• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor[W:577]


I posted a couple of things earlier that folks didnt dare touch, lol. They showed the more extreme side of the argument.

My personal opinion...and my actions...would reflect that if it *was* worded as civil unions for gays, many more people would have and today would support it. Because I think *most* people do believe in equal rights for gays. That is my 'personal' opinion, I dont have any figures to back it up.

The use of the word 'marriage,' **especially** in previous ballot measures before this issue got so much media attention, did and still does rock some peoples' worlds...there are many very traditional and/or religious people in this country that feel strongly about *their personal beliefs* but would not deny gays equal rights.

These are mostly older people too, tho not all. I think this is a cultural change that will take time. Laws pertaining to black and women's civil rights did not change minds and behavior immediately.

So I personally would not act against nor hold it against someone who had, in the past, voted against or donated to organizations against, SSM.
 


Sullivan was not always this way, but over the last ten or so years he's been a staunch advocate of true diversity, and he gets it why the "other" side wants to keep traditional marriage, even if he disagrees, he understands and respects their rights, hopes, and dreams. He knows the danger of the militant gaystapo, and he knows full well that any minor victories here and there are just one closer to awakening the monster.

Tim-
 

1.) was it positive before?
was it only LBGT people who didnt like his views?
and why do you assume it was somethign new and not just learning who he is
2.) why does this matter?
 

Wow, good for Andrew. Wow.
 
grip said:
By these standards shouldn't the Koch Brothers be fired?
Click to expand...
Ah, but do the Koch brothers live by these standards?

Edit: Actually, don't they set their own standards? I thought they more-or-less owned several companies or something...who are they, anyways?
 

If the CEO of a Christian bookstore is found to have donated to a "pro-abortion" or "pro-gay" initiative, do you expect that the reaction would be different? That company's employees, suppliers, and customers would be up in arms, as the CEO is supporting causes that are an anathema to them.

Were you understanding when Guns & Ammo summarily fired their long time columnist for expressing mildly pro gun control opinions, his editor reduced to groveling to keep his job? That columnist offended readers, advertisers - so he was fired. What's different here, except the issue?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) was it positive before?
was it only LBGT people who didnt like his views?
and why do you assume it was somethign new and not just learning who he is
2.) why does this matter?
Click to expand...

According to what I've heard, read and seen, Mozilla had a very positive atmmosphere for its LGBT employees, and offered partner benefits to all. I have not read or seen anything that suggest he was unfair in his treatment of LGBT employees while he was CTO. Mozilla was free to disassociate themselves from him if it works for them. Just as in the future everyone should be just as understanding when a company decides to disassociate itself from an employee who made any donations to any groups that opposed Proposition 8 if it works for that company.

But like I said, nothing here was illegal.
 

No, I expect everyone will be just as understanding. When a company pressures a person to step aside because that company doesn't like the fact that said employee donated to a cause that opposed Proposition 8, I would expect to see the LGBT community to just accept it.
 

1.) yes i heard it was a great place also for all its employees
2.) did somebody suggest he was?
3.) correct
4.) as long as its done in a manner that is legal, yes

Ill ask my questions again

was it only LBGT people who didnt like his views?
why do you assume it was somethign new he did and not just learning who he is? was this suggested?
why does this matter to this situation if he currently directly hurt somebody gay?
 

Nor would I.

I agree with your post.
 

I don't know who else opposed his views. I also don't know what he did wrong. I believe people have a right to hold views, however different they are than mine. But I also believe Mozilla has the right to run their business as they see fit.

I also believe the pendulum swings both ways, so when this situation happens in the reverse, I expect to see the LGBT community not have any problems when it does.
 
Corporate personhood and Citizens United led to this. Before I would have thought this type of story was stupid and executives should their opinions to themselves, but now its a necessary evil.



Kobie said:
Cue the people who start crying about "freedom of speech" without understanding what it means.
Click to expand...
 
