You seem to keep choosing to ignore the bit where he funded a bill to enact a discriminatory anti-gay marriage law.
It's not just his opinion; he apparently believes in actually discriminating against gays in this way.
whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance
- Thread starter unwashed potato!
- Start date
You seem to keep choosing to ignore the bit where he funded a bill to enact a discriminatory anti-gay marriage law.
It's not just his opinion; he apparently believes in actually discriminating against gays in this way.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
It is not anti gay, he doesn't hate gays, because he believes marriage is between man and woman (a perfectly valid position)
I said anti-gay marriage. Not anti-gay.
It's discriminatory, regardless of whether or not he hates gays.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Why is phrasing two different things differently discriminatory?
What are you asking me?
Do you like carrots?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
You said it's discriminatory for him to support marriage as something between man and woman.
I asked why is phrasing two different things differently discriminatory? Aka a partnership between same sex couples and marriage between opposite sex couples.
Ugh.I'm not a minority, so stuff that **** me off isn't a priority for the damn liberals
Now that we have it, I'm not going to campaign against it. But I never saw the need for it.
Do we have to start changing the law whenever some minority gets sand in its collective vag? For the record, I'm not suggesting we should treat minorities badly. But I don't want to start changing society whenever some group or other feels under-appreciated/ butthurt.
I actually said it's discriminatory for him to act in a way to attempt to restrict homosexual couples' access to something for which hetero couples are not restricted.
And I'm still not sure I follow the second bit of your question.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
He's not though, he's supporting marriage as between man and woman. I guess as a result that effects same sex couples but unfortunately one of them isn't a woman or man (depending on scenario).
I don't think I can make it any simpler.
Simple, yes, but not an answer.
Why should marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples?
Saying that it should be is not the same as giving a reason why it should be. Rephrasing the statement isn't an answer either.
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
You might like to see his views on homosexuality and LGBT(ABC PDQ DNA EGBDF...alphabet soup time!) advocacy. They're public knowledge and absolutely in line with Mozilla's position. I think that things are not as they're being made out to be.
This particular issue would go away if countries switched to my plan.
Marriage currently splodges over three different things - personal, legal and religious. It would be more accurate if they were treated as the three different things they are.
1) Personal. Has no legal significance or religious content - it's purely personal. I'd call it wedding, given the etymology of the word. Athough weddian did have legal weight, so maybe not. The name doesn't matter as long as it isn't the fight-word "marriage". Obviously, this is open to all adults.
2) Legal. Has no religious content and isn't strictly speaking personal. It's purely legal - a contract. This is where all the rights and responsibilities are. I'd call it civil partnership or personal partnership as they're accurate descriptions - it's a contract forming a partnership that's not a business arrangement. This is open to whoever has the legal right to enter into a binding contract.
3) Religious. Has no legal significance and isn't strictly speaking personal. It's purely religious, so it's about whatever religious authorities are relevant. This is open to whoever the relevant religious authorities say, without any need for them to have any reason for refusal. I'd suggest "blessing", but the name doesn't matter as long as it isn't the fight-word "marriage".
They're not mutually exclusive and any of them can be dressed up with whatever extras people want (costumes, ceremonies, whatever).
No word to fight about, so this issue disappears. There would be something else that people will find to fight about, but there's always something else.
Marriage currently splodges over three different things - personal, legal and religious. It would be more accurate if they were treated as the three different things they are.
1) Personal. Has no legal significance or religious content - it's purely personal. I'd call it wedding, given the etymology of the word. Athough weddian did have legal weight, so maybe not. The name doesn't matter as long as it isn't the fight-word "marriage". Obviously, this is open to all adults.
2) Legal. Has no religious content and isn't strictly speaking personal. It's purely legal - a contract. This is where all the rights and responsibilities are. I'd call it civil partnership or personal partnership as they're accurate descriptions - it's a contract forming a partnership that's not a business arrangement. This is open to whoever has the legal right to enter into a binding contract.
3) Religious. Has no legal significance and isn't strictly speaking personal. It's purely religious, so it's about whatever religious authorities are relevant. This is open to whoever the relevant religious authorities say, without any need for them to have any reason for refusal. I'd suggest "blessing", but the name doesn't matter as long as it isn't the fight-word "marriage".
They're not mutually exclusive and any of them can be dressed up with whatever extras people want (costumes, ceremonies, whatever).
No word to fight about, so this issue disappears. There would be something else that people will find to fight about, but there's always something else.
Last edited:
What I was trying to say earlier was that as a society we are becoming like the Borg from Star Trek, people must either assimilate into collective thought else the collective will punish them for thinking differently.
