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

M3G4UK said:
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"?
Click to expand...

But again, that is beside the point. That they are both based on such factors does not create a relationship between them. It most certainly does not follow that a person would subscribe to those other forms of discrimination, just because they disagree with gay marriage.

As for the last point, I'm pretty sure that it would indeed be hurtful to some extent (some might simply ignore the bigot where possible). But it changes nothing about the original point of contention. Racism might share space in the same mind as homophobia in many cases but they are not one and the same, nor is one a natural progression from the other. Besides, I'm doubtful that many would put their objection in such terms.
 
Zethor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, you misjudge me. First of all, I am not opposed. I do, however, find actions like those described in the OP to be potentially quite wrong. For unknown reasons, this person funded the "wrong" side and the whole company that they work for becomes a target until they publicly renounce past views or leave. I am not convinced that there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to warrant such a response, nor do I believe that a person should have to keep the world at large updated on their opinions on contentious issues. Freedom of speech and expression certainly allows for such a response but that does not make it rational. Is there any reason to believe that this person is currently active in suppressing any homosexual activities? Is Mozilla? Is there any reason to believe that him stepping down will help even one gay couple to gain acceptance that would otherwise be lacking?

Finally, much of your post is hardly relevant, at least to my post in any case. Holding to a traditional view of marriage is in no way the same thing as thinking homosexuality is a mental illness, for example. And debates are rarely truly over, except in the eyes of those who wish to stifle discussion.
 
DangerMoose said:
Finally, much of your post is hardly relevant, at least to my post in any case. Holding to a traditional view of marriage is in no way the same thing as thinking homosexuality is a mental illness, for example. And debates are rarely truly over, except in the eyes of those who wish to stifle discussion.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point (well, I know you're missing the point) - it is in no way relating homosexuality to mental illness, but it is still casting out a group of people of a practice many take part in. It's hurtful to be excluded and in no way helps self esteem. Homosexuals already have it ingrained into their minds from a very young age that they are not "normal", so why continue making them feel the same later on in life?

No heterosexual has any control over the fact they fall in love with people of the opposite sex as much as homosexuals have control over the fact they fall in love with people of the same sex. So why penalise them over such things? :confused:

I'm sorry I don't see how restricting a group of people from an activity the majority take part in is anything other than prejudice?
 
M3G4UK said:
I think you're missing the point (well, I know you're missing the point) - it is in no way relating homosexuality to mental illness, but it is still casting out a group of people of a practice many take part in. It's hurtful to be excluded and in no way helps self esteem. Homosexuals already have it ingrained into their minds from a very young age that they are not "normal", so why continue making them feel the same later on in life?

No heterosexual has any control over the fact they fall in love with people of the opposite sex as much as homosexuals have control over the fact they fall in love with people of the same sex. So why penalise them over such things? :confused:

I'm sorry I don't see how restricting a group of people from an activity the majority take part in is anything other than prejudice?
Click to expand...

I think that we are continuing to meander far from the original point on which I disagreed with you. So no, I don't think that I am missing the point, I rather suspect instead that we have strayed from it. You said that those against same sex marriage might as well take it a bit further into speaking against interracial marriages. I simply pointed out that racism and denying same sex marriage are neither the same, nor does one follow from the other, which makes the suggestion absurd. I'm not entirely convinced that denying same sex marriages even automatically qualifies as homophobia, depending on the (ir)rationale. But I do fully concede that many bigots diversify.

I do not think that everything you have said is wrong but much of it does not relate to what I said, even in posts that appear to be responding to mine.
 
DangerMoose said:
Again, you misjudge me. First of all, I am not opposed. I do, however, find actions like those described in the OP to be potentially quite wrong. For unknown reasons, this person funded the "wrong" side and the whole company that they work for becomes a target until they publicly renounce past views or leave.
Click to expand...

Mozilla, like most large organisations these days, publishes a list of principles and values that it feels represent the organisation.

What should consumers and employees do when a leader is appointed whose personal actions are in direct conflict with the organisation's principles and values?
 
People still use Firefox? I used to until Chrome arrived, just like I used Netscape before Firefox.



Tunney said:
Tombo said:
I don't think anyone was surprised that Apple of all companies would actively support gay rights :p
Click to expand...

Google, Yahoo, Adobe, eBay, Cisco and Facebook all publicly opposed Prop 8 too.
Click to expand...

Microsoft didn't? You would have thought they would have been right behind it with the amount of backdoor action Windows sees :P
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
People still use Firefox? I used to until Chrome arrived, just like I used Netscape before Firefox.
Click to expand...

It still has a much larger extension library, that and Chrome has become just as bloated over time as well.

Tunney said:
Mozilla, like most large organisations these days, publishes a list of principles and values that it feels represent the organisation.

What should consumers and employees do when a leader is appointed whose personal actions are in direct conflict with the organisation's principles and values?
Click to expand...
I've read through that and can you point out as I've missed what part it conflicts with?
 
Last edited:
Tunney said:
Mozilla, like most large organisations these days, publishes a list of principles and values that it feels represent the organisation.

What should consumers and employees do when a leader is appointed whose personal actions are in direct conflict with the organisation's principles and values?
Click to expand...

A fair point and I am not entirely sure. It would, I suppose, depend on whether or not he continued to act that way whilst in office and the magnitude of the conflict. If they only employed people who are an exact fit, I doubt they would have ever gotten beyond a dozen employees.

Clearly, some will view this one as a big deal and ultimately, it is up to Mozilla to decide on the appropriate response, whoever else may or may not agree. But then I would also suggest that denying its employees some measure of free speech, when not acting on behalf of the company, would be somewhat hypocritical of one that prides itself on concepts like open source. But I also cannot see the reference to gay rights on that page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom