Mozilla's new CEO resigns following backlash over anti-gay-marriage contributions

Ten days ago, Mozilla proudly announced that its long time chief technology officer, Brendan Eich, would be its new CEO. Now Mozilla has revealed that Eich has stepped down from that position after reports hit the Internet he had donated money to an anti-gay-marriage campaign.

Soon after Eich's appointment, it was revealed that he contributed $1,000 in 2008 towards a campaign that supported California's Proposition 8, which was written to ban gay marriages in that state. Many Mozilla team members publicly wrote on their Twitter and Facebook accounts asking Eich to resign

In an interview with CNet on Tuesday, Eich said he was not planning to step down but dodged questions about his own beliefs concerning gays and if he would made the same campaign donations again, stating, "It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to answer hypotheticals."

In a blog post today, Mozilla's executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker made the announcement about Eich's decision to depart. She added:

We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

Eich has been with the company since it was first launched in 1998 and helped to develop the Netscape Navigator browser, the direct ancestor to Mozilla's Firefox browser. He had served as its CTO since 2005 and also created the JavaScript programming language.

Baker says that the future for Mozilla's leadership "is still being discussed" but more information will be revealed next week.

Source: Mozilla | Image via Mozilla

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft: Office for iPad surpasses 12 million downloads

Next Story

Build Day 2: Start menus, DirectX, Cortana and Microsoft's return to relevance

214 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Rant time...

I am just curious why this now fired CEO would contribute to a fund that prevents me from marrying someone of my own gender. On my supposed wedding day, I would just be standing in a stuffy venue with people who love us and want to hear us recite some vows before we go to another room for cake and dancing. What is so freaking bothersome about that?! It's a private ceremony. I'm not saying he can't be married to someone opposite his gender. I'm not saying he can't believe what he wants.

All we LGBT folks want is some god damn dignity. We are humans, not sub-human. We work, pay taxes, contribute all the same but only receive a fraction of civil rights and protections in return. That's pretty f-ucked up. We are just another minority group among all the others that are already federally protected. Allow us those same protections. Anti-gay beliefs are fine by me, because I don't have to involve myself with those who hold those beliefs, but if you put those beliefs in action to ensure I remain unequal in a SECULAR RUN country, then we have issues. And those Mozilla employees and the public itself, as diverse as they are and we are, weren't going to let some bigot at the helm knowing he looks at LGBT people as unworthy of what heterosexuals get today.

And just because you have "religious liberties," you can't use them to marginalize people you just don't f-ucking like. The same with freedom of speech: You have it, but you can't yell fire if there isn't one. And you can't call 9-1-1 to b.s. around; there are legal consequences for abuse of your rights. And I will not tolerate abuse, or the mean-spirited actions of others. f-uck yes we will go to court, and make noise, and call people out. This loser CEO got what was coming to him. He helped hurt good loving families that look different than his own family.

I matter. Other minority groups matter. And if you disagree, f-ucking choke and die already.

Then question, in light of what you just wrote, why are civil union laws not enough? I'm honestly curious. If it's about social rights and standings, why do LGBT activist also insist that the term "marriage" which has it's origins as a religious sacrament, also be changed. This is what most of the conflict is about from what I understand... the changing of a sacred sacrament. If we left marriage to the church and everyone entered into civil unions for the social benefits and standing etc, would that work?

domboy said,
Then question, in light of what you just wrote, why are civil union laws not enough? I'm honestly curious. If it's about social rights and standings, why do LGBT activist also insist that the term "marriage" which has it's origins as a religious sacrament, also be changed. This is what most of the conflict is about from what I understand... the changing of a sacred sacrament. If we left marriage to the church and everyone entered into civil unions for the social benefits and standing etc, would that work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

domboy said,

What does racial segregation have to do with anything discussed in the previous two posts?


Its the exact same system you are proposing "Separate but equal"

TPreston said,

Its the exact same system you are proposing "Separate but equal"

No it's not. I'm suggesting that everybody, including gay, straight, whatever relationship combination (including combinations of more than two individuals) you can think up, that are wanting relationship benefits currently associated with the term "marriage" enter into civil unions. Leave the marriage sacrament to the church, and dissociate it from any form of social/government benefits.

Everybody will be equal under the same system, and those that want to also have their union blessed by some religion can do some without any legal ramifications, and also without spiritual leaders being forced to bless combinations they don't agree with.

Explain to me how that equals anything remotely like racial segregation.

Edited by domboy, Apr 7 2014, 5:43pm :

domboy said,
No it's not. I'm suggesting that everybody, including gay, straight, whatever relationship combination (including combinations of more than two individuals) you can think up, that are wanting relationship benefits currently associated with the term "marriage" enter into civil unions. Leave the marriage sacrament to the church, and dissociate it from any form of social/government benefits.

1 Why ?
2 Which church ?

"Everybody will be equal under the same system, and those that want to also have their union blessed by some religion can do some without any legal ramifications, and also without spiritual leaders being forced to bless combinations they don't agree with."

We already have that with the first amendment ? They can refuse to bless inter-racial marriages if they wish

TPreston said,

1 Why ?
2 Which church ?

"Everybody will be equal under the same system, and those that want to also have their union blessed by some religion can do some without any legal ramifications, and also without spiritual leaders being forced to bless combinations they don't agree with."

We already have that with the first amendment ? They can refuse to bless inter-racial marriages if they wish

Why? To get rid of the argument over gay marriage, as the core of the argument is that many religions view homosexuality as wrong, and "marriage" is considered a sacrament in at least two well-known religions. Leave marriage to the church, as in any and all of them, not any particular one. Basically put it back as being a sacred sacrament in the church, just like blessings over children, and other such things. Outside of the church it would have no legal implications whatsoever.

In its stead, instigate civil unions (or whatever you want to call them) to replace it for everyone in our laws and corresponding benefits etc. Please note I said for everyone. All equal on the same level in secular society. Then if a gay couple wants some sort of religious blessing they can go find a place of worship that is fine with their beliefs and lifestyle (same with a straight couple). And at the same time we don't take away religious freedom from those who believe the life style is wrong. They are free to believe that, just as you are free to disagree with them. But forcing either side to violate their conscience via laws is a very dangerous path to start down. I don't care how old-fashioned, archaic, or outdated you may think their beliefs are.

Edited by domboy, Apr 7 2014, 9:59pm :

domboy said,
And at the same time we don't take away religious freedom from those who believe the life style is wrong. They are free to believe that, just as you are free to disagree with them. But forcing either side to violate their conscience via laws is a very dangerous path to start down. I don't care how old-fashioned, archaic, or outdated you may think their beliefs are.

Yeah we don't do that now, Nobody is forced to violate their conscience and preform a gay marriage.

TPreston said,

Yeah we don't do that now, Nobody is forced to violate their conscience and preform a gay marriage.

Not yet, but I wouldn't be so sure it won't happen in the near future, the way things are going.

domboy said,

Not yet, but I wouldn't be so sure it won't happen in the near future, the way things are going.


The way things are going ? What are you talking about ? Cite me one example of the government restricting the religious freedom of believers ? You cant because its enshrined in the constitution.

TPreston said,

The way things are going ? What are you talking about ? Cite me one example of the government restricting the religious freedom of believers ? You cant because its enshrined in the constitution.

Others in this comments have already mention examples of the court system forcing (or threatening to force) people to violate their conscience in how they run their private business or face fines, or have to close down. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where that road can go. Heck, the situation this article itself is about it another example.

domboy said,

Others in this comments have already mention examples of the court system forcing (or threatening to force) people to violate their conscience in how they run their private business or face fines,

There we go ladies and gentlemen, There it is hanging out all pink and naked for you to see. I knew well that you had this untenable position and I dragged it out of you so I can reply to this.

domboy said,
What does racial segregation have to do with anything discussed in the previous two posts?

For something that TOTALLY IS NOT LIKE RACISIM111111!111 you sure do like voiding the civil rights act. No N*ggers No Gays. Same **** different generation.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot,

TPreston said,

There we go ladies and gentlemen, There it is hanging out all pink and naked for you to see. I knew well that you had this untenable position and I dragged it out of you so I can reply to this.

For something that TOTALLY IS NOT LIKE RACISIM111111!111 you sure do like voiding the civil rights act. No N*ggers No Gays. Same **** different generation.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot,

Your posts are making less and less sense. Voiding the civil rights act? Untenable position? Again, what the heck are you talking about? I'm sorry if you don't see where out culture and society are headed, but what I am seeing is that our efforts to not offend anyone and to be "tolerant" for everyone, we are overstepping the other direction. I have no problem with equal rights, but I have a problem with taking away constitutionally protected rights from everyone to please a minority.

I didn't mention any in my last post as others have already posted examples. Sorry if you didn't read their comments. You want specific examples. Take Hobby Lobby. A private business that is facing fines and a law suit if the owner does not comply with the specific mandates in the obamacare laws. Basically he is being force to violate his conscience because of government interference in how he runs his private business. How about those bakeries that got sued and/or are facing fines because they politely declined a special order for a gay wedding. Again private business owners being force to violate their conscience. If gay marriage is legalized by the federal government I have no doubt that a spiritual leader somewhere will be asked to marry a gay couple in-spite of the fact that he disagrees with it, and will get taken to court and forced into compliance, or loose the ability to marry people. That's what happened to the bakers after all. Which is my whole reason for suggesting removing "the sacrament of marriage" from the legal system and replacing it with something similar that does not have its origins in any church or religion.

Nobody is asking you to agree with their beliefs or position. It is possible for people to disagree and still be civil and get along. But forcing people to violate their conscience this is a dangerous road for our society to travel down. Maybe you happen to hold opinions that are the current politically correct socially acceptable position. If so, good for you. But if we start regulating beliefs, opinions, and thoughts, the day could easily come when something you believe in suddenly is no longer acceptable, or even against the law.