If we're all to be socially conditioned into thinking the same way through peer pressure, boycotts, character assassination etc then eventually there will be no individuals.
If we're all to be socially conditioned into thinking the same way through peer pressure, boycotts, character assassination etc then eventually there will be no individuals.
The way I see it, it's a very personal issue for both sides. Ultimately, it comes down to a disagreement over the meaning and use of the word. Everyone would be much happier if they all cared just a little bit less.
Saying that, if we are in a loggerheads over which side should give way, there is often an easy a way of identifying the party that should concede - which is the side that's telling others they can't do something?
Saying that, if we are in a loggerheads over which side should give way, there is often an easy a way of identifying the party that should concede - which is the side that's telling others they can't do something?
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 631
- Location
- Back O'Bourke
The problem was when Eich gave his donation he listed his employer as Mozilla. This created the impression that they held similar views.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,086
- Location
- Nottingham
I don't get it. In a democracy (though not limited to this form of government), are people not allowed to oppose an attempt to change established legislation? Are people not allowed to seek to change legislation? Isn't that how it should work? Not necessarily to be right but to simply have the ability to speak out and try to make the change? Is it right that those on the losing or perceived "wrong" side of the debate should become pariahs and be forced to renounce their views or be forced out of employment? Should certain attempts to change legislation go unchallenged just because enough people feel strongly about them? Who decides which ones?
I have no problem with gay marriage but allowing those who do the right to voice their position (and even try to bring others around to their way of thinking) seems to me to be a necessary part of the system that so many claim to cherish.
And the "equal rights" spiel is a bit of a smoke screen, in my opinion. Laws restrict rights and they grant them. It is almost inevitable that they will sometimes cause complaint from those restricted and from those who oppose removal of those restrictions. Besides, gay people already have equal rights. They just do not find those rights to be applicable to their situation. I mean, they are just as free to marry the opposite sex as straight people and (historically in particular) just as restricted from marrying the same sex. They are demanding additional rights to better cater for their situation, since using genitalia to decide eligibility for such partnerships is of little use. I do not see a problem with this as these rights do not cause harm to others. But that, as I see it, is what is being asked for.
Besides, it comes across as if some want this matter to be Civil Rights MKII. That it ain't. And even in that debate, the "wrong" side were well within their rights to voice their opinion. But I would be more inclined to judge them harshly than those who oppose same sex marriage. Do those in favour really think that they are entitled to smoother sailing than women and black people fighting for the vote?
I'll probably end up regretting getting involved in this but there you go.
I have no problem with gay marriage but allowing those who do the right to voice their position (and even try to bring others around to their way of thinking) seems to me to be a necessary part of the system that so many claim to cherish.
And the "equal rights" spiel is a bit of a smoke screen, in my opinion. Laws restrict rights and they grant them. It is almost inevitable that they will sometimes cause complaint from those restricted and from those who oppose removal of those restrictions. Besides, gay people already have equal rights. They just do not find those rights to be applicable to their situation. I mean, they are just as free to marry the opposite sex as straight people and (historically in particular) just as restricted from marrying the same sex. They are demanding additional rights to better cater for their situation, since using genitalia to decide eligibility for such partnerships is of little use. I do not see a problem with this as these rights do not cause harm to others. But that, as I see it, is what is being asked for.
Besides, it comes across as if some want this matter to be Civil Rights MKII. That it ain't. And even in that debate, the "wrong" side were well within their rights to voice their opinion. But I would be more inclined to judge them harshly than those who oppose same sex marriage. Do those in favour really think that they are entitled to smoother sailing than women and black people fighting for the vote?
I'll probably end up regretting getting involved in this but there you go.
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 17,709
- Location
- Surrey
that's not quite the same. all straights aren't being opressed here by this boycott. it's fair that after having donated to a cause that looks to discriminate that he then is discriminated back. what people are doing is imo a fair response, simply not using the product of the company he runs. if he stays they wont use it, if he has changed views or resigns then they will use the company again.
this all of course is based on him not wanting gay marriage at all which at this point is an assumption based only on the donation. he could, as i've mentioned and i think you too, simply want more rights for LGBT, but he is yet to clarify.
People seem to be struggling to consider this from the view point of those who were discrimintated against. just imagine if you wanted 2 kids, but some stupid reason chinese couples didn't want you to have 2 kids as they felt it ruins their family and makes their family worthless, you'd not exactly be jumping for joy. if then those couples who donate money to ensure you can't have 2 kids had a company you'd be within reason to say ok i don't want to use those company whilst the still support this idea or at running the company. that is all that's happening here. how is it that those people who were discriminated against (or people who are understanding of what happened to them) not wanting to use the product of someone who actively tried to ensure they continued to be discriminated against unreasonable?
Last edited: