You're the one being the least objective.
It's fine if he wants to support certain political issues, regardless of how unpalatable. It's also the right of the company to fire him. But it is nutbar to claim it's all fair, good and equitable. The sensitivity needle is WAY too high for public image anymore.
If it was a religious company and the CEO turned out to be a drag queen, all the conservatives would be screaming about failure to disclose and fraud.
I'm I the only objective person here?
Not all of'em.
You're asking the wrong question. The real question is should customers be allowed to care about those things?
You don't seem to understand that CEOs are required to disclose non-criminal personal information in the hiring process. You're still ignoring context and pretending a CEO is the same as a cashier.
I don't think so. A CEO, as -the- representative of the company, paid millions, is subject to far greater scrutiny of personal life.
And he's definitely required to disclose. A cashier is not required to disclose non-criminal.
Anyone can be considered a "representative" of the company.
You don't seem to understand "equal rights".
Or if the board of directors expects a loss of discernible profits. Which they did expect.If the shareholders lost discernible profit as a result, then it's something considerable.
And for some reason you don't feel as though you are infringing upon the rights of CNN's CEO by not watching.I personally would not care enough about one CEO's slight political leaning. I don't like FOX News's position on many issues, I still watch them for overall coverage, because CNN is fanatical about tragedies.
Anyone can be considered a "representative" of the company.
Any company that does not require full personal disclosure from a CEO is moronic and will soon go broke.
Oh, you meant the other part. I never intend to use absolutes. Even if I use a word that is an absolute, exceptions are presumed. I don't believe in absolutes.
Don't speak in absolutes, then.
Yes, just not even remotely at equal levels. Why didn't you answer my earlier question?
I did give you an answer.
Only stupid people presume absolutes, even when such words are used.
Only stupid people don't say what they mean.
so what happened over two hundred years ago then?
It takes an idiot to expect someone to stop using hundreds of words just because morons presume absolutes.
It takes an idiot to expect someone to stop using hundreds of words just because morons presume absolutes.
You are wrong about public opinion on same sex marriage
looks like the younger generations on all ideologies are shifting towards acceptance. Younger folks being the most tech oriented, it was a good move on mozilla's part.
Not at all. For example, I would say that everybody is accountable, just not to everybody. Eich was accountable to his company's image.
Try me.
I just find it funny that a thousand dollar contribution to an anti same sex marriage campaign could culminate into some dude taking a web browser off his computer. What a strange world we live in today.
Yep, oh I am well aware, how could they not move towards tolerance? They're stupid kids, just like you and I were at one time. They are constantly bombarded with rhetorical accusations of homophobe or bigot and as a result completely unarmed when it comes to countering that time tested tactic. Not to mention that they're not getting the truth, and I mean the whole truth about the debate from their schools, or their other peers. They're being force-fed propaganda and eventually like we all know, effective propaganda will win out. My God Hitler used it to turn an entire nation on the only people that were responsible for keeping their economy afloat, and they turned their blind eye to the mass extinction of these people all because of a few well placed, and well timed propagandized hit pieces. People believe what they're told, mostly, and only the inquisitive and not lazy one's seek the truth for themselves. Now, I've had my say about homosexuality and this topic ad infinitum and I do not care to waste anymore time discussing with you. Turning to the OP, and like I said, regardless of what the true numbers are, the fact is that a great many people choose one ideology over another, and to some, like me, have both the conviction and the well withal to make buying choices based on the behavior of companies that I deem are behaving cowardly, or hypocritically. If companies want to keep that trend up, we'll all be shopping on different sides of the street.
Tim-
It would seem that Eich was held accountable to a set of opinions. Nothing more. That the PC police have established new ground rules doesn't change the dangerous nature of the precedent they have decided to establish.
Consider the source. He believes that if a politician contributes to the Nazi Party his constituency has no right to vote him out in the next election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?