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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

"even if he keeps those beliefs private and no one would know about them except for disclosure laws regarding political contributions"

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

So IMO banning gay marriage is way worse than banning interracial marriage.

---

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'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
So IMO banning gay marriage is way worse than banning interracial marriage.

---

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?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Everything else is special pleading and posturing.

---

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. ]

[ 04. April 2014, 04:37: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 

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!

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.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
show me another group in history that was ever prohibited from marrying?! Even black slaves could get married

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dayfd:
No. American slaves had no rights to marry.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
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 applied to all employees?

---

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.

---

It has everything to do with this thread. It shows that your "outrage" over the issues with the Mozilla CEO is selective and, frankly, "manufactured" to back your opposition to gay rights.

You've affirmed that oppressing people is "okay" so long as it has majority approval. Well, the decision to ask the CEO to step down had the majority approval of the Mozilla board. That should, by your logic, make it perfectly "okay."
 

---

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm with Andrew Sullivan. I'm not outraged, but I do think it is disquieting.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
CEOs also have a kind of symbolic role in a company; they represent it, they act as a kind of image of it.

In fact, if you go for an interview for a job like this, they will invariably ask you, 'is there anything you have said or done which might embarrass the company?'

I don't think they care really what your views are, but they don't want a shit storm to develop later, if something emerges which is not Persil. But it happens quite often that something does emerge, as with politicians, and the shit storm usually sweeps them away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I don't know if the Mozilla guy is an evangelical or just a Republican, but the general public is beginning, at last, to react to the nastier statements by either form of nay-sayer, especially when those statements apply to behaviour that the speaker has no particular right to control.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
I wish some people on this thread would just call the Whaaaambulance.

Ad Orientem and others are attempting to redefine the nature of what he did. The man didn't just vote - he donated $1000 to an explicitly political campaign that set out to destroy existing marriages - and had no other purpose than to destroy existing marriages and prevent future ones being legal. That goes way beyond opinions and into direct political campaigning. It was emphatically not a private opinion after that point.

Again, this says nothing about individual Catholics. Merely Catholics who stand outside Planned Parenthood waving protest banners. That is no longer a private opinion.

Further, it would have been trivial for Eich to not step down. All he needed to do was issue an actual apology. Something like "In 2008 I donated to Proposition 8. It was only seeing the pain that that caused people I work with that brought home to me what I was doing, and due to seeing the consequences my views have changed significantly in the past six years." He refused to do so which it has to be assumed means that he stands by his previous public statements.

Which meant that the volunteers that make Firefox run rioted. This wasn't about the boycott, it was about internal opposition to someone who tried to wreck some of their marriages in 2008 - and stood by that decision six years later.

---

quote:

---

I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What was insufficient about these assurances?

They include the following quotation

quote:

---

I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

---

---

quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Isn't this 'labelling' at work, rather than consideration on merit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
When does a 'canny' commercial decision become a kow tow to an unjustified witch hunt?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
CEOs also have a kind of symbolic role in a company; they represent it, they act as a kind of image of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Why is it that people don't have to resign for funding these [racist] policies? Is it perhaps because ethnic minorities still have a smaller voice than wealthy white people, even if they are gay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
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.

---

quote:

---

Mozilla is not a normal company. It is an activist organization. Mozilla’s primary mission isn’t to make money but to spread open-source code across the globe in the eventual hope of promoting “the development of the Internet as a public resource.”

As such, Mozilla operates according to a different calculus from most of the rest of corporate America.

Like all software companies, Mozilla competes in two markets. First, obviously, it wants people to use its products instead of its rivals’ stuff. But its second market is arguably more challenging — the tight labor pool of engineers, designers, and other tech workers who make software.

When you consider the importance of that market, Mr. Eich’s position on gay marriage wasn’t some outré personal stance unrelated to his job; it was a potentially hazardous bit of negative branding in the labor pool, one that was making life difficult for current employees and plausibly reducing Mozilla’s draw to prospective workers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Mere Nick, but that otherwise insightful argument has this flaw: a CEO is akin to a show pony, it must not only perform well, it must also be pretty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
So whst if he donated a $1000? He did so as a private citizen according to his own conscience. Why should that prevent him carrying out his duties as CEO? I don't see the relation between the two, how the former automatically affects the latter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Mere Nick, but that otherwise insightful argument has this flaw: a CEO is akin to a show pony, it must not only perform well, it must also be pretty.

---

The company needs to be pretty, too. A guy having to resign over a personal opinion is not pretty.

---

• Three members of the board of directors resigning in protest of the new CEO
• A massive Twitter campaign by employees and volunteers protesting against the new CEO
• Websites like OKCupid urging their users to use a different browser in protest of the new CEO

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Mere Nick, but that otherwise insightful argument has this flaw: a CEO is akin to a show pony, it must not only perform well, it must also be pretty.

---

The company needs to be pretty, too. A guy having to resign over a personal opinion is not pretty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

Why is it that people don't have to resign for funding these policies? Is it perhaps because ethnic minorities still have a smaller voice than wealthy white people, even if they are gay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Mere Nick, but that otherwise insightful argument has this flaw: a CEO is akin to a show pony, it must not only perform well, it must also be pretty.

---

The company needs to be pretty, too. A guy having to resign over a personal opinion is not pretty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

Why is it that people don't have to resign for funding these policies? Is it perhaps because ethnic minorities still have a smaller voice than wealthy white people, even if they are gay?

---

That's pretty clearly the case.

---

quote:

---

From stonespring:
This is California, remember. You either play the media game or it will be played against you. He and Mozilla did a terrible job of responding to this in the early stages which goes completely against Firefox's one-time image as the cool renegade anti-Internet Explorer.

---

quote:

---

From the NYT article:
Mr. MacPherson argued, it was Mr. Eich’s inability to keep his community together amid a growing firestorm that proved he could not lead the organization.

Mr. MacPherson added: “So while the mob might feel like it won, proving that there is some kind of zero-tolerance for homophobia in America, Eich’s departure from Mozilla tells a slightly more nuanced story than that.”

