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

[RDM]

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.

So you agree with his right to free speech but not their right to free speech? He can donate to anti gay causes but they cannot support a boycott?

The people calling for his resignation or apology can't fire him, but if enough people support them then it could make things problematic for Mozilla, which is pretty much what boycotts are all about.

 

[RDM]

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 give me a reasonable argument as to why gay people shouldn't be able to marry.

I don't like the taste of bananas, is it therefore reasonable to stop other people eating bananas?

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

No, he can support them. But if enough people disagree with them and want to do something about it then that is their right too.

 

[Craterloads]

So you agree with his right to free speech but not their right to free speech? He can donate to anti gay causes but they cannot support a boycott?

The people calling for his resignation or apology can't fire him, but if enough people support them then it could make things problematic for Mozilla, which is pretty much what boycotts are all about.

So again basically forcing him out or to change his views...

Has he said anything other than donating to a cause he agreed with umpteen years ago?

They not calling for an apology, they are calling for him to either announce he has changed his views or resign.

 

[Craterloads]

So give me a reasonable argument as to why gay people shouldn't be able to marry.

I don't like the taste of bananas, is it therefore reasonable to stop other people eating bananas?

You have one you just quoted, you might not find it reasonable but others do. A marriage between opposing sexes.

No, he can support them. But if enough people disagree with them and want to do something about it then that is their right too.

They are not simply disagreeing with him. Disagreeing with someone is, Me "i think that colour is blue" You "no I think it is green". Asking some to either change their view or resign is neither.

 

[RDM]

So again basically forcing him out or to change his views...

So basically you only agree with free speech if it supports your views?

Has he said anything other than donating to a cause he agreed with umpteen years ago?

Six years is hardly ancient history. But no, he hasn't said anything about his reasons for supporting Proposition 8.

They not calling for an apology, they are calling for him to either announce he has changed his views or resign.

And? People are free to listen to them or not. I could call for you to announce that you have changed your views or to be thrown off the forum but it doesn't mean it is going to happen.

 

[RDM]

You have one you just quoted, you might not find it reasonable but others do. A marriage between opposing sexes.

How is that a reasonable reason to stop OTHER PEOPLE getting married to people of the same sex? It sounds like a reasonable reason to not marry someone of the same sex yourself.

They are not simply disagreeing with him. Disagreeing with someone is, Me "i think that colour is blue" You "no I think it is green". Asking some to either change their view or resign is neither.

Right, so he is allowed to financially support a law designed to restrict the rights of homosexuals but they are only allowed to use polite language in return?

 

[FoxEye]

Yeah let's face it the boycott isn't ultimately about supporting free speech, lol.

It's about getting Mozilla a new CEO. It's saying "This man can't work for a company we support". Should Mozilla fire him, I imagine he would also find doors elsewhere to be closed.

This is also a message warning others with similar views to keep quiet or face similar campaigns against them. The conclusion is that anti-gay marriage opinions are being repressed.

I think some gay-rights activists are enjoying the irony. They have gone from a position where they felt repressed to a position where they are able to repress others.

 

[Feef]

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 would politely suggest that if you want to have any sort of sensible discussion about groups being marginalised or discriminated against, you probably shouldn't refer to them in a way that already suggests an us and them mentality before even beginning.

 

[Craterloads]

So basically you only agree with free speech if it supports your views?

I've not mentioned anything about free speech, only you have. The CEO has never made a speech. What these people are doing is exactly what you have stated above by forcibly giving him an ultimatum to change his views or resign and are performing actions to guarantee that latter because he doesn't support gay marriage, its absurd.

Six years is hardly ancient history. But no, he hasn't said anything about his reasons for supporting Proposition 8.

6 years is dam 6 years, its an awfull long time. So nothing about free speech then here, since he didn't make one.

And? People are free to listen to them or not. I could call for you to announce that you have changed your views or to be thrown off the forum but it doesn't mean it is going to happen.

The mere action goes against the principles of free speech. They are not only simply saying they are supporting with actions to guarantee they get what they want one way or another.

 

[Craterloads]

How is that a reasonable reason to stop OTHER PEOPLE getting married to people of the same sex? It sounds like a reasonable reason to not marry someone of the same sex yourself.

They are two completely different things, one is between same sexes one isn't. Like I said what YOU find reasonable is not what others do.

Right, so he is allowed to financially support a law designed to restrict the rights of homosexuals but they are only allowed to use polite language in return?

It would be the equivalent of him telling a gay person to either stop being gay or step down from your job. Polite language, making a statement, disagreeing with someone is completely different from forcibly giving a ultimatum of change your view or resign or we'll make sure you get fired. It's ridiculous.

 

[unwashed potato!]

I think some gay-rights activists are enjoying the irony. They have gone from a position where they felt repressed to a position where they are able to repress others.

obviously on a much smaller scale with a much smaller issue but surely that's just like saying it's ironic that after ww2 ended that we locked up the remaining nazi's because they were the ones who wanted to lock everyone else up.

 

[unwashed potato!]

You have one you just quoted, you might not find it reasonable but others do. A marriage between opposing sexes.

you still aren't giving a reason why same sex marriages can't happen, only that you think different sex marriages should. can you give a reason why same sex marriages shouldn't happen and how it effects different sex marriages?