Edited by domboy, Apr 9 2014, 1:23pm :

domboy said,
I have no problem with equal rights, but I have a problem with taking away constitutionally protected rights from everyone to please a minority.

No n*ggers is as protected by the constitutionally protected as no gays, There is no right to discriminate.

You act shocked at my comparison to separate but equal then demand that business be allowed to refuse service to gay people. Same sh*t different generation.

Next youll be demanding the right to fire gay people upon discovery. History repeats itself.

"the day could easily come when something you believe in suddenly is no longer acceptable, or even against the law."

Yeah like segregation and employment discrimination, Go back to 1960 where your views belong.

Edited by TPreston, Apr 9 2014, 1:45pm :

TPreston said,

No n*ggers is as protected by the constitutionally protected as no gays, There is no right to discriminate.

You act shocked at my comparison to separate but equal then demand that business be allowed to refuse service to gay people. Same sh*t different generation.

Next youll be demanding the right to fire gay people upon discovery. History repeats itself.

"the day could easily come when something you believe in suddenly is no longer acceptable, or even against the law."

Yeah like segregation and employment discrimination, Go back to 1960 where your views belong.

Yes history is repeating itself, just this time the LGTB activists are becoming the new group of bullies. Sorry if you can't see it. The tables are turning, but they aren't stopping in the middle for a balance, they are tipping the other way. I just hope there is still time to level it out.

And another thing, you want us to be tolerant of your opinions, but you don't sound like very tolerant individual yourself based on your comments, so by your own words should I be intolerant of your intolerance?

Besides, who said any of this was my view? I am perfectly fine with equality and fairness, but when I see bulling now coming from the same people that screamed about being bullied, I see a problem. I want a fair and equal society. What I don't want is to replace one set of bullies for another set.

domboy said,

Yes history is repeating itself, just this time the LGTB activists are becoming the new group of bullies. Sorry if you can't see it.

I cant see it because it doesn't exist, There is no right to discriminate or to say stupid #### and not get fired. This treatment is nothing special it happens to outed racists all the time.

domboy said,
And another thing, you want us to be tolerant of your opinions

No I don't, Feel free to respond them and insult me I don't care.

domboy said,
but you dont sound like very tolerant individual yourself based on your comments, so by your own words should I be intolerant of your intolerance?

I respect their right to free speech, That's a given doesn't mean everyone else has to shut up though.

domboy said,
Besides, who said any of this was my view? I am perfectly fine with equality and fairness, but when I see bulling now coming from the same people that screamed about being bullied, I see a problem. I want a fair and equal society. What I don't want is to replace one set of bullies for another set.?

A fair and equal socity without that pesky civil rights act as you eluded to in the last news item, bring back the "no n*ggers k*ckes or irish" signs cause we want a fair and equal socity.

Give me a sodding break!

And here we have a perfect example of the hypocritical facade that is the "tolerance" movement in our society. It is a one-way street. It is "you will embrace our views and beliefs while compromising your own or we will bully you and shame you into submission". I have nothing against gay people, but many of their activist groups have become the very thing they claim about those that are opposed to their views and beliefs are - intolerant.

This guy should not have had to resign over personal beliefs and personal monetary support.

More "tolerance" for the immoral left. I wish businesses would just be neutral on all this and concentrate on being businesses. I commend Mr. Eich on personally taking a stand. This a personal decision of morality, personally acted upon--not officially as a rep of Mozilla. The folks at Mozilla should have remained completely neutral and simply said that the individual views and actions of employees do not necessarily reflect those of the corporate entity known as Mozilla.

Intolerance for intolerance is intelligence. If an oppressor claims his oppression is actually "religious liberties" and should be tolerated, then I say, "Suck my ball sack. Don't outsource your hate to God. Just own your f-ucking hatred."

No one would put a known racist at the helm, or someone who devalues and/or abuses women ... so why would anyone be okay with a person who put money up to silence a minority known as LGBT? Because you don't like us? Well F-UCK YOU. If you don't like us, FINE. But guess what? Your religion is yours to keep, but to wield it as a weapon to oppress others? NO. And if you have forgotten, history is filled with tyrants who have killed and stolen in the name of religion. This is just the same story, different century.

seebaran said,
Intolerance for intolerance is intelligence.

No it isn't. Just as two wrongs don't make a right. Intolerance of someone else's differing view is just that, intolerance. It doesn't matter what the subject. If you really want tolerance, it goes both ways. Otherwise what you really want to change everyone else's opinion to match your own, and you're just kidding yourself on the whole "tolerance" thing. Again, I don't care what the subject is.

All your examples would be wrong if done in the context of work environment. A person's personal belief is their own, and what they do with their own money is also their own.

He should be allowed whatever views he wants in his personal life, and do to whatever he wishes with his personal money. This is Chic Fil A all over again.

Well, what is Mozilla's loss will be someone else's gain.
I hope he does well in his new role wherever that may be and shows the world that he can be at the forefront of something brilliant regardless of what his personal beliefs are.
If he doesn't let them interfere with his work, then long may he do good things for his next company.

Just a reminder: Barack Obama was publicly against gay marriage in 2008. So one assumes those who object to this CEO did not vote for Obama either.

Frogboy said,
Just a reminder: Barack Obama was publicly against gay marriage in 2008. So one assumes those who object to this CEO did not vote for Obama either.

source?.

seta-san said,
uninstalled firefox. too bad. been using it since beta

To boycott firefox is just the same than following the path that those "gay mafia".

Brony said,

To boycott firefox is just the same than following the path that those "gay mafia".

so? there's one guy that is possibly intolerant of gays at Mozilla and was denied a job because it.. the truth is that he probably has no problems with gays and probably just disagrees with gay marriage. Mozilla on the other hand is FULL of people intolerant of people have dissenting positions and are so intolerant that they would drive him out of a job he earned through a life time of achievement. That company doesn't deserve my support.

So this guy donated a thousand bucks to prop 8 six years ago, around the time he was hired by Mozilla and now six years later people are going bananas? Self righteous ignorant fops.

Now I do believe that being against gay marriage isn't all that amazing in America, after all most if not all elected members of the Republican party are against gay marriage.

Anyone donating a thousand bucks to the next Republican who is vehemently anti-gay going to get the same treatment? No of course not - this was a low hanging fruit for keyboard crusaders with too much time on their hands and too much air in their head.

Perhaps the man changed his opinion in the last six years. If so, this was just reactionary punishment for donating to a cause six years ago. Could it be any slower?

Finally I wonder, has any one of you gay bigots ever supported a cause you did not fully 100% agree with,? Did you ever vote for a legislation or political party or person that you did not agree with 100%? Or even 60%?

There is nothing wrong with hating a homophobe. People need to accept that homophobia is no longer tolerated or viewed as positive. It is associated with the intellectually challenged, old, and religious extremists.

gay, lesbian, incest, bestiality all are act of sin , dude. all are un natural, something wrong with your head/mind/soul, you are doing what animal even wont do.

Do incest & Bestiality are legal in USA ? if gay, lesbian are.

sinis said,
gay, lesbian, incest, bestiality all are act of sin , dude. all are un natural, something wrong with your head/mind/soul, you are doing what animal even wont do.

Do incest & Bestiality are legal in USA ? if gay, lesbian are.

As I said " intellectually challenged, old, and religious extremists."

sinis said,
gay, lesbian, incest, bestiality all are act of sin , dude. all are un natural, something wrong with your head/mind/soul, you are doing what animal even wont do.

Do incest & Bestiality are legal in USA ? if gay, lesbian are.

Animals of the same sex have sex, you know, in nature.

Maybe stick more to the parts of the Bible that start with "And Jesus said," or end with "spake Jesus," and you'll be better for it. In fact, that's not just my opinion it's the opinion of Jesus Christ himself! Wow.

Tha Bloo Monkee said,

Except many animals do exhibit homosexuality. Shows how much you know! :laugh:

Some also exhibit pedophilia and incest, even "beastiality" sometimes...

Sin is a fiction created by the church in the early years to maintain political power and wealth over the masses. Keeps 'em in line.

I think a lot of you need to reread the constitution again. There is no right to free speech here. Free speech rights only come into play when it involves the government.

hagjohn said,
I think a lot of you need to reread the constitution again. There is no right to free speech here. Free speech rights only come into play when it involves the government.
This is how absolutely desperate they are, because they cant debate their untenable position publicly they have to hide behind willful ignorance of what freedom of expression entails. Duck Dynasty 2.0.

I suspect this confusion would rapidly evaporate if someone said something that hurt their feelings...

To clearly detect bias or racism, I ask the offended to reverse the roles or the political stance. If the opposite isn't racist or biased, then the original situation isn't either.

While I fully support consumer choice to boycott a product - and their 1st amendment rights - this is bullying plain and simple.

There's no question he wouldn't have been bullied out if he had personally contributed to a LBGT cause. The bias from the LBGT crowd is clear. It's this kind of bullying that turns me away from LBGT folks more than their sexual preference ever could.

dugn said,
There's no question he wouldn't have been bullied out if he had personally contributed to a LBGT cause.

That's because these organizations don't fight to remove rights from Americans derp! They don't fight to make straight people second class citizans hence why this is acceptable

Congratulations you earned the https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground medal

Your logic is lame. They aren't fighting to REMOVE rights from Americans. People can, within certain rules, get married. The problem is that SOME people are pushing to ADD unnatural or immoral unions where they didn't exist before. Nothing is being "removed". By your argument, the rights of polygamists, the rights of pedophiles or the rights of zoophiles are also being "removed". What's happened is some people in society have lowered their moral standards and made homosexuality acceptable. It's only a matter of time before the same is true of other deviations. By what standard would you say no to them and what would your response be when their activists tell you that you are "removing" their rights? Back to the actual point of the article, Mr. Eich made a personal choice to support a cause he believed was moral and it had nothing to do with Mozilla. Mozilla, however, instead of taking the neutral position--which is exactly what it SHOULD have done--it fell to pressure from gay activists and applied pressure on Mr. Eich. Whether you agree with Mr. Eich or not doesn't matter. He was within his rights. Mozilla folded like a cheap suit.