---

quote:

---

This message of belittlement cut across pretty much every pro-Prop 8 ad—ads that ran incessantly in the state for months. The campaign’s strategy was to debase gay families as deviant and unhealthy while insinuating that gay people are engaged in a full-scale campaign to convert children to their cause. This strategy worked. And it worked because wealthy donors like Brendan Eich flooded the campaign with the money it needed to run ads like the ones above. Eich wasn’t just a casual opponent of marriage equality. He was a major contributor to the most vitriolic anti-gay campaign in American history, one that set the standard of homophobic propaganda that continues to this day. When we talk about Eich’s anti-gay stance, we aren’t just talking about abstract beliefs. We’re talking about concrete actions that harmed thousands of gay families and informed innumerable gay Americans that they were sinful, corrupted predators.

---

quote:

---

It may be that Brendan Eich believes none of those things. It may be that he believes them all. Hell, maybe he believed Pat Buchanan when he said gay people "have declared war upon nature". But Eich wouldn't say: he has refused to explain or defend any of his views in an open conversation, instead relying on a principle of keeping your views out of the workplace, long after they'd been brought in.

That was Eich's fatal flaw, in his 10 days of spiraling downfall: if he couldn't even become an advocate for himself, and couldn't persuade the Mozilla community to support him as CEO, how could he ever make the case that he was the best advocate for the future of the open web?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
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.

---

I think referring to a donation to a (legal) political campaign as a crime is pushing it, even though I support SSM myself. Do you have any evidence that he's done something illegal or tried to change Mozilla's inclusive policies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After reading your comments, particularly the NYT article which Timothy linked, and stonespring's latest post, I've changed my mind. I got this one wrong.

---

It is so rare and commendable that someone admits they were wrong, and nobody has commended you for this yet, so I shall: good job for admitting you were wrong.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
A crime against humanity because gays can't get married? Oh dear! How out of perspective is that?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
And what would be your perspective if they passed a law forbidding orthodox Christians from marrying?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Mere Nick, but that otherwise insightful argument has this flaw: a CEO is akin to a show pony, it must not only perform well, it must also be pretty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And what would be your perspective if they passed a law forbidding orthodox Christians from marrying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I support the law in it's particular context because it clearly has the support of the Russian people

---

Plus he'd remind you that being orthodox is a choice.

(My own country now has an increasing majority of non-religious people, so I guess we're now good to go in terms of drumming up the support of the people in order to persecute all those religious minorities.)

Either that or he'd be a total hypocrite and tell you that persecution of religious people is a crime against humanity but that persecution of gays is not...

 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Clearly a crosspost, orfeo. This was the issue which changed my mind. I think he had to come clean on his present beliefs, whatever they are, and take his chances. The failure to do that was a leadership error. A very tough test right at the start of course, but that's the nature of leadership in the goldfish bowl modern world. The privacy rights of leaders have been compromised. It's a fact of life. We may regret it, but we can't change it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The reason that concerns me is no-one seems interested in his current views or his current actions. This is all based on what he did privately, before even having this position, and seems to involve some kind of logical leap as to how he would behave now while in the position without bothering to gather some evidence as to whether the different timing and different context makes a difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
orfeo, and Ad Orientem: context matters. Mozilla is not a regular, share-holder-profit-driven company. Plus it is based in California, in Silicon Valley, where the prevalence of gays, of geeks, or both together is significantly higher than average.

(how many companies have enthusiastic volunteers?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

Very interesting piece in the NYT here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

• James Ball in The Guardian
• this article in Slate magazine which points out just how nasty the antigay campaign was in California.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Mere Nick, but that otherwise insightful argument has this flaw: a CEO is akin to a show pony, it must not only perform well, it must also be pretty.

---

Whereas to me, the very proposition that a CEO is hired to be a 'show pony' rather than to get on with the job of managing a company is what is flawed here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Whereas to me, the very proposition that a CEO is hired to be a 'show pony' rather than to get on with the job of managing a company is what is flawed here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The reason that concerns me is no-one seems interested in his current views or his current actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Let me get this right. Someone holds views that are different from yours. That someone is running a private company, not a public government, and there is no particular evidence that person has let their political views affect the way the company is run.

Y'all are upset and hold the view that this person should be deprived of a way of making their living.

You are entitled to punish this person for their point of view.

You are entitled to be upset because this person holds a point of view that you see as incorrect.

That about right?

---

quote:

---

Y'all are upset and hold the view that this person should be deprived of a way of making their living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Are we not free to take our custom where we want?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Then fire him for that. If it is worth firing someone over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Then fire him for that. If it is worth firing someone over.

The world can actually function in ways of which we do not approve and it is still OK.

---

Further point. Eich felt it OK to step into other people's business. So they had a right to step in his. Stops being just about POV when the checks get written.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Before stumbling on this thread, I had just read Brendan O'Neill's "Gay marriage: the fastest-formed orthodoxy ever?" That's worth a read for youse, I reckon.

I'd also like to briefly applaud orfeo for not losing his head over his genitals, even though he's now going to be considered an "Uncle Tom" over his lack of zeal, as is apparently Andrew Sullivan. You couldn't make this up, really...

Anyway, I probably won't hang around. I just don't feel heroic enough right now to play heretic to this new orthodoxy. But I wanted to briefly single out this gem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Let me get this right. Someone holds views that are different from yours. That someone is running a private company, not a public government, and there is no particular evidence that person has let their political views affect the way the company is run.

Y'all are upset and hold the view that this person should be deprived of a way of making their living.

You are entitled to punish this person for their point of view.

You are entitled to be upset because this person holds a point of view that you see as incorrect.

That about right?

Why stop at making him leave his job? Why not make him go to jail for a while? That will teach him to hold wrong points of view.

I mean, you know, losing a job might just make him bitter against liberals and gay activists; motivating him to take further action. If you keep him in jail he won't have the capacity to publicly express his odious point of view. He sure won't have the money to donate to bad people any more.

You guys just don't go far enough. Lets get real here. After all, there are no better things to get upset over than one guy spending money he earned supporting a point of view that is wrong.

While we are at it, why don't we make every Republican businessperson resign for having hateful points of view? That would show those sons a bitches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't believe in gay marriage because a proper definition of marriage includes procreation as primary aim and gays just can't have kids (with each other).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Before stumbling on this thread, I had just read Brendan O'Neill's "Gay marriage: the fastest-formed orthodoxy ever?" That's worth a read for youse, I reckon.

I'd also like to briefly applaud orfeo for not losing his head over his genitals, even though he's now going to be considered an "Uncle Tom" over his lack of zeal, as is apparently Andrew Sullivan. You couldn't make this up, really...

Anyway, I probably won't hang around. I just don't feel heroic enough right now to play heretic to this new orthodoxy. But I wanted to briefly single out this gem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
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.

