whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance

[anything I don't mind]

Open source is not a political ideology it is a software development ethos. It has nothing to do with libertarianism or homosexuality.

Its basically gays want to get married so they can feel normal and accepted and now want to socially stigmatise anyone who does not agree with their choices as discriminatory. That makes sense. lol

 

[Richdog]

Who uses Firefox these days?

Ditto, Firefox was unstable to varying degrees on just about every system Ive ever installed it on. In contract, Chrome is bulletproof for me.

 

[antijoke]

It seems to me people want the same stigma attached to it that racism receives.

 

[pitchfork]

He's tried to influence the law of the land in favour of his opinion by publicly donating his own money to support a discriminatory legal bill.

Literally every business leader in this world does this, our government is basically owned by the private sector because of it. It's incredibly rare a decision is made in light of what is best for the people, it's often "best keep our donors happy" or otherwise going with the highest bidder.

I'm not gonna go use chrome though, Google has done way way way worse things than a bit of homophobic rubbish. And whats the alternative? IE? A potato?

The CEO doesn't make Firefox what it is, the community does.

 

[cheesyboy]

To be against gay marriage is not discrimination or oppression. Calling for the public boycott of a software organisation because the ceo donated towards a bill that wanted to prevent gay marriage is worse than simply being against gay marriage.

To be against gay marriage IS discriminatory, since you are making an exception for a particular group. It is NOT oppression, but a legal change to make it statute would be. Supporting, with public monetary donation, that very change to the law means you are both discriminating, and attempting to oppress.

Calling for people to voluntarily boycott is quite simply NOT worse than legally discriminating or oppressing people.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

To be against gay marriage is not discrimination or oppression.

How is it not discrimination???????????????

If you only let straight opposite sex couples marry then by very definition you are discriminating?

 

[mrk]

Inferior in the sense that it consistently crashes on my system for little attainable reason. I'm sure other people have their uses for it and it works great for them, but for me personally, I get on better with Chrome.

Now that's more like it.

And that's the post that should have been made above instead of the blanket statement which read as some kind of fact when it isn't.

Personally for me Firefox provides the better and more powerful browsing experience. It's stable and as fast as Chrome but has a more robust sync system and the extensions are better as is the bookmark manager which Google haven't updated in Chrome for years, even after many requests by countless people.

 

[cheesyboy]

Literally every business leader in this world does this, our government is basically owned by the private sector because of it.

They all directly support discriminatory legislation?

Are you quite sure?

 

[Richdog]

How is it not discrimination???????????????

If you only let straight opposite sex couples marry then by very definition you are discriminating?

Everyone has the right to disagree with anything, and gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, is one of those things that some people just cannot understand or advocate.

The problem is that he made it public, and as the CEO of a large company that is in the public eye you just cannot do that without committing career suicide.

 

[Gilly]

I was completely unaware of any of this. I don't frequent OKCupid, and I suppose the other sites I do frequent my adblocker has protected me from seeing this.

Not wanting gay marriage can be a reasonable position, depending on the reasoning.

 

[gjrc]

To be against gay marriage is not discrimination or oppression. Calling for the public boycott of a software organisation because the ceo donated towards a bill that wanted to prevent gay marriage is worse than simply being against gay marriage.

The ways the gays think is that anyone who does not support their gay marriage should be socially outcast. this is no different than the oppression the gays had to deal with in the past and makes them no better than the oppressors.

I don't see how being against gay marriage is something to be ashamed of? I don't think its controversial or of low character, in fact i think its the opposite.

Gays always failed to accept that people can be against gay marriage without being against gays or homosexuality in general. Some people are against gay marriage because they are for the natural family or rather want to retain the tradition of marriage. Which is far more controversial.

tl;dr attention seeking homosexuals at it again trying to bring further social acceptability to their sexual preference.

this

Open source is not a political ideology it is a software development ethos. It has nothing to do with libertarianism or homosexuality.

Its basically gays want to get married so they can feel normal and accepted and now want to socially stigmatise anyone who does not agree with their choices as discriminatory. That makes sense. lol

and this....

i feel i need say no more.

 

[anything I don't mind]

To be against gay marriage IS discriminatory, since you are making an exception for a particular group. It is NOT oppression, but a legal change to make it statute would be. Supporting, with public monetary donation, that very change to the law means you are both discriminating, and attempting to oppress.

Calling for people to voluntarily boycott is quite simply NOT worse than legally discriminating or oppressing people.

Being for gay marriage is discrimination against the tradition of marriage. The way that guy was treated only because he wants to retain the tradition of marriage was far worse than simply donating to a bill that would retain the tradition of marriage. Wanting to retain the tradition of marriage is not discrimination as marriage has always been that way. By allowing people to marry whatever object they want, that has reduced the significance of what it means to be married. If any one can marry their dog and whatever else they like having sex with. Then that is discrimination against all the people that wanted to raise a natural family using the institution of marriage as the basis.

 

[RDM]

I was completely unaware of any of this. I don't frequent OKCupid, and I suppose the other sites I do frequent my adblocker has protected me from seeing this.

Not wanting gay marriage can be a reasonable position, depending on the reasoning.

At the same time not wanting to use the services of a company that has a CEO that actively supported anti-gay legislation can also be a reasonable position.

 

[antijoke]

At the same time not wanting to use the services of a company that has a CEO that actively supported anti-gay legislation can also be a reasonable position.

Then they should also propose people stop using Javascript, the language he created.

 

[RDM]

Being for gay marriage is discrimination against the tradition of marriage.

How? How is restricting the rights of people less discriminatory than opening up those rights to more people? Your position so far makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

It's only a small step away from Firefox users being labelled as homophobic. Do we really want to get in to the situation where we have to check the acceptability of the opinions of all employees of companies whose products and services we use ?

It's quite a clever PR trick by OkCupid. I'm guessing their target demographic is youngsters.

 

[Cuchulain]

you arent entitled to your opinion when its discriminatory

did he put a huge "I HATE GAYS AND SO SHOULD YOU!" message somewhere in the code for Firefox?

 

[Gilly]

At the same time not wanting to use the services of a company that has a CEO that actively supported anti-gay legislation can also be a reasonable position.

Absolutely, and something that I had not argued against in my post.

I don't believe that I have seen anything citing the position of said CEO though. Is he against gay marriage because he hates gays, or for some other reason?

Being for gay marriage is discrimination against the tradition of marriage. The way that guy was treated only because he wants to retain the tradition of marriage was far worse than simply donating to a bill that would retain the tradition of marriage. Wanting to retain the tradition of marriage is not discrimination as marriage has always been that way. By allowing people to marry whatever object they want, that has reduced the significance of what it means to be married. If any one can marry their dog and whatever else they like having sex with. Then that is discrimination against all the people that wanted to raise a natural family using the institution of marriage as the basis.

No it isn't. It may, in their eyes, erode some of the sanctity or tradition of marriage, but it simply isn't discrimination.

 

[RDM]

Then they should also propose people stop using Javascript, the language he created.

Somewhat harder to do, but again, a reasonable choice if they feel it necessary.

 

[anything I don't mind]

How? How is restricting the rights of people less discriminatory than opening up those rights to more people? Your position so far makes absolutely no sense.

Well If i am an advocate of the natural family and traditional marriage and then you come a long and advocate to end that. You are discriminating against straight people's desire to have marriage in the traditional sense. By allowing gay marriage, straight people can still marry but it will never be the same again now. If anyone can marry anything then marriage is nothing more than a silly legal agreement. Its means nothing now. So gays discriminated against straight people by advocating same sex marriage.