@dugn. Oh boo hoo. Expecting me to be tolerant of someone who is actively supporting efforts to take away my civil rights is just moronic. Do you also expect African Americans to be tolerant of racists? Do you also expect women to be tolerant of those why try to regulate their bodies?

Sorry, but you work to take away my rights and make me a second class citizen, I'm going to fight you every step of the way and remind you of it.

Robert Wade said,
Your logic is lame. They aren't fighting to REMOVE rights from Americans. People can, within certain rules, get married. The problem is that SOME people are pushing to ADD unnatural or immoral unions where they didn't exist before. Nothing is being "removed". By your argument, the rights of polygamists, the rights of pedophiles or the rights of zoophiles are also being "removed". What's happened is some people in society have lowered their moral standards and made homosexuality acceptable. It's only a matter of time before the same is true of other deviations. By what standard would you say no to them and what would your response be when their activists tell you that you are "removing" their rights? Back to the actual point of the article, Mr. Eich made a personal choice to support a cause he believed was moral and it had nothing to do with Mozilla. Mozilla, however, instead of taking the neutral position--which is exactly what it SHOULD have done--it fell to pressure from gay activists and applied pressure on Mr. Eich. Whether you agree with Mr. Eich or not doesn't matter. He was within his rights. Mozilla folded like a cheap suit.

Since we're giving out medals for logical fallacies, you have been awarded https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

ShockD said,
Big deal. The man has a position just like everyone else. Oh, wait. Maybe his position is "wrong".
He donated money to make gay people second class citizens in California, I suspect if I voted to make your marriage illegal it wouldn't be "a position"

TPreston said,
He donated money to make gay people second class citizens in California, I suspect if I voted to make your marriage illegal it wouldn't be "a position"

Indeed it would still be. Hell, be a communist or whatever, it is your opinion and I either respect it or don't give a damn about it. I have no right to judge you about your political/social/religious beliefs. And supporting your cause doesn't make you a criminal (as long as it's not a criminal organization). This is how democracy works. If the majority doesn't want gay marriage, you won't have gay marriage. In this case, Mozilla's CEO hasn't done anything wrong, except publicly disapproving gay marriage and thus putting Mozilla's name in an uncomfortable position.

ShockD said,

Indeed it would still be. Hell, be a communist or whatever, it is your opinion and I either respect it or don't give a damn about it. I have no right to judge you about your political/social/religious beliefs. And supporting your cause doesn't make you a criminal (as long as it's not a criminal organization). This is how democracy works. If the majority doesn't want gay marriage, you won't have gay marriage. In this case, Mozilla's CEO hasn't done anything wrong, except publicly disapproving gay marriage and thus putting Mozilla's name in an uncomfortable position.

America is not a democracy

TPreston said,
He donated money to make gay people second class citizens in California, I suspect if I voted to make your marriage illegal it wouldn't be "a position"

he donated money 6 years ago...6! Why a sudden outrage today?

TPreston said,
America is not a democracy

Well, at least it claims to be. Where majority rules and minority is protected by the law.

No, it claims to be a constitutional republic...far different from a democracy. God, there's a lot of people on here who clearly slept through high school.

jay_max said,
No, it claims to be a constitutional republic...far different from a democracy. God, there's a lot of people on here who clearly slept through high school.

Oh, I swept school? Did you even read what you just wrote? A republic! Different from democracy? Well, tell me more then, perhaps you have separate monarchs in each of your states that make up their own constitutions and divide into South and North. But who knows, maybe definitions of some terms are different at the other side of the globe... For all I know it's easier to just bash than getting your facts straight.

Edited by ShockD, Apr 4 2014, 4:29pm :

shame on the people who are in favor of gay marriages shame on you lost sheep. go and seek right path don't let fools change your mind don't and let the people who transgress in their life change your mind, go and dive into your heart to seek the truth for your heart knows what is good and bad, conscience is in the heart, in our heart we always know what is right and what is wrong, "that's the reason our eyes blinks some times :) when we know that we are doing something wrong but some how we insist in doing the wrong thing while knowing deep down in the heart that it is not the right path"

do not listen to the transgressors, do not listen to the people who go astray, if you think people who are transgress and tell you their stories are "cool" and more up to date and perfect then you need to make your conscience right there is some problem. the people who go astray always lead others to wrong path which "some times looks to be cool but again you have to see what your heart says " for your heart knows the truth

the life is full of sorrows and difficulties but there are also moments of happiness don't let your sorrows and difficulties be a reason for going against the law of God, for life is a test do good deeds and help others and feed the poor and do not transgress do not transgress do not transgress. save yourself from hellfire. :(

may the true and only One God guide me as well as others to right path and save us from the hellfire.

Edited by onizuka001, Apr 3 2014, 10:43pm :

i am humbly open for discussion on religion and laws of religion if you do not want to abuse me you can always contact me through this email id fjyl001@hotmail.com for more information.

As a supporter of equal rights regardless of gender, race, religion... I find it disgusting that in 2014, the online community can grab it's burning torches and pitchforks and start a crusade against someone to this level for simply having an opinion and showing his support for what he believes in.

Nik L said,
As a supporter of equal rights regardless of gender, race, religion... I find it disgusting that in 2014, the online community can grab it's burning torches and pitchforks and start a crusade against someone to this level for simply having an opinion and showing his support for what he believes in.

Two blatant lies in your post

1 that this was anything other than freedom of speech and expression on the part of people criticizing him
2 That he just had an opinion when he in fact donated to make gay Americans second class citizens.

And yet somehow HE is the victim... Right :roll eyes:

TPreston said,

... he in fact donated to make gay Americans second class citizens.
...

You keep repeating that but I'm sure the organization involved, and likely the donor as well would disagree with such a characterization.

knighthawk said,

You keep repeating that but I'm sure the organization involved, and likely the donor as well would disagree with such a characterization.


Because it didn't include the words "christian nation" and "filthy sodomite"

TPreston said,

Because it didn't include the words "christian nation" and "filthy sodomite"

Keep pouring on the vinegar, I'm sure it'll eventually work for you.

Please don't accuse me of lying when you neither know me or my personal business. Try to structure your argument a bit better if you wish to be taken seriously.

Wow. I am disgusted by the comments here. Doesn't matter what side your on, these comments are shameful. I'll admit. I'm married. I'm not in a gay marriage, just a simple marriage. I am glad that up here in Canada we can handle things like society should.

Look you can't support one cause and then turn around and work for a company while advocating the same cause it doesn't work like that and Brendan Eich knows this now.

It also has nothing to do with the 'gay mafia' but more of a broader support what our rights.

Robbie Ride said,
Look you can't support one cause and then turn around and work for a company while advocating the same cause it doesn't work like that and Brendan Eich knows this now.

It also has nothing to do with the 'gay mafia' but more of a broader support what our rights.


Turn around and work how, your aware he was not just some new hire right? So are you saying you wanted him fired 6 years ago?

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one, it's that simple. I can't believe people care as much as to donate money to ban this kind of stuff.
I'm not surprised he resigned at all, what he did brought a lot of bad press for Mozilla.

I always wonder if the opposite had happened what would have been the outcome? Had he given money to a gay rights organization would he have been asked to step down? The answer sadly is no. I am not anti-gay just making an observation.

xrobwx said,
I always wonder if the opposite had happened what would have been the outcome? Had he given money to a gay rights organization would he have been asked to step down? The answer sadly is no. I am not anti-gay just making an observation.

Of course not because that organization wouldn't be working to strip Americans of their rights and make them second class citizen's it would be opposing this which is a good thing,

And no there isn't a right to be protected from criticism.

xrobwx said,
I always wonder if the opposite had happened what would have been the outcome? Had he given money to a gay rights organization would he have been asked to step down? The answer sadly is no. I am not anti-gay just making an observation.

He would have been commended for pursuing equal rights. But the jeebus brigade might have complained

TPreston said,

Of course not because that organization wouldn't be working to strip Americans of their rights and make them second class citizen's it would be opposing this which is a good thing,

And no there isn't a right to be protected from criticism.

no.. you have no right to be protected from criticism.. but no one should lose their job over a political opinion. I hope some business owner takes this opportunity to go through their parking lot and fire everyone with a Obama/Biden bumper sticker and see how well political firings look.

The Jesus brigade might have complained but nobody would have cared. Now if the Schmohamed brigade complained it would have garnered results.

Torolol said,
nah, gay people will still hypocritically use the javascripts

Well if you want to play chicken and egg, a gay man did invent modern computing. So there's that.

Order_66 said,
Adolph would be proud of the gay mafia.
Indeed he was an atheist and a longtime supporter of gay rights.

Meanwhile, In a place called reality...

TPreston said,
Indeed he was an atheist and a longtime supporter of gay rights.

Meanwhile, In a place called reality...

Umm he was a catholic and claimed he was doing the lords work.

Order_66 said,
Adolph would be proud of the gay mafia.

I love how even the slang for the group or imagined group of gay people has a negative connotation. I mean people couldnt call it the Gay Garageband, the Rainbow Club, the Gay Groups even. Nope, need to slap on a negative word to the group.

AmazingRando said,

I love how even the slang for the group or imagined group of gay people has a negative connotation. I mean people couldnt call it the Gay Garageband, the Rainbow Club, the Gay Groups even. Nope, need to slap on a negative word to the group.


