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

M3G4UK · 2 Apr 2014 at 09:27

Okcupid is used by quite a big gay userbase, so it makes sense for them to take a stand. As for them being discriminatory... no, not really. At the end of the day OKCupid is not an essential service that is starving people of something they most desperately need. It's a site owned headed by a CEO of a company with thoughts and feelings just like the rest of us, and what they want to do with the site is up to them.

And as for those saying that gay people should not marry, why not go the full hateful nine yards and tell us black people shouldn't marry white people?

DangerMoose · 2 Apr 2014 at 09:41

M3G4UK said:
And as for those saying that gay people should not marry, why not go the full hateful nine yards and tell us black people shouldn't marry white people?

How is that the same? Right or wrong, a traditional marriage is based on gender roles. To suggest that people clinging to this notion should also harbour racist tendencies is absurd.

cheesyboy · 2 Apr 2014 at 09:45

DangerMoose said:
How is that the same? Right or wrong, a traditional marriage is based on gender roles. To suggest that people clinging to this notion should also harbour racist tendencies is absurd.

Once upon a time, there would have been a great deal of support for a law in which marriage was for a man an woman of the same race. It's "natural" and "traditional", and the way marriage was intended, after all (!). How would traditionalists have felt about their right and proper same-race marriages if any race were to be allowed to marry any other?!

That there would be wide support for such a natural, traditional law wouldn't have made it right, would it?

Zethor · 2 Apr 2014 at 09:48

DangerMoose said:
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?

He is free to have an opinion, to seek changes in the legislation and to generally do whatever the hell he wishes. There is however such as thing as being on the "wrong" side of the debate, in the context of civil rights - we've seen it when women received equal rights, we've seen it when blacks received equal rights and now we're seeing it when homosexuals are getting equal rights.

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.

He is allowed to voice his position, no one is calling for his arrest or for his freedom of speech to be restricted.

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.

By your logic, a prohibition on mixed marriages does not infringe equal rights. Blacks are just as free as whites to marry within their own racial group and just as restricted to marry outside their racial group.

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?

This is a civil rights issue everywhere with the apparent exception of the rock under which you've been living.

DangerMoose · 2 Apr 2014 at 09:49

cheesyboy said:
Once upon a time, there would have been a great deal of support for a law in which marriage was for a man an woman of the same race. It's "natural" and "traditional", and the way marriage was intended, after all (!). How would traditionalists have felt about their right and proper same-race marriages if any race were to be allowed to marry any other?!

That there would be wide support for such a natural, traditional law wouldn't have made it right.

Right but the fact that many people historically would have held both positions, with some continuing to do so, does not make them one and the same position. Nor does it make one a logical extension of the other. A person who insists that marriage is about having and raising kids (please note, devil's advocate) need not care about the colour mix.

cheesyboy · 2 Apr 2014 at 09:52

DangerMoose said:
Right but the fact that many people historically would have held both positions, with some continuing to do so, does not make them one and the same position. Nor does it make one a logical extension of the other. A person who insists that marriage is about having and raising kids (please note, devil's advocate) need not care about the colour mix.

you're arguing that anti-gay marriage folks aren't necessarily anti-cross-race marriage. Of course you're right.

I was arguing more for the metaphor, to be honest (i.e. in response to "how is that the same?")

pitchfork · 2 Apr 2014 at 09:53

cheesyboy said:
They all directly support discriminatory legislation?

Are you quite sure?

Almost all support some backwards arsed discriminatory legislation.

Whether it's "Ban the gays" or "Kill the poor" it's there.

cheesyboy · 2 Apr 2014 at 09:53

pitchfork said:
Almost all support some backwards arsed discriminatory legislation.

Whether it's "Ban the gays" or "Kill the poor" it's there.

*citation needed

DangerMoose · 2 Apr 2014 at 10:00

Zethor said:
He is free to have an opinion, to seek changes in the legislation and to generally do whatever the hell he wishes. There is however such as thing as being on the "wrong" side of the debate, in the context of civil rights - we've seen it when women received equal rights, we've seen it when blacks received equal rights and now we're seeing it when homosexuals are getting equal rights.

In many cases, the wrong side is the losing on but here it seems to have been decided in advance.

He is allowed to voice his position, no one is calling for his arrest or for his freedom of speech to be restricted.

No but a vocal minority are calling for sanctions because he used that freedom and was found to be wrong by the court of public opinion.

By your logic, a prohibition on mixed marriages does not infringe equal rights. Blacks are just as free as whites to marry within their own racial group and just as restricted to marry outside their racial group.

Not at all. There will no doubt be many versions of the traditional family that people cling to. I am referring to the one about gender divides only. As I said in another post, racism does not naturally follow from limiting marriage to a mix of inny and outy only.

Edit: Besides, we are talking about rights people have now and I do not have a problem with the concept that equality might not cater for all wants and needs.

This is a civil rights issue everywhere with the apparent exception of the rock under which you've been living.

