- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 8,546
- Location
- North 38°28′ West 121°26′
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Free speech does not mean people can't hate you, it is not fascist to want to remove your CEO because he is homophobic. The CEO was harming the reputation of the company and employees disagreed with him.
1.) 100% correct
2.) meaningless to rights and free speech
3.) 100% false they cant shut him up they have no right to nor did they he is still free to say what he wants
4.) no need to apologize for being wrong it is free speech because what you are making up didnt happen
Just as long as someone can perform their job - they should face no consequences for their political beliefs or affiliations. Individuals have the right to their own opinion weather if it is left or right.
It just seems that progressives love to degrade anyone who doesn't share their politics and will do everything in their power to destroy them.
Remember these are the same people who insist on "fairness" when they're nothing more than bullies and to some extent no different the the little ****s from "Lord Of The Flies."
The amount of tolerance I have for their intolerance is mind boggling.
The vast majority of Californians who voted in that election, voted in favor of Proposition 8. Eight years earlier, Proposition 22 passed, also by a vast majority.
The simple, undeniable fact is that the majority of Californians—at least of those who actually voted in these two elections—oppose the efforts on the part of the pervert-rights lobby to radically redefine and corrupt the concept of marriage. The vast majority of Californians agree with the side to which Mr. Eich gave his support. It is likely that the vast majority of Mozilla employees also support Eich's position in this matter.
It is this company's absurd and completely unjustifiable act of blatant discrimination against Mr, Eich that has harmed this company's reputation.
1.)Well, you would need to show that Eich pushed that particular opinion about while at work. I have seen no suggestion he did.
2.)They absolutely have the right to think Eich is wrong. But as above-- nothing has been said that Eich was pushing that opinion on them.
3.)False. They can have whatever opinion they want. as can Eich.
4.)Two different subjects here:A. employees-- they sought to drive out somebody else. Because of that person's speech. Sorry-- that isn't exercising free speech
5.)B. Customers-- this would seem to be a no brainer-- Mozzilla has no right to do business with OKCupid (minus any contractual obligations which evidently did not exist). OKCupid could do business with whom it chooses.
6.) Except that we now know that bakers and photographers cannot refuse service at gay weddings should they have an opposition to it.
7.) The don't have free speech rights here. In light of this, the question has to be asked: Would OKCupid have had the free speech right to refuse to do business with Mozzilla because it objected to the CEO's opinion of gay marriage? Its no longer a clearcut "yes."
100% true. You are describing thuggery, not free speech.
"One could be forgiven for throwing one’s hands up in despair at the sheer audacity of it all. A fortnight ago, as the federal government took to the courts to defend a rule that deliberately burdens the consciences of America’s more religiously devout entrepreneurs, the professional Left adopted the position that companies do not have consciences, griped that a harsh separation of the public and the private spheres was a recipe for the suffering of unpopular or put-upon individuals, and insisted that any links between the activities of an employee and the deeply held beliefs of his boss should be thoroughly shattered. Today, the opposite case is regnant. Defending the appalling hounding of Brendan Eich, progressives seem to have suddenly got the message: reminding critics that there exists no legal right to be the CEO of a non-profit; insisting correctly that this sordid and alarming little affair does not in any way implicate the First Amendment; and acknowledging that, the doctrine of at-will employment being what it is, a man may resign from his job for whatever reason — up to and including harassment.
Well, comrades — which is it to be?
The answer to this question, one suspects, is “whichever suits the moment.” Which is to say that the Eich affair is ultimately about power, not principle — the latest in a series of plays contrived to show who is in charge. Convenient as it might be to pretend otherwise, the Left does not truly believe that private companies may behave as they wish to, but that private companies may behave as the Left wishes them to — whether instructed by government or not."eace
1.)False. Mozzilla is business. Its not a college debate room.
Eich's opinion had nothing to do with his job.
2.)Of course they can. They drove him out of his job. Its called thuggery.
3.)Its exactly what happened. You seem to think free speech s a contact sport. It isn't. free speech is not driving Eich out of a job because of a disagreement that had nothing to do with the job. Free speech is those employees supporting laws, candidates ect wh support gay marriage.
The point is tolerance and decency, not legality.eace
solutions to free speech?
anybody?
anybody?
bueller?
bueller?
1.) then i guess you should haven argued against things i never said and acted like i did. Typically when qouting somebody you are agreeing with them or disagreeing with them
2.) another poster already pointed this out also and i have no interest in doing so.
glad i could clear up your confusion for you
1. Actually, I was indifferent to your view.
2. The other poster was in error on that score are you, apparently.eace
1.) you were indifferent to a view you didnt know i had. wow sounds like magic
2.) says you but i know you mentioned rights lol and if i get bored ill go back and quote, nice try though.
good luck with your argument that people should only get to practice there rights of free speech if YOU think its decent.
1.)Your post was merely a convenient entree into the discussion.
