Eich wasn't fired.
Precisely. And enough people (apparently) told Mozilla they'd stop using Firefox that Mozilla divested itself of a potential liability, for better or worse.
The employees of Mozilla who placed pressure o the company are not engaging in free speech.
They are trying to shut speech down.
1. I defy you to find me any time in this thread I've celebrated Eich's "scalp" or actually supported Mozilla's decision.
2. Eich wasn't fired.
Why hide behind employment law? What makes expressing a political or theological or legal idea something worthy of targeting but not worthy of protection under employment law? Why not have an even playing field for everyone?
1. I defy you to find me any time in this thread I've celebrated Eich's "scalp" or actually supported Mozilla's decision.
So Mozilla was bought. Nice. That says even more about them.
I never said he doesn't have a right to try and outlaw gay marriage. I simply said there are consequences.
I didn't say Eich was fired, Kobie.
Terminating him wouldn't be illegal. You can terminate people. Happens every day.
But okay, in the Hobby Lobby example - how about if they pressure an employee to resign because of political contributions from 6 years ago to Prop 8 opposition causes. You support it, no question, right?
5 Corporations That Should Be Blacklisted By Conservatives - John Hawkins - Page 1
Not all conservatives agree.
It would be their right; whether it's a smart business decision remains to be seen.
Retroactive consequences. Nice. As if there are people with a past of pure driven snow. Dig hard enough and there'll be dirt that you can punishment with? Especially if now it's politically incorrect? And here I was thinking that to forgive is divine. Guess no luck for that with any liberals / progressives steering the boat.
It's just a sad state of affairs when people are so frightened to actually stand for something and speak their mind. The left (and much of the right) today is a bunch of mind numbed robots. Afraid to take any position, afraid to actually care about anything until they check which way the political winds are blowing.
They need to check and see what would be the acceptable stance for them to take, the one that would gain approval, not the true stance that they actually might care about. I guarantee that most of the politicians today don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage and would switch their stance tomorrow if they felt it would give them a better chance at reelection. Hell, Obama did it.
I still think they don't get the irony of their own words. "You're intolerant and a bigot because you don't see it my way", that's what I keep reading. That's I guess a more progressive way of saying "When I want your opinion I'll give it to you"
Ask the people who wrote the employment laws.
By your rationale, the act of responding negatively to someone saying or doing something they find objectionable is worse than the actual act itself.
People get fired all the time for such things. Ironically, it is corporate right to fire people at will. I would love Love LOVE to see a conservative want to change such a right of good ole corporate america:lol:
Oh, and as far as how this became public, Eich's $1,000 donation met the threshhold for public disclosure in California. The IRS didn't have anything to do with it.
An at will state is a 2 sided thing. The company can fire anyone at anytime for any reason, the same way that an employee can quit at anytime for any reason. Also, the employee is not responsible for any sort of training or other expenses the company spends on them. No employment contract with a buy out clause and such.
It's not like it's all one sided or anything.
The counter example is like it is in some places in the EU. The worker finds a better job but has to give 3 months notice, or something stupid, and by the time he can leave, the other job is gone to someone else. Also, the company can't fire the deadwood in any reasonable time, nor make needed adjustments in staffing in response to business condition changes, so they don't hire in the first place.
All in all, I think that the 'at will' situation is better for both parties. So, no, it's not like you are making it out to be.
In the end, more than anything else, Brandon Eich was a victim of market forces. Mozilla, more than most companies since it's a nonprofit that relies largely on public contributions and its collaboration with Google for revenue, is in a unique position where the views of its executives could potentially be more impactful to the bottom line than most other entities.
Oh, and as far as how this became public, Eich's $1,000 donation met the threshhold for public disclosure in California. The IRS didn't have anything to do with it.
Yes they are.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.
But you will support Hobby Lobby if they terminate someone because she donated to a cause that opposed Prop 8, I hope.
That is just wrong.
What the **** are you advocating for anyways? censorship?
Trying to shut people up is not freedom of speech.
Good response.
A private company has every right to censor.
What am I advocating for? Read the damn thread if you want to know.
IMO, beyond small businesses there are few corporations that are NOT puppets of the government or labor unions...
I know this for a fact and it drives me nuts - especially knowing that nothing is for free..... Of course you can corporations that defy the government and the unions and they're treated like garbage, however they're more successful than the government and union puppet corporations, yet are consistently attacked by both entities, because they're not willing to play ball with the EPA and progressives in general. Then of course the government sicks the IRS on these corporations who tell the government to go **** off.
This is the United States man - government should mind their own business..... Taxation is not good enough for these corporations - government and unions want way more influence than that...
Hell, I'd love to open a business - a retail business - however it's just not worth it given the fact of government influence.
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?