That old saying, if it walks like a duck....

why not?... is not against the Law or im not breaking any Rule in here, im free to express myself and i like firefox and i do install firefox in all my customer computer!!

I would of said screw you to the Gay community and kept my job. Just like I would say screw you to atheist demanding the take down of crosses from museums or other sites. He didnt do anything wrong buy express his views. He wasnt rude or anything. Everyone has a right to their views and to express them, as long as they are civil, without having to feel bad or be penalized for their views.

techbeck said,
Everyone has a right to their views and to express them, as long as they are civil, without having to feel bad or be penalized (BY THE GOVERNMENT) for their views.

I see what you did there! Sneeky apologist ! Free speech works both ways and people are well within their right to express their opinion that he isn't fit to be CEO. If he is fired that's his tough luck.

As a CEO you are the public face of the company you're heading and you're supposed to represent the company culture. If you don't fit in the company culture you're not the right person to be the CEO.

Which is also why nobody complained when he was CTO. He does indeed have the right to express his views, but everyone has the right to express unhappiness with him being CEO. Especially Mozilla employees have every right to not want a CEO that doesn't fit what they believe the company stands for.

Ambroos said,
As a CEO you are the public face of the company you're heading and you're supposed to represent the company culture. If you don't fit in the company culture you're not the right person to be the CEO.

Ok lets boycott everything Obama does and let all the people against gay marriage put pressure on him for his beliefs. Obama is a huge public figure so hey, he doesnt fit the cultrure either since he supports gay marriage. There are a ton against and for it so really cannot say it is the culture to support it. Lots for and agaist gay marriage whether you work for hte Government, or Mozilla.

Activists want understanding, support, an acceptance to their views and what they believe. But they are unwilling in a lot of cases to give the same consideration to anyone that doesnt share their own beliefs. ITs not a one was street and like I said, as long as you conduct yourself in a civil manner, then its no big deal. These activists are doing exactly what they are trying to get people not to do to them. Condeming them, punishing people, for expressing the opposite view.

I fully support gay marriage. My Aunt is gay and so is my best friend. But I also fully support those who are against it. It is what they believe in and they are entitled to it as long as they remain human and done get violent physically or verbally.

"Ok lets boycott everything Obama does and let all the people against gay marriage put pressure on him for his beliefs"

.... .... ... That's already happened ? That's exactly what's been happening for the last half a decade ? wh... ?

Are you complaining because it didn't cost him reelection or something ?

Cannot really boycott the governement I guess....they are the law. So badly worded on my part.

There are lots of people in the public eye that have lots of influence who believe in one thing or another. But as long a their beliefs dont take away from the kind of person they are, then who cares. Does it make him less of a CEO? Of a good person? Hes being mad out to be the bad guy here when he is not.

Ambroos said,
As a CEO you are the public face of the company you're heading and you're supposed to represent the company culture. If you don't fit in the company culture you're not the right person to be the CEO.

Which is also why nobody complained when he was CTO. He does indeed have the right to express his views, but everyone has the right to express unhappiness with him being CEO. Especially Mozilla employees have every right to not want a CEO that doesn't fit what they believe the company stands for.


It doesn't explain it at all. While I can agree C-level execs are in general theory held to higher standards and ethics that reflect the company then non C-level employees they are no different then the CEO in that regard.

Ambroos said,
As a CEO you are the public face of the company you're heading and you're supposed to represent the company culture. If you don't fit in the company culture you're not the right person to be the CEO.
Yikes, you'd be a horrible anthropologist. You realize culture and moral beliefs are very different? You're acting as if a company has moral beliefs and that those also make up their culture. Furthermore, the belief at hand is about marriage. Since when did a tech company's employee's belief about marriage become part of their culture?

techbeck said,

I fully support gay marriage. My Aunt is gay and so is my best friend. But I also fully support those who are against it. It is what they believe in and they are entitled to it as long as they remain human and done get violent physically or verbally.

And they can continue to be against gay marriage when it's legal as well.

Granting equal protection for sexual orientation doesnt make it illegal for someone to be a bigot. It just allows gay people equal protection like any other minority.

This guy can donate $10 million to the "Gay Marriage is Evil" fund or whatever. Him doing that and having that opinion are a secondary argument to legalizing sexual orientation protection and equality laws.

techbeck said,

Ok lets boycott everything Obama does and let all the people against gay marriage put pressure on him for his beliefs. Obama is a huge public figure so hey, he doesnt fit the cultrure either since he supports gay marriage. There are a ton against and for it so really cannot say it is the culture to support it. Lots for and agaist gay marriage whether you work for hte Government, or Mozilla.

Just wanted to comment on the Government part: the right did disagree with Obama and ragequit not too long ago, shutting down the government :D

Okay, everyone else, carry on.

I honestly didn't care for his private views, those are his to keep. But he created javascript!!! if this was hell, he would be the devi's dad. JS is the worse thing that ever became popular. it is like justin beiber of programing languages.

neonspark said,
it is like justin beiber of programing languages.

i must agree with that.
but i don't see how whomever hates him stop using javascripts, hypocrites as usual.

Because a CTO isn't the public face of the company and isn't someone who is supposed to represent the general company culture.

Wow this is sad. There's no reason why this guy should have resign over something that's irrelevant Mozilla. People shouldn't even be threatening him in the first place. Martin Luther King led a peaceful march, why can't these people do the same.

This is peaceful. It's mostly been tweets and online discussions. But a CEO represents what a company stands for and is basically the company's public billboard. When a CEO doesn't fit the company culture he's not a good CEO.

Sure, it's a personal thing you might say, but it matters a lot. A CEO reflects back on the company and this would have negatively affected Mozilla in the end.

As an example, a personal one this time, this is what some CEO's made me feel. Even though I think their software decisions are debatable at times, I like Microsoft because of what Bill Gates does. He made a lot of money and I don't mind paying for Microsoft products because I know some of it is going to be well spent. Tesla seems like an incredibly ballsy and innovative company ready to break up the market pretty much only because of Elon Musk. Steve Jobs defined what Apple stood for. He had brilliant ideas but was pretty much a jerk, which sort of polarized the opinion of Apple. You've got lovers and you've got haters. I've grown to like Yahoo a lot more since they have Marissa Mayer on board too. She radiates 'niceness' and openness and that again influences how I think about their products.

A CEO isn't like any other person who works there. And I'm sure Eich will have another important job somewhere else in the company (or some other company). But because of his unpopular and sort of discriminatory opinions on gay marriage he's not the right person to be the face of a company.

link6155 said,
Wow this is sad. There's no reason why this guy should have resign over something that's irrelevant Mozilla. People shouldn't even be threatening him in the first place. Martin Luther King led a peaceful march, why can't these people do the same.

How is this any different? The civil rights movement changed the view of the majority on the black minority. At the end those who still believed black people should have less rights had to hide their opinion as well. Even today there are a lot of elderly people who are secretely racist. But new generations grow up with the idea of racial equality. I myself included.

And now the gay rights movement is getting the same acceptance by the general public. Granted a little bit less in the USA then elsewhere. However Mozilla's employees (and users) have a more activist nature to them then most people. They are motivated by more than just money due to their history as a non-profit organization. So its understandable that this is even more of an outrage among them then the general public.

Also dont forget that there are countries where gay marriage has been normal for over a decade. Supporting an anti-gay movement to people who grew up in such a society is like supporting today's KKK.

Ambroos said,
This is peaceful. It's mostly been tweets and online discussions. But a CEO represents what a company stands for and is basically the company's public billboard. When a CEO doesn't fit the company culture he's not a good CEO.....

I see your point. I still think that his personal beliefs shouldn't be a factor in his role.

link6155 said,
Martin Luther King led a peaceful march, why can't these people do the same.

They... are? This was peaceful. Do you have any evidence of violence?

knighthawk said,
Because many of them are not as 'tolerant' as they claim and fail to see their own hypocrisy.

It's not as if they try to silence him. He can still have his opinion, they just dont want a man with such an opinion as their CEO. Would you want a racist as your CEO? Someone who, for example, openly says black people shouldn't use the same bus as white people? To you this may be a very different scenario but not to people who want equality for gay people.

knighthawk said,
Because many of them are not as 'tolerant' as they claim and fail to see their own hypocrisy.

There is nothing to tolerate about folks who stand for inequality.

Ronnet said,

Also dont forget that there are countries where gay marriage has been normal for over a decade. Supporting an anti-gay movement to people who grew up in such a society is like supporting today's KKK.

This. Future generations are going to judge people like Eich for what they are: bigots.

Ronnet said,

How is this any different? The civil rights movement changed the view of the majority on the black minority. At the end those who still believed black people should have less rights had to hide their opinion as well. Even today there are a lot of elderly people who are secretely racist. But new generations grow up with the idea of racial equality. I myself included.

And now the gay rights movement is getting the same acceptance by the general public. Granted a little bit less in the USA then elsewhere. However Mozilla's employees (and users) have a more activist nature to them then most people. They are motivated by more than just money due to their history as a non-profit organization. So its understandable that this is even more of an outrage among them then the general public.

Also dont forget that there are countries where gay marriage has been normal for over a decade. Supporting an anti-gay movement to people who grew up in such a society is like supporting today's KKK.

I think the problem in all of this is that there is no room for different opinions. This topic has many gray areas to it that make it different from say the civil rights movement. You can be on either side of it and not be intolerant or supporting inequality. Its more like a political issue than one of rights for a group of people.

Tolerance and understanding is a two way street and some groups have decided that if you disagree then there is no room for you in society and must be shouted down.

I think people will look back at this era years down the road and wonder why those with an agenda chose to push that agenda with their own forms of intolerance and inequality.

trooper11 said,

I think the problem in all of this is that there is no room for different opinions. This topic has many gray areas to it that make it different from say the civil rights movement. You can be on either side of it and not be intolerant or supporting inequality. Its more like a political issue than one of rights for a group of people.

