77]

The issue of "is it morally right or wrong" falls apart because it is between two consenting adults. Anything beyond that, from a government perspective, is purely subjective and opinion. It does not matter if you believe it is dictated from God Almighty - that's not the government's place to decide.

Besides, this is a debate about gay marriage, not the morality of gay sex. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage is not a simple religious institution, and has not been for many centuries. The association of wealth, inheritance, insurance, property rights and the thousand other items that go hand in hand with marriage has made it a LEGAL institution.

You're well within your rights to say gays should not get married in your church. That's a private organization.

It is a different story altogether to apply those religious beliefs to the benefits conveyed through the marriage of two individuals. If you feel otherwise, then why can a judge perform a wedding? Why does it take a court to get a divorce?

 

[CajunCrimson]

Please

your reading comprehension skills are amazing

No, you just think that if you stick in 30 sentences in between then you are diluting the ultimate comparison --

They are nothing alike -- Slavery was cruel and evil......

Are they both Civil Rights issues? Sure -- but like anything, there are levels of severity -- and they aren't anywhere close to each other. You are using the comparison for "Shock Value" only -- and to compare the two is about as big a slap in the face to those that were forced to live their lives under the weight of slavery as there possibly could be.

It's unfortunate that people are using the Slavery argument to fan the flames -- because the inability to marry someone from your own gender -- should never be compared to being beaten, abused, and treated like farm animals -- it's an insult that shouldn't be tolerated.

 

[Jon]

No, you just think that if you stick in 30 sentences in between then you are diluting the ultimate comparison --

They are nothing alike -- Slavery was cruel and evil......

Are they both Civil Rights issues? Sure -- but like anything, there are levels of severity -- and they aren't anywhere close to each other. You are using the comparison for "Shock Value" only -- and to compare the two is about as big a slap in the face to those that were forced to live their lives under the weight of slavery as there possibly could be.

It's unfortunate that people are using the Slavery argument to fan the flames -- because the inability to marry someone from your own gender -- should never be compared to being treated like farm animals -- it's an insult that shouldn't be tolerated.

My argument, that you seem to have missed was that the Bible has been used to support a lot of bad ideas, Slavery, anti-Racial integration and now anti-gay marriage. That's all. You want to read more into it, knock yourself out

 

[chanson78]

I rarely agree with Andrew Sullivan, but...

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

So when A&E decides to get rid of someone from Duck Dynasty because of something they said, and the people who agree with what that person says, get angry and voice their opinions regarding boycotting of the show to get A&E to reverse their position, its all well and good but only after A&E changed their position to what the community wanted.

Yet when Mozilla hires someone, even though in the past that person had said something their user base may not agree with, and that user base decides to voice their opinion by attempting to get people to stop using Firefox because of the hiring, it is evil horrible hounding of some poor guy who just wants to exercise his first amendment right like everyone else.

How is this even a viable topic? The cases are so similar it isn't even funny.

A business makes a decision, subsequently the consumers of that businesses product make a large enough stink to get the company to reverse their decision. This is all about business decisions and ramifications on how that company is perceived by its consumer base, however since some people on this board agree with what the CEO guy said, he is now being oppressed and stripped of his first amendment rights.

 

[chanson78]

A&E got rid of something because of something they said after the gay rights community went into the same tizzy Andrew Sullivan is talking about. So yes, it's the same.

I guess you mean that the gay and pro-gay mafia are out forcing these poor companies to tow the gay agenda. Well besides the fact that it made more business sense for A&E to hire Phil back, to heck with these gay thugs trying to dictate how to run their show.

 

[CajunCrimson]

My argument, that you seem to have missed was that the Bible has been used to support a lot of bad ideas, Slavery, anti-Racial integration and now anti-gay marriage. That's all. You want to read more into it, knock yourself out

I didn't miss your argument -- I just didn't think that it was a good one. You are trying to lump all Christians in one camp. And, just because years ago some believe that Slavery was Morally acceptable because of the Bible doesn't equate at all to this one......

It just an attempt by the left to intimidate...and congrats to you and your brethren - it works.

 

[Nolan]

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.

I doubt it. I worried about my kids being healthy while in the womb, not their sexuality.

 

[92tide]

It just an attempt by the left to intimidate...and congrats to you and your brethren - it works.

it must make you feel bad to get bullied and intimidated by a bunch of gays