- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Calling for a boycott is "no better" than physical violence?
And it's Kobie.
Simple. The CEO hid pertinent information regarding personal affairs and how they might reflect on the company's image.
If the CEO of a Christian network turned out to support gay rights, you would understand that fraud occured and the company was harmed.
Calling for a boycott is "no better" than physical violence?
And it's Kobie.
So being pro-traditional marriage is now sufficient to get you fired?
Bullcrap. A CEO's personal life reflects on the company.
Yeah, I'm overstating the matter.
I mainly meant that as a CEO, I suspect you must disregard emotional decisions that might negatively effect the company, in order to logically further the interests of it.
I consider his political donations emotional decisions, as indeed, the vast majority of political positions are. In this instance, he was unlucky enough to make a decision that negatively impacted the company, and I can find nothing unreasonable about his leaving.
I think that the customers who reacted negatively to the information are where the blame for his leaving should be placed - if his donations were with personal funds (as I understand is the case) and not company funds, it shouldn't really be an issue.
But when Mozilla consumers MADE it an issue, the company needed to act.
Make your choice: Take a physical beating or lose your livelihood for the next 5 years.
So nobody should make political contributions - ever - because years down the road your employer may force you out because of them?
People have a right to speak out.
Only the person who took the physical beating was being punished for being gay. The CEO is being punished for being a bigot. Big difference. People have a right to speak out against such bigotry.
And henceforth you shall bear the mark of McCarthyite. Good job, Brownie.
So now being in support of traditional marriage is bigotry?
Nice red herring:roll:
Um, he was giving money to outlaw gay marriage. Sure, it is his right as it is the right of people to boycott him due to his actions.
Kobie, (got it right this time - sorry) Violence is violence. One physical, one based on emotional threats, yeah OK I admit a bad parallel.
But still, why punish a company for what one employee did 6 years ago, in private, supporting a prevalent position at the time, which only since then has become politically incorrect and politically toxic?
And why is it politically toxic to support traditional marriage? Even now. SSM in California is a pretty settled decision, right? What's the logical gain for doling out vindictive punishment for a counter position that's already years old?
So now being in support of traditional marriage is bigotry?
Only the person who took the physical beating was being punished for being gay. The CEO is being punished for being a bigot. Big difference. People have a right to speak out against such bigotry.
Of course you don't want to own up to your actions. I get it. However, just because I get your desire to distance yourself from McCarthy doesn't mean that I'm going to play along and assuage your guilt. "Were you ever a member of the Communist Party" and all of the after-effects which flowed are exactly what you've replicated today. Good job, Brownie, own your McCarthyism.
You know what else you can own - a future movement to remove donor information from political databases. Thanks to zealots like you politics in the future is going to be less transparent because we all recognize that zealots troll through the databases and make life hell for people who are simply exercising their right to free political expression. No court is going to allow civil society to turn into a zone of Hatfield and McCoy feuds. Again, good job, Brownie.
That's kind of a weak way of describing it. Being against gay marriage (which "being in support of traditional marriage" actually means) is bigotry. There's simply no reason not to allow it that's not steeped in bigotry based on religion.
Um, he was giving money to outlaw gay marriage. Sure, it is his right as it is the right of people to boycott him due to his actions.
Supporting marriage between a man and a woman is now being labeled as "bigotry" now.
I'm very much pro-gay marriage, but when I read words like this, I start to question if that only promotes these kinds of irresponsible posts.
Supporting marriage between a man and a woman is now being labeled as "bigotry" now.
I'm very much pro-gay marriage, but when I read words like this, I start to question if that only promotes these kinds of irresponsible posts.
Always remember, always, always, always, when you're dealing with a liberal you're dealing with someone who is a mass of raw emotions. Think of a teenager going through the worst bout of puberty you can imagine. You can't expect thinking or reason from the liberal in your encounter.
Always remember, always, always, always, when you're dealing with a liberal you're dealing with someone who is a mass of raw emotions. Think of a teenager going through the worst bout of puberty you can imagine. You can't expect thinking or reason from the liberal in your encounter.
Um, when it takes rights away from another because one is against such a lifestyle.
big·ot·ry
ˈbigətrē/
noun
1.
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
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?