Tolerance and understanding is a two way street and some groups have decided that if you disagree then there is no room for you in society and must be shouted down.

I think people will look back at this era years down the road and wonder why those with an agenda chose to push that agenda with their own forms of intolerance and inequality.

Could you give an example of these grey areas? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. The civil rights movement was also a political movement. The idea behind it is identical. No longer discriminate based on a characteristic.

link6155 said,
Martin Luther King led a peaceful march, why can't these people do the same.

What an absolutely hilarious comment this is exactly what I was parodying above. People seem to go full retard when something like this happens and say the most insanely stupid things like this is a violation of free speech or terrorism or violence.

Its not, Its free speech get over it. Oh and by the way the guy you quoted... Had a gay guy organize his campaign

trooper11 said,
Tolerance and understanding is a two way street and some groups have decided that if you disagree then there is no room for you in society and must be shouted down.

Holy persecution syndrome batman! All tolerance means is that I tolerate his right to express his opinions not the opinions themselves. Im free to criticize the people who advocate or hold them all I wish.

TPreston said,

Holy persecution syndrome batman! All tolerance means is that I tolerate his right to express his opinions not the opinions themselves. Im free to criticize the people who advocate or hold them all I wish.

Of course your free to criticize. But people go too far with that and ruin the chance for a real dialog.

Examples of taking it too far include death threats, actively working to destroy a person's life publicly, etc.

For me, if a person believes something that I don't agree with, but that person is not actively applying that belief in the pursuit of say their job, I'm not going to make a fuss about that job. So in this case, I don't see the problem in letting the CEO stay since he is apparently more than qualified for the position having worked with the company for a long time. He can have his private beliefs as long as he is not applying that to company decisions, which I have not seen anyone claim that he had.

As CEO, of course he is the representative of the company, but his beliefs outside of that role as CEO don't fall under that net. I just haven't felt that he had done anything to warrant losing his job, but then Mozilla was put into a corner, so I guess it had to be done.

Ronnet said,

It's not as if they try to silence him. He can still have his opinion, they just dont want a man with such an opinion as their CEO. Would you want a racist as your CEO? Someone who, for example, openly says black people shouldn't use the same bus as white people? To you this may be a very different scenario but not to people who want equality for gay people.

This man did none of these things.

knighthawk said,

This man did none of these things.

He did however donate to a campaign to make gay people second class citizens and the world is free to criticize him as much as they wish.

TPreston said,
He did however donate to a campaign to make gay people second class citizens and the world is free to criticize him as much as they wish.

But that is not the same as the analogy that you laid out. You basically decided to try and assassinate his character by claiming he had done or said something he had not.

He gave money to a cause. He has not done anything to show that he would do anything to harm other people or to somehow force Mozilla to adopt his beliefs. In effect, you could claim the same problems with political donations.

Again, your right that Mozilla can hire and fire whom they wish based on what they want out of a CEO, but lets not forget that they promoted him to this position. He had been with the company for many years. It was only after the public outrage that they decided that his personal beliefs warranted them removing him.

My point is, the people at Mozilla that promoted him, obviously felt like he had what it took to lead the company. So either they are also 'bigots' like he is now labeled as, or they didn't feel that his personal beliefs would have any effect on his ability to properly run the company. Either way, they failed to see what the public reaction would be.

trooper11 said,

But that is not the same as the analogy that you laid out. You basically decided to try and assassinate his character by claiming he had done or said something he had not.

I didn't lay out the analogy. I don't see how this classifies as "assonating his character" He did that all on his own by donating to make gay people second class Americans.

"you could claim the same problems with political donations. "
Political donations to hate groups and organizations that try to make gay people second class citizens. Count me in.

trooper11 said,

But that is not the same as the analogy that you laid out. You basically decided to try and assassinate his character by claiming he had done or said something he had not.

He gave money to a cause. He has not done anything to show that he would do anything to harm other people or to somehow force Mozilla to adopt his beliefs. In effect, you could claim the same problems with political donations.
...


Thanks, you saved me from having to point this out.

Ronnet said,

How is this any different? The civil rights movement changed the view of the majority on the black minority. At the end those who still believed black people should have less rights had to hide their opinion as well. Even today there are a lot of elderly people who are secretely racist. But new generations grow up with the idea of racial equality. I myself included.

And now the gay rights movement is getting the same acceptance by the general public. Granted a little bit less in the USA then elsewhere. However Mozilla's employees (and users) have a more activist nature to them then most people. They are motivated by more than just money due to their history as a non-profit organization. So its understandable that this is even more of an outrage among them then the general public.

Also dont forget that there are countries where gay marriage has been normal for over a decade. Supporting an anti-gay movement to people who grew up in such a society is like supporting today's KKK.

You dont see how this is different? Religious differences aside (as in, according to the Bible being black isnt a sin but homosexuality is), how is this remotely the same as the civil rights movement? Less rights? What rights are we talking about here? The right to vote? Nope. Drink from the same water fountain? Nope. Ride at the front of the bus? Nope. Job discrimination? Nope. Going to college or educating yourself? Nope. Endless opportunity? Nope.

This is about the benefits of marriage status. Tax breaks. Shared property. Hospital visitation. Those are not near the same as being hosed down in the street with a water canon. And, because of the religious difference stated at the top, this wont be like the civil rights movement. Religious people of various faiths will think homosexuality is a sin. It doesnt equate to hate or discrimination, just missing the mark.

My main point though, is its absurd to think this is like the civil rights movement. Its different. And calling out the Mozilla CEO on twitter and throwing a fit didnt really help Mozilla out at all...

Scabrat said,

Less rights? What rights are we talking about here?

Ride at the front of the bus? Nope. Job discrimination? Nope.

Actually, yes. It's legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation... explicitly legal in some states due to new religious freedom laws... funded by people like Brendan Eich.

Yes, job discrimination is legal. You can be fired for being gay.
Yes, businesses and employees can discriminate against gay customers. Instead of forcing you onto the back of the bus, they have the right to just flat out refuse to allow you on it.

Ambroos said,
This is peaceful. It's mostly been tweets and online discussions.

Insert "hate filled, threatening" between the words "been" and "tweets" and you'd be more accurate! :p

rfirth said,

Actually, yes. It's legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation... explicitly legal in some states due to new religious freedom laws... funded by people like Brendan Eich.

Yes, job discrimination is legal. You can be fired for being gay.
Yes, businesses and employees can discriminate against gay customers. Instead of forcing you onto the back of the bus, they have the right to just flat out refuse to allow you on it.

Job discrimination? That is in every social class, life style, religion, sex, orientation, everything. Most businesses out there are dont discriminate based on sexual orientation. And I am pretty sure its illegal to ask that question as well. And dont gay people make more money and are "more" educated than straight people? I mean, I did a quick Google search and there are tons of sources that say its true form different countries and everything.

And the only businesses I heard refusing gay customers dont actually refuse the customer but participating in their wedding. Like, photographers and organizers and bakers. They may be customers for years but the owner turns them down to work their wedding. Then, get sued over it because they have a sacred view of some life events like, weddings, and marriage, and stuff.

See, the issue may have been 6 years ago in the job market. But, except for a few exceptions, I dont think its there anymore. It has (bar a few exceptions which you will always have) everything to do with peoples views on marriage and what comes along with that. Like tax breaks and legal property and stuff.

But again, the whole point of my first post was in response to someone who thought it was like the civil rights movement. And even compared the KKK in there. Comparing people who have a sacred view on marriage (one thats meaning goes farther than tax breaks and legal issues) to the KKK is exaggerated, shameful, and a lie. Brendan Eich is not in a hate group. Hate groups kill people, like the KKK did. No, he supported a cause he personally felt was right. And comparing that and a hate group is wrong.

TPreston said,

I didn't lay out the analogy. I don't see how this classifies as "assonating his character" He did that all on his own by donating to make gay people second class Americans.

"you could claim the same problems with political donations. "
Political donations to hate groups and organizations that try to make gay people second class citizens. Count me in.

Hey, if you want to label the guy as an extremist, so be it. Obviously you are not alone in that and are glad to see him gone, but my point is that your opinion is not the only one and its not as cut and dry as you want to make it.

A guy donates money to a group years ago, a group that he felt reflected his feelings on a subject. I don't know enough about the group in question to say whether they are just a bunch of 'bigots' or what, but I do know that this man did not do anything while working at Mozilla that could be pointed to as discrimination.

I also don't know what his beliefs are completely since I do not know him personally, so all I'm commenting on is what has been said in public, which is very little.

I just don't see why he deserved to lose his job. If you want to make the man out to be a terrible person, then so be it.

knighthawk said,

Thanks for proving my point.

So your point is essentially "give folks like the KKK a break, everyone. stop being hypocrites. You being intolerant of those racist a*holes is just you being a hypocrite." Yeah, nice try. Intelligent people see through that for what it is: pandering to hate mongers. People who stand for inequality are anti-American. People need to stand up and fight about it. Labeling people who stand up for equality in America "hypocrites" is just an extremely pathetic attempt to silence them. And it won't work. It rolls off of us fighting for equality like the rain.

Move to Russia if you want to beat up on homosexuals, deny them rights, and make them into a lower citizen class. In America we believe in equality and justice for all. If you don't share those principles, seriously: GTFO. We have no desire, no reason, no purpose in tolerating your kind.

Edited by Shadrack, Apr 4 2014, 3:44pm :

Ambroos said,
This is peaceful. It's mostly been tweets and online discussions. But a CEO represents what a company stands for and is basically the company's public billboard.

So if Sataya was religions (which he may be) then everyone in that company is supposed to follow him and convert to his religion? How about T-cook from Apple? Everyone in apple is gay then ????

