|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mozilla CEO Steps Down Because He is Anti-Same-Sex Marriage
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
The new CEO of Mozilla (ie, the Firefox company) has just stepped down because of the controversy (and even Firefox boycotts) because he donated money to Prop 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California after a state court case had allowed gay marriage there.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-chief/?_php=true&_type=blogs&hp&_r=0
This is different than the Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby cases because Mozilla is not a family-owned company that sets out to embody the moral values of a particular family. Brendan Eich was hired preumably for his managerial skill and not for his beliefs. Should a CEO's beliefs on same sex marriage - even if he keeps those beliefs private and no one would know about them except for disclosure laws regarding political contributions - cause such a scandal that a company's profitability is affected and its board should pressure him/her to resign? What if his beliefs had been pro-life or some different kind of moral belief on a controversial issue? I'm not sure what to think about this because I know that if a CEO was on record as donating to a campaign to ban interracial marriage, I would understand a movement to make have him fired or make him resign. I'm not so sure about this being the same thing about same-sex marriage because the religious basis for opposition to gay marriage seems more solid than that in opposition to interracial marriage - it seems more of a moral issue. And I'm in a same-sex marriage!
What if he had been in favor of civil unions/civil partnerships, but not same sex marriage? I don't know if this is the case or not. Would the controversy still be justified?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
I think the example you bring up about interracial marriage is not strong enough. In general we don't tend to think of people as having an "interracial" sexuality where they are only attracted to people of another race... so banning interracial marriages would not remove the right to marry from any given person, it would only mean that people who want to marry someone of another race would instead have to find someone of the same race who they are attracted to to marry. Essentially they get their 'second choice' of a marriage partner and not their first choice, but they do get a choice out of the millions of people of their own race that they find attractive.
Banning gay marriage on the other hand is not at all like that. If someone is only attracted to people of the same sex, then banning same-sex marriage means that that person can never marry anyone that they are attracted to. The don't get to marry their first choice of partner, or their second, or third, or millionth. You have completely removed their right to marry any person that they will ever want to marry in their entire lives.
So IMO banning gay marriage is way worse than banning interracial marriage. The first takes away the right to marry from a particular group of people meaning that those people will never in their lives ever be able to marry anyone they fall in love with, the second only excludes particular possible choices of marriage partner but still leaves the individual free to find someone they love to marry - it limits the range of their possible choices but leaves their right to marry intact and their ability to find someone they love and marry them intact. To my mind the difference between those things is huge - one is a violation of the basic human rights of a minority group of a type almost unprecedented in human history (show me another group in history that was ever prohibited from marrying?! Even black slaves could get married), and the other is just a public policy choice society makes.
IMO the correct analogy for "gays can't get married" is "blacks can't get married". It's that type of rule. It prohibits members of a particular minority group from ever being able to ever in their lives marry anyone they fall in love with. And because it's that type of rule it's an issue of basic human rights, and a violation of basic human rights on a level pretty much unprecedented in history.
Offering civil unions as a sop is exactly like offering Jim Crow laws to gay people: "here, we'll give you this 'separate but equal' version of marriage for you to have, but let's be clear, equal is actually lesser, and that's because you're a lesser type of person." A lot of Christians are okay with civil unions exactly because they see it as enshrining discrimination in law.
So I was pleased to see the Mozilla CEO go. We wouldn't tolerate people who said "black people shouldn't be able to marry" so why on earth would we tolerate people who say "gay people shouldn't be able to marry"? The one is as bad as the other.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Brendan Eich was hired preumably for his managerial skill and not for his beliefs. Should a CEO's beliefs on same sex marriage - even if he keeps those beliefs private and no one would know about them except for disclosure laws regarding political contributions - cause such a scandal that a company's profitability is affected and its board should pressure him/her to resign?
Well, how repugnant do beliefs have to be before they become a scandal? Suppose Mr. Eich were making contributions to the Nazi party (for instance). Would that be a problem?
