rabbitcaebannog
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 10,933
- Reaction score
- 2,274
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
I was responding to a overtly 'partisan' assertion, that intolerance is a particularly liberal trait. I'm not sure what your point is since I wasn't responding to you. If you keep it non-partisan, I'll try to do the same.
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.
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.
I'm not Jack so you have to ask him.
I personally was very interested in the opinions of a man who has been gay for many years and who has been discussing gay rights for many years.
That's fine but Jack's response to my post makes zero sense.
As is always the case, no mater if right, left or center, when one feels righteous and morally superior, learning from experience and listening to dissenting points of view seems to go out the window.
I'm not Jack so I can't answer.
It would benefit everyone to read Sullivan's piece if they want to get the point of view of a man who has been writing about gay rights for years but I support everyone's right to not care about it.
And from what I've read, he never did anything in the workplace to infringe on the rights of LGBT employees, in his own particular staff or otherwise.
Where was their outcry against the 7 out of 10 blacks in California who also opposed their right to marry in 2008? A little consistency in the target of their outrage would have been nice.
Well, he wasn't CEO, and are their private lives irrelevant - all that should matter to them is how they're treated from 9-5?
That's unfair - they have to protest ALL opponents at the same time they protest one particularly high profile one? Or, which of those 7 of 10 was appointed CEO without protest?
Wow! So now, we have to not only accept what you want to consider "rights", but, have to grovel, and apologize publicly....Nice....Should we all wear scarlet letters too?
Sheesh, some consider him a bigot because he donated to an effort to strip gays of their rights. Can no conservatives see this as fundamentally different than merely having divergent VIEWS?
Let's try another example.
Person 1: I'm a devout Muslim
Person 2: I'm a devout Christian
We'd all agree, I think, that 1 and 2 should peacefully coexist in any workplace, and not be offended that their CEO takes a different view than them personally.
Person 1: I'm a devout Christian
Person 2: I'm a devout Muslim, and I donated to an effort to pass a Constitutional amendment to make "Sharia" the permanent law of California.
Can anyone see the difference, and get why in that situation Christian employees, suppliers, customers, etc. might vehemently object to the Muslim CEO? It's no longer merely different opinions, which should be tolerated, but in this case Person 2 wants to enforce his views on EVERYONE, even those who disagree. Why is this so hard to get.
I'm just pointing out the obvious. It's the same few people in every thread. I'm just saving you time.
Only, that's not the case and is a typical strawman.
So then they just wanted him to lose his job I guess, since there is no evidence that he negatively impacted anyone's job at Mozilla in all his years there, even though he wasn't concerned with what they did on their non-work time. Wait - are you saying managers are supposed to worry about their employees' personal time too? That's a new one. So managers are now responsible for employees' private lives and what goes on in their private lives? Can managers have a say in their employees' private lives too?
Okay, so nobody protested the black bigots when they opposed gay marriage. I get it now.
Sheesh, some consider him a bigot because he donated to an effort to strip gays of their rights. Can no conservatives see this as fundamentally different than merely having divergent VIEWS?
Seriously, you don't mean to argue that a man can marry a man, do you? That's not marriage. Get it?
How so? If someone is so wrapped up in their position, feel so righteous in their position, they are not likely to change from that position no matter what differing positions, counter evidence, and reasoned and reasonable arguments you present. They stop listening. They stop taking in new counter position information into consideration. This happens to people on all points of the political spectrum. How is this not the case? Can you elaborate?
No, they're not supposed to 'worry about their' private lives, but employees might expect them to refrain from actively stripping their personal rights from them. I'm really not sure why you want to diminish the act he supported. It was an attempt to reduce LGBT he treated well at work to second class status when they went home. There simply IS a big disconnect there.
You're grasping at straws. Off point and not relevant to this discussion.
Not "grovel" but publicly stating he no longer supports the state enforcing a second class citizenship for them in their time outside work would be nice.
I get you don't respect the position of LGBT here, but that's not the point.
If the rights were important to you, would you accept a CEO dedicated to stripping them?
For example, should an org with evangelical roots accept a CEO dedicated to abortion on demand in public, even IF at work the health plan doesn't cover abortion or contraception? That in the narrow confines of the workplace, he supports an anti-abortion stance, but has a different public stance?
Yeah, right, because a constitutional amendment to, for example, ban gay marriage is DEFINITELY NOT anyone deciding which views are more equal than others. Good point!
Actually, just to illustrate your totally unfounded assumptions here, I used to vehemently rail against gay marriage, until before even being a member of this site, I was in a debate on another site, and was in a respectful, and informative debate I changed my mind. So, long story short, for about the past 6 years, I have supported the right of anyone to "marry" anyone they wish...But, apparently the bar now seems to be not only support, but I must shout it from the rooftops to be believed. I just don't care about it that much....However, your assumption is wrong. And to avoid looking foolish in the future, I would suggest that you hold off on assuming things about people you don't even know.
He (#2) wants to enforce his views on everyone, in a perfectly legal and provided for manner. Gays want to enforce their view that everyone should change the meaning of marriage. But they should do it legally and morally. They have not accepted statewide votes and the will of the people. They have used tactics to damage people's lives and to try and get one person or a handful of people to enforce their will on everyone else, like it or not.
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.
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?