Online Tweets and comments is still verbal and digital harassment.

ians18 said,

So if Sataya was religions (which he may be) then everyone in that company is supposed to follow him and convert to his religion? How about T-cook from Apple? Everyone in apple is gay then ????

Online Tweets and comments is still verbal and digital harassment.

Nobody said that everyone is supposed to convert to whatever religion the CEO is. However, the CEO is the public face of the company.

How is a boycotting a company harassment?

Tweets and Online Discussions/comments != boycotting

Tweets and Online Discussions against the CEO was = verbal harassment.

ians18 said,
Tweets and Online Discussions/comments != boycotting

Tweets and Online Discussions against the CEO was = verbal harassment.

He's a public figure. People are allowed to talk about him, even negatively. That comes with the job.

First my chicken sandwich and now my web browser has a political agenda? FML.

The struggle may go back and forth for a few more years...perhaps even a decade, but eventually being against homosexual equal rights will be the same as being against any other minority's equal rights. Future Americans will judge the current opponents to equality the same way we judge the previous generations of racist Americans. Intelligent folks, like Orson Scott Card, realize that they are on the wrong side of history.

As far as "free speech" goes: you're a complete moron if you think this has anything to do with free speech. Lol. Free speech has to do with government, not public opinion. People can say whatever they want (for the most part) and not get arrested over it, but that has nothing to do with the court of public opinion...something that a public facing public traded company has to consider is how others perceive them and their CEO is the front man for that.

Shadrack said,
First my chicken sandwich and now my web browser has a political agenda? FML.

The struggle may go back and forth for a few more years...perhaps even a decade, but eventually being against homosexual equal rights will be the same as being against any other minority's equal rights. Future Americans will judge the current opponents to equality the same way we judge the previous generations of racist Americans. Intelligent folks, like Orson Scott Card, realize that they are on the wrong side of history.

As far as "free speech" goes: you're a complete moron if you think this has anything to do with free speech. Lol. Free speech has to do with government, not public opinion. People can say whatever they want (for the most part) and not get arrested over it, but that has nothing to do with the court of public opinion...something that a public facing public traded company has to consider is how others perceive them and their CEO is the front man for that.

Completely it has less to do with political speech and more to do with the fact that the $1000 dollar donation to prop 8 is completely out of context. Which pretty much just makes revealing it the way they did slander.

Had I been voting for prop 8 I would have personally been in a moral quandary, because morally I think everyone should have equal rights regardless of anything. On the other hand, some of the principles of governmental process the law sought to protect where things I was fully in agreement were being bent and broken to push gay marriage.

Prop 8 was a very dividing and complicated law, and I wouldn't fault anyone for their vote on it in any direction. It needed to be struck down, but I wish some of the governmental process portions had been left in place.

LaP said,
Who is Chris Crocker? :D
YouTube transvestite attention whoring guy who is now doing porn (and he actually doesn't look bad nowadays).

First Chrome surpases Firefox (though now by much), now this drama.

Remember when Mozilla was the darling of the browser scene.

Cue the crocodile tears about this horrendous act of bigotry and horrific persecution, Why wont the gay mafiajust leave him alone! Leave him alone stop destroying his free speech!!

TPreston said,
Cue the crocodile tears about this horrendous act of bigotry and horrific persecution, Why wont the gay mafiajust leave him alone! Leave him alone stop destroying his free speech!!

Lol, exactly. Nice satire.

TPreston said,
Cue the crocodile tears about this horrendous act of bigotry and horrific persecution, Why wont the gay mafiajust leave him alone! Leave him alone stop destroying his free speech!!

People are moving towards more open-minded ideas geared towards the greater good. If you want to open your mouth and debate these ideas, you can expect everyone to judge you and your loud mouth.

Sionic Ion said,

People are moving towards more open-minded ideas geared towards the greater good. If you want to open your mouth and debate these ideas, you can expect everyone to judge you and your loud mouth.

So open minded they did all they could to destroy someone just because he donatet his own money to an organization six years ago. I surely hope not to be open minded this much.

Sionic Ion said,

People are moving towards more open-minded ideas geared towards the greater good. If you want to open your mouth and debate these ideas, you can expect everyone to judge you and your loud mouth.


Being open minded often means that you actively go after those that disagree with you, hence not so open-minded after all.

There are many subjects where people feel that there is only one right answer and that there is no room in the world for an opposing view.

TPreston said,
Cue the crocodile tears about this horrendous act of bigotry and horrific persecution, Why wont the gay mafiajust leave him alone! Leave him alone stop destroying his free speech!!
And my prediction is correct we have an avalanche of willfully ignorant people claiming this is everything from violence to discrimination.

Learn what freedom of speech actually means people.

You don't much help your cause. You come off like a tool when all you do is mock other people.

You need to learn what Freedom of Speech actually means yourself. It doesn't give you the right to call people the things you like to.

TPreston said,
And my prediction is correct we have an avalanche of willfully ignorant people claiming this is everything from violence to discrimination.

Learn what freedom of speech actually means people.

And that is how you kill dialog. Just call everyone else ignorant.

NastySasquatch said,
You don't much help your cause. You come off like a tool when all you do is mock other people.
And annihilate their pathetic arguments. Its not hard when they are completely untenable. I give them an F for not even trying the "but lgbt rights organizations also try to remove rights... my right to discriminate in the workplace"

"You need to learn what Freedom of Speech actually means yourself. It doesn't give you the right to call people the things you like to."
Sue me

trooper11 said,

And that is how you kill dialog. Just call everyone else ignorant.

I thought I tore their pathetic arguments into little pieces on front of their face first ?

Im all for discussion, Please bring more arguments I enjoy destroying them almost as much as your tears when you lose another state/country/generation

TPreston said,

I thought I tore their pathetic arguments into little pieces on front of their face ?

Nope, you just illustrated that sometimes people can become what they are trying to make a case against.

trooper11 said,

Nope, you just illustrated that sometimes people can become what they are trying to make a case against.

Name one right ive tried to remove from opponents of marriage equality... preferably one that actually exists.

TPreston said,
Name one right ive tried to remove from opponents of marriage equality... preferably one that actually exists.

This topic is not about you, so what you are doing does not really matter. Plus, since I don't know you, I could not even begin to guess what beliefs you might have or who you might support that could be taken to mean you are trying to take someone's rights away.

As to the overall topic, its not exactly black and white. You could point to extremists that take things too far on both sides. Extremists that oppose gay marriage go too far and attack the people and try to stir up violence against those in favor of it. Then you have the majority of those that oppose gay marriage that are in fact not that extreme.

They don't attack people and they don't have any issues with people living their lives as they see fit. They may have a religious objection, some moral objection, etc which keeps them from supporting the practice. They don't care if anyone wants to choose to live that way though. So they are more likely to support groups that also do not support the practice than a group that does support the practice. Labeling these people as bigots or ignorant is just a way to shut them up and try to force another view. Leave those labels for those that truly deserve it.

This whole argument has gone in the wrong direction in my opinion. This isn't as much about 'Marriage inequality' as it is the fact that married couples get various 'perks' that non-married couples get. The very fact that the government regulates marriage creates that 'inequality'. So the fight this whole time should have been to get the government out of marriage. Remove the rules that only apply to them whether that is tax collection, hospital rules, anything.

Think of how easy it would be to get the entire country behind the idea of deregulating marriage. There would be no moral or religious component involved. There would simply be a call to get the government 'out of your bedroom' and making the rules apply equally once again whether you are single, straight, gay, etc, etc. It's a win win for everyone.

trooper11 said,

Extremists that oppose gay marriage go too far and attack the people and try to stir up violence against those in favor of it. Then you have the majority of those that oppose gay marriage that are in fact not that extreme.

BS there is no violence here just free speech.

"They don't attack people and they don't have any issues with people living their lives as they see fit. They may have a religious objection, some moral objection, etc which keeps them from supporting the practice"

And the government steps in and says thou shalt not make any law respecting an establishment of religion.

"Think of how easy it would be to get the entire country behind the idea of deregulating marriage. There would be no moral or religious component involved. There would simply be a call to get the government 'out of your bedroom' and making the rules apply equally once again whether you are single, straight, gay, etc, etc. It's a win win for everyone. "

I would support that but not other libertarian positions like allowing employment discrimination in the hope that the free market sorts it out like it did in 1960

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle.

The irony of people fighting for more freedoms and rights by condemning others freedoms or rights (i know this doesn't extend to consequence in terms of 'rights' but the actions of the mob here are clearly geared to oppress any other way of thinking surrounding this issue.

I'm personally not for or against the issue of gay marriage as I'm totally unaffected by it, but the issue of political correctness and mobs destroying peoples careers due to said people having a different opinion is something i absolutely detest. And no one seems to see,the irony!

Actually freedom of speech includes mocking or disparaging comments. Sorry, but when you hold a bigoted position (whether KKK, anti-gay, etc.) you are free to do so. No one is telling you what to think. However, you are NOT immune from criticism. That is also freedom of speech. It's also freedom of speech to boycott. And to donate to political causes of whatever persuasion you are. However, you are not free from the consequences of such actions, and that often affects employment. Finally, freedom of speech is designed to protect citizens from government interference with free speech. The government is not involved here, so there is no free speech violation.

People really need to retake high school civics classes...

"The very fact that the government regulates marriage creates that 'inequality'. So the fight this whole time should have been to get the government out of marriage."
----
Yes it should be, that would my preferred solution as well, solves this as well as a few other issues. As for it being "easy" though to get that accomplished, think again, doable over the long haul maybe but by no means 'easy'.

knighthawk said,
Gay mafia strikes again.
/flameon

Just like the civil rights movement before it. In a couple of decades society will look back on this movement and compare it's figureheads to Martin Luther King. But until that day they'll be vilified.

