Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[Imaginaerum]

I dare say they would.  They might even be very loud,  I think it would b hard to tell if they had the same impact though.  Especially given the polls on the subject are very difficult to analyze and find any consistencies.

I agree, but I also agree it's just complete speculation. It's fun to wonder

[meritmaster]

What has this guy done to get demonized? 

 

Just because he doesn't support gay marriage, doesn't make him a bad guy!

 

He is expressing his right, and liberty to speak how HE pleases.

 

He has the right to think for himself, no matter how bad YOU think it is; HE has a right.

 

He hires gays!

 

He is also a huge supporter, and believer of equal rights in the work place.

 

Lets not us be bigots.

 

Let us judge a man on his merit, and not political nonsense  

[jmaster299]

So you don't interpret the 14th amendment that states "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

 

To read that by denying homosexuals the right to marriage they are in fact ,under the law they have written, abridging the privileges afforded to married heterosexuals? 

 

And on top of that if you deny a homosexuals the right to marriage, then you are also denying them the right to The marital confidences privilege. which is a law that protects a person from testifying against their spouse, it does not survive the marriage and thus does not apply to any union not current under the marriage act.  which means that by denying gay marriage you are in fact breaking the 14th amendment because the state is not allowed to deny any person the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage, gay or straight. Also, if you had half a brain, you would know I am strictly debating the individuals right to have their own opinion and to participate in the legal political process with out being punished for it. This guy made the donation 6 YEARS ago, and a pro-gay company went digging for dirt for the sole purpose of getting this guy fired.

With that, I'll leave this here and is 100% makes my point for me. A person can believe what ever the hell they want, and can follow the legal and political process to have those beliefs either affirmed or denied. 

http://www.caintv.com/gay-activists-destroy-another

[beebskadoo]

This. The fun thing about slippery slope arguments is that, sometimes, they are true. Very true. So you can't just dismiss them when they come up.

 

Obviously, but you don't get it. People ridiculing him for his views on gay marriage should not have anything to do with his appointment as the CEO of Mozilla. 

If you say otherwise, you are effectively saying that people who do not hold this view of yours don't deserve a job. Or at least a job leading a company. 

How does that make you different? I mean really.

I'm assuming you're not saying that since you obviously want equality.

I took what he said completely differently.

People see what they want to see.

You don't understand my position on this apparently.

 

Do I think he should have been made to resign? No, I have stated that.

 

Does Mozilla have a valid reason to pressure him into resigning? Yes, they have a right to pressure someone who has morals and ideals that directly interfere and contradict their bottom like. Mozilla has a history of supporting equality. what the CEO did hurt their image as a company. This is why a lot of CEO's remain silent on touchy issues.

 

It's just how the corporate game is played.

[Vitalius]

You don't understand my position on this apparently.

 

Do I think he should have been made to resign? No, I have stated that.

 

Does Mozilla have a valid reason to pressure him into resigning? Yes, they have a right to pressure someone who has morals and ideals that directly interfere and contradict their bottom like. Mozilla has a history of supporting equality. what the CEO did hurt their image as a company. This is why a lot of CEO's remain silent on touchy issues.

 

It's just how the corporate game is played.

Ah, k then. My bad.

[beebskadoo]

Ah, k then. My bad.

It's cool

 

 

 

I still love you

#hugs

[Vitalius]

It's cool

 

I still love you

#hugs

#hugs

#NoHomo

#TheIrony

#ThanksForTheSetup

[beebskadoo]

#hugs

#NoHomo

#TheIrony

#ThanksForTheSetup

hahaha

 

I love it!

[beebskadoo]

So Linus just mentioned this thread on the WAN show....

 

 

Trolls incoming!

 

#PrepareYourAnus

[Hoppa]

If they're looking for a new CEO, then where do I put in my resume?

But yeah, I have no serious comment on the situation.

It's kind of like donating to a marijuana foundation or something, it's illegal in some places it's legal in others. People may hate it, people may support it.

[Victorious Secret]

So Linus just mentioned this thread on the WAN show....

Trolls incoming!

#PrepareYourAnus

We're famous.

Good job assholes, our collective idiocy might even end up on reddit!!!

[othertomperson]

He didn't express an opinion though, he donated to an organisation in favour of Proposition 8 which represented the imposition of a restriction of rights of non-heterosexual people by heterosexual people.

 

There's a difference between expressing a bigoted viewpoint, and taking an action to make your bigoted viewpoint law, which is what he did. Mozilla are right, it goes completely against the ethos of Open Source (which has freedom at its core) which is what makes it relevant to his position as CEO.