They are not simply disagreeing with him. Disagreeing with someone is, Me "i think that colour is blue" You "no I think it is green". Asking some to either change their view or resign is neither.

it's not like that though. LGBT community have said i want to do what you can do, he's essentially said i don't want you doing what i can do and will use my money to stop it. they've said ok where possible i don't want to use your companies products, but will use them again if you say you've changed your mind or have left. If you don't I will continue to not use your products. i'm shocked anyone can support this chap and the donation to prop8 if his reason have been that he doesn't support gay marriage.

the reason i started this thread was to find out if that is indeed the reason, and we are still yet to find out. hopefully in the coming days we will get a statement from him/mozilla shedding some light on the situation.

 

[Gilly]

Separate but equal doesn't work m8.

What? That doesn't make sense in response to my post.

Anyway, I'm not against gay marriage and think it should work in exactly the same way as mixed marriage. I just don't see everything black and white, and when there were no quotes directly attributed to the man in question I posed a position that wasn't necessarily negative on his part.

 

[Gilly]

Basically people who see no importance in the natural family, usually have the opinion that single parents will raise children just as well as a two parent house hold.

Of course we know its possible, i did not ask whether you think single parents can raise children. The question was whether you think that they will raise children just as well or better than two parent households.

This is where we have a difference of opinion. Of course there are always exceptions and a lot of great people were raised by single parents.

Statistically single parent house holds do not raise children as well as households with two parents, for obvious reasons. The idea from the LGBT is that the natural family does not exist and is not important. This is where we have the difference of opinion. The LGBT can not advocate gay marriage without ultimately denying the importance of natural family. Thus LGBT and modern liberalism push this idea that single mom's are just as capable of raising children as married couples, this of course is taught to school children and increase the amount of single parent households.

I think we will have to agree to disagree as I am done repeating/explaining this.

You asked if they can. The answer is yes. I've had enough of your gay hate.

 

[cheesyboy]

It would be the equivalent of him telling a gay person to either stop being gay or step down from your job. Polite language, making a statement, disagreeing with someone is completely different from forcibly giving a ultimatum of change your view or resign or we'll make sure you get fired. It's ridiculous.

That's not an equivalent at all

Being gay doesn't in any way restrict other peoples' rights. Funding a bill to restrict other peoples' rights....does.

When those restricted rights are inflicted upon a specific group, but not on others, that's called discrimination.

 

[RDM]

They are two completely different things, one is between same sexes one isn't. Like I said what YOU find reasonable is not what others do.

You are not really making any sense here. I get that you, for whatever reason, don't agree with gay marriage. What I don't get is why you think it is right that others that do not share your views are forced to follow them?

It would be the equivalent of him telling a gay person to either stop being gay or step down from your job. Polite language, making a statement, disagreeing with someone is completely different from forcibly giving a ultimatum of change your view or resign or we'll make sure you get fired. It's ridiculous.

Except they can't make sure that he gets fired. They can however say whatever they like and see if they can get people to agree. How else do you think boycotts work?

 

[Gilly]

obviously on a much smaller scale with a much smaller issue but surely that's just like saying it's ironic that after ww2 ended that we locked up the remaining nazi's because they were the ones who wanted to lock everyone else up.

Not really. Nazis deserved to be locked up. Does every who is straight deserve to be oppressed because gay people are becoming less oppressed?

 

[McBain]

Could be time to switch to Firefox.

 

[Craterloads]

You are not really making any sense here. I get that you, for whatever reason, don't agree with gay marriage. What I don't get is why you think it is right that others that do not share your views are forced to follow them?

I don't and neither have I suggested such, like I neither suggested I only support free speech when it shares my views Why are you creating arguments that I never said? If you support gay marriage go ahead, if you don't go ahead. It appears in this case the side supporting gay marriage is forcibly attempting to change someone's view or have them fired, because they don't like them.

Except they can't make sure that he gets fired. They can however say whatever they like and see if they can get people to agree. How else do you think boycotts work?

Again a bit extreme because someone doesn't support gay marriage, people resigning from their posts, Facebook campaigns etc are all designed to either get this guy to publicly announce he has changed his views (not freely) or resign/have him fired. There are only two options for him, this is wrong on every level. And what they are saying is important too, they are not simply disagreeing with him, like you suggest, they are not just voicing their opposing opinions, like you suggest, they are actively attempting to force him to change opinion or have him fired. It's my way or the highway, why you are defending such actions is beyond me.

Ask yourself, what is ultimately their goal?

 

[Craterloads]

you still aren't giving a reason why same sex marriages can't happen, only that you think different sex marriages should. can you give a reason why same sex marriages shouldn't happen and how it effects different sex marriages?

It doesn't, nor it doesn't change the fact they are different. Descriptively they are doing different things and there is a distinction to be made. If opposing sex couples decided next week they wanted a new terminology to replace the word "marriage" to describe them given it is a different form of marriage between opposing sexes, would same sex couple be satisfied with just the term "marriage" or would they then want this new term lets say "insert term"? Typically this "marriage" also brings with it many different outcomes, situations, results that are simply not present in gay marriage, adding to the terminology. Marriage means more than just two people coming together. There are many other reasons, rightly or wrongly these are reasonable to those who find them reasonable.