2.)Your "view" didn't matter. As for rights, what you "know" seems to spring from your imagination.
3.) Your unprovoked hostility is puzzling.eace
1.) sure i believe you, for 20 posts it was just a spring board LMAO
2.) hey look another failed insult since your posts failed and you still have no logical way to defend them.
are you implying that we all dont have free speech? i hope not because thats ALL i said i know so PLEASE do tell what i imagined, i cant what to see you try to back this lie up
3.) i have no hostility im laughing at your posts lashing out and trying failed insults after your failed posts.
now if you will please do my request above and stay on topic. Let us know how your opinion of they should only have free speech if YOU think its decent works. WHo gets to determine this decency?
It doesn't matter whether I have a solution or not.should?
well thats tricky
the fact is free speech will, it has no choice because free speech applies to us all.
the only way speech would not effect our job is if we didnt have it or only some of us did
the should is a matter of opinion and nothing else.
the fact is it can and thats the only way it works.
whats your solution to fix it?
1.) wrong YOU made the claim its not a businesses matter, they it shouldnt be talked about there that is your opinion
2.) no one claimed he pushed it on them but the fact is he did try and
3.) so now you take back what you said, you said keep it out the work place, they have ever right to discuss it there
4.) see 4 now you are posting more lies you dont want them to say it at work you want to take their rights away you said it in post 1353
5.) nope not two different subjects at all they have every single right to their speech no matter what your opinion of their speech is
6.) wrong again all customers and employees have free speech
7.) correct because this is ILLEGAL and BREAKS THE LAW and violates peoples RIGHTS
8.) yes they do they just cant violate the rights as others as facts, law, rights and court cases show
this is no new concept try to keep up
1.)Since we agree about free speech I'm not sure what your problem is.
3.) I'm not trying to defend anything.
4.) The point I have been making from the beginning is about decency and tolerance, not rights, which I never mentioned.eace
Convincing or forcing someone to leave (according to articles I would assume former) their job is not something that "free speech" encompasses.I love that free speech bothers people only when they dont agree with it
and the question a couple people keep running from because nobody can answer it
what is the solution?
very telling nobody showed any integrity and answered that, they only want free speech to be in place when it suits them
west boro has free speech just like us all, you may not like it but its the only way it works
1.)False. Employers have a legal responsibility to ensure a safe and harassment free workplace. Trying to drive somebody out of his job can absolutely run afoul of this requirement.
And its not a question of thinking and saying Eich is wrong; its driving him out of his job.
2.)Yes-- this whole issue had nothing to do with Eich at his job. He expressed his opinion off the job, it was found out a few years later, and people who did not like it tried, and succeeded, in getting him pushed out. Silencing him.
3.)Its probably best not to have political discussions at work, since after all you are work, and are expexted to work and not have political discussions. Its probably not a good idea to discuss such political issues after work hours, as that can poison well.
But what happened at Mozzilla wasn't that people said I dissagree with Eich and I am going to-- give money to lamda, write a letter to the local paper ect ect ect. It was - We are going to work to get rid, because we don't like what he says.
4.)As above
5.)absolutely.
6.)You are behind the times. Bakers and photographers can face legal sanction if they decline to take a gay couple marrying as customers, because they are gay, and because said baker et. al. oppose such activities. They do not have free speech on this issue.
7.)Oh-- the bakers don't have free speech rights then?
8.)Of course, if a baker can be compelled to bake a wedding cake against his or will, why couldn't OKCupid be compelled to continue using Mozzilla? Doesn't Eich have a right to be anti-gay marriage?
Oh I see-- free speech is just one of many competing rights. It is of no greater significance than other rights.
1.)It doesn't matter whether I have a solution or not.
2.)I asked "should it?"
3.)Personally, I say no. But everyone with a scrap of sense knows that however hard you try to make it otherwise, it still matters.
4.)Because we humans tend to give too many ****s.
1.)we do not agree on free speech
2.) no problem just pointing out the failure of your stance
3.) so spring board, stances, now your not trying to defend anything lol
4.) this is simply a lie
your stance is people shouldn't practice their free speech unless YOU deem it decent and tolerant
no thanks i pefer we just have rights and your opinion shouldnt matter to them
Convincing or forcing someone to leave (according to articles I would assume former) their job is not something that "free speech" encompasses.
Talking about it, sure.
Society is all over the place as far as morals go. There are no defining public morals anymore.
1.)Wrong on all counts. I believe in unlimited, unfettered free speech. But a tolerant society by definition asks us all to live with our disagreements. This is not a legal requirement so much as a matter of decent respect for each other. People are free to exercise their rights to the fullest; I am free to suggest that judgment in that exercise is not out of place.eace
translation: you dont believe in free speech unless you find it tolerant :shrug:
thanks for clearing that up
and yes you are free to think people should practice their rights unless you think they should but luckily the system doesnt work that way because then it wouldnt be rights or freedom
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?