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm not so sure about this being the same thing about same-sex marriage because the religious basis for opposition to gay marriage seems more solid than that in opposition to interracial marriage - it seems more of a moral issue.
Could you expand on this a bit? In what sense is homophobia "a moral issue" in a way that racism isn't?
I'm also a bit perplexed as to why having "a religious basis" for bigotry makes it less bigoted. If you have truly sincere religious beliefs in Segregation (to pick an historical example I recently came across) does that make it more okay than supporting Segregation for other reasons?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
Religion is a protected class in US federal employment law. Political activity is not. So my reading of the law is that you can't take adverse action against an employee who holds religious views (such as on same-sex marriage) that you don't like, but a private sector employer can fire someone at will in most US jurisdictions for holding political opinions that the employer doesn't like.
Interestingly, California, where Mozilla is based, is one of the small number of states where employers are prevented from restricting the political activities of their employees, which means that Mr. Eich is probably walking away from his job with a large payoff.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So: how is it different between Mozilla having a boss who wants to dictate whether some of his employees get to marry or the boss of Hobby Lobby wanting to dictate the conditions by which some of his employees have sex?
In fairness, I think the Hobby Lobby people don't want to be made to pay for what they consider to be their employee's abortions. They are not attempting to prevent their employees from taking Plan B, they are attempting to not have to pay for it. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but one that exists nevertheless.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
@stonespring:
quote:
"even if he keeps those beliefs private and no one would know about them except for disclosure laws regarding political contributions"
It's a public action because of those disclosure laws. Don't worry, I'm sure the Supreme Court will gut those pesky laws soon enough but in the mean time "a little bit public" is public.
You say;
quote:
I'm not sure what to think about this because I know that if a CEO was on record as donating to a campaign to ban interracial marriage, I would understand a movement to make have him fired or make him resign. I'm not so sure about this being the same thing about same-sex marriage because the religious basis for opposition to gay marriage seems more solid than that in opposition to interracial marriage - it seems more of a moral issue.
Not too long ago there was really solid moral objection based on theology against interracial dating and marriage. See Bob Jones v United States. It didn't protect the godly from a legal ruling for taxes.
Mozilla is essentially a private corporation doing damage control. It's especially vulnerable because it depends on employees, open source contributors as well as partners and needs a lot of good will to survive. Corporations force executives to step down all the time if they are seen as a P.R. liability. GitHub has just suspended a founding partner while a lawsuit about harassment by his wife of an employee goes to court.
It would seem that in public opinion, having a religious belief doesn't seem to excuse actions that the public finds hateful as much as it used to. I don't see it as a bad thing. Why do you think a sincere religious belief is a free pass to support bigotry? Who gets to decide it's solid enough theology to earn the exemption?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
This is sad. Shall we have job interviews now that ask potential employees views on such subjects? The whole thing is wrong on so many levels.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm not at all comfortable with the notion of pressuring someone out of a job on account of their personal beliefs, if those beliefs aren't demonstrably affecting the actual job they've been hired for. How is that any different from pushing someone out of a job for being gay?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is not about an ordinary employee. It's about a CEO, whose beliefs, and actions on behalf of those beliefs, have implications for the "bottom line" of his company. If a CEO is a financial liability, he/she is likely going to get the ax. This is how capitalism works.
It used to be gay employees (especially high-profile ones) who got axed for cold financial reasons. Now, it's anti-gay CEOs.
Again, this is how capitalism works.
Given that capitalism is what we've got (and nothing better has yet been found), I prefer to see it working for gay rights than against it.
[ 04. April 2014, 02:04: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
It's about a CEO, whose beliefs, and actions on behalf of those beliefs, have implications for the "bottom line" of his company.
But I don't know that it SHOULD. You're basically just describing the reality - that people found out his beliefs, and then it became about the implications for the 'bottom line'.
When one is doing business with Mozilla, one isn't doing business with the CEO personally. One is doing business with an entire organisation that has a wide range of people in it. If the CEO's personal views on a matter aren't reflected in company policies, it makes very little sense to me to stop doing business with the company on that basis.