---

This is just so sweetly ironic... Let me give you a hint, Starlight. Out here among traditional Catholics, the primary purpose of marriage is what? Procreation. That's sophisticated talk for breeding. And what is it that gay people cannot do, even in principe? Breed. Well, at least not with their same-sex partner, that is. So, however animal-like gay people may be, the traditional take is not that gays are "denied" marriage because they "shouldn't be allowed to breed", as your analogy suggests, but rather that they cannot marry because they cannot breed (with each other), even in principle.

You've basically just ranted yourself right into the traditional argument. Well done. While you are here, you could perhaps manage to realise that all this talk about justice, equity, fairness and so on can only apply if one is not comparing apples and oranges. The modern redefinition of marriage that makes procreation a separate lifestyle choice to marriage is just not accepted by all. Yet. And while I also believe that "gay sex" is morally wrong, that's not really the reason at all why I don't believe in "gay marriage". I don't believe in gay marriage because a proper definition of marriage includes procreation as primary aim and gays just can't have kids (with each other). Now, of course society can redefine, and perhaps has redefined, "marriage" as something else. In that case "gay marriage" become something we can argue about in terms of emotions, law, and economy. And I may even be convinced that it would be prudent to allow it. Whereas I will then call the thing which has as its primary aim procreation something else, say "wedlock". And if you then come after me claiming "wedlock" for the gays, I will call it "matrimony". And if there's to be gay matrimony, then I'll have to invent some other term. Humpty-Dumpty can only redefine words, not realities. And that thing which I (still) call marriage (so far) gays cannot have. Not because I unjustly deny it, but simply because they are not using their sexual organs in a way that could potentially produce kids. Nothing can ever change this, unless you change human nature itself.

---

quote:

---

The following question may be omitted if, for example, the couple is advanced in years. Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
But 'marriage' does not belong to the RCC. It is a sacrament of creation, not the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To further that point, marriage is not even a sacrament to everyone. Why should I care what the RCC think and why should they have the right to tell me what I should think and do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Is childbearing stressed as the main purpose of marriage in the modern RCC service?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure a CEO who advocated dropping spousal benefits for couples with no children and disallowing adopted dependents would also get in a similar form of trouble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
Furthermore, without an RC anthropology it does not make sense to many people to say that sex between a man and a woman who has had a hysterectomy "can potentially produce children" so they can have "real" marriage but sex between two women or two men cannot.

---

Oh, pretty please. This is exactly like saying that I cannot tell that a cheetah is built for running, whereas a fish is not, because if I chop off the legs of the cheetah it doesn't run any faster than the fish. Yeah, duh. Do you need a degree in biology to figure out what is wrong with that logic? No, you don't. Neither do you need an advanced degree in anything to figure out that "penis in vagina" sex is special as far as making babies goes, even if a particular penis in a particular vagina is not about to make any babies.

Once more, the only non-stupid issue here is what we privilege. Do we privilege only procreational success (actual babies)? Do we privilege the sort of long-lasting intimate relationships that can lead to babies, even if it potentially or predictably doesn't do so in individual cases? Or do we privilege any sort of long-lasting intimate relationship?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Eich is not being denied his livelihood. He was CTO of Mozilla before this and there wasn't an outcry of this size over this. That's your second misrepresentation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it.

---

quote:

---

And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?

---

quote:

---

Exactly which jobs have been marked off as acceptable for homophobes? And are they open to blacks and Jews as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

Is there really anything in what I've said that you do not agree with?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it. And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?

Exactly which jobs have been marked off as acceptable for homophobes? And are they open to blacks and Jews as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Before stumbling on this thread, I had just read Brendan O'Neill's "Gay marriage: the fastest-formed orthodoxy ever?" That's worth a read for youse, I reckon.

---

quote:

---

Out here among traditional Catholics, the primary purpose of marriage is what? Procreation.

---

quote:

---

And what is it that gay people cannot do, even in principe? Breed. Well, at least not with their same-sex partner, that is. So, however animal-like gay people may be, the traditional take is not that gays are "denied" marriage because they "shouldn't be allowed to breed", as your analogy suggests, but rather that they cannot marry because they cannot breed (with each other), even in principle.

---

quote:

---

You've basically just ranted yourself right into the traditional argument.

---

 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't believe in gay marriage because a proper definition of marriage includes procreation as primary aim and gays just can't have kids (with each other). Now, of course society can redefine, and perhaps has redefined, "marriage" as something else. In that case "gay marriage" become something we can argue about in terms of emotions, law, and economy. And I may even be convinced that it would be prudent to allow it. Whereas I will then call the thing which has as its primary aim procreation something else, say "wedlock". And if you then come after me claiming "wedlock" for the gays, I will call it "matrimony". And if there's to be gay matrimony, then I'll have to invent some other term. Humpty-Dumpty can only redefine words, not realities. And that thing which I (still) call marriage (so far) gays cannot have. Not because I unjustly deny it, but simply because they are not using their sexual organs in a way that could potentially produce kids. Nothing can ever change this, unless you change human nature itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That's precisely one of the bits of this that exasperates me. Apparently it's okay to have one extremely important job in this organisation, but not the next one up the ladder. The glass ceiling is alive and well.

And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it. And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?

Exactly which jobs have been marked off as acceptable for homophobes? And are they open to blacks and Jews as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it. And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I agree it's worth a read. I think it also has some big flaws:

I would point out though that it over-exaggerates the swiftness of growth in support for gay marriage. With regard to the US, Gallup has a nice graph which shows a trend of gradual and linear increase in support over time for gay marriage... and it looks almost identical to their graph of support for interracial marriage which shows the same linear trend and an almost identical slope. So the change in viewpoint on the same-sex marriage issues among the total US population does not appear to be significantly swifter nor any less linear than it was for interracial marriage. The same kinds of social forces (older bigoted people dying off, the younger generation growing up, people slowly changing their views) can be used to explain both graphs equally.

The article is very selective in its choice of UK opinion statistics which make it sound like the UK has seen a massive change of opinion within a couple of years. However looking at a wider variety of poll results, shows that actually support has risen fairly gradually in the UK and that individual polls have huge margins of error. So the article appears to be lying through it's teeth about an exponential rise in support.

---

Thank you

quote:

---

What it's missing is that the major driving source of change here is not people changing their views on gay marriage (that does happen, but it's a secondary effect), it's people who have always held pro gay marriage views getting old enough to be surveyed.

