Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[ajoy39]

Marriage is not a right. That's the entire rub. There's a right to practice religion. Some religions hold certain views that do not allow the same privileges to everyone. But it is their right to do so.

Marriage is a right, and it comes with further legal benefits that should be extended to all couples who wish to partake. The religious ceremony of marriage is separate from the legal proceedings and the legal implications of marriage, you are correct there, and a church who opposes gay marriage should not be forced to perform the ceremony, but they have no right to deny that a couple be married overall. Just not by them. 

[beebskadoo]

I've always thought how hilarious it'd be if all the churches were forced by law to accommodate gay marriage. The potential for trolling would be fantastic!

No one is advocating that though...

 

Only thing that is advocated is business that don't serve LGBT individuals because of religious reasons.

Churches have tax exempt status so they are technically not a business (even though they definitely are and shouldn't be tax exempt) IMHO of course

[mr moose]

I've always thought how hilarious it'd be if all the churches were forced by law to accommodate gay marriage. The potential for trolling would be fantastic!

 

And if they were that would be just as horrendous a miscarriage of civil liberty as not allowing gay marriage.

 

But your right the trolling would probably be enough to start the next holy war.

[Common_Courtesy]

And neither of those concepts are rights.

How would you feel if someone took away your ability to marry the one you love and all the benefits that brings? I imagine you would be annoyed, or at last most people would. Its also safe to assume that you would want that ability back. My point is that sometimes its not about rights in the legal sense (even though marriage is a right) and more about whats best and fair for the people. Denying marriage just because you don't like the minority they belong to is just flat out wrong, especially seeing as marriage is concept that applies to both religious and non religious people. 

[beebskadoo]

It really did turn into a train crash isn't it? I like the fact that a mod hasn't come here weilding double ban hammers, if this was the escapist forums we would all be dead. (fuck the escapist mods)

You must be really new here...

 

No one gets banned over civilized discussion.

I mean sometimes even @mr moose and I disagree on stuff. we aren't banned or warned because of it.

[cae]

Everyone has the right to get married if they want, who are you to say they don't?

 

I'm nobody. I'm just saying there is no constitutionally protected "right to marriage." I believe everyone should have the privilege of marriage, but currently the rights of many religions and states trump that belief.

[mr moose]

Churches have tax exempt status so they are technically not a business (even though they definitely are and shouldn't be tax exempt) IMHO of course

 

It sounds to me that some of those churches simply should not exist, however In Australia there are small pockets of churches that actually put more into the community through actual fair dinkum on the ground work than they get in tax breaks,   Some even exceed mainstream charities for actual money spent on programs versus money spent on maintenance.

[beebskadoo]

I'm nobody.

Reminds me of this epic quote.

[Camul]

It really did turn into a train crash isn't it? I like the fact that a mod hasn't come here weilding double ban hammers, if this was the escapist forums we would all be dead. (fuck the escapist mods)

Everything about that community is toxic anyway. Shame since they produce so much great content.

[beebskadoo]

It sounds to me that some of those churches simply should not exist, however In Australia there are small pockets of churches that actually put more into the community through actual fair dinkum on the ground work than they get in tax breaks, Some even exceed mainstream charities for actual money spent on programs versus money spent on maintenance.

Most churches in the US express definite political affiliation. Basically lobby groups.

Everything about that community is toxic anyway. Shame since they produce so much great content.

HOW?

[solosdk]

Warning: Religious debate incoming

 

Hurt feelings approaching.

 

I am really trying not to have another one of these 'discussions'

Look mate, I don't care if you're gay. Im not to going to come to your house and tell you that you mustn't be gay. These are just my views, my religion opposes it and since your are not part of this religion I have no say in your views. It would be different if it was another person who was part of the same religion though.

[LAwLz]

Haven't read the thread but I want to give my 2 cents as well.

 

I think this is silly. Sure the guy is an idiot for being against gay-marriage but he worked for Mozilla. I could understand if he was a politician and had the power to make decisions about gay-marriage, but he didn't. It seems like people didn't even give him a chance to do some work as a CEO for a tech company, just because he held some stupid opinions about something completely unrelated to what the company is actually about. You might as well flame Jen-Hsun (CEO of Nvidia) for not liking Nutella. Him not liking Nutella is stupid, but if it doesn't affect his role as a CEO then who cares?

Overall I think it's a good move that he resigned. The backlash was pretty big and people quit and started hating on Firefox because of it, so hopefully things will go back to normal after this. I think it was stupid to cause an uproar over it to begin with though.

[cae]

How would you feel if someone took away your ability to marry the one you love and all the benefits that brings? I imagine you would be annoyed, or at last most people would. Its also safe to assume that you would want that ability back. My point is that sometimes its not about rights in the legal sense (even though marriage is a right) and more about whats best and fair for the people.  

 

Benefits? Like financially granted by the state? That is a privilege, like being granted a driver's license. Not everyone is granted a driver's license, because you do not have a right to drive a vehicle. Not everyone is granted the privilege of marriage, because you do not have a right to marriage. I understand the struggle this places on some people, and fully support their privilege to marry. To attempt to guide this back on track - I do not believe that a smear campaign on a CEO that did not hold the same beliefs is really doing much to help fight for that privilege.

[beebskadoo]

Look mate, I don't care if you're gay. Im not to going to come to your house and tell you that you mustn't be gay. These are just my views, my religion opposes it and since your are not part of this religion I have no say in your views. It would be different if it was another person who was part of the same religion though.