I mean, I don't know Mozilla's policies, but what if it extends benefits to same-sex couples in exactly the same way as opposite-sex couples? Is there any evidence that gay employees are denied access to things like carer's leave or medical coverage, compared to straight employees?
If he spends his personal money on an anti-gay cause, I won't be inviting him to a dinner party any time soon, but I don't see why I would stop using Firefox because of it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
In fact Mozilla addressed these kinds of points already.
The company doesn't discriminate. But hey, let's ignore that and get worked up about what someone did in their private life. We're all about scrutinising private lives when they have no relevance to job performance.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
So IMO banning gay marriage is way worse than banning interracial marriage.
Um, no. They are both about assigning a group of people a lesser status.
We can argue the points regarding who gets the worst deal, but I think it misses the underlying, common issue.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
It's about a CEO, whose beliefs, and actions on behalf of those beliefs, have implications for the "bottom line" of his company.
But I don't know that it SHOULD. You're basically just describing the reality - that people found out his beliefs, and then it became about the implications for the 'bottom line'.
Are you really prepared to be consistent in your position? What if this guy had donated $1000 to an anti-Semitic organization or a White Nationalist group?
Would Jews or Blacks be in the wrong for wanting this guy axed ... and, absent his removal, voting with their wallets and using a different browser, etc.?
And would the company then be in the wrong if it looked at the "bottom line" and made a rational financial decision?
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
So IMO banning gay marriage is way worse than banning interracial marriage.
I really hate "our oppression is worse than your oppression" arguments.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I'd just as soon he were drummed out for inventing Javascript as that he gave chump change to the regressive right.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
It's about a CEO, whose beliefs, and actions on behalf of those beliefs, have implications for the "bottom line" of his company.
But I don't know that it SHOULD. You're basically just describing the reality - that people found out his beliefs, and then it became about the implications for the 'bottom line'.
Are you really prepared to be consistent in your position? What if this guy had donated $1000 to an anti-Semitic organization or a White Nationalist group?
Would Jews or Blacks be in the wrong for wanting this guy axed ... and, absent his removal, voting with their wallets and using a different browser, etc.?
And would the company then be in the wrong if it looked at the "bottom line" and made a rational financial decision?
What if he were not CEO of a company, but rather an employee of your local council giving his $1,000 from the wages provided from public funds? Would you draw the line there?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not at all comfortable with the notion of pressuring someone out of a job on account of their personal beliefs, if those beliefs aren't demonstrably affecting the actual job they've been hired for. How is that any different from pushing someone out of a job for being gay?
This is precisely the crux of the issue. Everything else is special pleading and posturing.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Everything else is special pleading and posturing.
Well that's the end of the thread then, isn't it? Might as well lock it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What if he were not CEO of a company, but rather an employee of your local council giving his $1,000 from the wages provided from public funds? Would you draw the line there?
I answered this question up above when I urged that we must distinguish between a CEO and an ordinary employee. I'm genuinely perplexed that several contributors to this thread can't or won't recognize this distinction.
Look, this is a war. The anti-gay side know that full-well, and they are acting accordingly. We've just seen anti-gay Christians (!) being willing to let kids in the developing world suffer in order to win a battle over the employment of LGBT people. In most of the United States, an employer can still fire someone for being gay, no other justification needed. And there are ongoing efforts to allow people to refuse services to LGBT people simply for being LGBT.
Those of you expressing libertarian dismay at the willingness of gay-rights activists to "off" a CEO are telling LGBT folks that they have to be "nice" in the face of a ruthless enemy. No. It ain't gonna happen. If LGBT folks have to fire-bomb Dresden, so be it. The other side have already bombed Warsaw, Amsterdam, London, and Coventry, and we know what they'll do if they win.