---

quote:

---

One of the values that millennials hold strongly is a absolute loathing of discrimination, and a "kill it with fire" type mentality to dealing with discrimination whenever they encounter it. They also lack respect for self-proclaimed authorities and institutions (such as churches and religions). Whatever the social forces are that have shaped the younger generation, they have instilled in them en masse these values, which are very different than values of the generations that came before them.

---

quote:

---

So when the article naively wonders where "the stunning lack of charity, magnanimity and tolerance" for anti-gay marriage views is coming from, the answer is millennials, who are now old enough to be represented in significant numbers in politics and society.

---

quote:

---

It's that an entire generation who have always wanted to persecute those who oppose gay marriage is now beginning to get the power to do so.

---

quote:

---

By contrast, the millennial generation by and large, doesn't view being anti same-sex marriage as a valid viewpoint. They don't respect the church or view it as a valid source of morality. They consider being anti-gay a grave and serious offence of the most heinous kind, comparable to slavery and apartheid,

---

quote:

---

The spectrum of losing your job through to prison time is viewed as valid punishment for advocating anti-gay views.

---

quote:

---

So when the article asks where did the tolerance for anti-gay views go, the answer is that it was never there among the younger generation and that they don't share the tolerance of the older generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
the common terms for [Marriage] are not exclusive property of the Catholic Church. If you want a term that you can used to exclude whoever you want, try trademarking a new one like "Catholic Procreative Contract" and no one can define the way it is used but you.

---

This is a very worthwhile point. I'm not a Catholic and never have been, but I've used the word "marriage" all my life. So when someone comes along and says essentially "we Catholics own the definition of the word marriage and you're using it wrong" I'm left wondering whether to snigger at their supreme arrogance and their presumption that they have the authority to tell me what the words I use mean, or whether I should just tell them to fuck off. What they really mean is, as you point out, that their church has a theology that they have developed about something that is essentially a "Catholic Procreative Contract". They should just call it that and not cause themselves confusion by using the term "marriage" that everyone else in the world uses to mean something different to that. It's breathtakingly arrogant that they think they can steal a common word from our language and try and tell the rest of us what it "truly" means.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Starlight,

I'd agree that a number of people will solve the difference between the intolerance of their church and their tolerance of same sex couples by leaving the church. That's what I tried to say about voting with your feet.

There will also be group that squeeze out the liberals and become more extreme as you suggest.

There's another path; some of these who were in churches that were homophobic forget that they were homophobic and now oppose other churches being homophobic. Again this is going by the analogy of racial toleration. Or to cite another example, very few today remember how anti-Semitic mainstream American churches were a century ago. These same churches now oppose anti-Semitism and have limited memory of their own history.

So it will be interesting to see if extremism triumphs, or institutional change and amnesia allow a change.
 

---

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 
I'm going to pass along to the several childless-by-choice straight couples I know that they aren't really married (especially the ones who entered marriage with the specific intention not to have children). When they ask why they're not really married, I'll explain that the Catholic Church says so. I'm sure that will impress them!

[ 06. April 2014, 02:02: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
 

---

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
There is also the interesting aspect that the various US states view first cousin marriages differently. Some allow it; some forbid it completely; a few allow it but only if the couple can't procreate (or very unlikely to do so because of age). So some states have written into their law that they do not consider the possibility of procreation an essential part of marriage.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm going to pass along to the several childless-by-choice straight couples I know that they aren't really married (especially the ones who entered marriage with the specific intention not to have children). When they ask why they're not really married, I'll explain that the Catholic Church says so. I'm sure that will impress them!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
I don't believe that Generation X are exactly known for their respect for authority.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I'd have said that the "stunning lack of charity, magnanimity and tolerance" for anti-gay marriage views" came from a mirror. Yes, you can find some people on the pro-gay marriage side who have less respect from the opposition than the average anti-gay marriage proponent. But the entire article is trying to claim a false equivalence. A neutral position on the topic of gay marriage is to allow it - to live and let live. A position that lacks charity, magnanimity, and tolerance is to try to prevent people marrying the people they love. Boycotts come hard and fast from the anti-gay marriage lobby - but when people who want gay marriage to be legal try any of those tactics, suddenly it's toys out of the pram and people claiming to be victims. When people try comparing gay sex to bestiality and paedophilia that's SOP. But as far as I know people who are in favour of gay marriage don't compare people they dislike to kiddy fuckers.

---

quote:

---

This is nothing but slander so far as I can tell. Find me this persecution!

Again, this reads like paranoid ramblings that do not reflect reality. Find me the people advocating prison time.

---

quote:

---

Millenials are no more tolerant of people being against gay marriage than Generation X is of people referring to niggers. And generally believe it should be dealt with by similar methods. Donating to support Prop 8 is treated as about equivalent to donating to support the KKK. Would any new head of a charity remain if they donated to the KKK and it was made public?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
There's plenty of biology research being done into the creation of eggs from males and sperm from females (news article). It seems like it will be about 10-20 years before the scientists can successfully splice the DNA properly and allow a same-sex couple to have children that are genetically theirs. Thus, presumably, a lot of same-sex couples currently getting married will indeed be able to have biological children of their own together in the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
But even today, if a lesbian couple got sperm donated from one woman's brother to inseminate the other woman with, then you'd get a baby that shared genetic material with both mothers (50% with one mother and 25% with the other instead of the normal 50%/50%) and was 100% the genetic grandchild of both sets of grandparents, no science necessary. So you can get at least 75% of the way towards having the 'right' genetics for a biological child of both parents already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You are free to not believe in Gay Marriage. You're also free to not believe in internal combustion engines either. Do try and stay out of the roadway now, for some reason those new horses are very fast and don't seem to sense you being in front of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Marriage is a state defined activity and the common terms for it are not exclusive property of the Catholic Church. If you want a term that you can used to exclude whoever you want, try trademarking a new one like "Catholic Procreative Contract" and no one can define the way it is used but you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The level of not getting this is just plain ... staggering, and not a little sad.