Ronnet said,

Just like the civil rights movement before it. In a couple of decades society will look back on this movement and compare it's figureheads to Martin Luther King. But until that day they'll be vilified.

I never knew gay people were put into slave camps and murdered over hundreds of years.. Its kinda silly to compare gay rights to the civil rights movement. I guess that would mean that San Fransisco is the gay projects?

ps. not dismissing the gay movement at all, just that there are no real parallels between the two movements.

Lachlan said,

I never knew gay people were put into slave camps and murdered over hundreds of years.. Its kinda silly to compare gay rights to the civil rights movement. I guess that would mean that San Fransisco is the gay projects?

ps. not dismissing the gay movement at all, just that there are no real parallels between the two movements.

This is another person who doesn't want you to know about Bayard Rustin;

knighthawk said,
Gay mafia strikes again.
/flameon

Way to go mods. Just let the hate come on through. What if I type "######"? Bet that doesn't get through.

If you are against one type of bigotry (i.e. racial), then why is a different form of bigotry OK (sexual preference)?

Hypocrisy much?

Hambone72 said,

Way to go mods. Just let the hate come on through. What if I type "######"? Bet that doesn't get through.

If you are against one type of bigotry (i.e. racial), then why is a different form of bigotry OK (sexual preference)?

Hypocrisy much?

Except he's not being bigoted against gay people, he's condemning their actions and how the individuals achieved their goal.

Ronnet said,

Just like the civil rights movement before it. In a couple of decades society will look back on this movement and compare it's figureheads to Martin Luther King. But until that day they'll be vilified.

Nah. In a couple of decades, even with same-sex marriage in law everywhere, and people used to it and not thinking it was a big deal, society will still look back and think it was silly that anyone ever compared it to black people having to drink from separate fountains and being fire-hosed in the street.

McKay said,

Except he's not being bigoted against gay people, he's condemning their actions and how the individuals achieved their goal.

So he's condemning the action of voicing their opinions that this guy is a bigot?

Referring to the "gay mafia" is nothing less than an attempt to silence their voices. We're talking about a guy who would deny a basic right, that you and I have, to an entire group, based on their sexual preference.

Supporting the bigot is bigotry.

Lachlan said,

I never knew gay people were put into slave camps and murdered over hundreds of years.. Its kinda silly to compare gay rights to the civil rights movement. I guess that would mean that San Fransisco is the gay projects?

ps. not dismissing the gay movement at all, just that there are no real parallels between the two movements.

Maybe not in the USA. Western society has developed a lot. To the point where gay people are at least broadly tolerated. So no, in the USA they are not put into seperate camps. That's not the parallel that I'm drawing. Although there are plenty of places where the gay rights movement is in such a terrible state that gay people are indeed seperated and murdered for their sexuality.

Basically the gay rights movement in the USA doesn't have as far to go as the civil rights movement did back in the day. You could say that the civil rights movement helped the case for all future minorities, including homosexuals. Which is also why it isn't taking as long for the gay rights movement to get things done.

Get off it, Blacks never had it as bad as the Chinese. The Chinese always out number all other races in Slavery, and there are still 10's of thousands of Chinese people in slavery in the USA today.

But do they complain, NO. They take us over.

The Gay topic is completely different, and I am sick of it. Who is to say someone is wrong for thinking being gay is wrong? You have your opinion and so do others.

brianshapiro said,

Nah. In a couple of decades, even with same-sex marriage in law everywhere, and people used to it and not thinking it was a big deal, society will still look back and think it was silly that anyone ever compared it to black people having to drink from separate fountains and being fire-hosed in the street.

That's not the comparison I'm making. See my response to Lachlan's comment above. The civil rights movement was a major step. As it happens you can't easily tell whether someone is gay. If you could then no doubt they would be threated similar to black people 50 years ago. The civil rights movement helped all minorities get a better position in society. The gay rights movement is a continuation of this very moment, focusing on a different minority.

knighthawk said,
Gay mafia strikes again.
/flameon

Seriously. He wasn't acting on behalf of Mozilla nor did he steer the company in some bizarre anti-gay direction. Just a bunch of mindless thugs berated him for NO GOOD REASON. In the same way that people shouldn't care what people do in the bedroom, you shouldn't care if people like this guy choose to not like it. Get over it, the whole world does NOT have to love you!!!

TPreston said,
This is another person who doesn't want you to know about Bayard Rustin;

Oh one guy said they are the same when he was 76 years old.. therefore they must be.

People were put into slavery against their will. Nobody pushes people into being gay against their will. Stop being stupid and compare these two together.

Ronnet said,

Just like the civil rights movement before it. In a couple of decades society will look back on this movement and compare it's figureheads to Martin Luther King. But until that day they'll be vilified.

Hambone72 said,

Way to go mods. Just let the hate come on through. What if I type "######"? Bet that doesn't get through.

If you are against one type of bigotry (i.e. racial), then why is a different form of bigotry OK (sexual preference)?

Hypocrisy much?

Hate??? Where is the "hate" in my comment? Be gay all you want... just don't go around trying to hang some random person for making a small donation to a group who didn't support g-marriage, views that were shared with the majority of the state six years ago I might add. The hate if any is clearly coming from what I call generically the gay mafia - those that demand 100% adherence to their cause else your labeled some bigoted homophobes. I don't play into that BS game.

Hambone72 said,

So he's condemning the action of voicing their opinions that this guy is a bigot?

Referring to the "gay mafia" is nothing less than an attempt to silence their voices. We're talking about a guy who would deny a basic right, that you and I have, to an entire group, based on their sexual preference.

Supporting the bigot is bigotry.

No he's condemning the fact they tried to get people to boycott his Browser just for his beliefs, it's not like he used Mozilla to enforce his views on people. He has an opinion.

I suggest you look up the meaning of "bigoted". I find the people who scream "bigot" the loudest are usually the most bigoted.

Ronnet said,

That's not the comparison I'm making. See my response to Lachlan's comment above. The civil rights movement was a major step. As it happens you can't easily tell whether someone is gay. If you could then no doubt they would be threated similar to black people 50 years ago. The civil rights movement helped all minorities get a better position in society. The gay rights movement is a continuation of this very moment, focusing on a different minority.

Nah, a lot of people favored better treatment of gay people in society, whether that meant not forcing gay kids go into therapy, less bullying, increased tolerance, less stereotypes on TV, but they just didn't agree with changing the definition of marriage.

Many of the people who voted for Prop 8 didn't even mind same-sex marriage, or didn't mind "civil unions for all", but thought there were side-issues with adoption or religious liberty, so the issue needed to be worked out more fully in legislatures, rather than decided by a court, and saw Prop 8 as a message about judicial activism. But somehow these two issues got elided, even though same-sex marriage doesn't only apply to gay people; it'll allow straight people to form non-standard marital arrangements, too.

On the other hand, the people who wanted blacks to drink from separate fountains and sit on the back of the bus didn't want more tolerance and less bullying towards black people. There was a group in the middle back then too -- the Barry Goldwaters, etc. -- who wanted increased tolerance in society but objected to judicial activism and bad legislation.

This time around, the people in the middle were the bigger group, and the angry bigots were the smaller group, but the LGBT lobby didn't recognize that, and still doesn't. There's no reason to ever think Brendan Eich was a bigot.

McKay said,

No he's condemning the fact they tried to get people to boycott his Browser just for his beliefs, it's not like he used Mozilla to enforce his views on people. He has an opinion.

I suggest you look up the meaning of "bigoted". I find the people who scream "bigot" the loudest are usually the most bigoted.

Call me back when they try to remove any one of his rights like the campaign that he donated to was doing, Until then you have no point and your phony claims of discrimination are just an insult compared to the government sanctioned discrimination he would like to see imposed on America.

TPreston said,
Call me back when they try to remove any one of his rights like the campaign that he donated to was doing, Until then you have no point and your phony claims of discrimination are just an insult compared to the government sanctioned discrimination he would like to see imposed on America.

So trying to get people to boycott a company full of innocent people is the right way to do things? And my point to him was, he's the one crying "Bigot!" and "hypocrisy".
I'm no opponent of gay rights but I think them boycotting an entire company was just stupid, just to try and put a point accross to one man, they target all the innocents just working for Mozilla.

When Bigoted means "having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.". I find it funny people scream it at people and won't tolerate the opposing opinion.

knighthawk said,

Hate??? Where is the "hate" in my comment? Be gay all you want... just don't go around trying to hang some random person for making a small donation to a group who didn't support g-marriage, views that were shared with the majority of the state six years ago I might add. The hate if any is clearly coming from what I call generically the gay mafia - those that demand 100% adherence to their cause else your labeled some bigoted homophobes. I don't play into that BS game.

Your comment itself wasn't too hateful. I would say that labeling any gay person who expresses their distaste at a dude who paid a thousand of his own dollars of his own money into a cause seeking to continue to restrict your right to marry, as a member of the "gay mafia" is at least a tiny bit hateful though. Wouldn't you agree?

Mainly , I thought that opening such a sensitive subject with flamebait like that was an invitation for the hate to pour in.

In sum, I didn't think you were being hateful, I thought you were acting as a catalyst for the hate to follow.

McKay said,

No he's condemning the fact they tried to get people to boycott his Browser just for his beliefs, it's not like he used Mozilla to enforce his views on people. He has an opinion.

I suggest you look up the meaning of "bigoted". I find the people who scream "bigot" the loudest are usually the most bigoted.

I find this as well. Bigot is most often used by bigots...

Hambone72 said,

Your comment itself wasn't to hateful. I would say that labeling any gay person who expresses their distaste at a dude who paid a thousand of his own dollars of his own money into a cause seeking to continue to restrict your right to marry, as a member of the "gay mafia" is at least a tiny bit hateful though. Wouldn't you agree?

Mainly , I thought that opening such a sensitive subject with flamebait like that was an invitation for the hate to pour in.