[Yes, okay, Godwin's Law applies. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ]
[ 04. April 2014, 04:37: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
So what are some here arguing, that if a CEO privately disagrees with gay marriage they are now de facto barred from such positions? Why not extend that to all employees? After all, it hardly seems fair that it should be applied to some snd not others. Hell, why don't just all go on the rock 'n' roll.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So what are some here arguing, that if a CEO privately disagrees with gay marriage they are now de facto barred from such positions? Why not extend that to all employees? After all, it hardly seems fair that it should be applied to some snd not others. Hell, why don't just all go on the rock 'n' roll.
Right, because there is not a shred of difference between a CEO and an ordinary employee! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
For the record.... I recall you expressing your support for the jailing of the members of "Pussy Riot." Am I recalling correctly? What's your opinion of the anti-homosexuality laws in Russia? Good or not? Your answers will help me to decide how seriously to take your defense of the poor, oppressed CEO.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Yes, I support the law in it's particular context because it clearly has the support of the Russian people, but that has nothing to do with this thread. It's just a diversionary tactic. Now answer the question: If a person is against gay marriage does this mean they are now barred from being a CEO? If so, why is it unreasonable that it shouldn't be appllied to all employees?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I fully support gay marriage but I think this is wrong. Many of the same people supporting Eich's resignation would be up in arms if a CEO in a conservative state was pushed out for having donated money to a pro-choice political cause, for example.
[ 04. April 2014, 05:57: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, I support the law in it's particular context because it clearly has the support of the Russian people, but that has nothing to do with this thread. It's just a diversionary tactic. Now answer the question: If a person is against gay marriage does this mean they are now barred from being a CEO? If so, why is it unreasonable that it shouldn't be appllied to all employees?
Most employees of a corporation in the United States can be discharged if the corporation finds it expedient. In this particular context they did so because it clearly had the support by the employees, contributors and customers who saw the public statement by the CEO as symbolic.
Who do you propose is going to want to apply it to all employees? Are you proposing that corporations being prevented from doing so by an anti-discrimination law?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
What I'm saying is that if you're not going to apply it to all employees then it shouldn't be applied to everyone, including the CEO. It's called consistency.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What I'm saying is that if you're not going to apply it to all employees then it shouldn't be applied to everyone, including the CEO. It's called consistency.
Again, who is "you" that is going to be doing the applying? What are they applying?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
For a start those who here seem to be arguing that it was right he was pressured to step down for a private opinion. Either you apply the same logic to all or to none, not just to some? Of course, I would say none.
[ 04. April 2014, 07:52: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
show me another group in history that was ever prohibited from marrying?! Even black slaves could get married
Even black slaves could get married to the partner their "owner" chose for them, or be bound in concubinage to said "owner". Or could be banned from marrying the individual they loved, or sold away to prevent it. No choice. Not a good argument.
And, historically, there was a class of slaves in several "civilisations" who were banned from marriage. Societies which used castrated men in governmental service very effectively prohibited those slaves from marrying, in order to prevent them taking over politically for their offspring.
And as for, you are banned from marrying the person you believe to be your soul mate, but hey, it's OK because there are all these other people who you can use as substitutes! Crass.
Leaving those other people in the position of the women who have entered marriage with gay men who wanted to hide their genuine feelings. (And vice versa.) There are two people in a marriage, and neither should feel that they are a substitute.
Not a helpful argument.
[ 04. April 2014, 08:07: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
So IMO banning gay marriage is way worse than banning interracial marriage.
I really hate "our oppression is worse than your oppression" arguments.
What's important here is how serious the CEO's offence is.
Everyone has a mental scale of things that are mildly offensive to them but acceptable through to things that are totally offensive and not acceptable at all. eg An offence-o-meter that runs from "he supports the wrong sports team" through to "he supports the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi party, and children being sold into slavery for prostitution." And over time individuals and society as a whole have worked out approximately where things lie on that scale.
So we all know that a CEO who said something like "I think black people are no better than animals and shouldn't be allowed to breed" is guaranteed to get fired within the week. Whereas one who says "I hope the Republicans will win the election" might annoy some people but not cause particularly great waves.