---

quote:

---

And if we attach robotic legs to a fish, and power them with a fat ass motor till that fish outruns a cheetah, then we have proven something. I'm not quite sure what though, but probably not that fish are meant to run like the wind...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
I'm going to pass along to the several childless-by-choice straight couples I know that they aren't really married (especially the ones who entered marriage with the specific intention not to have children). When they ask why they're not really married, I'll explain that the Catholic Church says so. I'm sure that will impress them!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

You are free to not believe in Gay Marriage. You're also free to not believe in internal combustion engines either. Do try and stay out of the roadway now, for some reason those new horses are very fast and don't seem to sense you being in front of them.

---

As terribly flawed analogies go, I'm not in the business of denying any car. I can see full well what society in general and gays in particular are doing. I'm in the business of saying "Well, you say so-and-so many 'horsepower', but there is no 'horse' in that engine of yours. Why don't you say kW?"

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Marriage is a state defined activity and the common terms for it are not exclusive property of the Catholic Church. If you want a term that you can used to exclude whoever you want, try trademarking a new one like "Catholic Procreative Contract" and no one can define the way it is used but you.

---

Don't worry, we'll be getting there. My bet would rather be on "holy matrimony" though. That has a nicer ring to it. However, all this going on about the RCC trying to impose a definition is of course just silly. The "gay marriage" stuff has become mainstream in perhaps the last decade or so. And the final detachment of marriage from procreation is about fifty years old. More or less all that time before then, marriage meant various things, but all had to do with sex between a man and a woman and making babies. OK? The people who have been doing the redefining is your side, not mine. You can perhaps accuse the RCC of stubbornly clinging to things beyond their due by date, but you can hardly accuse her of creating these concepts out of thin air.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it.

---

This case proves it. Volunteers weren't dropping like flies when this guy was CTO, but when he became CEO, they started abandoning ship. What more proof do you want?

quote:

---

And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?

---

This isn't an a priori science. We won't know until it comes up. You probably could create a poll to ask the volunteers who do the work at Mozilla. Knock yourself out.

quote:

---

Exactly which jobs have been marked off as acceptable for homophobes? And are they open to blacks and Jews as well?

---

Again, nothing has been marked off. You miss the entire point. This isn't some decision that someone has made in some dark back room. This was an open decision made by volunteers working for the company. You apparently would force them to keep volunteering for the company because it's so homophobophobic for them to quit over this hater becoming CEO. Real people don't work that way.

---

quote:

---

I don't worry much but I'd suggest you add the word Catholic to your term "Holy Catholic Matrimony" or you're going to suffer from the messy confusion between your Holy Matrimony and the Holy Matrimony of other religions who do allow same sex marriage or marriages between people who can't procreate. Sadly, not only do you not own the word marriage, you don't have exclusive rights to the word holy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I suppose my mistake is that I've been looking for some kind of rational basis for the decision, instead of just shrugging my shoulders and accepting that someone's ability to be employed should be dictated by the feelings of others.

---

quote:

---

All of those laws are about the same thing: focus on performance and suitability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First of all, bullshit that the RCC is using some "original" definition. Marriage has been defined with different parameters in different cultures. The RCC redefines marriage as different to biblical marriage, even.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
If gay couples can have biological children then your argument of "they cannot marry because they cannot breed" obviously fails hard. I guess spluttering in outrage at the total failure of your argument is a valid reaction on your part. I guess that explains the word-vomit above about robotic fish and cheetahs. Either than or hallucinogenic drugs do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
You've got to bear in mind that the Catholic Church gets to use a special type of logic just as it gets to use special types of meanings for words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Instead it uses a special type of inaccurate godly church logic, which reasons with vague generalisations instead of accurate specifics. So because females in general are often capable of having a child with males in general, then a male-female union can be a marriage, regardless of whether in any specific case the particular female is fertile or willing to have a child. What matters in inaccurate godly Catholic church logic land is vague and retarded generalisations, not silly things like actual facts of the matter or truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
orfeo

It's not a mistake. Eich's ability to sustain the CEO role was crucially compromised because he lost the confidence of the volunteer base. I guess there was some orchestration of that, but that's the goldfish bowl at work.

A co-operative like Mozilla has to live with such real life factors, as does anyone who leads it. Pissing off a sizeable proportion of your volunteer and stakeholder base is quite easily done in these tetchy times. Recovering from that is a big leadership challenge, as is recognising that you can't.

But I think the principle of assessment based on work performance is the right one. Moral outrage doesn't allow a lot of space for a considered view. Historically, gay people have been on the receiving end of discrimination in the work place for reasons other than their ability to do the job. Some of that has also been fuelled by a kind of misplaced moral outrage. That's worth remembering. Moral outrage can be manipulated in favour of mob rule.

---

It's precisely the 'mob rule' aspect of this that is troubling me.

And you're absolutely right, it is the goldfish bowl at work. And a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason he can't do his job is because enough people decided he can't do his job. Based, it seems, more on what they thought he might do in the job rather than what he actually did do in the job. Alternatively, based on stuff that wasn't ever part of his job.
 

---

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :
 
IngoB,

I really hope that whichever gay rights organization you're working for is paying you well for your service to the cause! Your arguments here are really helping the case for equal marriage. Thanks!


 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Someone's ability to be employed should be based on their competence at the job. When a charity has three board members and dozens of volunteers resigning specifically because of the CEO then the CEO is not able to do the job. Which part of this is hard to understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
So just for clarification, if you see a fish rushing about on robotic legs, and exclaim "A fish that runs!" what do you mean? 1) By the marvels of human ingenuity (and indeed, possibly the use of psychoactive substances), engineers have made an animal run that neither could do so without technical props, nor was "made for" doing so (by evolution and/or God). 2) Fish have joined the class of animals that are "made for" (by evo/God) roaming around on land on legs, as evidenced by the fact that you have just seen one run by. Fish, rabbits, cheetahs - as far as the ability to run goes, they are now one and the same sort of thing.

It's a simple binary choice, 1 or 2? And yes, it does answer your claim that "gays will be able to breed soon by fantastic progress in medical technology." If you still can't figure out why, I'll tell you. But first let's hear what you choose there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Someone's ability to be employed should be based on their competence at the job. When a charity has three board members and dozens of volunteers resigning specifically because of the CEO then the CEO is not able to do the job. Which part of this is hard to understand?

---

The part that leaps from the subjective opinion of three board members and dozens of volunteers that they don't like the CEO into the realm of an objective fact that the CEO cannot do the job.

I understand PERFECTLY WELL that the
perception of him made his position untenable. Okay? But you're glossing over the fact that the reason they are resigning isn't because of a lack of competence on the CEO's part. They are resigning because they don't like something else about him.

