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

[anything I don't mind]

These days marriage means nothing more than a legal contract. Grandmas with visa problems, gays and straight people with infatuations. There is no practicality to modern western marriage. That is why a lot fail terribly.

A lot straight people are advocating for marriage reform (me being one of them) but gays seemingly want in on all that trouble. Maybe they have visa problems of their own...

I think I hit the point right on the head, unless you were arguing a position you don't hold as a means of arguing against it.

I think a lot of it is people just don't want to understand what i am saying. This guy from firefox donated to the bill to stop gay marriage. So i was making the point that people who vote like that might just be advocating the natural family and not necessarily be against gays. Then I went on to explain that the natural family or traditional family or nuclear family is vital component for the successful continuation of the species. This is where i tried to explain the difference to opinion between the nuclear family and what the gays advocate and explain that whole thing. You understand? the word natural is not the point per se. Like i said there is always exceptions. I was speaking in a general sense. Just pointing out a bunch of exceptions does not mean that you refuted the importance of the natural family.

 

[Angilion]

In that case you are admitting they are less than, a second class citizen, they can have something that's like marriage but they can't have marriage because they might hurt the feelings of some married people.

No, you aren't.

You would have a point if civil partnership was less than marriage, but it isn't. It's exactly the same thing.

This is about (a) arguing over a word that has no actual meaning and (b) asserting dominance.

After it's done, something else will be chosen for a fight and to assert dominance. There will always be something to be found for that purpose.

 

[cheesyboy]

It's not just a personal opinion. 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.

Anyone who votes tries to influence the law of the land. Anyone who joins a trade union tries to change the law of the land. Anyone who signs an online petition tries to change the law of the land.

None of those things are illegal or even immoral.

You ignored the important context, which I've underlined and emboldened to help you.

I was responding to the suggestion that "it's just a personal opinion". And it isn't just a personal opinion. He's made a public donation to help carry his discriminatory opinion into discriminatory law. His hope, presumably, being that his donation will further the cause of making sure gays actually get discriminated against. That is rather more serious than just holding a "personal opinion"

 

[cheesyboy]

Boycotting Mozilla to try and get a guy fired because he has an opinion you disagree with - fascist!

Boycotting something because you have a genuine moral issue with the entity's conduct is surely what every right minded person should be doing, whatever that moral issue may be.

 

[Angilion]

[..]Then I went on to explain that the natural family or traditional family or nuclear family is vital component for the successful continuation of the species. This is where i tried to explain the difference to opinion between the nuclear family and what the gays advocate and explain that whole think. You understand? the word natural is not the point per se. Like i said there is always exceptions. I was speaking in a general sense. Just pointing out a bunch of exceptions does not mean that you refuted the importance of the natural family.

Right, so I did hit the point right on the head.

If you really thought that "the word natural is not the point per se", you wouldn't be using it over and over and over again as the sole support for your position. It's the only point you have, and it's completely irrelevant and wrong.

 

[spudbynight]

Boycotting something because you have a genuine moral issue with the entity's conduct is surely what every right minded person should be doing, whatever that moral issue may be.

Mozilla don't "sell gay marriage". It isn't part of their core business.

The usual fascist loons are conspiring to deny this man the right to even hold an opinion.

This guy holding an opinion on marriage doesn't impact on his ability to act as CEO of Mozilla.

 

[RDM]

Mozilla don't "sell gay marriage". It isn't part of their core business.

The usual fascist loons are conspiring to deny this man the right to even hold an opinion.

This guy holding an opinion on marriage doesn't impact on his ability to act as CEO of Mozilla.

No one is stopping him having an opinion, however others disagree with that opinion why should they keep quiet?

 

[elmarko]

No one is stopping him having an opinion, however others disagree with that opinion why should they keep quiet?

Indeed.

He is free to have an opinion, just others are free to do business elsewhere if they find it offensive & challenge it if they don't agree with it.

Freedom of opinion isn't the same as immunity to that opinion being challenged.

I actually find it depressing these distinctions need to be put into text, it's hardly complicated stuff here.

 

[Tombo]

but that would be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face surely. javascript there is no alternative. firefox there is a simple one. it's made a point without a cost to them, what's wrong with that? they can continue doing what they do, and by free to support what they support without a risk of shareholders telling them not to as it destroys their website (by not using javascipt).