I was once a Christian.

I can very well argue both for and against homosexuality using just what the bible says.

but I won't.

 

I really really really really really want to, but I won't. 

[mr moose]

I'm nobody. I'm just saying there is no constitutionally protected "right to marriage." I believe everyone should have the privilege of marriage, but currently the rights of many religions and states trump that belief.

I think you'll find it under civil liberties -14th amendment:

 

The Fourteenth Amendment placed an important federal limitation on the states by forbidding them to deny to any person “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and guaranteeing every person within a state’s jurisdiction “the equal protection of its laws.”

 

 

Liberty being freedom.

[ajoy39]

I'm nobody. I'm just saying there is no constitutionally protected "right to marriage." I believe everyone should have the privilege of marriage, but currently the rights of many religions and states trump that belief.

This is partially true, there is nowhere in the constitution where we are given the right to marry but there is an amendment to the constitution that states that all US citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law, therefore denying citizens the right to get married and take advantage of the legal protections that legal marriage provides, that amendment is being violated. So while, no, the constitution doesn't directly guarantee the right to marriage it does so indirectly. 

[solosdk]

I was once a Christian.

I can very well argue both for and against homosexuality using just what the bible says.

but I won't.

 

I really really really really really want to, but I won't.

No, go ahead I'd like to hear it!

[beebskadoo]

No, go ahead I'd like to hear it!

No, I have debated this topic waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much on this forum.

It doesn't turn uncivilized but it does get my blood boiling.

 

So do us a favor and drop it.

[Whiskers]

I find it, on a personal level, quite disheartening that so many people in this thread think his position as CEO wasn't a big deal.

 

He's shown in the past that he's entirely willing to use the money that he makes from his job to actively fight against equal rights. His position has been unequivocal in the media - he does not regret what he did and maintains that he may do it again. A man with such an outlook is not fit for the position of CEO in a company where he will no doubt have LGBT employees working under him and even less so a company which has a reputation to maintain of being extremely LGBT-inclusive. This is a large part of why so many people religiously use Firefox - brand loyalty, on account of the reputation of the company being absolutely supportive of equal rights for all. Having a CEO who actively fights against that is incredibly disruptive to their reputation and would eventually lead to fewer users.

 

I hate to say it, but I can't help feeling that if he were to have spent that money fighting against racial equality the furore would have been much larger and he would have probably been ousted immediately (and such would have been absolutely warranted). This situation just goes to show that equality still has quite a way to go for LGBT people.

[cae]

I think you'll find it under civil liberties -14th amendment:

 

 

Liberty being freedom.

 

And neither of those are marriage.

[jecho]

Close-minded people. Close-minded people everywhere.

 

God forbid we judge a man by merit.

God forbid he have his own personal views. I assume you have never judged someone in your life (rolls eyes).

[solosdk]

No, I have debated this topic waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much on this forum.

It doesn't turn uncivilized but it does get my blood boiling.

 

So do us a favor and drop it.

Ok cool. But I guess most of the people will "hate" me for my views now, eh

[Murdoch]

I find it, on a personal level, quite disheartening that so many people in this thread think his position as CEO wasn't a big deal.

 

He's shown in the past that he's entirely willing to use the money that he makes from his job to actively fight against equal rights. His position has been unequivocal in the media - he does not regret what he did and maintains that he may do it again. A man with such an outlook is not fit for the position of CEO in a company where he will no doubt have LGBT employees working under him and even less so a company which has a reputation to maintain of being extremely LGBT-inclusive. This is a large part of why so many people religiously use Firefox - brand loyalty, on account of the reputation of the company being absolutely supportive of equal rights for all. Having a CEO who actively fights against that is incredibly disruptive to their reputation and would eventually lead to fewer users.

 

I hate to say it, but I can't help feeling that if he were to have spent that money fighting against racial equality the furore would have been much larger and he would have probably been ousted immediately (and such would have been absolutely warranted). This situation just goes to show that equality still has quite a way to go for LGBT people.

 

Why hire him in the first place then? Makes no sense to me. If it was that big a deal?

[beebskadoo]

Ok cool. But I guess most of the people will "hate" me for my views now, eh

No, no one will hate you.

Bunnies

But I still love you <3

I find it, on a personal level, quite disheartening that so many people in this thread think his position as CEO wasn't a big deal.

He's shown in the past that he's entirely willing to use the money that he makes from his job to actively fight against equal rights. His position has been unequivocal in the media - he does not regret what he did and maintains that he may do it again. A man with such an outlook is not fit for the position of CEO in a company where he will no doubt have LGBT employees working under him and even less so a company which has a reputation to maintain of being extremely LGBT-inclusive. This is a large part of why so many people religiously use Firefox - brand loyalty, on account of the reputation of the company being absolutely supportive of equal rights for all. Having a CEO who actively fights against that is incredibly disruptive to their reputation and would eventually lead to fewer users.

I hate to say it, but I can't help feeling that if he were to have spent that money fighting against racial equality the furore would have been much larger and he would have probably been ousted immediately (and such would have been absolutely warranted). This situation just goes to show that equality still has quite a way to go for LGBT people.

His opinions definitely weren't those of the company as a whole. That is why he was basically let go.

[Whiskers]

Why hire him in the first place then? Makes no sense to me. If it was that big a deal?

 

It was a very silly move - I can only assume they were unaware of his history with equal rights or figured it wouldn't be much of an issue and no-one would catch on to it, which as we have now obviously seen was absolutely not the case.