Yes, okay, sure, he cannot do the job in those circumstances. But don't ignore the REASON he can't do the job. It isn't because he's lost his technological know-how, or because he's shown an inability to handle the finances, or because of any other factor that actually pertains to his skills.

---

quote:

---

It's because the other staff don't like him.

---

quote:

---

Can you imagine what this story would be like if people resigned because they refused to work with a gay person?

---

quote:

---

I can. It would look a hell of a lot like the World Vision thread where a whole pile of people are chewing out conservative Christians for withdrawing their VOLUNTARY SUPPORT at the prospect of gay people working for the organisation. And chewing out World Vision for capitulating and saying gay people can't work there.

---

quote:

---

But hey, over here in this thread we're all just peachy with a company saying someone can't work here because other people don't like it.

---

quote:

---

In my opinion you can't have it both ways. Either it's okay for someone to be forced out on account of others threatening to pack up and go home, or it's not okay. Either a company should stand up for the disliked employee, or they shouldn't. Which?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Justinian, I'll thank you not to make assertions such as that I am lying.

I am a gay man. I have no reason to object to the ostracism of an apparent homophobe other than objection of principle. Resorting to personal attacks of the nature that are beginning to creep into your posts is uncalled for.

---

quote:

---

One of the values that millennials hold strongly is a absolute loathing of discrimination, and a "kill it with fire" type mentality to dealing with discrimination whenever they encounter it.

---

quote:

---

Why do you have the continual need to ignore what is being said in this thread, Orfeo?...

Once more you are lying. Why do you do this?
However you seem determined to make up facts in order to give yourself a soapbox...

Orfeo, on this thread you are continually spouting untruths after you have been corrected on the actual facts of the case. I don't know whether you are not bothering to read what is being written, whether you are passing on lies other people have told you, or whether you simply do not care. Whichever of these possibilities is true you are spreading harmful untruths when you do not have ignorance as an excuse...

---

quote:

---

And I know you're a gay man. Which is why I'm confused rather than have simply called you to hell.

---

quote:

---

If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
But 'marriage' does not belong to the RCC. It is a sacrament of creation, not the church.

---

Precisely! Of course, what word you associate with this sacrament of creation - or its restoration in the fallen world through Christ - is basically arbitrary. It used to be called "marriage" in English, but then people started calling other things "marriage" as well. more than they can change the nature of gravity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think CEOs have more important things to do than be figureheads. That's what chairpersons are for...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stonespring:
Furthermore, without an RC anthropology it does not make sense to many people to say that sex between a man and a woman who has had a hysterectomy "can potentially produce children" so they can have "real" marriage but sex between two women or two men cannot.

---

Oh, pretty please. This is exactly like saying that I cannot tell that a cheetah is built for running, whereas a fish is not, because if I chop off the legs of the cheetah it doesn't run any faster than the fish. Yeah, duh. Do you need a degree in biology to figure out what is wrong with that logic? No, you don't. Neither do you need an advanced degree in anything to figure out that "penis in vagina" sex is special as far as making babies goes, even if a particular penis in a particular vagina is not about to make any babies.

Once more, the only non-stupid issue here is what we privilege. Do we privilege only procreational success (actual babies)? Do we privilege the sort of long-lasting intimate relationships that can lead to babies, even if it potentially or predictably doesn't do so in individual cases? Or do we privilege any sort of long-lasting intimate relationship?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
So how dare we allow one type of couple incapable by natural means of conceiving a child through sexual intercourse marry when another type of couple with the same reproductive chances cannot? Are not all things possible for God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
In the meantime, while many people do not believe in God or in religious teachings about the specialness of conceiving children with a penis in a vagina that needs to receive social privilege - it makes sense to allow all adult unrelated consensual couples that are not able to conceive to marry and adopt children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
orfeo

It is worth looking at the history of Proposition 8.

Whatever any supporter might have believed at the time, the considered legal decision is that it was an attack on the constitutional rights of a minority.

Eich had to address that matter and, so far as I can see, he never did. Perhaps he had reasons which he chose not to make public. At any rate, that inaction sealed his fate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Roman Catholic position is I believe that their arguments are not specifically religious. I think their arguments are incoherent rubbish. But they are in intention and I think fact secular incoherent rubbish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
One of the values that millennials hold strongly is a absolute loathing of discrimination, and a "kill it with fire" type mentality to dealing with discrimination whenever they encounter it.

---

It may be no coincidence that the rise of anti-bullying teaching in schools developed at about the time millennials were first in school.

---

Yep, that could well be a good explanation. They have grown up being told that hurting others just because you don't like them is "bullying" and wrong.

I think the single social factor, that far more than anything else, has affected the development of millennials is the internet. They have always had instant access to any information they care to google, and social media lets them have 200 friends on facebook or followers on twitter. And the online friends they make are often from other countries, and of other races, of different religions, and very different life backgrounds. So they might have 10 black friends, 5 gay ones, 3 who are muslim, 2 buddhist etc. So when someone comes along and says something discriminatory of the form "People of type X are bad people and should be hurt" it evokes a "How dare you say that about my friends?!" type response.

Also, quite a lot of Western countries changed their immigration policies around ~1980 to allow more immigrants who weren't from white countries. This meant that a lot of millennials went through school with a high number of foreign students (up to 50% of the people in some of my own classes in high school were asian immigrants, for example). Again this led to millennials forming a diverse set of friends.

Also, quite a lot of Western countries decriminalised homosexuality around the ~1980-1990 time period and there was a huge movement in the gay community encouraging people to "come out". As a result, many millennials have grown up knowing people who were openly gay - family members or friends or acquaintances who they have known for years. Thus millennials are orders of magnitude more likely to answer "yes" to the question of "did you know someone who was gay when you were growing up". And once a person knows someone who is gay it is hardly possible to take demonizing stereotypes seriously. You hear "Gay people are bad because X" and you respond with "that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard, because I know someone who's gay and not only is what you're saying about them wrong, but they're a cool person."

When you compare the diverse set of friendships that millennials typically have, with, say, my grandparents' generation who generally formed friendships with people in their street and in their local church who all were of the same nationality and same religion and same culture, then the difference is easy to see. The millennials have grown up with diversity and have much more diverse range of friends of different religions and nationalities, and are much more likely to know multiple gay people. When a lot of older people attack and demonize gays they are attacking the imaginary 'other', attacking a group they know almost nothing about and have never met. But for most millennials, if you criticize gay people you're attacking their friends. People don't like seeing their friends attacked, so "da fuck you saying about my friends?!" along with clenched fists is probably on the most pleasant end of the spectrum of responses you'll generally get from a millennial in response to an anti-gay speech.