You are jumping to specious conclusions here. I was using Civil Rights as shorthand for the civil rights movement that (as I understand it) generally refers to black people getting equal rights. I apologise if this was not clear and do not intend to imply that civil rights is such a narrow field.

Zethor · 2 Apr 2014 at 10:20

DangerMoose said:
In many cases, the wrong side is the losing on but here it seems to have been decided in advance.

No, it has not been decided in advance, you have this impression because you are not aware that the intellectual debate has ended decades ago, after a long grueling journey, when homosexuality was decriminalized and it stopped being considered a mental illness. The opinion of the majority has already shifted towards acceptance, there's no going back and it's only a matter of time before they get equal rights in the developed nations. There will always be those that refuse to accept these changes but their positions are now considered offending so expressing them publicly will have repercussions.

M3G4UK · 2 Apr 2014 at 10:35

DangerMoose said:
How is that the same? Right or wrong, a traditional marriage is based on gender roles. To suggest that people clinging to this notion should also harbour racist tendencies is absurd.

The fact that both decisions are based on factors out of the victims control isn't quite so absurd, I think you'd agree.

How would you feel if I told you that you weren't allowed to eat in a nice restaurant because you were a man? because you were white? because you were gay?

What if you were told the act of showing your love for your partner was "destroying society and the sanctity of marriage"?

Westyfield2 · 2 Apr 2014 at 10:38

What are the gay-rights lobby hoping to achieve by this? That the guy changes his personal opinions to what they say is right? That having an opinion is allowed but you can't also have a job?

It seems to me like the those who felt repressed have now jumped in to repress others.... without stopping in the happy middle ground of we all get along fine.

M3G4UK · 2 Apr 2014 at 10:42

Westyfield2 said:
What are the gay-rights lobby hoping to achieve by this? That the guy changes his personal opinions to what they say is right? That having an opinion is allowed but you can't also have a job?

It seems to me like the those who felt repressed have now jumped in to repress others.... without stopping in the happy middle ground of we all get along fine.

I don't see how people could be okay with allowing someone who was willing to throw money at a cause that would stop people having equal rights to others to be in such a senior, publicly viewable position. I.e. potential role model to young entrepreneurs etc.

Westyfield2 · 2 Apr 2014 at 10:43

M3G4UK said:
I don't see how people could be okay with allowing someone who was willing to throw money at a cause that would stop people having equal rights to others to be in such a senior, publicly viewable position. I.e. potential role model to young entrepreneurs etc.

So opinions that you disagree with are fine, but only for a low paid job? To get promoted one has to renounce such opinions?

Zethor · 2 Apr 2014 at 10:50

Westyfield2 said:
So opinions that you disagree with are fine, but only for a low paid job? To get promoted one has to renounce such opinions?

Being against equal rights for gays is now considered offensive. The CEO is the most important "face" in a company and his views will inevitably be linked to it.

Why do you think that PR woman who tweeted something along the lines of "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS", was fired before her flight actually arrived in Africa?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25484537

Westyfield2 · 2 Apr 2014 at 11:01

Zethor said:
Why do you think that PR woman who tweeted something along the lines of "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS", was fired before her flight actually arrived in Africa?

Hadn't heard that story at the time. Without knowing the full picture, to me it's reading as something she meant as "Joke" but wasn't particularly funny... which comes down to the lesson that on the internet people don't get your tone (unless you fill the message with smilies) and hence why people need to think before sending that sarcastic email etc.

For being fired I'd guess either:

Some liberal hippies too offence on behalf of others (despite them neither being black or having AIDs), whilst those who it was "offensive" too didn't even know that it existed.
Her employer noticed the tweet coming from an account that mentioned her position at the company without having the "Opinions are my own not those of my employer" disclaimer, and got scared that Joe Public would think it was the official company stance and jumped in gung-ho without going through the proper disciplinary procedure.

Zethor · 2 Apr 2014 at 11:12

Westyfield2 said:
[/LIST]

It was an offensive joke than created a viral storm on the social networks. Like the CEO we're discussing here, she represented the company and not just during working hours (anyone who's worked in a corporation knows this, even for lower ranked jobs). She got ditched because the company chose not to be associated with the offending comment.

Oh and by the way, in case you haven't heard, you don't have to actually be black/gay to be offended by comments toward blacks/gays. You don't even have to be a liberal or a hippie - just a decent, reasonably informed human being.

oulton · 2 Apr 2014 at 12:26

being an avid supporter of heterosexual marriage myself, I will now exclusively use Firefox as my web browser.

'deletes chrome'

CosmicClown · 2 Apr 2014 at 12:28

Lol.

I'll still be using firefox.

Tunney · 2 Apr 2014 at 12:52

It must be an interesting time to be a gay employee working on Mozilla, knowing that your boss has donated money to restrict your rights.

American tech firms tend to be very pro-equal marriage, which is a reflection of their young, liberal staff and customers. It was pressure from the likes of Apple that stopped a recent anti-gay bill being passed in Arizona.