In my personal experience a lot of people are very uncertain where to put gay rights issues on their mental scale. Society doesn't currently provide any widely accepted clear and definitive ranking about how serious anti-gay statements or actions are, and doesn't tell people how such acts are to be judged on the scale from "mildly annoying" through to "Hitler". So I've seen a lot of people who when they were confronted with a type of situation that prompted them to think "Person X did Y which is anti-gay. Just how bad a thing is Y?" responded in a rather confused way because they didn't have any good point of reference for knowing how bad any given anti-gay action is.
To decide where to slot in anti-gay statements/actions on their mental scale of "bad" through "worse" most people try and find something they deem to be similar, and use that as their point of reference. eg Say I read a news article about a B&B that turned away a couple for being gay, and I wonder whether it's fair that they can do that, and so I say to myself "well, how would I feel if they turned away a couple for being Asian?" and I use that analogy as my reference point for whether it is okay for them to do what they have done to the gay couple and to work out how offensive it is that they have done this. And that kind of reasoning works great when something appropriate and analogous is chosen as the reference, and it works terrible when a poor analogy is made. Someone else might read the same article and ask themselves "how would I feel if the bed and breakfast had turned away a couple because they had voted for the wrong political party?", and use that analogy to decide how to feel about the treatment of the gay couple. So the question then is, what is the right analogy?
In the original post stonespring suggested being pro-life and being against interracial marriage as two possible reference points for comparison on the offence-o-meter. Which makes the better analogy? Both those suggested analogies have historically been strongly held religious convictions, and so are in that way analogous to being against gay marriage.
My view (from thinking about this quite a lot) is that best analogies for gay rights are almost always left-handedness and race. Both, like sexuality, are things that are innate and not consciously chosen - unlike political views (eg supporting the Republican party) or religious views (eg being pro-life) that are consciously selected. In terms of origin, homosexuality is more similar to left-handedness (since both originate from changes in the brain development of the fetus due to exposure to certain hormones in the womb) than it is to race (which is purely genetic). And homosexuality is more similar to left-handedness in whether a person can hide it from other people or cover it up, than it is to race which can't be so easily hidden. But left handedness doesn't have nearly the same history of violent discrimination and persecution as homosexuality and race do, which means that anti-lefthanded actions don't show up on a lot of people's offence-o-meters, which means its not a helpful analogy with regard to telling us how offensive anti-gay actions are.
Comparing being against gay marriage to being against interracial marriage is another possible analogy. I think it works okay-ish, since they are similar kinds of position in many ways. However I think a better analogy to being against gay marriage is being against black people marrying. Interracial marriage is a little different because a ban on interracial marriage which prevents a given couple from marrying hurts 1 white person and 1 black person. I grant you that most people's motivations for being against interracial marriage are that they are anti-black, but the actual ban itself on interracial marriage hurts one white person who wants to marry for every black person that it hurts. Whereas banning gays from marrying hurts gays 100% of the time and straight people 0% of the time. Furthermore choosing someone of a different race to marry is a choice, not something that is inborn or innate. So someone who is denied marriage to their desired spouse of another race, could instead find someone of their own race that they are attracted to and marry them instead - essentially they are denied their first choice and made instead to accept their second choice or third or fourth choice of spouse. By contrast, if gay marriage is forbidden, a gay person is not going to be able to find anyone they are attracted to to marry. They are not simply denied their first choice of spouse, they are denied their first million choices of spouse, and in essence denied the right to marry at all. Hence, while I think interracial marriage is sort of ok-ish as an analogy, I don't think it's a particularly great analogy. Because a ban on interracial marriage hurts whites and blacks alike, and because getting inter-racially married is a choice not someone you're born with, I don't think it's nearly as serious or severe an offence as trying to ban a particular group of people from ever being able to get married.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would think that once boycotts were announced of Firefox, the company could see a chasm opening up, that is, the boycotts increasing to an untenable point. So they got rid of him, which is a sensible commercial decision.
I don't see how you can stop boycotts happening like this, and if they start to take off, companies are forced to act. I suppose they could be noble, and refuse to sack him, but generally nobility is in short supply in companies.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Even black slaves could get married to the partner their "owner" chose for them, or be bound in concubinage to said "owner". Or could be banned from marrying the individual they loved, or sold away to prevent it. No choice.
My limited understanding of the historical situation in the US is that the slaves were usually free to marry as they chose. And that though the owners possessed the power to interfere if they wanted to, that they usually didn't because they supported the idea of their slaves getting married and having children, because that gave the owner a new generation of slaves.
quote:
Societies which used castrated men in governmental service very effectively prohibited those slaves from marrying, in order to prevent them taking over politically for their offspring.
Okay, that's a good example. Although obviously those societies where going into government service was a choice where castration took place after making that choice don't fit the example.
quote:
And as for, you are banned from marrying the person you believe to be your soul mate, but hey, it's OK because there are all these other people who you can use as substitutes! Crass.
Well I think this xkcd does a great job of explaining the dubiousness of the idea of soul mates. And this comedian does a great job parodying love songs about soul mates simply by making the lyrics brutally honest.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
orfeo is gay. I'm straight. I'm in agreement with him. When does a 'canny' commercial decision become a kow tow to an unjustified witch hunt? Round about here, round about now.
I have no idea if there is any evidence to support the assumption that the CEO's personal opinions have been in any way reflected in his actions as a CEO. What is clear is that the company does not have discriminatory policies. So this is a straightforward assumption of guilt, the normal coin of witch hunts and mob rule actions. "We know he can't be trusted". Actually, from what I've seen in the public domain, we don't know anything of the kind. And who is "we" in this case?
Anti-homophobia can easily become just a different kind of phobia, and can be damaging to the real progress which has been made in favour of fairer social attitudes.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it's an inevitable reaction to the long-standing homophobia in society, which has been deep-rooted, and endemic. When you start to break up such prejudices and neutralize them, the reaction is often fierce.
It also presumably depends where you place homophobia on a spectrum of permissible ideas. If a boss votes Republican, I would doubt that there would be boycotts; if a boss stated that women were morons, there probably would be, and his position would become untenable.
Where do you place homophobia? It's a subjective view, but I would rank it with segregationism or the like. Do I want to deal with a company whose boss thinks women (or blacks) are morons? No, ta.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I suppose that means that Catholics cannot be trusted to be CEOs any more? Or members of the US Supreme Court? Or etc etc
After all, they belong to an organisation which is seen as institutionally homophobic. Even if they make public pronouncements to the contrary, how can you be sure they can be trusted? They make regular contributions every time they put money in the offering.
Isn't this 'labelling' at work, rather than consideration on merit? stonespring's misgivings in the OP strike me as well founded.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Gee D: quote:
What if he were not CEO of a company, but rather an employee of your local council giving his $1,000 from the wages provided from public funds? Would you draw the line there?
So you think it's OK to dictate to people who work in the public sector how they spend their hard-earned cash - because it's your tax dollars they get paid from - but not to dictate to people who work in the private sector? Where do you think the money companies pay their workers with comes from? (hint: their customers might have something to do with it; if you've ever bought anything from them, that includes you)
We've had similar things over here; the media questioning whether an openly Catholic member of the government is really suitable for the job of Minister of Health, for example.
I must admit I'd be wary of someone in such a powerful position within a company holding views at odds with the company's policies. But I agree with Barnabas and Orfeo: if there is no evidence that your personal views affect how you are doing your job you should be allowed to get on with it.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Barnabas62
No, you can't make the leap from Catholic to homophobic. OK, the church is institutionally anti-gay sex, but individuals aren't. In fact, I think most Catholics support gay marriage, don't they?
I think homophobia is just a very raw area right now, because centuries of repression are finally being rectified. People are bound to be wary of any homophobic utterances by public figures.
[ 04. April 2014, 10:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I wasn't - the media storm I was thinking of was about whether someone who was anti-abortion could be trusted to run the Department of Health.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Jane R
Sorry, my post looked like a reply to you, when it was a reply to Barnabas62.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
There's a big difference between thinking gay people shouldn't be able to marry, and actively and publicly campaigning to make it so.
There's a big difference between a rank-and-file employee and a high level executive who forms part of the public face of a company.
A CEO actively campaigning for something that alienates a bunch of customers = a bad fit.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
There's a big difference between thinking gay people shouldn't be able to marry, and actively and publicly campaigning to make it so.
There's a big difference between a rank-and-file employee and a high level executive who forms part of the public face of a company.
A CEO actively campaigning for something that alienates a bunch of customers = a bad fit.
Yes, I think the key word there is 'alienate'.
I suppose you could argue that boycotts should not be allowed, but that seems tyrannical.
If a major company had a boss who was a white supremacist, I would be happy to boycott it. Why not?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Eich gave $1,000 in 2008 . He is also on record as believing in inclusiveness and non discrimination in Mozilla. The gift has counted for more than his statement.
Catholics make regular donations, in most cases in excess of $1,000 a year, and therefore provide ongoing support to an organisation which is opposed to gay marriage and lobbies in support of its views.
The parallels seem obvious to me. Private citizens are not allowed to make donations without their motives and values being second guessed. And nothing they can say after removes the suspicion that they cannot be trusted to do their jobs fairly.
quote:
Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay writer and an early, influential proponent of making same-sex marriage legal, expressed outrage over Mr. Eich’s departure on his popular blog, saying the Mozilla chief had been “scalped by some gay activists.”
“If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else — then count me out,” Mr. Sullivan wrote.
(From the link in the OP)
I'm with Andrew Sullivan. I'm not outraged, but I do think it is disquieting.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Eich gave $1,000 in 2008 . He is also on record as believing in inclusiveness and non discrimination in Mozilla. The gift has counted for more than his statement.
Catholics make regular donations, in most cases in excess of $1,000 a year, and therefore provide ongoing support to an organisation which is opposed to gay marriage and lobbies in support of its views.
The parallels seem obvious to me. Private citizens are not allowed to make donations without their motives and values being second guessed. And nothing they can say after removes the suspicion that they cannot be trusted to do their jobs fairly.
Agree and think this is a worrying precedent.
I mentioned pro-choice donations above as a counterpoint. I personally have signed petitions and donated money to groups like NOW and NARAL in relation to reproductive rights. I wonder if now I should worry that I might be chased out of a job in the US by a company whose customers disagree with those positions, particularly if some years from now government policy moves in a more conservative direction.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
My limited understanding of the historical situation in the US is that the slaves were usually free to marry as they chose. And that though the owners possessed the power to interfere if they wanted to, that they usually didn't because they supported the idea of their slaves getting married and having children, because that gave the owner a new generation of slaves.
No. American slaves had no rights to marry. Henry Louis Gates IIRC uses that as the differentiator of slavery from serfdom - that the owner can dissolve any sexual partnership between slaves at his or her convenience. (Although that makes the Biblical institution not slavery.)
I'd note that the right to marry is slightly different from the right to have one's marriage recognised by the state. There is an argument that the state oughtn't to give legal recognition to marital relationships at all. I wouldn't say that was denying anyone the right to marry (even if I'd disagree on other grounds).
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
There's a big difference between thinking gay people shouldn't be able to marry, and actively and publicly campaigning to make it so.
There's a big difference between a rank-and-file employee and a high level executive who forms part of the public face of a company.
I can't see that the difference between employer and employee should have any legal weight. I don't believe a company (or a public institution) should discriminate against any employee based on what that employee does with his or her money privately (if legal). Contrast: the idea that Roman Catholic employers can fire people for purchasing contraception.
