|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mozilla CEO Steps Down Because He is Anti-Same-Sex Marriage
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's a ways and means argument, stonespring. Repeal of a Civil Right is not the same as establishment of a Civil Right.
Of course you are not hamstrung. It remains possible to lobby, to canvas opinion, to make proposals for change. But the costs born by others as a result of repeal are different. You are using a liberty to remove a liberty. So the consequential issues of actual harm come into play.
That is a different and wider moral argument to those in play when considering whether same-sex marriage is a civil right that any civilised society should allow simply as a matter of fairness. Essentially, the wider argument is about the just exercise of human liberties.
--------------------
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
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
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]
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
In related news, the founder of OKCupid (the dating website that asked users not to use Firefox back when Eich was CEO of Mozilla), donated to the campaign of an anti-gay rights Republican Congressman from Utah. When it came to light, he explained that he made the donation because he was the ranking member on a congressional committee that handled legislation involving OkCupid so the donation was just a business decision and not due to any religious belief - but that he did not know about the politician's stances on gay rights at the time, the donation was a mistake and that he apologizes. Yes, a candidate (whom you are trying to influence and who has multiple positions) is different than a referendum (which is about one side or other of a particular issue) - and he apologized when it came to light. 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).
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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).
"[T]he fishbowl-type treatment of Eich" is better known as "California's campaign contribution disclosure laws", and they apply equally to all monetary contributions above a certain dollar level. When you say other CEO's "are just better at keeping their political activities private", are you positing that they use some kind of fictitious "straw donor" scam to conceal their political activities? Because that kind of thing is illegal.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
"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...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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...
Why only "current politics"? I'm pretty sure most people who made campaign contributions to Strom Thurmond (to cite a particularly odious example) were more interested in his position as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee than they were in his racist views. As SS pointed out, that level of subtlety is not really a consideration with a referendum, which only has one purpose/viewpoint.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just to emphasise the point about the sheer nastiness (and unChristianness) of the Prop. 8 campaign, just for Orfeo, and anyone else, to read: Bruce Garrett on Brendan Eich
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And here is bilgrimage's take: The Brendan Eich Gay Mafia Furor
Guess who is suffering now that their privilege is being challenged? "but we're allowed to despise people - and the poor people have to live with it" - no longer
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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]
Dear Customer,
You Suck for not having immediately joined my boycott.
Sincerely,
Nameless Website.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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?
Nope. Because the outrage of the right wing against the legalisation of gay marriage is about as justified as the outrage of the right wing against Loving v. Virginia. You are trying to create a hypothetical world in which the sides are equal - and they aren't.
That said, although the outrage that somewhere people they don't know (or even ones they do) can express their love isn't justified, the method chosen to express the outrage is justified.
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?
Once more you are talking about hypothetical abstracts and ignoring the cost to people.
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. And no, the rights don't stop at "The right to get married". They go far beyond that. All the consequences of marriage. Such as hospitals and medical treatment.
If they can do that while accepting the consequences they are talking about, they are either made of steel, they are heartless, they are sadists, or they are moustache twirling villains. Only the first group is worthy of any respect. And if they can't do that then they should ask themselves why not.
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?
Because before it became law you are preventing things from happening. After you are literally trying to destroy families. Are there times when the destruction of families is morally the right thing to do? Yes. Social workers take children into care for very good reasons. But they normally have the guts to at least face the families and tell them why. And taking children into care is a last resort.
I'd have a whole lot more respect for the anti-gay-marriage crowd if they were honest enough to say "We accept that we are trying to destroy families. But that is a small price to pay to oppose this." They however do not seem to take this part seriously. Ever.
The sides are not equal.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
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?
The evangelical right in this country fights hard for the idea that they should be free not to do business with anyone whom they disagree:
Getting gay married? I'm not going to bake a cake for your party. Mother's a slut? Sorry little Timmy, you can't come to kindergarten here because our school has a morality covenant. Support Democrats? I won't shop at your business. Voted for a bill to provide birth control to all wanton harlots? You can't take communion here any more.
They vote with their feet, and that's their right. When the pro-equality crowd do the same and decide not to patronize a company led by a bigot, that's their right, and the company has the right to make a business decision. And the mewling and weeping and gnashing of teeth by the evo right is just transparent, childish hypocrisy.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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. ...
The "traditional marriage" campaigners should also have to explain just what it is that is so horrible and wrong with those people and why they deserve to have their families destroyed. And explain how the horrible wrongness of them having families is hurting other people so the government must destroy their families to protect everyone else.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