"Hi gay friends, I'm going to do something of no consequence to myself to show that I support you, I'm not going to actually do anything that takes any effort because you really aren't worth that much to me."

I'm quite sure that the majority of the shareholders support gay rights but they aren't willing to stop using technologies that the people who oppose gay rights created. It makes absolutely no difference to okcupid for example what browsers their users are using so they are willing to support that.

It just seems like an empty gesture to me and I'm more offended by that than the opinions of one man.

 

[FoxEye]

Boycotting is the very principle of capitalism and the free market, it is the antithesis of fascism.

His position is directly in contradiction with the companies own principles, that is a clear conflict of interest that undermines the company and is not about one man but about the companies practices.

It is clearly unethical for this guy to be getting paid god knows how much from a company that is claiming to be supporting sexual freedom and being donated to on the basis of such.

I thought Mozilla made a browser and a mail client and stuff.

I didn't realise they had a mandate to promote gay rights.

In that case, I agree with you. It does seem odd that a company focused on promoting gay rights would appoint a CEO opposed to gay marriage.

Another HR **** up

 

[Tombo]

It does seem odd that a company focused on promoting gay rights would appoint a CEO opposed to gay marriage.

Well I assume he wasn't going to stop them promoting it, maybe they realised that personal politics come second to other concerns in business, either way I doubt they even thought about it, was it previously well known that he opposed gay marriage?

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Isn't Mozilla a non-profit organisation anyway ?

 

[woofercooker]

im gay and will continue to use firefox because i love it. Even if the ceo hates me im still happy his company have made a gr8 web browser for me to use.

 

[Craterloads]

No one is stopping him having an opinion, however others disagrees with that opinion why should they keep quiet?

I think the ultimatum put forward of either announce you have changed your views or resign pretty much disagree with that assessment. When did disagreeing with an opinion turn into forcibly changing one of others?

 

[Craterloads]

im gay and will continue to use firefox because i love it. Even if the ceo hates me im still happy his company have made a gr8 web browser for me to use.

How do we get from not supporting gay marriage, a perfectly reasonable position, to hating gays

 

[RDM]

I think the ultimatum put forward of either announce you have changed your views or resign pretty much disagree with that assessment. When did disagreeing with an opinion turn into forcibly changing one of others?

They aren't forcibly changing anything. He can still choose to do and say what he likes. Much like they can choose not to support the products his company provides.

 

[RDM]

How do we get from not supporting gay marriage, a perfectly reasonable position, to hating gays

He wasn't "not supporting gay marriage" he was "deliberately opposing gay marriage". I can perfectly understand not personally agreeing or wanting gay marriage however no one has managed a reasonable argument for why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

[unwashed potato!]

"Hi gay friends, I'm going to do something of no consequence to myself to show that I support you, I'm not going to actually do anything that takes any effort because you really aren't worth that much to me."

I'm quite sure that the majority of the shareholders support gay rights but they aren't willing to stop using technologies that the people who oppose gay rights created. It makes absolutely no difference to okcupid for example what browsers their users are using so they are willing to support that.

It just seems like an empty gesture to me and I'm more offended by that than the opinions of one man.

i don't see why doing something has to have a consequence? it makes much more business sense to show support in ways that don't have negative consequences to your business then ones that do.

i think the reason that there is the response that there is regarding mozilla is because they market themselves as a business about the employees and those working there, the group of fun open minded people who are looking to the future and ways of making lives better etc, then they go and hire someone as the top dog who has donated to a cause that many millions of people would agree makes lives worse and is [potentially] of a bigoted view that is quickly dying out becoming less and less relevant.

 

[Craterloads]

They aren't forcibly changing anything. He can still choose to do and say what he likes. Much like they can choose not to support the products his company provides.

Either announce you have changed your views or resign, doesn't really fit within that description. There are only two options, neither are and at guess ones the CEO is looking forward to doing.

 

[Craterloads]

He wasn't "not supporting gay marriage" he was "deliberately opposing gay marriage". I can perfectly understand not personally agreeing or wanting gay marriage however no one has managed a reasonable argument for why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

What you find reasonable and what someone else does are two different things. Believing marriage is between man and woman is reasonable to many.

So he is only allowed to have views, but not support them?