Religious practice is a protected right. (As should be the practice of any comparable philosophy.) If religious practice and belief are protected, the power to advocate for religious practice and belief should also be protected. (One might exclude cases where the practice advocated is actually contrary to recognised rights of other citizens. But in this case there were no recognised rights yet: the argument was over what the relevant rights should be.)
That being the case the company ought to be legally incapable of responding to any boycott based on the private actions of any employee, even the CEO. I don't think one can legally prevent a boycott, but that doesn't make the boycott morally right.
On the other hand, if there's any case that the employee isn't adhering to the company's anti-discrimination policies then I'd suppose that any such donations by the employee can be taken into account as evidence, and the employee can be kicked out on his or her ear. And it would be perfectly fair to boycott a company for not having anti-discrimination policies.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think a company like Firefox is in a strange position, as it has very high prestige in a world which is a hothouse. I expect that some users believe they sort of own it in a way, rather like social media or Wiki.
So probably they felt the pressure of boycotts quite strongly, more than say, a company making door-handles would.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
This Eunuchs suggests that castration could not be seen as usually voluntary in order to serve the government. Though there do seem to have been some cases.
As for running down what people believe about those they see as a possible partner, the supply of alternatives can be very, very limited. Down to zero. The sea is not full of good fish. By any means. Not a question of second best, but much further down that that, bottom dwelling mud feeders, with intolerable beliefs about the status of women. Your argument remains not good.
Which does not alter that banning SSM is banning loving couples from marriage, and that is not good, either.
(Though Justin Welby made an interesting argument I had not heard before on the radio this morning. In parts of Africa, the idea is going around that if Christians allow such marriages, any Christians in the area will be seeking to make everyone else homosexual. He described standing at the side of a mass grave of 300 Christians who had been murdered as a result of something happening in the States - though he did not explicitly state that this incident was the direct result of the issue of homosexuals' rights. This is seriously worrying.)
This isn't the side of this argument I expect to be on. I read a book once "Straight and Crooked Thinking", which posited that taking an extreme position in an argument naturally pushed those on the other side into extreme positions themselves.
[ 04. April 2014, 12:14: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dayfd:
No. American slaves had no rights to marry.
Okay, thanks for the correction. I had done a little bit of googling and seen that many american slaves did marry, but your post inspired me to google some more and I see now that those "marriages" weren't recognised by law.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Catholics make regular donations, in most cases in excess of $1,000 a year, and therefore provide ongoing support to an organisation which is opposed to gay marriage and lobbies in support of its views.
I think that somewhat implicit in what you've been saying is the observation that there are so many other people out who are homophobic that it would be simply impractical to make them all suffer punishment on the same level as this guy. Thus what has happened to this guy has been a bit of an inconsistent witch-hunt insofar as he isn't the worst or only offender, and he's receiving an unusually large helping of the justice that's being dished out.
I agree it's inconsistent.
I agree it's almost certainly impossible or impractical to punish everyone who's acted like this guy has.
I agree it's not particularly possible to punish all Catholics in general.
BUT...
It makes me sad that there are so many people out there like this guy who have acted deliberately to persecute minorities who will get away with their crimes. While I'm pleased that this guy was held accountable for his actions, I'm disappointed that so many other won't be. I hope that the publicity of this will serve as an example and deter others from actively supporting the persecution of gay people like this guy has done.
Comparing this to say, stopping the persecution of black people, we can think of step 1 as being to stop the Ku Klux Klan from actively hurting people, and step 2 as being to penalize those people who are actively supporting the group doing the persecuting. This guy is a step 2 equivalent, so actively and publicly stomping on him is quite worthwhile, especially if it serves as a useful public example.
You point to the Catholic church as a major anti-gay institution. I agree. I don't feel I have the words to fully describe their wickedness and evil and my utter contempt for them and how much I would like it if they stopped existing. What can I personally do about the Catholic church though? Nothing much. Stand by and watch with enjoyment while it dies a slow death?
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Lol! What a diatribe or more like bitchiness. It seems less like addressing a perceived wrong and more like spite, nastiness, an eye for an eye etc.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