The other thing I think is relevant, although this may vary, is that the general society and political climate and school curriculum I was exposed to growing up was quite heavy on the viewpoint that "Discrimination is a thing of the past: Women got the vote, slavery was abolished, apartheid removed. We now live in a discrimination free world. Yay us." We were extensively told how much of a Bad Thing discrimination had been in history, and how many people had suffered from it. And we shook our heads in disgust and disbelief at the stupidity of the people who had lived in those times who had perpetrated discrimination and those who had tolerated it, because we knew that we would have been better than that and would never have tolerated discrimination for a second, and that had we ourselves been around to deal with the slave owner or the KKK they would have been rapidly and decisively dealt with. At the same time, the churches (where I grew up at least) deliberately withheld any and all information about homosexuality from young people (in the fear that telling us about it might make us gay), and so they hid from us the fact that they were discriminating. So there was no 'counter-balancing' teaching of "discrimination is okay and fine" coming from the church or from sunday school. As far I and all my friends were aware when growing up, we lived in a discrimination free society and that was really important and a really Good Thing that made our society better than others in history. As you might be able to imagine, when I did discover the extent of the church's desire to discriminate against gay people and the extent to which discrimination actually existed in my society and was being tolerated as okay, I was just a teeny tiny little bit...

Let's just say that my parents didn't appreciate it when I likened their church to the KKK and suggested it should be burned to the ground along with every other so-called 'Christian' church in the country that was refusing to hold gay marriages.

Fortunately for the church in general and for most anti-gay Christians, millennials are much more apolitical than previous generations and so the vast majority are totally or partially unaware of the church's anti-gay discrimination.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Apparently, according to the RCC, it's easier for God to get a woman without a womb or ovaries pregnant than it is for him to rip a condom.

---

 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
OTOH, I remember there is research which suggests that the more frequent the sex, including at non-fertile times, the more successful pregnancies are likely to occur. And there is also the element of persuading people to stay together, which I believe has been suggested for the reason for human non-oestrus receptiveness. So it is possible to argue (and I'm doing it now because I like to practice arguing) that even when the act is not open to immediate conception, it is making conception more likely when it is, and making it more likely that the offspring grow up with two parents.
The second reason, of course, is in favour of couples who cannot have their own children, but seek to become parents by adoption or surrogacy. They should be encouraged in whatever behaviours keeps them together in a positive relationship.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:


...Which brings me to something that makes me a feel a little uncomfortable. Same-sex marriage is making huge strides in terms of social acceptance and in terms of the intensity of opposition to those who wish to ban same-sex marriage - whereas racial equality, gender equality, and even other LGBT rights issues like defense from violence and work discrimination do not seem to advancing nearly as quickly.


I'm not comparing discriminatory laws to the freedom everyone has to use or not use Firefox (or to work/volunteer or not work/volunteer for Mozilla). But as many people have pointed out on this thread, the gay rights community has to choose where to focus their energy (granted, the big gay rights organizations like the Human Rights Campaign stayed out of the Brendan Eich controversy) - so it's best to get our priorities straight. Also, even if a case can be made about the multifaceted role of a CEO at a progressive, nonprofit, volunteer-driven place like Mozilla, an explosion of outrage from people with no connection to Mozilla about something relatively minor compared with the actual laws being passed to restrict gay rights does make the gay rights movement, rightly or wrongly, seem bully-ish and/or obsessed with ideological purity, at least on "our turf" like in Silicon Valley.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm less fine with it as any kind of normative rule, though. We don't normally tell people that if they backed the losing side of a court case, they then have to publicly repudiate the side that lost. Normally all we expect of people is to follow the court ruling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I know it's not the same, but the call for some form of public apologising feels reminiscent of the way we ask Muslims apologising for being vaguely associated with terrorists. Eich's connection is a little more direct than that, but it's still a small connection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm less fine with it as any kind of normative rule, though. We don't normally tell people that if they backed the losing side of a court case, they then have to publicly repudiate the side that lost. Normally all we expect of people is to follow the court ruling.

---

Depends on the court case. If someone publicly maintains that Brown v. Board or Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, it doesn't seem unreasonable to question their fitness for a job that requires upholding racial non-discrimination policies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, your attempt to strengthen the 'terrorist' analogy fails because terrorists are doing something illegal. Giving terrorists money is also illegal.Funding towards Proposition 8/defending proposition 8 was in no way illegal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Question? Sure. Assume that they couldn't possibly leave their personal opinion at the door and follow the actual law, not so much.

I was going to say that people are perfectly capable of following laws that they don't personally agree with, although I'm less sure of that when I consider how many people I see speeding on the roads every day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Question? Sure. Assume that they couldn't possibly leave their personal opinion at the door and follow the actual law, not so much.

I was going to say that people are perfectly capable of following laws that they don't personally agree with, although I'm less sure of that when I consider how many people I see speeding on the roads every day.

---

But orfeo, I think you misunderstand the way prejudice can work. It is often very subtle. Consider a manager who is a golf enthusiast. In walk two job candidates, equally qualified. One plays golf and the other hates it. Who do you think will be hired? Odds are with the golfer. Not because the manager hates people who hate golf, but because of the connections we tend to form with people who share our interests or backgrounds.

I once worked for a large corporation with an amazing inclusive hiring policy. A regular United Nations of ethnicity and gender identification. But there was an interesting thing I noticed; one could tell the the self-defining characteristic of nearly any department manager without having seen them. This department is run by a lesbian, that department is run by an East Asian person, the other department is run by a black person, etc. Why, because the majority of their staff would share that characteristic. The company definitely followed the law. The managers technically followed the law, but in practice deviated from the intent.
We are human, this is how we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The analogy that pisses me off is comparing holding this CEO accountable for the money he spent on a hate-filled political campaign with holding some random Muslim schmuck accountable for what Muslim terrorists do on the other side of the planet. That's really inexcusable both morally and logically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, but that is precisely why there is a bit of a problem with singling out one particular human and saying that it's worth pushing him out over his subtle prejudice (assuming for the sake of argument that 'subtle prejudice' is all he might display).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:


Secondly, Proposition 8 wasn't that subtle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:


Secondly, Proposition 8 wasn't that subtle.