In sum, I didn't think you were being hateful, I thought you were acting as a catalyst for the hate to follow.


I appreciate your clarifying response, as too the first question I really don't agree but see at least where you might have been approaching from, that said I don't take it as 'hate' when I find someone is in disagreement with me, it's certainly not the default setting. Also I don't think I did, but didn't mean to imply membership to the 'gay mafia' to all gay people, I find that thought sort of absurd, but perhaps cause i originally learned that term in a conversation with a gay person who mentioned the term.

As to the post being hate bait. Nope. I did figure that some people would agree, and others disagree, more so then usual hence the / , but I'd have used that just the same if say I was the first commenter in some post about the start menu.

TPreston said,
Call me back when they try to remove any one of his rights like the campaign that he donated to was doing, Until then you have no point and your phony claims of discrimination are just an insult compared to the government sanctioned discrimination he would like to see imposed on America.

They took away his right to voice his opinion and support the political view points he wanted to without it affecting his professional career. Land of the free, unless you disagree with the mob.

Not that it matters your going to jump me anyway. But I'm pretty much pro-LGBT, but at the same time I don't agree with dirty tactics like this. I strive to take the high road though.

NastySasquatch said,
They took away his right to voice his opinion and support the political view points he wanted to WITHOUT it affecting his professional career

NOBODY has this right! You don't have freedom from consequence! Nobody does! Wow how is this so difficult to grasp ?

brianshapiro said,

Nah. In a couple of decades, even with same-sex marriage in law everywhere, and people used to it and not thinking it was a big deal, society will still look back and think it was silly that anyone ever compared it to black people having to drink from separate fountains and being fire-hosed in the street.

Mississippi governor announces he will sign 'don't serve the gays' bill -

http://www.gaystarnews.com/art...-dont-serve-gays-bill030414

Lachlan said,

I never knew gay people were put into slave camps and murdered over hundreds of years.. Its kinda silly to compare gay rights to the civil rights movement. I guess that would mean that San Fransisco is the gay projects?

ps. not dismissing the gay movement at all, just that there are no real parallels between the two movements.

You are completely ignorant of the history of gay people. While I find it pointless to say Group A had it worse than Group B, your comment suggests that your knowledge only comes from the limited scope of current affairs.

I also highly doubt you'd even know much about the Civil Rights Movement had it not been for things such as Black History Month and the tireless hours of 1000's of people pushing the history of blacks to the forefront.

Please try and educate yourself before taking any position that could beg offense of any other person for any reason.

MikadoWu said,
Get off it, Blacks never had it as bad as the Chinese. The Chinese always out number all other races in Slavery, and there are still 10's of thousands of Chinese people in slavery in the USA today.

But do they complain, NO. They take us over.

The Gay topic is completely different, and I am sick of it. Who is to say someone is wrong for thinking being gay is wrong? You have your opinion and so do others.

Sir how can you say black people never had it worse than the chinese. When white ppl brought black ppl over to the western world torcher them, fed babies as crocodile bait, burnt them alive, cut out their private parts, hung them,, burn them to name a few. Couldn't walk on the same sidewalk as white ppl, couldnt laugh in the presence of them. The chinese still have their language, their names, their culture, their home land, religion and their history while all of that was stolen from blacks and still they havent recovered.

knighthawk said,
Gay mafia strikes again.
/flameon

he should have stuck to his guns!

What next at Mozilla - COMPULSORY GAY CEOs?
Pink instead of orange?

He would have far more supporters than detractors.

garou_heki said,

nice im all for him! not that i dont like homos, i just want leaders to be more provocative for fun's sake


That's not being done for fun, that's being done as a response to the cases such as in NJ where a well known christian run bakery preferred not to do business with a gay couple for their wedding, instead of just going to another bakery they dragged the courts into it to force the christian bakery to perform a service against their religious beliefs.

knighthawk said,

That's not being done for fun, that's being done as a response to the cases such as in NJ where a well known christian run bakery preferred not to do business with a gay couple for their wedding, instead of just going to another bakery they dragged the courts into it to force the christian bakery to perform a service against their religious beliefs.

Id say you can discriminate against gays when I can discriminate against christians but im better than that.

Stop trying to get special rights for christians, repeal title II of the civil rights act or put up with your equality under the law;

Edited by zhangm, Apr 5 2014, 2:10pm :

Spot on! These people need to put up or shut up.

Businesses do not have religious beliefs. You run a secular business (a cake shop), you must serve members of the public equally under state non-discrimination statutes.

McKay said,

I suggest you look up the meaning of "bigoted". I find the people who scream "bigot" the loudest are usually the most bigoted.

Yup. Their idea of "tolerance" is a one-way street.

I don't see it as the Christians demanding any special rights, businesses refuse clients all the time for any number of reasons and sometimes that's due to personal beliefs, stated or not.
The point was going the lawsuit route, instead of just finding another cake maker and telling your friends not to do business with the first one would have produced a better outcome, instead you now have various legislatures looking to legislate around this issue, where the market had already provided a solution for such relatively one-off situations.

Edited by knighthawk, Apr 4 2014, 3:15pm :

knighthawk said,
There it's not the Christians that are demanding any special rights, quite the opposite.

Its not the gays demanding to be able to fire christians for their religion. Its not gays demanding the right to have a no christians policy in their business's

Either legalize employment discrimination of all kinds or put up with your equal rights.

Edited by TPreston, Apr 4 2014, 3:20pm :

knighthawk said,
I don't see it as the Christians demanding any special rights, businesses refuse clients all the time for any number of reasons .

But not those forbidden by title II of the civil rights act because that is illegal.

knighthawk said,
The point was going the lawsuit route, instead of just finding another cake maker and telling your friends not to do business with the first one would have produced a better outcome.
I strongly disagree this is illegal and shouldn't be tolerated.

knighthawk said,
instead you now have various legislatures looking to legislate around this issue

By making gay people second class citizens not protected from discrimination and elevating christians by giving them a special right to discriminate.

Either legalize employment discrimination of all kinds or put up with your equal rights

You keep saying employment discrimination.... which is odd for two reasons, one of course is employment had nothing to do with that case in question. The second though is that employment discrimination is definitely what's being encouraged with this Mozilla situation, just in the other direction.

knighthawk said,
You keep saying employment discrimination.... which is odd for two reasons, one of course is employment had nothing to do with that case in question.
Not in this particular case but the same people are also pushing for employment discrimination also.

knighthawk said,
The second though is that employment discrimination is definitely what's being encouraged with this Mozilla situation, just in the other direction.

Nope, Sorry nice bait and switch but im not falling for it, You can be fired for making a company look bad, Unless he came in and said "hi im a christian" and was met with "your fired no christians allowed" its not employment discrimination;

Apologetics the art of intentional dishonesty

The guy performed no actions to make the company look bad, If you really can't see though what just happened regarding the Mozilla situation as form of discrimination itself then I'd have to call that intentional dishonesty.

knighthawk said,
The guy performed no actions to make the company look bad

So that's why half the board members resigned already :roll:

knighthawk said,
If you really can't see though what just happened regarding the Mozilla situation as form of discrimination itself then I'd have to call that intentional dishonesty.

Ive already explained why its not discrimination, You are just playing word salad as usual. How pathetic and untenable must your real position be when you must hide it and engage in these apologetics.

knighthawk said,

That's not being done for fun, that's being done as a response to the cases such as in NJ where a well known christian run bakery preferred not to do business with a gay couple for their wedding, instead of just going to another bakery they dragged the courts into it to force the christian bakery to perform a service against their religious beliefs.

then the world will have to choose between religion or freedom

Lachlan said,

I never knew gay people were put into slave camps and murdered over hundreds of years.. Its kinda silly to compare gay rights to the civil rights movement. I guess that would mean that San Fransisco is the gay projects?

ps. not dismissing the gay movement at all, just that there are no real parallels between the two movements.

Civil Rights movement was about ending segregation and discrimination. Slavery was already over after the Civil War

MDboyz said,
People were put into slavery against their will. Nobody pushes people into being gay against their will. Stop being stupid and compare these two together.

Stop saying there was slavery in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s

TPreston said,
And again we have the same tired bait and switch.

Not quite sure what that statement is supposed to mean, but on my comment, those that demand tolerance from someone with a different opinion had better be prepared to be tolerant of that other person's differing opinion. Otherwise they are just a hypocrite. The particular subject matter is irrelevant.

"those that demand tolerance from" THE GOVERNMENT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW NOT FREEDOM FROM CRITISIM...

"prepared to be tolerant of that other person's differing opinion"
WHICH DOESNT EXSIST.... SIMPLE! How many times has this been explained ?

garou_heki said,

then the world will have to choose between religion or freedom

I think you mean religious freedom or wants. Because if you force a baker to bake a cake for a wedding he doesnt want to do you are taking his freedom away. His religious freedom in this case. Because then he has to do it. But the baker isnt discriminating against the people but against an idea of what marriage looks like. I say this because I am sure the two people can come in and buy anything from the store any other day of the week. Its not about the people but about his beliefs. You may think them stupid but they are, or at least should be, protected.

Also, discrimination is all over the place. Some bakers charge really high fees because they cater to the high end discriminating against the low and middle class.

TPreston said,
"those that demand tolerance from" THE GOVERNMENT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW NOT FREEDOM FROM CRITISIM...

"prepared to be tolerant of that other person's differing opinion"
WHICH DOESNT EXSIST.... SIMPLE! How many times has this been explained ?

I'm not really sure I understand what your post was trying to say. I'm not talking about the government, I'm talking about people at a personal level.

domboy said,

I'm not really sure I understand what your post was trying to say. I'm not talking about the government, I'm talking about people at a personal level.
And that's your problem because gay people arnt demanding protection from getting their feewy weeleys hurt so no hypocrisy is present.