How open and tolerant can an organization possibly be considered, when it crucifies someone for donating a relatively small amount of money to a cause that some people of the organization doesn't approve of? Seems rather petty and vindictive to me somehow.
 

1.) would you say its a safe bet that all people that support equal rights did since he was against them? and would you also say its a safe bet that was more then just some gay people?
2.) wrong? legally? nothing
3.) i believe that too and he is still free to do so
4.) i agree with this also as long as they follow the law
5.) well this is just silly for two reasons

first, the whole LGBT community may not be bothered by him or support what happened, its no fair to group them all together. Just like all non LGBT people arent the same either.

and whats the reverse? again as long as it is LEGAL, it is what it is.
 
Lursa said:
Would you say the same if he had made a big donation to the KKK?
Click to expand...

Oh so now Christians are the KKK? Why ****ing stop there? Let's go with the Nazi's!

It's quite clear, if you aren't pro-LGBT, Welfare, Obama you're a racist, Homophobe Nazi killer.
 
MrVicchio said:
Oh so now Christians are the KKK? Why ****ing stop there? Let's go with the Nazi's!

It's quite clear, if you aren't pro-LGBT, Welfare, Obama you're a racist, Homophobe Nazi killer.
Click to expand...

Not even close to what Lursa actually said, but hey, it's your strawman.
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, it was. Nice try Kobie.

I'll remember that in the future.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. By posing a hypothetical situation, that's automatically equating Christians and the KKK? That's sheer nonsense.
 

I'm not sure anyone understands how some people view the issue of SSM. There are two theoretical positions.

1) I'm against SSM, but am tolerant of those who are in favor, especially my many gay employees and business partners who want to get married.
2) I am against SSM, and will donate to a cause that attempts to enshrine, in the Constitution, SSM as a perpetual second class relationship in the State of California.

I don't see why it's so hard to see that distinction. That second was an attempt to strip, or limit, the rights of same sex couples. If it had passed, those same gay employees who he was so tolerant of (and I assume he was) would be forever prohibited from enjoying the same privileged status as a married couple that he enjoys with his spouse. It's a lot bigger deal than just an opinion on SSM.

Just as an example, if we go back a few years, imagine a CEO that was very supportive of all races in the workforce, blacks included. But, nothing personal, he just believed marriage was between members of the same race, AND supported anti-miscegenation laws. That's more than an opinion - those laws stripped or limited the rights of his black employees. Would anyone be surprised that black employees/customers/business partners and their supporters would protest that CEO? I know a lot of people don't see it, but that's the way many see this issue. It's a matter of rights that he opposed extending to his LGBT people.
 

Forcing a theoretical position on someone to make your argument? Hmm. How legitimate is that really? There are an infinite number of other positions other than the 2 you mentioned, so the world isn't black and white as you are trying to draw it. The man isn't here to define it for himself. All we can say is that we don't know his position on the matter.

I still stand by my position, and I'm here to discuss it, in that the LBGT lobby, by behaving the way that they are, are in fact engaging in that which they criticize of others.
 

Of course. Businesses are going to make decisions based on their interests. But I wouldn't hold my breath - marriage equality is clearly winning out and only a foolish businessperson doesn't see that.
 
Anthony60 said:
Thanks so much! I'm sure Mozilla is in the midst of installing more servers to handle the certain blast of downloads they are sure to experience now that they put their foot on this non conforming unit that though he could think for himself!
Click to expand...

So you think they made this decision for reasons other than their bottom line?
 

Engaging in freedom of expression? Yep, they're doing that.
 
MrVicchio said:
Oh so now Christians are the KKK?
Click to expand...

.... seriously, the post you quoted did not say that at all. You're not that stupid, don't pretend to be.
 
Deuce said:
Engaging in freedom of expression? Yep, they're doing that.
Click to expand...

Forcing someone to resign is a bit more than engaging in freedom of expression, isn't it? Granted, the man made his own decision, but to what extent was he forced into a position where he had to make that decision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…