 

That's without even getting into the fact that putting the rights of a subset of society up for public debate and vote is obscene.

[bluepoodleguy]

We believe in tolerance and since you don't agree with us you can't work here regardless of your contribution to the Mozilla project. Hmmm did I miss something?

[mr moose]

The 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage, gay or straight. Also, if you had half a brain, you would know I am strictly debating the individuals right to have their own opinion and to participate in the legal political process with out being punished for it. This guy made the donation 6 YEARS ago, and a pro-gay company went digging for dirt for the sole purpose of getting this guy fired.

With that, I'll leave this here and is 100% makes my point for me. A person can believe what ever the hell they want, and can follow the legal and political process to have those beliefs either affirmed or denied. 

http://www.caintv.com/gay-activists-destroy-another

 

Insults are the last resort of a failed argument.

 

It seems you don't understand what is being discussed here.  While laws that protect the rights for married people but are not extended to same sex couples then you have a breach of the constitution, the constitution guarantees equality under law,  therefore either no one receives privileges under law for being married or the law must be extended to all.   The constitution guarantees that everybody be subject to the same law, not one for hetero and one for gay, one for everybody.  If hetero has the right to marry and receive legal privileges then the constitution guarantees that homosexuals do to.  

 

It's not that complicated.

 

Who cares how long ago, he made a donation to a campaign to enforce unconstitutional laws on on other people.  People don't like that and have a right to protest it.

You seem to be labouring on the belief that we think he shouldn't have the right to support whatever policies he likes. That just not true, no one in this thread has said he shouldn't be allowed to donate to anti gay lobby groups or voice his opinion, what we are saying is that if you voice your opinion and people don't like it you have to wear the consequences of that.  There is a big difference between having the right to say something and suffering the consequences for saying.  

[BloodyPalace]

The 14th Amendment says nothing about marriage, gay or straight. Also, if you had half a brain, you would know I am strictly debating the individuals right to have their own opinion and to participate in the legal political process with out being punished for it. This guy made the donation 6 YEARS ago, and a pro-gay company went digging for dirt for the sole purpose of getting this guy fired.

With that, I'll leave this here and is 100% makes my point for me. A person can believe what ever the hell they want, and can follow the legal and political process to have those beliefs either affirmed or denied. 

http://www.caintv.com/gay-activists-destroy-another

 

Being anti-gay is no different than being openly racist. You can't dislike somebody based on traits that they're born with, be it skin color or sexual orientation. People are free to express their opinion but when you go out of your way and spend 1000 bucks to oppress another group of people, then you're crossing a line.

[Ashley]

Being anti-gay is no different than being openly racist. You can't dislike somebody based on traits that they're born with, be it skin color or sexual orientation. People are free to express their opinion but when you go out of your way to spend 1000 bucks to oppress another group of people, then you're crossing a line.

You can't say one oppression is the same as another. It's a false equivalence.

But I agree that a person in an authority position should not have bigoted viewpoints. People are arguing "oh free speech free speech". Free speech doesn't mean you can't be held accountable for your speech.

You can't call me a dyke and not expect me to get pissed off at you, then turn around and say "oh free speech" and then expect me to shut up, or anybody else for that matter. This isn't the government making a law saying "no body can say or act in such a way that is bigoted towards gay people", that would be a freedom of speech issue.

[SSL]

who cares?  all the people who's freedoms have been removed care, all the people who have no medical authority over their dying partner care, all the people who don't automatically inherit their spouses property after a death and have to fight for it through the courts even though they already own half of it care.   It is not some trivial policy support, his actions directly removed the freedoms from homosexuals that heterosexuals take for granted.

 

How good he is with programing, computers, board meetings etc is irrelevant, A good CEO will protect the company he works for, and by that I mean he will appologise for offending people, rescind stupid remarks, doing anything he can to undo the damage that falls upon the business after the fact.  He did nothing which means he is a poor ceo choice. 

 

I was doing a sarcasm, sorry.

[loganryan99]

How freaking entitled do you have to be to think that you can share your bigoted opinions and then lead a company with an open and  progressive atmosphere? 

 

Sure, he's perfectly fine sharing his opinion, but that doesn't mean people can't judge him for it. Free speech means you don't have any legal consequences for your opinion, it DOES NOT mean you don't have social consequences.

[Vitalius]

Being anti-gay is no different than being openly racist. You can't dislike somebody based on traits that they're born with, be it skin color or sexual orientation. People are free to express their opinion but when you go out of your way and spend 1000 bucks to oppress another group of people, then you're crossing a line.

Scientifically prove where I put my penis or what goes in my anus isn't my choice and I'll agree with you. 

If I mold metal, I'm a blacksmith.

If I cut wood, I'm a carpenter.

If I have a desire to cut wood, but kill that desire and choose to mold metal, what am I? Carpenter or Blacksmith? 

My point isn't that you should pick one over the other, but that you can. 

People seem to get caught up on this, so let me clarify it with a question: What do you define sexuality as? What you actively have sex with (or seek to), or what you desire to have sex with? 

I think that's a huge disconnect in conversation about this honestly. I define it as the former. You can't entirely control what initial desires you have, I agree with that, but I think the idea that you can't actively mold those desires based on choices you make isn't right.

[beebskadoo]

Scientifically prove where I put my penis or what goes in my anus isn't my choice and I'll agree with you. 

If I mold metal, I'm a blacksmith.

If I cut wood, I'm a carpenter.

If I have a desire to cut wood, but kill that desire and choose to mold metal, what am I? Carpenter or Blacksmith? 

My point isn't that you should pick one over the other, but that you can. 

People seem to get caught up on this, so let me clarify it with a question: What do you define sexuality as? What you actively have sex with (or seek to), or what you desire to have sex with? 

I think that's a huge disconnect in conversation about this honestly. I define it as the former. You can't entirely control what initial desires you have, I agree with that, but I think the idea that you can't actively mold those desires based on choices you make isn't right.

You can't choose what your sexuality is. Honestly you can not. I tried, didn't happen and I ended up hating myself for it. 

 

But human sexuality isn't easily summed up. There are entire fields of study dedicated to sexual attraction, gender identity and sexual orientation.

 

Sexuality is a mix of gender identity, orientation and attraction. It is defined by the ability to have erotic experiences and feelings.

 

It is EXTREMELY COMPLICATED. 

 

Where you put your penis is certainly your choice, but who you are attracted to is not up to you to decide.

[Whiskers]

...

If you want to prove that sexuality is a choice I suggest that you have sex with men for a couple of weeks and see how it goes.

[beebskadoo]

If you want to prove that sexuality is a choice I suggest that you have sex with men for a couple of weeks and see how it goes.

Exactly, no one should force themselves to do something like that if they don't want to. because it damages you!

[Whiskers]

Exactly, no one should force themselves to do something like that if they don't want to. because it damages you!

Precisely.

One can force themselves to sleep with people they are not attracted to but that does not mean they have changed their sexuality.

[beebskadoo]

Precisely.

One can force themselves to sleep with people they are not attracted to but that does not mean they have changed their sexuality.

Gay men get married to women all the time to try to change themselves. This ends badly...

And vice versa.

[Vitalius]

You can't choose what your sexuality is. Honestly you can not. I tried, didn't happen and I ended up hating myself for it. 

 

But human sexuality isn't easily summed up. There are entire fields of study dedicated to sexual attraction, gender identity and sexual orientation.

 

Sexuality is a mix of gender identity, orientation and attraction. It is defined by the ability to have erotic experiences and feelings.

 

It is EXTREMELY COMPLICATED. 

 

Where you put your penis is certainly your choice, but who you are attracted to is not up to you to decide.

I disagree. Apparently I've either figured out something other people haven't (i.e. I'm right, you are wrong), or was born with some gene that lets me do something you can't (i.e You are right and I'm wrong, but I'm an exception to your experience). 

I believe the former because I don't believe I'm so lucky.

 

If you want to prove that sexuality is a choice I suggest that you have sex with men for a couple of weeks and see how it goes.

Many people have likely done this before me.

This is the internet. Short of me videoing the various acts, I see no purpose in this as I can't prove it was done.

If it's any consolation, I've been closer to sex with a man than a woman. 

Take your pick with why that's not happening.

 

Exactly, no one should force themselves to do something like that if they don't want to. because it damages you!

If you don't accept it, of course it does. 

There's a difference between choosing to deny desires and choosing to accept your choice to deny said desires. Like you said, it's more complicated than strictly saying no. I never intended to make it sound simple. I only intended to say that it can be done. 

If what is on the internet can be believed, I've ventured into dark corners of the internet where people claim to be able to be sexually attracted to anything based on thinking about those things erotically over time while killing those feelings toward other things. Which makes perfect sense considering humans are animals in terms of their most base desires.

 

Precisely.

One can force themselves to sleep with people they are not attracted to but that does not mean they have changed their sexuality.

I disagree because of the above.

 

Gay people get married to women all the time to try to change themselves. This ends badly...

And I believe that's because they can't accept such a change. 

I do similar things with other, less "taboo" aspects of my life. I doubt it's different because they are both based on desires.