---

And this is why I do not understand your argument, orfeo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Proposition 8 was in no way directed towards altering Mozilla workplace practices. Support for Proposition 8 does not automatically mean support for altering Mozilla workplace practices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I understand your argument, orfeo and I will think about how I feel about that.
It still does not address the job performance issues, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
One interesting historical parallel that comes to mind is Henry Ford's publication of viciously anti-Semitic articles in The Dearborn Independent. The articles included excerpts from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Despite the fact that The Dearborn Independent (and another related publication called The International Jew) were independent projects of Ford's and not directly tied to the Ford Motor Company, various American Jewish organizations organized boycotts of Ford cars. Was this unreasonable? Is there any sense in which American Jews of the interwar period owed it to Henry Ford to look past his anti-Semitic hobbies and give their custom to Ford Motors? Does the fact that Ford tried to keep his role as automotive CEO separate from his role as anti-Semitic propagandist really count as a mitigating circumstance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I accept that in a particular case, including this one, that the evidence can be there to show that an issue outside the workplace is also going to be an issue inside the workplace. Most of my concern has to do with the principle that this shouldn't automatically be assumed - that, in principle, it should be possible for a person to 'show' that the 2 spheres can be kept separate.

---

quote:

---

Looking back now, one of the things that bothers me the most about the whole episode was how dehumanizing it was. It was just politics. But it wasn't politics..these were people.

We singled out a whole group of people, most of whom just wanted to be left alone, to forcefully discriminate against them for short term political benefit.

All around us were our friends, COLLEAGUES, family members, highly valued staff members and people we care about who this clearly was going to hurt. Nobody seemed to think a thing of it. Like most people, including my constituents, I wasn't comfortable with same-sex marriage at that point but I didn't even bother to throw out a "hey we shouldn't be doing this" or "look what we are doing to the people we care about".

---

In his blog post Eich "express[es] my sorrow at having caused pain", but stops short of acknowledging that beyond causing emotional pain he attempted to cause real harm to a large group of people, including a number of Mozillians.
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
So here's a challenge. Imagine you are Brendan Eich and have just been named CEO of Mozilla. You believe that donating to support Prop 8 was the right thing to do (I don't know for sure if he believes this now, but let's assume he does). You can't lie, therefore, and say that you were wrong to donate to it. Is there a way that you can be a good enough CEO for Mozilla that calls for you to resign would be unjustified? Note that at this point the controversy is just starting so you can address it from the beginning.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I certainly am not known for having the political skills to win that case.
I'm dubious that if he doesn't regret it, and in fact wants to continue activity to invalidate the marriages of employees and partners that anything would help.
He could probably stay in the job for a while by announcing a two year facilitated conversation, followed by rinse and repeat.

[ 09. April 2014, 00:25: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think boycotts raise quite the same issues because boycotters are completely external to a company. They have no kind of obligation to the company's staff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ stonespring's challenge

I don't think you can do that, stonespring, and expect to be believed in your unswerving support for current inclusive Mozilla policies.

Support for Prop 8 is support in principle for unconstitutional and retrospective action in support of a traditional moral position. Prop 8 went much further than affirming the traditional belief in same sex marriage. It was an attack on existing and protected minority rights. I do not see how that is morally defensible.

Which is precisely why I think saying you got it wrong re Prop 8 for those reasons at least is an essential starting point. Even if you still hold to the trad same sex marriage view, you have to recognise the legal and consitutional faults of Prop 8, turn your back on any repetition of such actions, certainly at work and also, I would say, in the wider political context.

And you may still have a credibility problem with volunteers even if you do that. I appreciate that was the way Prop 8 was "sold" to those who support it, so I can see how someone who believed in the traditional marriage definition should see support for it as some kind of moral imperative. But not if they dug deeper, considered the wider implication of such a proposal re the constitution, the law, and the position of minorities. The ability to dig deeper, recognise such wider issues, is an important test of personal judgment. Which Eich failed.

That's first base. Any apologies and reparations follow from that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
So here's a challenge. Imagine you are Brendan Eich and have just been named CEO of Mozilla. You believe that donating to support Prop 8 was the right thing to do (I don't know for sure if he believes this now, but let's assume he does). You can't lie, therefore, and say that you were wrong to donate to it. Is there a way that you can be a good enough CEO for Mozilla that calls for you to resign would be unjustified? Note that at this point the controversy is just starting so you can address it from the beginning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
And if Mozilla and Prop 8 are so special, let's move this to Washington state and have the person be a new CEO of Microsoft who donated money to a campaign against the referendum there that allowed SSM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
And once same sex marriage is legal, its opponents are suddenly hamstrung in their efforts to undo it because it is taking a right away from a persecuted minority - even if they change the federal constitution to do it? If they never believed it should have been legal in the first place and also believe it is causing great moral harm to society, how is it fair to say that it's ok to oppose it before it is law, but not after?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
But I think that most CEO's in the country would not come out unscathed if they were subjected to the fishbowl-type treatment of Eich. I guess they are just better at keeping their political activities private (or people have not been trying as hard to bring them to light).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
In related news, the founder of OKCupid [..] donated to the campaign of an anti-gay rights Republican Congressman from Utah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"I was just trying to bribe the guy, I didn't know how he felt about gay people. Next time I'll only try to bribe supporters of equal rights."?

That probably encapsulates quite a lot of the sorry state of current politics...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
A curious outcome to these events is that a website* I visit from time to time is now blocking my access because I use firefox. The owner of the site objects to Mozilla getting rid of their CEO, and so the owner objects to Mozilla and hence firefox.

[*which shall remain nameless]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
So the outrage of the right wing would be totally justified if the same thing had happened with a new CEO at Microsoft?

---

quote:

---

And once same sex marriage is legal, its opponents are suddenly hamstrung in their efforts to undo it because it is taking a right away from a persecuted minority - even if they change the federal constitution to do it?

---

quote:

---

If they never believed it should have been legal in the first place and also believe it is causing great moral harm to society, how is it fair to say that it's ok to oppose it before it is law, but not after?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
... In order to be able to campaign to take rights away you should be able to sit down with half a dozen of the people you want to take the rights from, look them in the eye, enumerate the rights you are taking away from them and show you have understood how much destroying their families will hurt them (because that is literally what you are trying to do) and listen to their responses. ...

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0