- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So, you're saying LGBT rights aren't important enough for Mozilla's gay employees and customers and partners and advertisers to justify any meaningful protest? If the subject isn't at "the heart" of the company's narrow line of business, it shouldn't matter to those whose rights are threatened? I'm sure you feel that way because I've not seen any indication you care about LGBT rights or support SSM, but obviously others disagree with you.
BTW, I suppose then that anti-gay bigotry is at "the heart" of the conservative movement so banning gay GOP groups is OK?
Right because protest is the same as murdering:roll:
Yes, pushing a CEO out the door with what I'm sure is a lovely severance package and systematically murdering 15,000 people is a comparable scenario. :roll:
Congratulations, though, you're the first person I've seen to drag a 60-years dead Soviet dictator into the conversation. I'm sure you're VERY proud.
So, you're saying LGBT rights aren't important enough for Mozilla's gay employees and customers and partners and advertisers to justify any meaningful protest? If the subject isn't at "the heart" of the company's narrow line of business, it shouldn't matter to those whose rights are threatened? I'm sure you feel that way because I've not seen any indication you care about LGBT rights or support SSM, but obviously others disagree with you.
BTW, I suppose then that anti-gay bigotry is at "the heart" of the conservative movement so banning gay GOP groups is OK?
Suppression is suppression. The two acts are on the same continuum. Orwell had it right.eace
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?
Protest is the opposite of suppression.
Well, are you really trying to put forth the argument that "they did it too" justifies your own support of intolerance? That is IMHO, weak.
What has happened supposedly to "Log cabin Republican's" or to an editor for writing an editorial, doesn't justify an outside group pressuring a company to fire someone for donating to a cause, 10 years ago, that they don't like.
The two are not comparable in a rational sense.
I love that the free market spoke. And I will embrace it when the free market works the other way and executives get pressure when it's revealed that a person gave money to a group that opposed Proposition 8.
Wow. 7 in 10 black voters supported Proposition 8 in the 2008 election.
The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage
Those bigots.
Most of California's Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban
I'm sure the Cupid site called for a mass boycott of black owned businesses in California, but it musn't have made the news.
"Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."
--Andrew Sullivaneace
You specifically targeted liberals for their intolerance for dissenting views. If you want to make it partisan, should examples of intolerance, and they are many, of conservatives for dissenting views be ignored?
Here's your quote: "This story just shows the level of intolerance liberals display against dissenting opinions...." Firing a decade or two writer over ONE article shows tolerance for dissenting views about matters important to conservatives? Banning a gay group from a political gathering shows GOP tolerance for dissenting opinions?
I think the "not comparable" there means when you AGREE with those showing intolerance, it's all righteous and good. When you disagree with those being intolerant, not so much.
And I believe we should all be tolerant of differing opinions, but no one should be tolerant of others trying to strip rights important to us, through the law. I've said this 10 times on this thread that there is a difference in being opposed to SSM (a different opinion), and donating to a cause that attempts to strip LGBT rights and enshrine second class status to their relationships in the Constitution (an act to strip someone of their rights). If the CEO attended a conservative church that refused to marry gay people, but didn't attempt to prevent the STATE from recognizing ANY gay marriage, LGBT and their supporters should tolerate that difference.
If some group tries to strip you of rights dear to you, I'd expect you to be VERY intolerant of those attempts - you can and should fight their efforts to the best of your ability.
Right, because the bullies are the ones protesting those funding laws that suppress their right. Welcome to America were protest is allowed.
Tell that to the Family Research Council. They often boycott or threaten to boycott pro-gay businesses.
More FRC Hypocrisy: Only Conservatives Should be allowed to Boycott Companies | Right Wing Watch
Tell that to Townhall writer John Hawkins.
5 Corporations That Should Be Blacklisted By Conservatives - John Hawkins - Page 1
Tell that to Breitbart's Ben Shapiro.
Ben Shapiro boycotts Nabisco over Sharpton ad | The Daily Caller
Oh, that's right. Only "the left" puts pressure on companies to divorce themselves from politically contentious people or organizations.
Seems that the left groups have a 10:1 ratio in boycott efforts. But I could be wrong. Could it be that only the leftist boycott actions are significantly covered in the media? To garner more support? Might have something to do with that.
Andrew Sullivan was merely offering his opinion as a gay man. I don't think he ever said anywhere in his full piece that he opposes protest.
By the way, I'm vocally and non-apologetically in favor of gay marriage, and I'm a conservative. I think every consenting adult should have the right to marry if they chose. Polygamists, gay people, siblings, whoever.
And I am fully in support of the protest they launched. I'm still not clear on what they wanted the end effect to be though. What did they want? They didn't say that the Mozilla culture was anti-gay, or that gay employees were treated unfairly, so there's seemingly nothing to change there. Did they just want Eich to be punished for doing something that offended them?
Well, good for Andrew Sullivan. What exactly is the point? Obviously, I missed it?
My point or his?
I hope the Left keeps this up. What a great way to isolate and marginalize their agenda by pissing off a vast majority of Americans.
You would have thought they would have learned their lesson back when they attacked Phil Robertson.
Nearly every issue is partisan to a few in here.
From what I've read there is a concern about the disconnect between his support of LGBT rights in the workplace, and funding changes to the Constitution intended to discriminate against those employees in their private lives. And I think it was a problem that he never did disavow his support for those efforts to discriminate against them in the public arena.
And I saying they "wanted to punish" Eich for supporting efforts to strip their rights isn't really it - they didn't want a man who wanted to strip them of their rights, their relationships forever second class, as the public face of their company.
Jack's point for posting someone's opinion.
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?